[David]

Did anyone else see the second episode of the Savage Nation on MSNBC?

They made some changes since the first show last week -- including the set.

They now have a big screen TV behind Michael Savage which shows footage of the subject he is talking about.

This episode showed heart-breaking footage of the 9/11 WTC attack and the chemical weapon attacks Saddam committed on his own people (i.e. the Kurds).

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

I like this new version even better than the first episode.

I hope they don't cancel his show!:what:

[Pendragon]

Dangit!

I thought I made my TiVo subscribe to it - but I didnt :(

I missed it.

[Sergeant Bob]

I missed it too! Forgot all about it. Caught the end of the show last week, and he looked very uncomfortable. Can't blame him though, it's alot different than radio. I think when he's got a few shows under his belt and gets his format the way he likes, he'll have a hit.
Gonna set my PVR tonight for next weeks show.

[cobb]

I'm sorry, but I could not sit through the whole show last night. It is slow, seems very unprepared, and local small town college programming has a better flow than what I saw last night.
So flame me, but if the format doesn't change, the program will be in the trash can soon. I like very much to listen to the Savage Nation on the radio, but it just can't keep my interest in the television version.

[Atticus]

I agree with Cobb. The content was fairly interesting, but the presentation was horrible. It looks like a High School media class project.

Apparently, they are unable to screen callers before he talks to them. I think he hung up on two or three callers last night before they got a single sentence out. But in all fairness, it seems that many of his callers can't put a coherent sentence together anyway. This is how it went.

Caller- " Yo ..Doc...how ya doin...dis is Vinny..dis.. er... laden commie dude think he's gonna blow up da towers and stuff and get away wit it -he gotta nutter ting comin."

Dr. Savage- Yo Frankie, cut Vinnie loose -next caller.

No offense to New Yorkers- but you's guys just don't play well on national media.

[longeyes]

Savage's natural medium is theater of the mind: radio. The two shows I've seen--and I'm a Savage fan--have been amateurishly produced, clumsy and fumbling. On radio Savage can be a thundering giant, a mad prophet; tv has a way of reducing just about everything, except the sensational, to life-size and smaller. I didn't think Savage, for all his volcanic energy and powerful message, would succeed on such a cool medium. He belongs "in your head," "up there," not behind a real desk with a real face, and that's radio. And one thing Savage isn't, for better or worse, is adaptable; that could be fatal for his ratings on the tube.

[p35]

Now I'm confused- around here "Savage Nation" is an advice/sex column by and about gay people. I assume we're talking about something else?

[Zander]

And one thing Savage isn't, for better or worse, is adaptable; that could be fatal for his ratings on the tube.I wouldn't call him unadaptable. The transition to TV has been amateurish and is not translating well [and that reveals, IMO, the apparent desperation of his cable host]. But after his premier show, he did adapt; changes were made.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as he's obviously bright enough to continue revision. One thing he cannot do, however, is waste effort talking over his callers...it's the equivalent of dead-air time. I like his message, but his team needs a lot of polishing. There's the unsettling notion that he is using his radio folk to run his video effort. Bad ju-ju...and he isn't exactly noted for his patience. :cool:

[longeyes]

Zander, yes, he's making some effort (or his team is) to adapt. Let's just see I'm skeptical that Savage can be told very much. If he has a fault it's hubris. That doesn't bother me because the man is brilliant, brutally honest, and right more often wrong. But for that reason I can't imagine him being very "manageable." I want the show to succeed so I hope I'm wrong. I think my real point is that Savage is immensely right for radio but all wrong for TV. The realism of tv is a distraction for someone like Savage, who lives and dies by his ideas and his energy. What I've seen so far is a very much toned-down Savage and a defanged Savage ain't Savage.

[labgrade]

Having missed Part 2/2, I agree completely with longeyes.

Much as I'dl like to see Savage stuck in some eyes, Mike's mention of "enacting sedition laws due to .... " just turns my stomach.

I cannot countenence such in the least.

He's some passion, no question, & more right than not, but as with Rush, Hannity, O'reilly, et al, & as such, et :barf:, they've missed The Whole Point.

It isn't to further your agenda, gentlemen, it is to futher the rights & liberties of the individuals of this once great nation. (Of course, other than their ratings so they can make a buck, no?) But, that isn't the reasonings they purport, is it?

Entertainment.

Hope it, at the least, makes some think enough ....

[MeekandMild]

OK, if Larry KIng can make the transition so can Savage. He just needs to dump the big stage and go to close in focus and guests he can skewer like Larry does.

[labgrade]

Well shucks, M&M, that really isn't the point at all.

"Dump the big stage." Sheesh.

& surely, you don'y mean Larry King, do you? Please no! & as if.

This "they want to hear it," equates to nothing more than ratings, which is nothing more than "democracy in action." & anybody who has any understanding of what we were founded upon already knows that only the more discerning have any real clue. The rest is mob-rule, by definition - your democracy, ratings, "they want to hear it."

Cyclic, ya know? & you must absolutely break the habbit of thinking so.

[Gray Peterson]

Now I'm confused- around here "Savage Nation" is an advice/sex column by and about gay people. I assume we're talking about something else?

Gay.com internet column.

As for MICHEAL Savage, I agree with *some* of his viewpoints. However, due to him generalizing me, as a gay man, as a child molester, I have no choice but to boycott him.

[labgrade]

Can't argue, Lonnie.

I agree with most - his "borders, language, culture," theme, but when he defines my "culture" as only his own, I must bail.

His "culture" isn't necessarily mine.

There's not a dozen I know personally whose "culture" is similar. ;)

[David]

I hope they (MSNBC) will work will Savage to improve the show.

I think Michael Savage has, in general, a very important message to get out -- and the more people that hear/see him, the better!

:neener: :neener: :neener:

[longeyes]

Savage, to me, is valuable because he articulates a part of the political spectrum that has been, till now, all but voiceless. There is much raw truth in what he puts forth. That said, he is too often given to rants built more on emotion than reason. There are limits to the utility of righteous anger. For a lot of his listeners he is no doubt a kind of shockjock John the Baptist preparing the Way. But what Way exactly? While I agree with a lot of his anger I shudder when he overgeneralizes and begins to trample individual rights even though I understand where he's coming from and why he's hopping mad. We still have to live in and create a society that accommodates differences so long as those differences do not undermine the very predicates on which our freedoms are built. At his best Savage is a truthful man unafraid of political correctness or authoritarian manipulations, bearing some important truths; at his worst he's an insecure man who has yet to educate himself fully out of his prejudices and the limits of his own ego. I have yet to hear, in three years of listening, Savage have a true dialogue with anyone on his program. Alas, like so many "visionaries" he himself is an authoritarian who, with power, would become all that he claims to fear. I'll go on listening, though; the guy's fascinating as hell.

[2dogs]

Savage's natural medium is theater of the mind: radio.

Have to agree with longeyes.

I caught only the second half of the show, have never heard him on the radio or read his book (yet). My suspicion is that the show will fail, not because of Savage (I really liked his ideas and frontal assault), but for the reason longeyes stated- the same thing happened to Rush Limbaugh's very short lived TV show.:(

[MeekandMild]

Well shucks, M&M, that really isn't the point at all.
"Dump the big stage." Sheesh.
& surely, you don'y mean Larry King, do you? Please no! & as if.


Sure, it is the point. How would you think the show would sell if it emphasized his strong points and not his weaknesses? Maybe you'd like it if it had a segment where he sits in a hot tub on a desert island with three women he's negotiating for marriage while redecorating their houses and cooking Japanese food? Throw in a few weiner dogs and a formula one race car while you're at it. :rolleyes:

The point is that he is an expert at interviewing and so he needs to do interviews. And, yes I do mean Larry King, the shock jock of the 1960's who made a successful jump to T.V.. Just because Larry is a liberal pig doesn't mean he has poor ideas on how to format a television show and make it a consistant ratings winner.

[labgrade]

Of course, you are right, M&M.

Merey that I'm disgusted that such sells.

That I allowed my own bias to color my response (to you) is another intindication of 'what sells," no?

[longeyes]

If there's a way for Savage to "make the transition" to TV I'll be very interested in seeing it. I think it would have to go beyond Savage out-Kinging Larry King up close and pesonal, shouting down whatever masochistic guests he might muster. I think he was on to something with that intro where he drives around in his convertible. Perhaps he should hunt down his usual suspects/antagonists on the street and engage them in some high-volume "street theater." It might not last too long but it would make great short-term "reality tv."

Savage was expressing his savage essence yesterday (Thursday, Mar. 20), passionately lambasting the anti-war protestors at the top of his lungs. Shouting = big close-up. Would MSNBC unmuzzle the angriest dog in the world? I really think not. There's a reason we haven't seen a real Howard Beale (Network) on TV, and that is exactly, paradoxically, why there IS a Michael Savage. The Powers That Be want us polite, docile, and narcotized. Networks are there to sell stuff, not promote the First, Second, or any other Amendment. Radio is a subversive medium compared to tv but it's still about ratings. Savage needs to consider all this.