Indeed, if you listen to, act as a radio talk-show host, or engage in a political radio talk show as a guest, or even as a caller, there is a good chance that sparks will fly and comments will be made that you might consider to be inflammatory or unfair at a later moment, upon reflection.
Today, as a guest on my good friend's talk-show, Jeff Crouere of WGSO radio, would be a testimony to how emotionally charged the terror in America is becoming, in my view, in part, because of ludicrous statements by the leading Republican running for President of the United States, Trump. The emotionalism is further often aided by our now being in the middle of an election and our sense of security is being compromised, like perhaps, never before, at least in my lifetime.
For years I've been on the morning radio show once weekly and have taken my lumps, as most of the callers, in my view, the most part, are extremely conservative and possess views I personally do not share.
I'm accustomed to be calling a liberal on the program, a tag that my own liberal friends might consider to be blasphemy considering they often consider me to be too conservative. Still, I don't pretend to be ultraconservative and my views, since I'm open about them, will be debated during these radio appearances, and occasionally, sparks will fly.
Today was no exception and boy did they fly.
Early during the program, one caller called me a Bernie Sanders liberal terrorist, although that candidate would have as much of a chance of receiving my vote as would Ted Cruz, and unquestionably, Donald Trump.
Given the fact that I appreciate that we all are seeing terrorist behind every rock and that I have as much in common with a terrorist as I have with the Petrified Forest, I took issue with his comments and called upon Jeff Crouere to correct this caller.
Which he did and gratefully, the caller apologized.
But the acrimony and the charges from certain members of the radio audience did not stop there.
One caller, by the name of Michael, towards the end of the show, took issue with comments I made about Donald Trump's television appearance today on Morning Joe. I had said that I had seen parts of the morning interviews with Trump including that with the MSNBC morning group and was taken back, not just by the fear-mongering coming from Trump, but also by a statement by the billionaire I considered to be incredibly hypocritical and cowardly.
Michael, assuming that is his name in the first place, when he called--immediately challenged my comments and said I was lying about what I saw and recounted.
Here is the transcript of that segment of the WGSO radio program. As a warning, I was indeed emotional. I take seriously comments by some who paint an entire religion as being dangerous. I take seriously comments by a demagogue (and others) as feeding the frenzy. I also value my credibility, don't like being called a terrorist and also a liar--under any circumstance and certainly not during the same hour program.
I likewise value the rational honest exchange of legitimate discussion, even when those discussing are willing to discuss, admit mistakes and respect all of those involved.
CROUERE: Are you with us:
CALLER MICHAEL: Yeah I know that in this environment of political correctness if you catch somebody telling a lie you're supposed to, a half-truth or not even the truth that all, is supposed to be fine with what the truth means
but I would tell you, I went to Breitbart and I listened to the video with the phone call with Scarborough and Trump and you are straight out lying. And you know what you saying is untrue.
CALLER MICHAEL: what you said was that he said that somebody ought to look into whether 28,000 came from
SABLUDOWSKY:no that wasn't the issue at all
CALLER MICHAEL:I'll go listen the video again and I listeners out there go listen to it and make your assessment
CROUERE: I'll listen to it
CALLER MICHAEL:it's just as simple as just a simple
CALLER MICHAEL: what he said was, we need to look into whether 28,000 deposit, who came from and where came from, and I'm willing to bet that it was a Saudi type of deal and because the Saudis have been caught behind the scene for the hands in all these things they were behind 9/11, you saw how all these Saudi families left the country, Osama bin Laden himself with a Saudi, so let's call it the way it is and let's just say,
Steve, wait a minute
SABLUDOWSKY:do I get a response, Jeff
(Crouere says yes)
go ahead Michael
CALLER MICHAEL:let's just say for the sake of this conversation, that you are right and he did say it, why would you side with the Saudis, over Trump, a man who loves his country, he loves the people in this country, and he wants to use common sense about-- maybe how we should go forward here, and you going to side with the Saudis?
Okay Michael thanks for the call.. Steve, your chance to respond go ahead
SABLUDOWSKY:is Michael still on the phone?
Michael's on the phone, yeah
SABLUDOWSKY:Michael did you hear the entire interview?
Okay he's not on the phone any longer
SABLUDOWSKY:okay to your call us you're going to, will first of all, let me say this
CROUERE: and again, you catching me at an interview I did not see, hear, the only excerpt I saw was Scarborough putting him on hold to do a commercial break
SABLUDOWSKY:so, to your call is, I will put this up on Bayoubuzz and if I'm wrong I will apologize. I have no problem apologizing about anything. Number two, I asked whether or not he saw the entire interview, okay, because I don't think he did, I think what he's referring to something I did not see.
SABLUDOWSKY:Let me finish.
Crouere: he's back, with got him back on
CROUERE: welcome back on
SABLUDOWSKY:so did you see the entire interview?
CALLER MICHAEL:I saw, probably yes, four or five minutes of the interview, it's on Breitbart, it's real simple and it Scarborough going back and forward with Trump
SABLUDOWSKY:did you see the entire interview, I asked you again? Did you see the entire interview? And the answer is no.
CALLER MICHAEL:The entire interview that MSNBC had-- let's not get caught up in little
SABLUDOWSKY:excuse me, ok
CALLER MICHAEL: that's what you trying to do. You trying to say, oh well...
SABLUDOWSKY:You didn't see the entire interview did you? You see the entire interview.
I quit. What your last name Michael? What's your last name?
CROUERE: Okay Steve we're not
SABLUDOWSKY:this guy call me a liar, I have the courage to get up here with my last name, but people are going to call me a liar, and give false information, and not give their last name, I mean that is cowardly Jeff
CROUERE: some calls want to use their last name some callers, some don't
CROUERE: Steve I like would like you to post the entire interview.
SABLUDOWSKY:I will, but the part I'm referring to and to suggest that I backed the Saudis? When the world did that come from?
CROURE: That's his opinion
SABLUDOWSKY:Jeff, what did I say?
SABLUDOWSKY:excuse me but you're the talk show host, what I say that possibly, possibly that could be construed, that I backed Saudis. Number one, you going to let someone call me a terrorist and number two you going let somebody say that I'm backing in Saudis?
CROUERE: Steve. He apologize for saying that (reference to being a terrorist)--regarding the Saudis I don't think that you backing the Saudi's
SABLUDOWSKY:thank you. Thank you
CROUERE: I would say this, hang on
CROUERE: at the one, I ask you to watch your language I do ask you to watch your language. As was a whole exchange and you got me in a big disadvantage, I did not see the exchange, I want to see it and I'm going to comment on it.
SABLUDOWSKY:He calls me a liar doesn't even tell us his name, he wouldn't tell us of you saw the entire interview he just saw something on Breitbart
CROUERE: I've known you for a long time. You're not a liar. Is someone who has opinions, who passionately, passionately believe them, a lot of times I vehemently disagree with you, but you someone who wears a hard on you sleeve, you're out there emotionally, passionately defending what you believe in, okay?
You and I disagree a lot on things. But that's what I think talk radio is all about. Obviously this may be something we agree, we may disagree. Let me at least see the interview to see exactly what he was saying, okay?
SABLUDOWSKY:So what exactly was I referring to when discussing the Trump MSNBC morning interview?
Now, what exactly was I discussing when earlier on the WGSO radio show, I criticized Trump
Here is the audio and the transcript:
TRUMP: I'll give you an example, some of our so-called allies that we work with and that we protect, and we protect them militarily, they're sending massive amounts of money to Isis and Al Qaeda
SCARBOROUGH: so who are you talking about? Who are you talking about there?
TRUMP: You know who it is why do I have to bring it up for you. You know, who it is
SCARBOROUGH: because you're
SCARBOROUGH: ..running for president
TRUMP: Joe, other countries. Joe, other countries are giving massive amounts of money. People from other countries,
TRUMP: are giving massive amounts of money
SCARBOROUGH: are you saying the Saudis are doing this?
TRUMP: Of course they're doing this. Everybody knows that
SCARBOROUGH: any other countries?
TRUMP: There are but I'm not going to say it because I have a lot of relationships with people, but there are, and you know that, and everybody knows that, and nobody says it. Nobody talks about it.
SCARBOROUGH: You not even saying the countries who are doing it, right now. Why aren't you willing name those
TRUMP: Hey Joe. All you have to do is check your records and our government knows the countries, and one of them happens to be Saudi Arabia, and our government knows that. And why aren't we doing anything about it? Why aren't we being firm as to why we are allowing that
SCARBOROUGH: So why don't you think we are
SCARBOROUGH: Why don't you think we are doing anything about it
TRUMP: Because I think we have an incompetent president
SCARBOROUGH: is he the only president who has had a policy that basically-- see no evil.. Policy
TRUMP: nothing in the previous president did not do a good job.. I wasn't exactly a big fan, as you know, you may be a Republican, but I wasn't exactly a big fan...
For one, this man Michael was obviously referring to apples while I was talking about oranges.
During my radio segment, there had been no discussion with me about a neighbor of the terrorists being paid at any time that I initially made my comments about Trump. In fact, only after the radio program did I even discover on the Internet, the reference that Michael apparently was making about a Saudi or someone allegedly being involved in this operation. Assuming that this is indeed what Michael was referred to, then surely, I would agree with him if he is saying that we must do whatever is necessary to stop foreign government involvement in acts of terror in this country.
Instead, I was talking about an incident in the Trump conversation towards the end of the interview (I had not seen the first part of the interview), in which Trump condemned others for not revealing to lawn enforcement agents what they knew about the San Bernardino terrorists.
I don't normally post my comments after appearing on the radio program but since Jeff asked me to do so and to give this further context, I am doing so.
However, a major point of this particular post is--indeed all of us need to be, not just concerned about terrorists invading our safety, but concerning false accusations being made in the media, on talk radio or elsewhere, by people who either listen to what they want to hear and not what is being said.
Given the fact that talk radio, Internet forums and groups (and elsewhere) sometimes enjoy the anonymity of the callers or posters, and given the emotional climate that surrounds us, that type of irresponsible conversations and corresponding anger will be frequent.
Guest like myself must assume the risk, and I do. However, those listening to the conversations or reading Internet posts are the real victims of lack of cordiality and often the absence of truth.