Talk:The John and Ken Show

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undated comment[edit]

Shock jocks? A shock jock is someone like Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony. Kobylt and Chiampou are more like Don Imus with the politics than anything else. 71.104.177.90

Needs More Organization[edit]

How come there is no mention of their start on New Jersey 101.5 and the political frenzy they created in NJ? That start is what got them the job in California!Notajerseygirl 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"History" and "Format" are the only catagories so far. There is alot of information, but its not organized. I believe that the information should start being divided into new catagories and sub-catagories. --QubitOtaku 09:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears their program has been removed from KNEW (http://910knew.com)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.55.100 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger's Syndrome?[edit]

When did John say this on his radio show? Do you know approximately when, or of some other source? It seems like a random statement, please explain more. --QubitOtaku 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to the murder suicide of William Freund in late October. He had on a guest from wrongplanet.net discussing the symptoms of Asperger's and John mentioned that he had some of them (lack of empathy, obsession over trivial things (baseball in his case), always insisting he is right). You might be able to find a reference in the audio archives from the first part of early November. Or wait until the hosts joke about it from reading a random news story. Calwatch 09:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like he was joking about it then. The way its announced the the Wikipedia article makes it sound like he has a serious illness (even though its not). -- I'll browse the audio archives to see if I can find it. --QubitOtaku 10:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Log scale[edit]

I have doubt that the hosts chose the Richter scale because of its logrithmic properties. --Davidstrauss 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Though this article does include several references, most of the material is apparently unverifiable. My guess is that much of it is original research derived from editors listening to the show. Let's try to find as many sources as we can, and pare down on the unsourced info. -Will Beback 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning that unsourced material will be eventually removed. -Will Beback 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to remove all of this stuff - but it's almost totally unsourced. C'mon, is this all original research? Isn't there a Radio Journal or similar source for talk radio info? -Will Beback · † · 09:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
laradio.com is a location where a lot of these comments are chronicled, but it is a pay only (web) trade journal. Barrett is a reliable source cited numerous times by the local papers, none of which have a radio columnist on staff. Calwatch 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start. Most mentions of John and Ken that I can find in Google focus on their immigration stand [1][2][3] and their political positions, a few quotable opinions [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40485][4][5], some random coverage of them related to specifc but random stories.[6][7] nothing on their format or history. Here's a nice quote from a New York Times story, but no date.[8] These are already in the text or EL, but don't discuss the show: [9][10] An FEC compliance case final decision (a primary source)[11]. It's pretty slim pickings. For non-controversial descriptions of their format and history I suppose that their blog would be considered reliable, but they've got a huge archive so that'll take time. -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LA Weekly[12][13] OC Register [14][15] -Will Beback · † · 08:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contribute to sourcing some of the info in this article, but I'm having a hard time with the referencing system used in the article (take a look under the References section). It seems to be done in a static way so that each new reference added may require the other references to be altered. Could this be done in a way that encourages adding references without a lot of hassle? I also think that both the links under References are dead. Sarnalios 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't get any response to my last addition to this talk page on the issue of sourcing the article, I went ahead and changed the referencing format as best as I could. Now at least new references should appear in the References section when added in the article. If you know of a better format than what is currently used, feel free to apply it to the article. The main thing, at least from my perspective, is that people are able to contribute to making the article better by adding sourced information or sourcing the existing information in the article. Sarnalios 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond sooner - I missed your postings here. Thanks for adding sources. However the article is still largely unsourced. It's been tagged since October 2006. We've found some possible sources, but no one has gone through and used them to support assertions in the article. I'm going to go ahead and remove the totally-unsourced history section for starters since it is also biographical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Chiampou[edit]

I don't think that Chiampou's sexual preferences should be included in the article. His marital status, yes, but speculations as to his sexual preferences do not belong in an encyclopedia. Sarnalios (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the subject makes a declaration about his orientation it's just gossip. Even when that gossip comes from a colleague it's still gossip. If a reliable source takes up the matter as it pertains to this radio show it may be appropriate to include some mention but until we have such sources we should leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is the argument a person's sexual identity does become relevant when they influence policy, as John and Ken do. Chiampou's sexuality came up when John Ziegler left KFI (see http://web.archive.org/web/20080212060434/www.therealkfi.com/03.html).
We'd need a better source then Ziegler's self-published memoir.   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the Iraq war[edit]

regarding the quote "They are libertarian in other aspects, such as being pro-choice, supporting gays in the military,[14] opposing the influence of the Religious Right on American politics, opposing the Iraq War..." in "Not respectors of partisan politics:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryratt (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John and Ken originally favored the 2003 invasion then changed positions on it sometime later. source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31261

Ryratt (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that describing the as "libertarian" is a bit of a stretch, maybe, maybe, "conservative," but I personally would describe them as borderline-reactionary demagogues. I think there is a certain pro-John and Ken bias to this article, this being one of the more prominent examples. I don't necessarily think this is intentional; it seems likely that it is selection bias; i.e. fans write the article and their bias inevitably comes through.
Also I'm posting an addition of mine to the article that I think might come under fire in the future for discussion:
Contrary to the show's nonpartisan image, in the 2006 elections in California, they endorsed six Republicans and one Democrat in statewide races. [16] In 2008, they opposed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage within California. In 2007, Kobylt appeared at a fundraiser for Republican presidential contender "OC Blog"
Weird that you would cite their opposition to Prop 8 as evidence that they're actually Republican hacks. 75.82.201.0 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theshibboleth (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 election[edit]

This paragraph reads like something out of the Alternate Universe:

One notable disagreement between the two was in the 2008 presidential election, where Kobylt voted for John McCain while Chiampou voted for Barack Obama. The two then discussed the merits of their candidates and defended their choices. Kobylt spoke about McCain's history of opposing wasteful spending while Chiampou stated how he felt that Obama was best suited to bring meaningful reform after what both agreed was a need to breakaway from the shortcomings of the Bush years.

I listened to almost every minute of the show every day during the final months of the 2008 election and never heard anything like this. (I may have skipped the Election Day show, I can't remember.) Is there any way to cite this? It just sounds so unbelievable that, after months of railing against McCain for choosing Palin as his running mate and stating unequivocally his fear of McCain dying and Palin becoming President, Kobylt would go and vote for the Republican ticket anyway. I also never heard Kobylt defend McCain on his spending policies, or really any of his policies. This sounds made up. --75.82.201.0 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a journalistic recap of the episode. 1st person point of view. It doesn't belong, is probably made up, but no one cares. --75.84.189.218 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Listeners?[edit]

The sources listed for "1 million listeners" have no sources from where they have arrived at that number. It appears the sources just made it up. KFI does reach a wide area, but to claim 1 out of 20 people listen to John and Ken is an over exaggaration. Most likely it's 1 out of 500 and KFI's signal does not reach 500 Million people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.62.103 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources?
  • The John and Ken Show on KFI AM 640 is the most listened to local radio talk show in the nation. In the peak hour of their daily broadcasts, they draw an audience of one million listeners.
  • In a small, square room with a view of the Hollywood Hills, KFI's John and Ken spend hours needling public officials and tossing out satirical and sometimes sophomoric lines that reach an estimated 1 million listeners per month.
Note that those sources predate the simulcast in San Francisco, so the potential current number is higher. Since ratings are directly tied to ad revenue, they are not just pulled out of a hat. According to the WP article on KFI:
  • In the Spring 2006 quarter Arbitron rating, KFI was the most listened to radio station in Los Angeles, averaging approximately 1.5 million listeners during any given weekday. The station was the most listened to AM radio station as well as the most listened to news/talk radio station in the country,...
So there's nothing astonishing about 1 million listeners. I'm going to change "potential" to "estimated". The potential audience is everyone with a radio within range, which is a far larger number.   Will Beback  talk  17:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"averaging approximately 1.5 million listeners during any given weekday." The 1.5 Million figure is for the entire 24 hour workweek day. So divide 1.5 Million by 24, and then scale it to peak hours. So the One Million listener figure is an exaggeration of the audience. But most radio station do this, so I'm not surprised. I would estimate the audience not more than 400,000 (to include the Bay Area) given them the benefit of the doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.185.10 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition that 1.5 million takes in account the KFI morning show, Bill Handel, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Handel again. And the show overnight is popular. Unless people are listening to KFI for 12 plus hours a day, there is no way the math works for the 1 million listeners. People tune into the radio for the most part on their drive to and from work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.185.10 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you using for your estimates? How do you know that 400,000 people in the Bay Area listen, for example? Also You seem to be confusing average with total. If 1.2 million people listen for half of the day, and .8 million listen the other half, then the average is 1 million, not 2 million.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The L.A. Times ran this correction to an earlier article:
  • CORRECTION: SEE CORRECTION APPENDED; Talk radio: A March 15 article in Section A on conservative talk radio quoted the Arbitron ratings agency as estimating that the John and Ken show on KFI-AM (640) draws 670,000 listeners a week and the station's Bill Handel show 652,000. After the article was published, Arbitron determined that its estimate had omitted KFI listeners outside the Los Angeles-Orange County media market and that the full audience is 837,100 for John and Ken and 789,000 for Handel. Publication of this For the Record was delayed by efforts to reconcile estimates from Arbitron and KFI.
    • At the right end of the dial, talk radio is losing some range Michael Finnegan. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 15, 2009. pg. A.1
The main point of that article is that conservative talk shows have lost popularity, but it also says that this show is the most popular of its kind in the state. We could replace the 1 illion estimate with this more precise and up-to-date number. FYI, a different article, from 2008, mentions that KFI upgraded their antennas so that they now have a potential reach of 16 million listeners.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added this matrerial:

There are several problems with this. First, this article isn't about ratings or how they're calculated. We don't include this kind of minutiae in every article where we mention audience size. Second, Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. Third, we don't know if this is how the audience was estimated, so it's "original research". I removed it once but it was restored with an edit summary of "vandalism". Obviously, I am not committing vandalism, so it's inappropriate to make that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad grammar[edit]

There is bad grammar throughout -- misplaced commas, etc. No time to correct it myself, unfortunately. But maybe an English teacher with a red pen handy ... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.3 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing 'bad grammar' to this article is a kindness. It is barbaric in thought and expression, and MUCH too long, inching its way through every point. Actio (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John and Ken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John and Ken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John and Ken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_John_and_Ken_Show&oldid=1207810000"