Ed has apprised us of this LATimes article about how KFI has suspended John and Ken for their off-the-grid hateful remarks about Whitney Houston. Even they admit to being in bad taste.
« Ken Finds a Use for His Realistic DX-380 Case | Main | Rare Military Style Radio Sighting: Panasonic RF-877 »
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Pardon me for thinking clearly, but exactly what did these guys say that was not completely true?
We live in an age where we watch celebrities go in and out of drug rehab.
Then we're supposed to act shocked and surprised
when they finally succeed in killing themselves as
if they had died of some terrible disease that no one could have seen coming.
I realize it is fashionable to call drug addiction a disease. Cancer is a disease.
Popping pills and drinking till you kill yourself is a choice. A bad choice, but a choice none the less.
We have a media that makes fun of guys like Tim Tebow for praying and at the same time holds up drug addicts like Whitney and Michael Jackson as cultural icons.
We have truly lost our way.
Posted by: Michael Brent | February 16, 2012 at 07:34 PM
Pardon my rant, but we admire the wrong people in this country.
Posted by: Michael Brent | February 16, 2012 at 07:37 PM
I'm all for telling the truth, but name-calling, especially after WH's death with her family grieving, is for me crossing the line.
Posted by: Jeffrey McMahon | February 16, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Maybe your right Jeff. But here is how I see it.
I'm old enough to remember the deaths of Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix nearly forty years ago.
At the time their drug and alcohol consumption was legendary so nobody was surprised when they died. When your sing songs about getting stoned then its only a matter of time.
At the time there was nobody claiming they were victims and in fact people that knew them publicly stated they were surprised they lasted as long as they did.
Then somebody about 25 years ago came up with the idea that drug and alcohol abuse is a disease and therefor the addicts themselves bear no responsibility whatsoever for their behavior and its easily foreseeable outcome.
So now we are supposed to treat irresponsible celebrities who kill themselves with drugs and alcohol with great reverence as if they are blameless in their own demise. As if they'd been run over by a bus while crossing the street on the way to feed some orphans.
And regarding her grieving family, why didn't they throw a net over her and get her into rehab?
Answer: because they were living off her.
Now they want to have her funeral in a football stadium and sell tickets.
How much money will the grieving family make off the inevitable event tee shirts?
Posted by: Michael Brent | February 16, 2012 at 08:43 PM
OK, as far as I'm concerned, their main "crime" was to say what they said at a time that was too soon after Houston's death. Yes, they were a little rough - but not inaccurate.
Our society is such that we don't like to speak ill of the dead. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But, let's not sugar-coat the truth: Whitney Houston was not the greatest human being out there and we all know it. Not was John and Ken's rant "racist" (I just love when that card is played to squelch an opinion you don't agree with).
All that said, it was distasteful in that it was too soon. And John and Ken both know it. Houston's family hasn't even had the funeral yet. A 10-day suspension seems a little much for expressing a opinion (which is what they're paid to do), but I suppose I understand why Clear Channel did it.
Posted by: Bob C | February 17, 2012 at 07:08 AM
The specific language J and K used was unacceptable. Philosophically, one can criticize someone whose life has been destroyed by one's bad choices. But the name calling crosses the line.
Posted by: Jeffrey McMahon | February 17, 2012 at 07:32 AM
Clear Channel sucks and so do John and Ken who live at its teat. KFI used to be a great station but those people are all long gone.
The love is at KPFK 90.7FM www.kpfk.org or try out KUSC 91.5FM www.kusc.org
Those of us in the LA market are fortunate to have so many choices. I feel for the unfortunates who live in smaller markets that are only "served" by behemoths like Smear Channel. Local Live radio is best.
Posted by: Keith | February 17, 2012 at 07:41 AM
Clear Channel is about generating advertising dollars. Turning these celebs that made wrong choices, never had to work a real job, and are now dead and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them. I don't!!!
Posted by: Tom Welch | February 17, 2012 at 07:51 AM
I think I used the word 'distasteful' as that was the first thing that came to mind upon listening to the clip. In listening, I didn't tend to think of it as name-calling, though I guess it was. Sadly, as nasty as the names were, there's a nugget of truth to the comments - which makes fans of Houston even more angry.
Personally, I probably felt worse about Michael Jackson's passing than I do about Whitney Houston (or Amy Winehouse) - both of whom consciously chose the wrong path and to celebrate that decision. Neither is a role model and each should be used as a cautionary tale. Perhaps that's why I wasn't offended nor appalled by the comments.
That said, Jeff makes a good point about the specific language and the timing of said language. Too soon.
Posted by: Bob C | February 17, 2012 at 09:02 AM
So, if any of you are fat or smoke, pardon me if I laugh at your cancers, heart disease, diabetes or anything else that will eventually kill you, because, after all, you had it coming.
Posted by: Ed S. | February 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM
I hope none of you guys or your loved ones ever have to deal with trying to kick an addiction. Yes, picking up the first drink, smoke, pill, or whatever is a conscious choice, but for those who are chemically susceptible it IS a disease (this is well-documented) and very hard to beat.
Keith B. (finally an ex-smoker after 20 years).
Posted by: Keith Beesley | February 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Ed S., you are taking an extreme viewpoint that is not helpful in stating your case. Comparing an overweight, middle aged guy with a multi-millionaire Hollywood crack addict makes for a pretty silly analogy, don't you think?
With respect to "kicking an addiction", if any of your loved ones has the kind of money that Whitney Houston had, they should be able to seek out the best treatment on Earth. Fact is, she reveled in her lifestyle and it eventually killed her. This is why the level of sympathy is far lower than it would be for an alcoholic ex-coal miner.
Posted by: Bob C | February 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Bob C, that's nonsense. Just because your drugs of choice are fast food or booze or smokes, doesn't make you any less culpable for your choices than someone whose addiction is to crack, or whatever. The end result is the same: you're slowly and deliberately committing suicide. But your death from some mundane disease resulting from your "nicer" addiction won't make the headlines, oh boo-hoo. You sound jealous.
Posted by: Ed S. | February 17, 2012 at 04:31 PM
O.K. When Lindsey Lohan kicks the bucket, as she undoubtedly will, I promise to act suitably shocked and mournful.
Posted by: Michael Brent | February 17, 2012 at 04:59 PM
No one was shocked at Whitney Houston's premature death and no one argued we should be. The point is John and Ken acted woefully ignorant and mean-spirited for calling Houston a "crack __."
Posted by: Jeffrey McMahon | February 17, 2012 at 06:53 PM