This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
"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)
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)
I have doubt that the hosts chose the Richter scale because of its logrithmic properties. -- Davidstrauss 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/06/giuliana_at_fla.html%2C{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kfi640.com/pages/clayroe.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
"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)
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)
I have doubt that the hosts chose the Richter scale because of its logrithmic properties. -- Davidstrauss 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/06/giuliana_at_fla.html%2C{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kfi640.com/pages/clayroe.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)