Gene Rhoden's "High Instability" internet radio show

[Shane Adams]

I think humor is a gene that some have and some don't. I also think the ability to digest information and general day to day situations without any other element but the "purpose" is a gene that some have and some don't. Personally, I have the former but not the latter.

I can't take everything being G-rated, safe, and inside the box. To me this lacks imagination, excitement, and risk. Look at local news today compared to 30 years ago. Back then it was all straight-faced, PC, to the point business. And it was agonizing to watch. Today there's smiles, laughter, personality, and improv. Maybe some human beings just aren't genetically coded to appreciate those things, much the way I'm not coded to appreciate stuff that's predictable, calculated, and rehearsed.

I'd be interested in seeing everyone on this thread's other radio interests. Myself, I'm a morning talk guy, because it's fun.

 

[Jeff Miller]

The bottom line is, this is THEIR show. and no matter how you make a show geared, there will always be people who will not like the format due to one reason or another. If this show was totally clean in every way there would be those who would hate it. There are those who hate it because of the reasons mentioned above. And there are those who love it, and love it a lot. But the show is what it is. If you like it, like it. If you dont like it, then dont like it. Everyone should feel free to voice an opinion but no one should expect change because the show is what the producers want it to be. The only choice anyone has is to listen to it, not to listen to it, or to go start your own show.

Im just glad there is a show on there for chasers to listen to and I applaud that.

 

[Shane Adams]

The one thing that really pisses me off is every time something new is created within the chasing world, there's always a thread complaining about what's wrong with it. Nobody's gonna like everything about everything, but do we always have to say so? Not a month into the damn series and already the whining. Makes me wanna puke.

 

[Brian Stertz]

I agree...storm chasing is high energy and so should a radio show about storm chasing be as well. Good job to Gene and RJ for bringing a surprising intensity to the show. I must admit that some of the content was a bit out there...but overall a thumbs up.

 

[Dick McGowan]

It's always the minority that has to go complain and ruin it for everyone. Their show sure beats the hell out of the same regurgitated threads on this forum. As long as this thread keeps getting bumped up, the more listeners they will get, and the more of a succesful show it will be. The people who don't like the show will still listen to it. I'm really just stating the obvious here lol.

 

[Brett Adair]

Gene has a great show....end of story IMO.

 

[Glen Romine]

As for the interrupting comments about the show, I can certainly agree to that. I noticed it enough to pm another chaser about it at the time. "Amazing" that wasn't what was so troubling to those so concerned about language useage.

I also have listened to the shows, only podcasts so far as I rarely have free time to catch the shows at the regular air times. I am thankful for the archives of shows they make available. I completely agree that Gene and RJ were at times interupting the guest so frequently that I was getting annoyed just listening to with them. Good thing the guests are all such good friends (well, maybe not with Dr. K). Anyhow, I've been lukewarm on the content so far. I'll listen to a couple more episodes to give it chance, but right now I don't see myself becoming a regular fan based on the first few shows. Guess it just didn't work for me.

Glen

 

[Dan Robinson]

It's not that people have differing opinions of the show than mine that I'm raising objection to. I know that this place is going to be split down the middle on this. It's the statements tacked on to the differing opinions that downplay my reaction and suggest that my opinion shouldn't matter, IE, that my position is somehow too irrational to be considered. I don't have a problem with anyone saying "I like the show the way it is". It's when the "don't listen to those annoying naysayers, they're just too easily offended" is tacked on.

As with any balanced review, I stated the things I liked and didn't like about the show. I'm not out to gratuitously slam it. I just don't see why it's so surprising and distressing that some people in mixed company would be offended enough by the bad language and crude humor to say something about it.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I don't think it has as much to do with being easily offended as it does with its relevance to the show.

I know I said I was finished with this thread but the above quote sums it up PERFECTLY in my opinion.

Oh, and Shane, I do believe I have the right to state my opinion, and yes you have the right to state your opinion. Call it whining if you may, but I call it standing up for what I believe in.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

For what it is worth, I still think anyone so annoyed to post about the off-topic-colorful language, is just too easily offended. They should still learn to just get over it, or change the channel, etc etc...lol.

 

[Gabe Garfield]

For what it is worth, I still think anyone so annoyed to post about the off-topic-colorful language, is just too easily offended. They should still learn to just get over it, or change the channel, etc etc...lol.

I agree that those who are offended by profanity and blue humor in radio or television programming should simply turn it off. The thing is, I'm quite certain that those who are offended by crass speech do just that.

IMO, the real issue is, "What is the goal of those who produced the radio program?" If it is simply for personal enjoyment (and the enjoyment of those who like that sort of thing), then they should carry on as they have. But, if their goal is to reach the widest possible audience, it would be expedient for them to mitigate the disagreeable content on their show.

Gabe

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

But, if their goal is to reach the widest possible audience, it would be expedient for them to mitigate the disagreeable content on their show.

Gabe

Exactly, but, it's not like they themselves haven't understood that from the start. No matter how they go about it there will be disagreeable content, they may as well be themselves and not give a damn if others don't like it.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

They should still learn to just get over it, or change the channel, etc etc...lol.

I'll watch for the looming bumper crop of chase-jocks who can compete with HI's combination of experience and personality.

 

[rdale]

No matter how they go about it there will be disagreeable content, they may as well be themselves and not give a damn if others don't like it.

So you are claiming that if they kept the offcolor commentary out and just concentrated on chasing / met issues, they would lose more people who say "I'm not listening any more because there isn't enough profanity"?

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Question:

What is the difference between the street language and backroom stories on High Instability and the gardening and home-fashion segments on The Weather Channel?

Aren't both approaches simply mechanisms to hold the audience and keep them entertained, even at the potential expense of program quality in the process?