What do you find more annoying? Generic laugh at your own joke morning hosts; or anti disestablishment (angry cause it's cool) hosts?

Please cite some examples of each. Or at least specify whether the "anti disestablishment" hosts that you are mentioning are talk radio personalities.

I consider myself a fairly bright guy, but I must say that I really enjoyed the gutter humor of Howard Stern on free radio. When I listened to Howard Stern on KUFO, he generally didn’t do much laughing, but rather spent his four plus hours on the air hosting strippers, drunks and other assorted derelicts. This doesn’t include participating in or refereeing fights amongst the staff, which there were many.

I too listened to Imus in the Morning and found it very entertaining – even as a liberal. Imus spent the better part of his show bitching about everything or selling assorted knickknacks to keep his wife happily ensconced in their Park Avenue Penthouse. I thought the impersonations of Teddy Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Cardinal O’Conner were great.

I guess I go for the ensemble program instead of the solitary morning drive personality. I find most of them boring. But their again, for a time I was a devoted NPR’s Morning Edition listener.

Locally, I haven’t listened to morning radio in quite some time. As much as I bitch about syndicated programming, I must say that when it comes to morning programming, I find the syndicated stuff most amusing. I should note that I tried watching 95.5FM’s PK’s Playhouse on Comcast, but found PK a bore and his players too desperate to be funny.

I like the group productions. If there is good chemistry and they have interesting lives and or impressions on ordinary life in general, it's a good listen.

The solo bit really doesn't work for me, unless it's a talk program. Even then, we hear the producer, callers in at times, etc...

When we entertain these things, we get some music, some thoughts sent our way, etc...

Guess it's like this. Ever listen in on a conversation? We all have.

Which is more entertaining?

Listening to the nut bag talk to themselves.? (Maybe, depends on the nut bag doesn't it?)

Ordinary Joe talking to ordinary Jane about ordinary things?

A group talking about things?

To me, it all comes down to basic drama and story. Is there an affair? Did somebody get embarrassed? How about feeling / doing something cool or rewarding? On the way to a goal of some kind? Gonna pull a prank?

All of these things are entertaining things. Most of them require more than one person for the drama to unfold.

If there is no drama, there is no real reason to follow through the experience.

A solo person can do that, but it takes exposing themselves on a level where the drama makes sense! We've got to know them for the story to happen. That's where the meaning is.

It's easier for a group because knowing them is not such a factor. Many of these entertainment elements can work, even if we know very little about the parties involved. Lots of shallow stuff just works because we already have the common elements of meaning in place to frame the event at hand.