Patrick Coffin on Q and A

[Patrick Coffin]

Mom -- stop posting here!

Seriously, thanks for the kind words. So glad you enjoy the show. It's funny -- just when I think I've heard every possible angle on a common question -- boom, a guest will shoot out a creative new angle.

God is good. God is great. Let us thank Him for our fo -- oh, wait, wrong context.

[scruggle]

I just want to chime in that I am a huge fan of the show, too! I think that the show portrays Patrick and his guests as humans just like us! I think that the callers can be long winded, just like us! I think that if I ever called in, I would probably have to be told to get to the point, too! lol.

A side question- what happened to the "I'm a first-time caller" horn? You have not been tooting it in some of the recent shows and I was actually waiting for it! lol Love the show!

[Patrick Coffin]

The trumpet blast of love got the Golden Boot Award. Not all brilliant ideas are universally beloved. All part of ongoing aural streamlining and improvement.

Glad you enjoy the show!

[gus]

I have mixed emotions about the trumpet.
As a frequent listener it does get old but never having called the show I will feel somewhat deprived if I do call.

[Elizabeth502]

It (the trumpet) was on again today. I'm not a fan of it; however, it's not my show !

It's someone else's show.

And in defense of that, I have noticed something when the hosts of various EWTN radio shows are absent, and fill-ins are used. I'd rather not single anyone out, not only because that would not be kind, but because the point is not that others are "bad" or inadequate. It's that the regular host is often both chosen for his or her personality, and also develops a "following" as the show develops a history. So this includes, of course, Patrick.

What I've noticed when hosts are temporarily replaced is that the guests who appear on those shows are far less dynamic, engaged, and articulate. These are the same guests who project very differently when Patrick (for example) hosts. Normally the pace is faster, there's a lot more energy to the program, and guests seem to be "at their best." The same thing can be heard in secular radio shows: the regular host is a "draw" for listenership, and part of his talent (it seems) is to bring out the best in guests.

Or it seems that way to me anyway.

[Patrick Coffin]

Thanks for the kind words, Elizabeth502 (is that the real spelling of your name....?)

But...the trumpet blast of love was killed off (JR is believed to have shot it). So I'm not sure what you heard yesterday, unless it was a previous podcast.)

Patrick

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Patrick Coffin

Thanks for the kind words, Elizabeth502 (is that the real spelling of your name....?)

But...the trumpet blast of love was killed off (JR is believed to have shot it). So I'm not sure what you heard yesterday, unless it was a previous podcast.)

Patrick

Hi, Patrick. The 502 part is an error message that I conveniently attached to my name when I was required to distinguish myself from other Elizabeths on the forum.

How clever of the producers to insert a previous Tuesday podcast on a Tuesday. (Yes, that's how/why I thought the trumpet blast was current. I took an aural double-take when hearing that yesterday, and "decided" that the trumpet blast had been reinstated, because at one point in the show Patrick says, "and this is Tuesday.") Thanks for the correction.

[Patrick Coffin]

Ohhh, they're clever!

EWTN preempted our first hour yesterday. That's why the encore broadcast. I just figured that out. I'm a genius,

[gus]

I so wanted to talk to Patrick Madrid. It was about an old Envoy magazine article. I realizied it was a re-broad cast and was very diapointed.
I wish I had Kindle access to some of those articles as
they were a great source of information.
The information could have been useful to the current forum dicussion on the invasion of Protesants into Latin America
Maybe you guys could have her on.

[jchochstein]

I think he is very rude sometimes. I listen every day and it seems like there are times when people need a little help getting to the question but I think he should handle it a bit better. It seems when people are telling him how much they like the show he encourages them to keep talking, but when they are going on too long about their personal experience he can be very rude. After saying that, I love the show and for the most part think he does a good job interacting with the guests.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by jchochstein

I think he is very rude sometimes. I listen every day and it seems like there are times when people need a little help getting to the question but I think he should handle it a bit better. It seems when people are telling him how much they like the show he encourages them to keep talking, but when they are going on too long about their personal experience he can be very rude.

According to Patrick's earlier replies on this thread, the call-screeners give clear instructions to callers to get to the point first, then fill in the background (briefly, or if questioned about why the caller is asking the question). And I think I can confirm that that's what "the drill" from the show is, because Patrick typically says something like, "Jeremy from _____, what is your question for our guest?" And callers who have actually been listening to the instructions from the screeners, reply, "My question is......"

I don't think there's a real good excuse for starting with a back-story. I can see filling in with a backstory, "I'd like to ask about certain protocols for a mixed marriage wedding ceremony in a Catholic Church, and here's what concerns me about that...." But at least the caller has already focused the question.

A request for a question or a comment, which is followed by, "When I was a teenager, I used to go to Mass at a particular Church and there were lots of couples there in mixed marriages and it made me feel really bad and I'd like you to help me with how I feel right now about mixed marriages and I don't know why my parish priest says one thing but when I listen to CAL you guys say something else....."

All before the caller has the courtesy to tell Patrick and his guest that he himself is about to have a mixed marriage and that's the purpose of his call. Today. Now. Not when he was a teenager or felt confused, or why he feels nostalgic now. It's not a "feeling" show. It's called

Q and A

Not Patrick Coffin's Stream of Consciousness Show

It's very hard for a host to do a "better" job with callers, when a caller provides no hints or helps. A mere rambling, completely unfocused narrative (and it's usually a narrative, often in disjointed sequence) which includes possibly 7 subjects which touch on religion, or Catholicism in particular, does not help Patrick refine what the heck the caller needs. Frankly, I think Patrick right now does a far better job of mind-reading than I would, and I'm considered somewhat "psychic" by others. Sometimes he jumps in with, "Is it possible that you yourself are about to have your own mixed marriage, or attend someone else's ceremony?" And often he has far fewer clues than the example I just gave, in which the caller at least provides tangential reference points.

I wonder, without sarcasm and in all seriousness, if you have ever hosted a radio show, or even a live event of some kind. I would think that there are a lot of variables that have to be considered. In this case, Patrick would have to consider his guest (who can be a member of the clergy with a very busy schedule, who has been gracious enough to share his time), the producer and the needs of the station, the caller, and the listeners. For awhile, I was tuning out from CAL because callers were unbelievably rambly, which limited the number of callers (sometimes) to maybe 4 calls in an hour. (!) I really got tired of hearing very boring life stories. (Yes, call me rude.) Most people's life stories, by the way, I actually find very interesting, no matter how humble the lives-- when told in even a semi- interesting way. It doesn't have to be eloquent: merely coherent.

But jeepers creepers, if a caller has nothing meaningful to say or ask, why is this person calling a radio show and asking millions of listeners to tune in to hear him talk?

[AdesteFideles]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

According to Patrick's earlier replies on this thread, the call-screeners give clear instructions to callers to get to the point first, then fill in the background (briefly, or if questioned about why the caller is asking the question). And I think I can confirm that that's what "the drill" from the show is, because Patrick typically says something like, "Jeremy from _____, what is your question for our guest?" And callers who have actually been listening to the instructions from the screeners, reply, "My question is......"

Having called the show and been on air some three times, I could perhaps fill in some details of what its like to call.

"The Drill" script/procedure goes something like this:

1. "Catholic Answers, hold please."

2. "What is your name?"

3. "What city and state are you calling from?"

4. "Which radio station are you listening to our show on?"

5. "What will be the question you will ask so-and-so?" (They then type in what you say, sometimes asking for certain parts to be repeated, and almost always sounding very, very rushed. Perhaps they help callers find a way to ask the question here, but I'm not so certain. I can confirm that the questions you see listed in the radio archive for a particular episode, are more than likely the exact way they were typed in by the screener, and also the near-verbatim way they were asked by the caller.)

6. "OK, Adeste, when you hear Patrick Coffin say your name, go ahead and ask your question. Please keep your radio down."

You are then put on hold, where you are able to hear the show as it is proceeding. When you're about to go on, there is an audible "sound quality" difference, and almost immediately after, you hear Patrick announcing you.

If "clear instructions to get to the point first" are ever offered, it certainly isn't standard, but perhaps because of the way in which the caller is responding to question number 5. I have to say that my first time calling in was something I had a lot of nerves about, and perhaps I can understand why some people ramble. However, chances are very high you've had a good 20 minutes to think about what you're going to say by the point you finally get on. It's not like you call in and Patrick answers the phone.

[AdesteFideles]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Frankly, I think Patrick right now does a far better job of mind-reading than I would, and I'm considered somewhat "psychic" by others. Sometimes he jumps in with, "Is it possible that you yourself are about to have your own mixed marriage, or attend someone else's ceremony?" And often he has far fewer clues than the example I just gave, in which the caller at least provides tangential reference points.

All Patrick is doing is reading the computer screen, where the question is listed in the callers own words. When he chimes in with something like so is your question....?, I'm almost certain he simply reads exactly what the caller had told the screener.

But I absolutely feel your pain. I almost find it impossible to listen to the majority of callers, because they either sound like fools, or else I find them to be disrespectful with the amount of time they insist on taking up.

If you have a question like this one from an August 1st show -- Is it okay for priests to help in paranormal TV shows? -- there is absolutely no reason why asking it should take you 45 seconds of "ummmm...".

[Elizabeth502]

I appreciate both of your posts 72 and 73, Adeste. However, I can pretty much figure out the drill, because I have called secular radio shows often, and the pattern is not unlike how you describe, including the fact that the host normally has at least a hint of the topic which the caller has in mind. (Which is why Patrick sometimes chimes in with, "That's an interesting sideline that we could have a lengthy discussion about, Adeste, but I'm pretty sure that's not why you called the show." <stares at topic linked with Adeste's name>)

Here's the part that I do understand and sympathize with: Callers can get unexpectedly nervous. Certainly it's happened to me, and I'm rarely at a loss for words. Again, I've never called CAF, but I have called secular shows. Matters that I'm thoroughly familiar with, and practically have a bullet-point mini-speech about, I can get tongue-tied about because of the pressure of time. This especially happens if I do not manage to call within the first, say, 20 minutes. By that time (perhaps earlier), callers are already in line. You'll get pushed to the front, though, if you have expertise on the topic of the hour of for any other reason it is warranted, such as if you are the author of the book in question, etc. However, because of time constraints you may still end up within the last 3 minutes of the show, and risk getting some of your most important, succinct points eliminated due to the clock.

In that case, a considerate person (and I've heard them on Patrick's show) says, "I had another point, but I've forgotten it now, and I know you have other callers waiting, so I'll hang up now." Then Patrick often replies, "Do call us back again sometime with that other point, or to address another topic."

For a caller at a loss for words, not to do the underlined is, i.m.o. rude -- especially to other callers who may have been waiting as long or longer than the suddenly tongue-tied caller.

A radio show host, religious or secular, is not a public speaking coach. He has to move the show along and include the required number of announcements, etc. I know you understand all that; I'm just elaborating on my earlier comments, and also addressing the criticism of Patrick by another poster, that Patrick should "help" such callers more. I.m.o., he does help in the limited way that the clock allows him to. An hour in radio whizzes by.

[JonahJ]

Patrick, please lose the phrase “CALL SPRAWL”, which I find hideous, especially when you're dealing with people who are struggling to ask a question about some personally sensitive issue.

Otherwise the show is "fine", as Karl Keating would say.