Danny Bonaduce was the biggest f-up to come out of Hollywood before Charlie Sheen stole that crown away from him, but Danny's totally messed-up life aDanny Bonaduce was the biggest f-up to come out of Hollywood before Charlie Sheen stole that crown away from him, but Danny's totally messed-up life and rebellious worldview (where he thinks it's cool to be an asshole and have people hate him) make for a really messed-up book as well.
Not that there aren't some fun stories (though almost nothing about The Partridge Family), but who is gonna believe a guy that was drugged out of his mind for twenty years? Bonaduce isn't just the epitome of how not be be a former child star, but he's the shining example of how not to be a human being.
The entire book is disgusting, most of it devoted in excruciating detail to his bad years where he was horrible to everyone around him and himself. Yes, there are some shockingly funny stories that are obviously exaggerated to make him look as horrible as possible, but even if you believe a small part of what he writes you'll want to put it down long before the midway point.
Then when suddenly he gets married on the night he meets a woman (failing to mention a previous first wife at all!), she tough loves him into going clean and the book shifts to being how horrible he was to work with at radio stations. The guy is a total loser and was only hired for his name, not his talent. Much of what he wrote about broadcasting is incorrect or inaccurate, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about because he was in his own little world and not the real world of radio, TV or celebrity.
The last third of the book skips past years and experiences, leaving out giant chunks of his life since he no longer was on drugs and had no more seriously bad stories to tell about himself. He hilariously gets used by the Jerry Springer show into doing random acts of kindness, and shifts his bragging about being a bad boy to being a reformed bad boy that now does good. But even that gets him into trouble.
At his heart Danny Bonaduce is an abused child who was mistakenly told he was "gifted" in school, which I learned from this means he was a troubled child with energy they couldn't corral so they put him in special "gifted" classes and let him graduate even though he didn't deserve it. It's no surprise that the only class he did well in was "creative writing," because this is a big piece of creative non-fiction that he obviously needed help to put together. I met a few of these types of "gifted" creative types who grew up in upper class neighborhoods and didn't have to accomplish anything on their own so they went the drugs and rock route--I now realize that "gifted" is code word for uncontrollable rebellion and even some mental health issues.
Everyone: his parents, teachers, employers, friends, drug suppliers, and even the legal system let him get away with self-destruction, and this book is just another example of what happens when a little rich kid gets told he's a genius. In truth, he is one of the dumbest guy that ever held a job in media. He wanted to be known as a bad boy, but instead he was just bad at everything he did....more
I've never heard of Lino Rulli but the title intrigued me. Sadly, the book doesn't even come close to matching the concept. It's a whole lot of nothinI've never heard of Lino Rulli but the title intrigued me. Sadly, the book doesn't even come close to matching the concept. It's a whole lot of nothing, with the author admitting to a bunch of sins while trying to mix in some very minor preaching with questionable theology. He states up front that of course he believes in everything the Catholic Church teaches, but then proceeds to go against many Church moral teachings. Like a typical hypocritical religious person, this makes no sense. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
It would have been better to admit up front that in practice he does not actually believe all that Catholicism teaches and then analyzed why some of the dogmas are outdated or misinterpretations of scripture based on his life experiences. Instead, he without conscience lies, gets drunk, is tossed in jail, skips going to church, and even implies he sleeps around (getting a sexually transmitted disease scare!). All the while trying to pretend he's holy and a great success as a faithful Catholic.
Sadly he is like most Catholics, who claim total allegiance to doing what the Church says while at the same time not actually living that way. This book is a little like going to a church festival and seeing the parish priest get falling-down drunk while hugging the church secretary a bit too tight, then having him stand up to give a little devotional. Disgusting and distracting from the message. The two sides are at odds and it doesn't work.
Skip this. There's nothing funny about it and the only thing you learn is that you don't need to have moral standards to be a leader or mouthpiece for the Catholic Church--you just need to be an admitted sinner....more
As much as I like and admire Stephen A. Smith's on-air work, I am disappointed in this wimpy book filled with excuses and politically correct spin. IfAs much as I like and admire Stephen A. Smith's on-air work, I am disappointed in this wimpy book filled with excuses and politically correct spin. If you are expecting the blunt, take-no-prisoners attitude that Smith has on the air you'll also be disappointed because most of this is his attempt at showing the "softer side" of the mama's boy who loves God, adores his daughters (he never married), and has learned his lesson about spouting off regarding Asians, women, and professional ballplayers' wives.
It's just too woke, with him putting "black" in capital letters and trying to make himself sound like he's the voice of the black community in America. I was disappointed to see him backtrack on some of his great on-air anti-racism opinions and here turn into just another minority that sees racial inequality everywhere, including his own past statements!
There was no need for him to use the pages for anti-conservative opinions while claiming to be independent (there aren't any similar anti-liberal opinions) but he is simply trying to improve his image within the black community. He admits that he is under pressure to say and act a certain way that will please #BLM-type racists that call him a sellout--and while he has often used his broadcast soapbox to stand against them (making more sense than almost anyone else on TV), here he wimps out and acts like he's one of their role models. At one point he even praises Jemele Hill, easily the most racist and sexist person to regularly appear on ESPN. Come on, Stephen A., what happened to your balls?
He does reveal that he never wrote a memoir before as a promise to his mother. She feared that he would reveal the truth about his father and so told Stephen he had to wait until after she died. Well he honored that promise and then rips his dad to shreds. It's almost hard to believe that such a horrible, selfish, thoughtless man could still get any attention from Smith, and that his mother not only tolerated it but was an enabler. Since both of them have passed away it may have softened the TV star to become much less antagonistic on paper.
The irony is that the title of this book is totally false--he's not shooting straight at all but instead trying to repair his damaged image by filtering his past through cancel culture and defensively overhyping how important he is to his community. I'm not sure that his mama would be proud.
Well, the basics are here. But the spin is totally British with little from America or other countries. I did learn a couple of things I hadn't known Well, the basics are here. But the spin is totally British with little from America or other countries. I did learn a couple of things I hadn't known before, including some U.S. inventors claiming to have discovered the use of waves long before the famous names. But overall this is kind of disappointing because it's so focused on the British, including modern things that have little to do with the history of the medium....more
Mediocre book on the history of Weaver's involvement with radio and television. There are some parts that are fascinating, others that are downright uMediocre book on the history of Weaver's involvement with radio and television. There are some parts that are fascinating, others that are downright underplayed and head-scratching. Why would the guy who created Today and Tonight devote almost no space to the programs and instead go on and on about bland unfunny talent that he liked such as Fred Allen?
No doubt Weaver had a huge impact on the history of broadcasting and he loves to brag quite a bit in the book. He was raised a rich kid, went to a snooty college, and didn't really have to work if he didn't want to. He schmoozed his way from job to job, mostly in sales and advertising. Then he slipped into radio and started working his way up based on who he knew and how he was able to present himself so well. Proof that it isn't talent that gets work but who you know, being at the right place at the right time, and being raised by a rich dad.
Once he got the chance to do radio he didn't just do what was asked--he wanted to do some fresh new ideas and he'd take on any task, even if he was unqualified or didn't care for it. Eventually he made his way to New York City, where he worked with major stars before he left a high-paid radio job for working with a tobacco company, something that makes no sense in the book. A number of his decisions to switch jobs seem illogical and he doesn't really explain them, since he often took a huge pay cut. He also loved to take 5-week vacations in the middle of winter to ski in Europe, something which seems like a rich person would do, but it never seemed to impact his jobs.
After the war, which gets more space in the book than some of his greatest success stories, he gets into TV. He does briefly mention his actress wife and two kids, but daughter Susan (Sigourney) barely gets any attention here. His famous brother Doodles only gets a few lines.
Weaver's history of the early days of TV programming is pretty interesting but he brags a lot about coming up with many things that are standard today. I'm sure some would disagree that he was the sole inventor of some things we consider now standard operating procedures. But there is no doubt that Today and Tonight are lasting legacies--problem is they are barely mentioned in the book. He does talk a bit about Dave Garroway, a drug addicted nut who was pretty sleepy on the morning show. Weaver thinks he's one of the great American talents. On the other hand the great Steve Allen is only mentioned briefly and there's no information on how Tonight was developed.
Overall the balance of the book is off. By the time Weaver leaves NBC in 1956 (he quit as chair of the board because two staff members were fired by Sarnoff), he ends it all with only five pages covering the next 40 years of his life! It seems like he made a big mistake quitting the network, and no explanation is given as to why no other TV networks would hire him. Maybe he had a bad reputation that he doesn't care to admit to? He obviously hated his NBC boss, the famous Titanic message receiver who built RCA. But Weaver's impact was felt when his assistant Michael Dann moved to CBS and took over the programming there during the peak 1960s era, with the highest-viewed programs in the history of television.
Worth reading for a television programming nut and those that know the very old names of radio people that Weaver loves to mention. His insistence on devoting so much space to lame Fred Allen is beyond comprehension. The book is very like the medium that Allen lambasted and that Weaver became famous for--incomplete and frustrating but interspersed with some highlights. ...more
Very subjective tribute book to Rush Limbaugh written by his sidekick who fails to give a full picture of what it's like to have worked for the radio Very subjective tribute book to Rush Limbaugh written by his sidekick who fails to give a full picture of what it's like to have worked for the radio star. Rush was not a saint and was extremely difficult to work with (I know someone who worked with him)--but you wouldn't know it by this book. Golden only praises Rush instead of telling stories that share balanced truths. Ironically, the author makes a big deal out of claiming he was given advice by Supreme Court Justice Thomas to always give the 100% full truth, which this book fails to do.
Too much of the book is quotes by Rush from what he said on the air. Only part of it involves Golden's life story, which stops quickly and fails to give many personal details beyond his prostate cancer (and even that is summarized so quickly that we don't know specifics of his treatment or claimed side effects). Golden alludes to being a ladies man but there aren't any stories here about his personal life. He does use later parts of the book to trumpet his conservative views, which are refreshing coming from a black man. He succinctly explains why Democrats are wrong about just about everything. But then he says Republicans are too negative in pointing out bad politics without coming up with positive solutions--something Golden is guilty of in this book and Rush Limbaugh was guilty of as well.
There are some behind-the-scenes stories of working with Rush and how the show was put together but nowhere near enough. Golden mentions that he worked on Rush's TV show but gives no details. Why didn't this guy get specific and devote space to that instead of rehashing Rush quotes?
It's more of a memorial book, the kind of thing you say about someone who passed away and you don't want to mention the negatives. It seems incomplete, but some readers will be happy there is anything in writing about what it was like to work for the most popular talk host in the history of radio....more
This is a typical warped perspective about TV history from the propaganda writer Jennifer Armstrong. This book is no different from a few other of herThis is a typical warped perspective about TV history from the propaganda writer Jennifer Armstrong. This book is no different from a few other of her books that I've read that are filled with errors, her own leftist bias, and her attempt to rewrite history by inaccurately filtering it through her own modern bias. While the concept of doing the stories of four strong women in the early days of TV is good, she mishandles the information so dramatically that you can't trust anything she says. Trust me since I personally know some of the stories she has tried to tell in this book and others, and she is unable to get them right because she is so filled with the need to push a radical feminist agenda while ignoring the truth.
The only thing the book has going for it is Armstrong's access to the personal archives of some of those involved with the four women and in the case of monumental Irna Phillips (probably the greatest single influence in the history of television) Armstrong quotes from Phillips' unpublished memoir. You'd think that would strengthen the book but instead I found the Phillips' sections to be the weakest. There are giant holes left in the narrative of the woman who created soap operas (and ultimately the structure for most prime time dramas). For some reason the author uses up a lot of space talking about moves back and forth from Chicago to L.A. or Phillips' minor programs. Armstrong overlooks the spiritual aspect Phillips insisted on being in her soap operas (a Jewish woman created a soap opera based on the family of a Christian pastor--why?) and only hints at the creative genius's hypochondria, which of course has a gigantic impact on how most soap involve illnesses and hospitals. Armstrong also only alludes to the fact that Phillips had a stillborn child out of wedlock, which propelled her to want to tell moral family stories. Namely, Armstrong misuses the information she was given access to in order to push the idea that Phillips was a feminist Jewish woman who was mistreated by white Christian males, although she admits even Phillips didn't care who was bothered by her background.
I also disagree with Armstrong stating that Betty White and Hazel Scott (a black singer who mostly hosted local television in the early days) in any way "invented television." Yes, Betty White was there from the beginning but much of it was local as a performer and she was not really involved in the creative end of national shows. I don't think Armstrong successfully makes the case for her inclusion in the book over other women that are much more important to TV history from a creative standpoint.
Of the four, the information about Gertrude Berg is probably the most compelling and accurate, though the author feels the need to overhype everything about The Goldbergs TV show. It was not a hit and didn't make the top 30 of the ratings for most of its years, and Berg was known for being combative with network executives, which often caused it to be moved to a different broadcaster.
Another problem is Armstrong including tangential information about other television productions or political events. It becomes obvious that she is using the book as a way to comment on what she perceives to be a horrible 1950s society that she says is "a white patriarchal bastion of conservatism, conformity, and consumerism that preferred the little woman in the kitchen and far away from the office." She claims the 1950s TV was "idealized," despite the fact that in truth 90% of married women stayed at home and didn't work outside the home, then adds, "It's what President Donald Trump means when he talks about making America great again. He means prioritizing the supremacy of white, straight men and their ability to make money over all else."
Not only is that totally false but it shows that she misuses historical facts to push her own agenda. This rewriting of history is rampant in today's media where people that didn't live back then want to try to claim things were horrible for everyone due to white male conservatives or, as Armstrong loves to mention, "patriarchy." She actually tries to claim that World War II was good for women since it put many of them into the workforce while their husbands were away being killed in service to the country. That's an inaccurate, imbalanced view that Armstrong fails to properly address here by not adding context, data, or other viewpoints.
Don't trust anything Jennifer Armstrong writes. She mishandles facts and inserts her bias in ways that those who don't understand the history of television will see. She has done it in other books, and here it's even worse. When talking about the women who invented television, it's she herself that is inventing imagery and cultural misinformation....more
Long, rambling, repetitive, dull, death-focused and depressing memoir that has some interesting spots, starting strong but devolving into a lot of lamLong, rambling, repetitive, dull, death-focused and depressing memoir that has some interesting spots, starting strong but devolving into a lot of lamenting and navel-gazing. Keillor is a sloppy writer who has somehow become rich and famous by remaining a college hippie in a light-colored suit that broadcast to a public radio audience. The book needs some serious editing and someone to coach him in telling stories that are worth reading about. But he doesn't want an editor or coach, he thinks he does just fine by waiting until the last minute to throw things together.
If you want to hear drawn-out history of his 18 aunts or his upbringing in a strict Christian church in Minnesota, then you probably are a Prairie Home Companion fan who thinks long dull stories with punchlines that take forever are entertaining. In book form after he tells about his relatives for the hundredth time you'll wonder why he didn't include so many other things about his life in the book.
Keillor barely talks about his three wives, almost nothing about his kids, there's a single paragraph about his late grandson without much explanation, and then you have to trudge through the last third of the book, which is like a death knell for everyone he knows. I've never read so many stories about non-famous dying friends and relatives as I have in this book. He somehow thinks we'll be interested in it, but I kept turning the page saying, "Who cares?"
There are a few bright spots, but my theory is that his non-stop mentioning of his faith and his love of women is actually a diversion to avoid telling us everything that he is ashamed of in life. He admits quite a few times that he's a lowly sinner unworthy of his success, and that when he was young he was a real rebel who had a two-faced life: a Bible-verse memorizing angel with family and church, a devilish smoking and drinking wild man at school and with friends. He doesn't really tell us much about how he rebelled into adulthood, even though some of us have heard rumors that those stories are there. I know people who have personal information about Keillor that would surprise readers and contradict the picture he paints of himself, but he has personal relationships that are discreet and those stories will probably remain private even after he dies.
One problem with the book is how he stereotypes everyone, particularly Minnesotans. If he has a bad habit he blames it on being a Minnesotan, even though there are very different people in the state--the Twin Cities has more of the liberal community-oriented egotists that he aligns himself with, while the rural parts of the state are much more conservative and individualistic. But he describes New Yorkers, cab drivers, Californians, Danish, and other with broad strokes that makes everyone sound the same. Some would call that anti-diverse bigotry.
Another problem is that for some reason he decides to get political about two-thirds way through the book, slamming George Bush and Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 and taking easy pot shots at Trump, while loving the Clintons and claiming Bill's lying about his White House affair as being no big deal. And of course he goes overboard praising Michelle Obama. He justifies it all claiming that he is a true Minnesotan in being liberal and that he'd jump off a bridge if Minnesota voted for Trump, but reality is that the Twin Cities is liberal Democrat while the rural parts of the state are conservative Republican. It's the only state in the nation with a split legislature, so Keillor fails to represent the state's true diversity.
I'm glad I read the first two-thirds of the book, but the last third goes on and on about nothing but deaths and his travel itinerary for doing his show. I wouldn't read the book again. It seems like it's just a long obituary to himself and others...which is no surprise since one of his first jobs writing was to do obits for the local paper.
Keillor also loves to insert limericks in his book (including a final one that starts with the book's title), and while he is proud of them they are sophomoric and at times offensive. The hippie college boy is alive and well in his late 70s, complaining about corporate public radio and the #MeToo movement shutting him down. It's a sad ending to what he makes out to be a fairly unhappy life....more
This is a pretty bad book--a surface look at the career of a somewhat successful radio host who humble brags throughout that he's one of the greatest This is a pretty bad book--a surface look at the career of a somewhat successful radio host who humble brags throughout that he's one of the greatest in history. But he's not--he admits to failing to prepare, not being interested in working, and having no real training beyond the half dozen radio jobs he was fired from. So this book is really about brand extension--he admittedly got himself a PR pro who convinced him that he needed to expand his brand and soon he was on TV, getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (which makes no sense since he's not a national star), and "writing" this book (that he admits he didn't actually write).
There's almost nothing personal in it beyond his bragging that he's a big party boy, did a lot of drugs, had a lot of sex with very young guys, and drank a lot. That explains how a guy with little talent worked his way up in the radio business--he snorted, drank, and slept with his bosses, which he admits freely here but he fails to see that it was living wildly that allowed him to get promoted.
The comments he makes about radio are often incorrect or represent a guy who doesn't understand the overall business (though he does defend the medium as not dying). I've worked at over a dozen radio stations and much of what he claims "everyone" in radio does is just false. He has very narrow experience in radio and didn't really work successfully at many stations or in multiple formats. Much of what he describes about himself in the book explains why he's not that good on the air.
Meanwhile he skips quickly over his upbringing, doesn't discuss the fact that Elvis Duran isn't his real name, barely mentions a couple of gay lovers without going into details, and shares less about his personal life on paper than he does on his morning show.
There is one very good chapter that's surprisingly about politics. He is friends with Eric Trump and Duran reveals himself to be somewhat conservative on some issues. He admits to having voted both Republican and Democrat. His perspective on how crazy divisive people are, by rejecting someone they disagree with on only one issue, is a strong message that needs to be heard.
Otherwise the book is boring and kind of a waste of time. Entire chapters are just filler. One on what's great about New York City? Really? One about the celebrities that listen to his show and praise him? Even the section on Dr. Oz "saving" his life lacks details, and it's hypocritical for Duran to spend pages discussing his weight loss surgery and plastic surgery, then claim in his conclusion that looks don't matter. Just like he claims to be not a rich celebrity, then a few pages later says he spent $30,000 a month on clothing.
The book will be praised by those who enjoy listening to a fake morning radio show host because it's just an extension of that. But those that are looking for some real insight into this man's upbringing, lifestyle, sexuality, or career will be disappointed....more
Soupy Sales loves to brag about himself--and this book is two-thirds him telling you how great he is, mixed with one-third of other people writing aboSoupy Sales loves to brag about himself--and this book is two-thirds him telling you how great he is, mixed with one-third of other people writing about him. Ironic that a book called Soupy Sez really has so much written by others and very little of him saying much about anything.
What's most surprising is how little he did nationally in terms of career. It's almost all local radio/TV or syndication. He overstates most of his successes and manages to claim he set records in just about everything he did, comparing himself to the Beatles at one point. It gets ridiculous hearing him try to claim he was the #1 show but then gets cancelled after 12 weeks for no reason. It just doesn't add up.
There are a few fun facts but he avoid his private life, thinks he did a good job as a dad even though his kids write that they didn't know him due to his emphasis on his career, and the long sections on local radio are dull for anyone who didn't live in that city. Skip it....more
I first reviewed this in 2008, reread it in 2019. It's an amazingly well-researched story of what Dr. Laura is really like (and that's not good!) but I first reviewed this in 2008, reread it in 2019. It's an amazingly well-researched story of what Dr. Laura is really like (and that's not good!) but in second reading I found it to be filled with some errors (mostly about radio) and not that well written. For the author's tenacity and ability to get dozens of people on the record to take apart Dr. Laura, she gets five stars, but there are some factual flaws and omissions that make the book less than perfect.
The author was able to meet with Dr. Laura's mother, college roommate, the man she lived with, the guy who started her radio career, her professors, and others who knew her well. The stories are shocking--and the worst aren't just from the distant past. The radio host likes to claim she used to do bad things, but this book shows that she has continued to act negatively while preaching morality on the air. She may talk the talk but pretty much everyone in her past says she doesn't walk the walk.
Dr. Laura is painted as a self-absorbed jerk to pretty much everyone she encounters, a person with no finesse or empathy. She especially hates women and finds each a competitor, so she jealousy lashes out at them--whether she just meets them or was their closest friend for years. When you listen to her radio show you pick up on some of these things, but the mean and vindictive attitude was there long before she went on the radio.
Most disappointing about the subject is her continued lying, even in the present. She claims to use the 10 Commandments as her guide, yet the book's author does a great job pointing out where Dr. Laura has repeatedly lied about things. She especially covers up for her sexual promiscuity and gives incorrect dates from her past to cover up the fact that she stole her husband from his first wife. This now makes sense--because on her show she has said that it can be okay to lie in certain circumstances. So her "morality" is based on her allowing herself to get away with her own sins.
And, of course, if anyone goes public with her sins, she accuses them of the sin of "gossip." She, on the other hand, has no problem tearing people apart publicly, including those who write stories about her and expose the truth.
Not having a family member or Laura's first husband go on record hurts the book, as does as author unfamiliar with media saying things like Dr. Laura is a "part-time journalist" (no, she's not) or that she was #1 in the ratings (Rush was always number one, though Laura came close). A good chapter from a group of real psychologists analyzing the talk show host would have helped--maybe a final chapter that, after they read the previous chapters, would be their feedback for what her problems are and how people should listen skeptically. The fact that she's allowed to give moral advice even though her Ph.D. is in physiology means the "Dr." part of Dr. Laura is fraudulent. After reading this book you'll never listen to her show again without yelling back at the radio at how hypocritical, unqualified, and unprofessional the woman is.
The book ends in 1998, shortly before her TV show and the gay community striking out against her. That was the beginning of the end, and she eventually quit broadcast radio as ratings dropped. Her SiriusXM show has been just a harsher version of her old self, and she continues to not apologize for some of the bad things she does.
This book is worth reading because of the well-documented footnotes that tell you where the author got the information and who she interviewed. And these aren't anonymous quotes--the names are attached. Many, many people repeat the sad story of the life of this woman who loves to tell others what to do but seems to struggle with her own self-esteem. It's truly a spiritual struggle and though she claims to have found the answers she obviously isn't close to resolving life's basic truths in her own lifelong moral dilemmas....more
How did this guy get a book deal? He's too young, only been a national radio host for 3 years, and hasn't done anything of significance. The book is aHow did this guy get a book deal? He's too young, only been a national radio host for 3 years, and hasn't done anything of significance. The book is all ego mixed with self-deprecation, which makes him seem neurotic. He has very low self-esteem and wants everyone to love him, so he uses radio to make himself feel good. He's the typical radio guy--loves to talk when alone in a room, struggles socially being around other people, has traces of OCD, and gives himself way too much credit while doing relatively little. Did iHeartMedia pay to place all the positive reviews for this book? Most major celebrities don't get this number of reviews in such a short period of time--something seems very, very wrong as the radio company tries to push this guy as hot stuff.
There are a couple of interesting stories about the radio business, particularly how he lied to get listeners who hated him in Nashville to like him (by spending his own money to put up a secret billboard campaign that insulted him). And he does give details of his terrible upbringing, drunk mother, and even the odd changes in his real name. But ultimately this guy hasn't really accomplished much in life yet. He has done nothing to deserve a book while there are dozens of great radio hosts that should have their stories told (Scott Shannon, are you listening?), and what's here seems very carefully crafted to create an image that he hopes will propel him to bigger fame.
He paints himself as just about perfect (no drinking, no smoking, no porn, loses virginity in his 20s, no dating in years) and at some point you have to ask yourself what motivates him because you just don't believe the fake image he creates. If this is real then this guy has a lot of major issues that he needs help with and should leave the air to get himself some help. But since he has admitted that he will lie about anything, and will even publicly condemn himself in order to make people feel sorry for him, we should be skeptical of anything he says. I know people who have worked with him and absolutely hate him--as did many people in his audience when his national show started. In the end this appears to be just another gimmick he has put together to try to make people feel sorry for him to gain their favor and turn his image around. Another autobiography that is just a PR tool. Wait 30 years to see how his life turns out to find out who the real Bobby Bones is....more
Loading...
