Michigan News Network

[umfan]

http://www.cbsradio.com/single-press/2516

Partnership between CBS and Townsquare.

If CBS can leverage their existing assets for revenue from other radio companies, it might extend the amount of time CBS will remain invested in radio. Considering they are, by far, the best in the business, that is a good thing for the industry and its listeners.

 

[FredLeonard]

Doesn't sound like a good thing for the Michigan Radio Network. They currently have WWJ and WXYT on their affiliate list as "optional" affiliates (meaning advertisers can just have their spots run out-state).

It's also not clear what happens with Tim Skubick in this deal. He's on 'J and on MRN.

Townsquare already operates the Michigan Talk Network. Getting past all the hype in the press release, it sounds like this will allow them to also feed news audio from 'J to out-state affiliates. And maybe get spots cleared in the Detroit market, which it seems will cease to be an option for anybody buying time on MRN. Townsquare also owns MRN's affiliate in Battle Creek, so MRN will probably lose that outlet, too.

CBS has become POS. Public radio is now "the best in the business" by any measure. And both WUOM and WKAR operate statewide news and sports networks.

Trivia fans: Anybody remember who was WWJ radio's first state capitol correspondent? (No, not Tom Greene.) They hired him away from another early attempt at a statewide radio news service, the Midstate FM Network.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

The only name I can think of offhand is Clarence "Dusty" Rhodes. He was with the Mid States FM Network and was once part of a UPI European bureau. This is a different Dusty Rhodes than the one who was at CKLW and from Cincinnati. Clarence was from Flint and later settled in Lansing, being an ubiquitous MSU supporter an Lansing Area restaurateur (yes this is the correct spelling but it makes no sense in English, sounding more like a rat that lives in a restaurant).

 

[umfan]

Most likely Skubick sees no change. Possible more clearance on more outlets. Not a Skubick fan myself. He jumped the shark years ago.

Public radio isn't even in the same area code as the best in radio. Perhaps the 1% or so of the radio audience that listens to it might think so, and you're welcome to it. I'll just welcome the day when the direct subsidy to it ends. Of course, as a non-profit, they'd still be getting an indrect subsidy.

 

[FredLeonard]

Most likely Skubick sees no change. Possible more clearance on more outlets. Not a Skubick fan myself. He jumped the shark years ago.

Public radio isn't even in the same area code as the best in radio. Perhaps the 1% or so of the radio audience that listens to it might think so, and you're welcome to it. I'll just welcome the day when the direct subsidy to it ends. Of course, as a non-profit, they'd still be getting an indrect subsidy.

What are the specifics of Skukick's contract with either J or MRN? Once their association ends he may not be able to do both.

I get it, you hate public radio. Even WUOM? I guess being a "fan" only goes so far. Question is why you hate them? Because they are a non-profit? Do you hate the YMCA, too? After all, they are a non-profit health club in competition with for-profit health clubs? How about all those non-profit hospitals in competition with for-profits? And the non-profit University of Michigan, with all sorts of government subsidies in competition with the for-profit Lions and Pistons? But then those for-profit sports teams get beaucoup subsidies in the form of stadia and tax-breaks anytime one of them threatens to re-locate.

But setting aside your own biases and hatred of public radio, let's talk facts: One per cent of the radio audience. In Detroit, not a great market for public radio, it currently gets 3.3 per cent. San Francisco - 7.3. New York - 5.6. Washington - 10.3. Philadelphia - 5.5. Boston - 7.6. In several large and major markets, a public radio news and information station beats the leading right-wing talk station and is the number one talk station in the market. But you hate public radio and that's all that matters.

 

[umfan]

I don't know the specifics of his contract, but I suspect it could be dealt with by WWJ simply not syndicating his content if there were a conflict.

I don't hate public radio, I just don't care for it. I do dislike it's direct subsidy. I further am no fan of professional sports teams getting direct subsidies for stadiums for operations. Public radio does not cume much, if even, 1% of the aggregrate nationwide audience. People do listen to radio outside of major metropolitan areas, Fred, whether you acknowledge them or not.

In any case, let so called 'public' radio do it's thing as a straight non-profit. It's no more of a benefit to the listeners of say, WAAM in Ann Arbor, which tags itself 'real public radio' and likely is to those that choose that station.

 

[FredLeonard]

Public radio does not cume much, if even, 1% of the aggregrate nationwide audience. People do listen to radio outside of major metropolitan areas, Fred, whether you acknowledge them or not.

Yes, but most of the population lives inside major metropolitan areas. Size doesn't matter. Quality over quantity. Public radio's audience tends to be higher income, education and socio-economic status. In small markets in which those people are concentrated, public radio does very well. In contrast to right-wing talk which not only skews old (so does public radio) but skews down market and not well educated. In mining and factory towns, yes, public radio does not get as large an audience.

WAAM does not subscribe to Nielsen. However, WUOM got a 13.9 share in the spring book and WEMU got 3.4. WUOM's cume was 74,300 in a market with a 12+ population of 299,600 (about 24%). Sounds pretty public to me. Apparently, WAAM is a hobby station for some guy who wants to do his own right wing talk show. Otherwise, it's all syndicated hate speech plus weekend infomercials.

If Skubik works from MNN, he loses 'J. If he works for 'J, he loses MNN but maybe 'J feeds his stuff to any MTN/Townsquare stations they pick up. If he has non-exclusive deals with both, he likely will have to make a choice. I'm not a fan either, so no great loss. After all, he's faced disappointments before. He never got Lee Allen's job, which is the career he really wanted. Just another failed jock dabbling in news as a back-up.

 

[umfan]

If every market were like Ann Arbor, Public Radio would be thriving. Instead, it's, using terms similiar to yours, a bunch of hobby stations staffed by hacks who couldn't make it in a real marketplace.

Sounds pretty right on to me.

Further, if the audience composition (which likely cumes higher in age than Limbaugh) is so choice, they should have no issues giving up their subsidy.

 

[SarasotaJim]

Yes, but most of the population lives inside major metropolitan areas. Size doesn't matter. Quality over quantity. Public radio's audience tends to be higher income, education and socio-economic status. In small markets in which those people are concentrated, public radio does very well. In contrast to right-wing talk which not only skews old (so does public radio) but skews down market and not well educated. In mining and factory towns, yes, public radio does not get as large an audience.

You seem to be allowing your politics to cloud your opinions. Of course "public" radio will garner more listeners in major markets. A lot of that can be explained purely by demographics and a preponderance of "handout" politics. And as far as your higher educational status of a "public" radio listener is concerned, you seem to thoroughly confuse the indoctrination of a university student/grad with real education. A real education doesn't include BS degrees like Womens Studies and Black Studies but they're the kind of people who have never read the Constitution and they are the people who make up a big part of "public" radio's audience. Just look at the ratings in the cities you quoted above:

Ann Arbor - 13.9
Washington - 10.3
Boston - 7.6
San Francisco - 7.3
New York - 5.6
Philadelphia - 5.5

Is there a surprise there at all? Good Lord, the highly-indoctrinated sheep that fill Ann Arbor lead your list. Who would have thought? And, oh, lookie, the rabid bureaucrats in DC come in second. In fact, the politics of every city you bothered to mention is that of the crowd that wants to stuff their beliefs down the throats of everyone else and the informational programming on "public" radio generally fits with those kinds of beliefs.

"Public" radio is no better or worse than any other kind of radio. It serves its particular niche audience, an audience feeling comfortable hearing other people who think the way they do.

 

[umfan]

Jim nails it.

 

[FredLeonard]

Neither of you knows what what you're talking about. Public radio is thriving. Right-wing talk is dying.

People who only repeat what they hear on right-wing talk radio or see in right-wing blogs have no place calling anyone else "sheep." Especially not a group of people with the benefit of higher education which requires a certain level of rigor in thinking.

Ever consider that maybe there is a correlation between intelligence and progressive viewpoints? And that dumb kids always have a knee-jerk hatred of smart kids?

Of course, schools offer BS degrees. There's a market for them and they make money. Same reason they are in the business of big time sports. Don't forget, while you list BS degrees, add media studies and communication arts. An even more outrageous BS degree because the suckers think they can make a living with that degree. But only a small percentage of bachelor's degrees are awarded in those programs. But one would not expect a "fan" - not an alum - or somebody down in death's waiting room to understand much about academia.

 

[umfan]

Fred, you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

'Right wing talk', as you term it, cumes far higher than public radio. Admittedly, it is falling in the ratings and faces an aging listernership, but still draws far more listeners than its public radio counterparts without direct public aid to boot.

What level of higher education, in what disciplines, must one have in order to question or criticize the 'group' to which you refer?

Finally, why does public radio require such a direct subsidy to remain viable?

 

[FredLeonard]

Fred, you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

'Right wing talk', as you term it, cumes far higher than public radio. Admittedly, it is falling in the ratings and faces an aging listernership, but still draws far more listeners than its public radio counterparts without direct public aid to boot.

What level of higher education, in what disciplines, must one have in order to question or criticize the 'group' to which you refer?

Finally, why does public radio require such a direct subsidy to remain viable?

I agree with you that public radio does not need and should not receive CPB money. Neither should public television. It is no longer a major source of funding for public radio stations, which often have surpluses that allow them to pay high salaries and bonuses, get the latest and best equipment, have lavish facilities in prime locations and even to set-up for profit subsidiaries. Still, station managements can't bring themselves to walk away from government money. In truth, few of us can. Public radio station managers are mostly fund-raisers, which make them not so different from the sales reps who manage commercial stations. But that has nothing to do with public radio's on air product. Write your congressman if you want CPB shut down.

You state as "fact" that right-wing talk has greater cume than public radio news talk. First, your assertion is based on what? Clearly in some markets, right-wing talk does get greater cume. Not in others. Even if your statement is accurate overall, so what? Does it say anything about the quality of the on-air product or whether the presence of that product serves the public interest, convenience and necessity? I say, no. Nobody else in radio does long-form news nor coverage of world news or serious political, social and cultural issues. Certainly not the so-called CBS Radio Network (Westwood One). Maybe you're not interested personally but are you saying serious news and talk should not be available. That's the difference between us. You all on the right didn't like progressive radio, so it shouldn't exist. And you all don't like public radio so it shouldn't exist. You all complain about purported bias in public radio but you listen to Rush, et al and to Fox. What you agree with is truth; what you don't like is bias.

 

[umfan]

I based it on an analysis of stations that carry such programming in the Top 50 Markets as published on Radio Online.

"You all on the right didn't like progressive radio, so it shouldn't exist." I've never made such a statement. I've only argued against the subsidy and you agree with me on that.

"Nobody else in radio does long-form news nor coverage of world news or serious political, social and cultural issues. Certainly not the so-called CBS Radio Network (Westwood One)." I would submit that many of the 'right wing' stations you decry do perform such coverage, just not from your preferred perspective. 60 Minutes certainly does this and this is simulcast on many CBS Stations.

"but are you saying serious news and talk should not be available" Not at all.

"You all complain about purported bias in public radio but you listen to Rush, et al and to Fox. What you agree with is truth; what you don't like is bias. " I really don't care if public radio is biased if it's not directly subsidized. If it can exist on its own merits, so be it. No one is making me listen to it, just as no one makes you listen to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[SarasotaJim]

People who only repeat what they hear on right-wing talk radio or see in right-wing blogs have no place calling anyone else "sheep." Especially not a group of people with the benefit of higher education which requires a certain level of rigor in thinking.

But, Fred, that's all you do, just repeat the narrow-minded drivel you are fed by the left. And you have the ridiculousness to talk about "the benefit of higher education which requires a certain level of rigor in thinking." Which century are you living in? Rigor in thinking? Have you listened to the verbalizations of the "thinking" of that crowd of deficients? Dear God, man, they even need to be taught remedial English before they're allowed to warm their own seats in a classroom. Yes, I certainly do believe there is a link between that level of "intelligence" and progressive viewpoints. Exactly the audience "public" radio attracts.

 

[FredLeonard]

I based it on an analysis of stations that carry such programming in the Top 50 Markets as published on Radio Online.

What analysis? Provide a link please. I checked current top 10 market ratings and I noted in eight of them, public radio news and information out cumed right-wing talk. Plus longer TSL.

And you are comparing public radio news and information stations running Morning Edition and All Things Considered in drive times plus The World and Here and Now weekdays to simulcasting a TV show in a time period when almost no one listens to radio (and anyone who wants to watch 60 Minutes is going to watch it on TV anyway)? The "C" in CBS Radio stands for C**p. Ever notice how rarely there's world news on the so-called "World News Round-up?" Or how often Osgood just recycles audio from the prior night's evening news? Or how many stories on 'J are the lede from a press release plus a sound-bite, or some mic holder going out where nothing is happening to read wire copy (and call it reporting)?

Jim: Bull! Which right-wing host fed you that load? I'm in the 21st. How's everything in the 19th?

 

[SarasotaJim]

To the Moderator and all others on this thread:

I apologize for helping this conversation degenerate into a political discussion. Early on, I wanted to respond to a post that contained what I considered typical left-wing hate speech. Even so, I tried to keep the politics relative to radio. The further things go, the less likely that seems possible. I'm bowing out of this discussion with my apologies.

Jim

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

I still want to know the answer to the question about the person from the Mid States FM Network. Those stations fascinated me in my early FM listening days. If it wasn't Tim Skubick or Clarence "Dusty" Rhodes, who also both worked at co owned AM WAMM, which also aired at least a good percentage of the earliest DJ work of Casey Kasem, who was it?

WSWM (now WFMK) was once 116000 watts from 300 feet and really blasted in during Summer temperature inversions. WQDC (now WUGN) was 40000 watts on a 175 foot tower that could be seen from the road that connected Bay City and Midland. WGMZ (WCRZ) was 19000 watts on a 160 foot HAAT on the WAMM tower. Google maps shows that the FM bays are still there!

 

[umfan]

Fred,

My link to the share is here: http://ratings.****************/cgi-bin/rol.exe/arb_menu_rank

I realize that you want to include so called 'public' music stations, but we'll keep this format to format. What you term 'Right Wing Talk' compared to 'Public' Talk. In nearly every market, 'Right Wing' talk wins hands down. To demonstrate, I compared the Top 5 markets plus Detroit, since we had discussed it. The results, avaialble at the link above, are as follows:

City Right Wing Talk Public Talk
----- ------------------- ------------
NYC 3.2 2.7
LA 2.0 2.0 ('Right Wing Talker' KTLK doesn't subscribe)
Chicago 1.6 1.9 ('Right Wing Talker' WIND doesn't subscribe)
SF 2.2 4.7
Dallas 3.3 2.0
Detroit 4.7 2.1 ('Right Wing Talker' WDTK doesn't subscribe)


Avg for 'Right Wing Talk' 2.82, for 'Public' Talk 2.57

The list above includes two of the most liberal markets in the nation, and several of so called 'Right Wing' Talk stations aren't even included, and yet, my point is proven. It only favors me more as we go down the list. If you want to compare 'public' music stations with commercial ones, the cume is far less there as well.

Face it, public radio is a niche. Those that want the niche should pay for it themselves through ads or contributions, like the 'right wing' talker listeners do.

Now prove to me that Public Talk cumes higher than Right Wing Talk or admit that it does not.

 

[FredLeonard]

Bull! I will try to follow Jim's example and keep this civil but you are shoveling misinformation here. I will let others decide whether this through deceit or ignorance.

When you "public radio," apparently you are unaware that "public radio" is not a format. Public radio stations have different formats, including classical, jazz, alternative and news and information (or news/talk). In fairness to you, I will include only news and information stations in my "analysis." Still waiting for a link to the "analysis" you claim to have seen (a simple posting of top line numbers for you to mis-cite is not an analysis.)

I will also point out, because you seem "clueless," that all radio formats serve "niches."

NY: 3.7? That would be 1010 WINS, an all-news station (Group W format); not right-wing talk.
The combined share for WABC and WOR is 3.2 For WNYC and WNYC-FM it's also 3.2 TIE

In LA, the combined total for KFI and KABC, KEIB, KRLA is 5.5. For KCRW, KPCC and KPFK it's 3.3. RIGHT-WING TALK LEADS.

In Chicago, WGN is a full service news/talk station, rather than right-wing talk. Right-wing WLS gets 1.6. WBEZ has 1.9 PUBLIC RADIO TALK LEADS.

In the Bay Area, right-wing KSFO, KKSF and KNEW get 3.1. KQED and KALW get 5.0. PUBLIC RADIO TALK LEADS.

In Dallas-Ft. Worth, right-wing WBAP, KSKY and KLIF get 3.2. KERA gets 2.0 RIGHT-WING TALK LEADS.

In Detroit, right-wing WJR gets 4.7. WUOM and WDET get 2.1 RIGHT-WING TALK LEADS.

You want to believe public radio does not have an audience, go ahead. Add it to the other wacky ideas ditto-heads get fed by right-wing talk show hosts and preachers. I don't care what you choose to believe. The only thing I care to prove is that you either lie or don't know what you're talking about.

Just curious though, how do the geezers and biddies in the right-wing talk niche "pay for" right-wing talk?

It's disgusting the way people like you and Jim can criticize talk radio without listening to it. Movie critics go see the movie. All sorts of people on the NPR website blasting NPR on specific points. Unlike you guys, they listen. They don't just regurgitate Rush.