-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The other Michael Jackson siting
- Thread starter semoochie
- Start date
Wow from forgotten DJ in San Francisco to Legendary talk show host on 790 KABC.
I too, listened to Michael Jackson in the Bay Area. On KYA I believe he was on overnights, and used the name Michael Scotland, broadcasting from "Scotland Yard." He also spent time at KEWB across the bay.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?76056-1/michael-jackson-talk-radio-show
The best clip from KABC. Anybody have airchecks of Jackson on KYA and others.
The best clip from KABC. Anybody have airchecks of Jackson on KYA and others.
...to failed talk show host once he was subjected to actual competition. But no Rush to judgement here.
I think you mean "sighting."
Failed? Michael Jackson had more than a 30 year run in the most competitive market in the country. Few broadcasters can say as much.
Failed? Michael Jackson had more than a 30 year run in the most competitive market in the country. Few broadcasters can say as much.
The point was that the very 70's sound of Jackson's show failed when a different and newer style of presentation was offered.
Jackson did not ever do well outside LA; his show was an LA quirk just as Ronn Owens was in San Francisco.
That ain't failure. That's live and local.
With Owens, yes. He was never beaten by Rush. But in LA, Jackson was eventually crushed by him. It is, thus, neither about being live nor local but being more entertaining.
And how many times did they try to resurrect him? They tried it on KTZN, Air America, and I believe twice on KLAC. He got crushed every time. The people that kept putting him on (1) most likely agreed with his politics and wanted to take the nasty conservative Rush down and (2) were convinced of his "legendary" status because they lived in a bubble where everyone they knew believed the same thing.
People should really be careful when they use the word "legendary". it is not a synonym for successful or even popular. A person becomes "legendary" when they transcend their area of expertise or talent to penetrate the consciousness of the public at large. Very few people attain this. Muhammad Ali is an example, Elvis Presley, the Beatles and the singing Michael Jackson are all examples. Not only is the talking Michael Jackson not legendary, it is arguable whether or not he was legendary even within his own field of LA radio. Rick Dees, Wolfman Jack, (from back then) and even Big Boy (as a more recent example) are much bigger names. In the world of local talk radio, Rush, John and Ken, Bill Handel and probably even Tom Leykis are all bigger names. Even in the 60's and 70's during his "glory years", Dick Whittinghill, and Lohman and Barkley were much higher profile personalities.
The point is that Michael Jackson was indeed successful, but like many others on 70's KABC, it was only because they had no competition. When they eventually faced it, most of them went by the wayside. He was no exception.
Last edited:
An awful lot of vitriol directed at a pretty good radio host. Jackson's show was syndicated and enjoyed a good measure of success for a long time. The landscape shifted on him when he was in the twilight of his career. That doesn't invalidate the success he had. The emergence of Rush's national program upended a lot of successful local shows. Even in Detroit, the legendary JP McCarthy gave up his long running 'Focus' program as a result of Limbaugh's program, that certainly doesn't mean that the many years of success that 'Focus' had don't mean anything and the same applies to Jackson.
Rush, too, shall pass and be forgotten. Radio success is like footprints in the sand. Exhibit A: Godfrey.
Wow, she was SO cute! Amazing what the passage of twenty years can do to a person...
And pant suits were SO hot 20 years ago! It's no wonder Limbaugh streamrolled over Jackson and talk shows of his kind back in the day. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ronn Owens was supposedly Michael Jackson replacement but was a failure in Los Angeles but a legend in San Francisco. But in San Francisco Ronn Owens got rolled over by KQED Forum and the NPR News/talk programming in the San Francisco area for the past decade. I understand in some parts of the country Rush Limbaugh killed off local hosts in your area.
In the 90's, there were only a couple of markets where Rush did not beat all other talk competition. The ones I recall are Fargo, San Francisco and Miami.
Ronn Owens did not lose listening until the morons at Citadel destroyed the station.
Yes, you are correct. "Sighting" looked wrong and I didn't feel like looking it up. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Several posters, including umfan, have already posted about why the post above is so wrong. Michael Jackson was a superb talkradio host, among the best ever to air on LARadio. He spent 30 years owning late morning in this town (mostly 9a to noon). His ratings did slip. as mentioned in this thread, when Rush came to town. Rush is a also a master broadcaster, but of a different variety. Rush is "look at me", whereas Michael Jackson was always about his guests, his audience, and educating the public with polite, informative discourse with verbal zingers that were brilliant, funny, and spontaneous. Everyone from all sitting Presidents of the United States during that era, to Peter Jennings, to Wolfgang Puck, to Richard SImmons, to journalists of virtually every major publication in this country (most notably the Los Angeles Times - Jack Nelson, DC Bureau Chief seemed to be on nearly daily), wanted to be on his program. His guest roster was so packed, that he often had 2 to 3 top tier guests on his program each hour. Anyone making disparaging remarks, such as the above "Jackson's show failed when...." obviously never has taken the care to understand qualitatively how good the show was, nor quantitatively how dominant it was in the local ratings for nearly three decades.
Last edited:
You seem overly focused on those four words, while ignoring the context. No where in his sentence does he say it was a bad show. No where does he say the show didn't have great guests. No where does he say the host wasn't polite or informative. Just that it became dated once faced with the next big thing. That was true also for Larry King, who did a similar show to Jackson's and suffered basically the same fate. There are a lot of broadcasters in the Hall of Fame whose exit from the airwaves wasn't at a time of their own choosing. It happens, as they say, to the best of them.
I never said that the Michael Jackson show was not "right" for its time. But, like the quarter in the parking meter, the time ran out.
But by the 90's, tastes had changed. Talk preferences changed to the more polarized and confrontational approach, and the era of the interview on commercial radio ended. The "look at me" performer was what listeners wanted, while the informative, informational and educational show was rejected.
Indeed, while the show was at its peak, it was among the best on the radio in LA. Generally, ratings show what the public likes and dislikes. The common denominator may be lower than you would, personally, like. But just like the popular vote, the numbers win.
- Status