If there was ever a time for non-conservative talkradio,..

[flybynight]

It's NOW.

Most people aren't what we affectionately call "wingnuts". Granted, the far righties (read: Trump supporters) do love their conservative talkradio echo chambers, but has there ever been an opportunity better than NOW for non-rightie talk to take off and/or do well?

There's A LOT of anger out there, and for a change, it's not coming from the right. It's coming from the left and the middle. And people are seething mad. Never seen this before.

Trump is a lot less popular than even his numbers indicate, as many voted for him holding their nose because they just hated Hillary so much.

Common sense talk? Is it time?

Is there ANY place for non-wingnuts to vent on the radio?

 

[TheBigA]

Is there ANY place for non-wingnuts to vent on the radio?

I think there are lots of them at very popular talk stations in Chicago, LA, and Cincinnati. These are local talk hosts who focus on local issues, who are entertainers first and don't dwell on politics. They're the reason why AM talk is still popular in those cities. However, the syndicated talk market hasn't added any new talk shows in years, and has instead dropped quite a few. So there's a conversion taking place to more localized talk and less syndication.

Certainly public radio has a lot of talk hosts around. I haven't heard any comments about the replacement for Diane Rehm, but he's been on the job now a few weeks. So there are options at some public stations, although AFAIK, they're not heard in Buffalo.

My sense is that WBEN sees no reason to change its direction. If the ratings fall, they might look for ways to moderate the conversation. But right now, why should they?

 

[dand5780]

Common sense talk? Is it time?

Is there ANY place for non-wingnuts to vent on the radio?

It is time! WBEN 930AM, the Voice of Buffalo!, 24/7 (except Sunday 12-1 when F. Chuck Todd is on).

My guess is you wanted to know of a place FOR left wingnuts to vent, well, yes of course. WUFO has Buffalo on Fire 12-1 on Saturday. KB1520 has almost no (if any?) liberal talk shows anymore. But you could always tune in to listen to the Mary Davis Show on AM1400, et al.

There is a lot of hope and change out there, and for once, it's not coming from the left. It's coming from the middle, and in some cases, the right. And people are getting excited!

There has never been a better opportunity than NOW for real news and great talk. And Buffalo thanks WBEN for providing an outlet for normal, rational people.

 

[flybynight]

My guess is you wanted to know of a place FOR left wingnuts to vent

My guess is you have terrible reading comprehension.

Nowhere did I express a desire for a left wingnut format. Far more than the left extreme needs an outlet to express their growing disgust and outrage at what the looney righties are trying to do to this country.

thanks WBEN for providing an outlet for normal, rational people.

That's Trump-speak for "I know WBEN is full of rightwing crackpots, but I'll pretend they're not and hope nobody notices I'm lying".

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Left dominates major news media. Pew Research did a pretty good job of examining the media a couple of years ago, and I don't think it's changed much:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-co.../2014/10/PJ_14.10.21_mediaPolarization-09.png

It's worth the time to read the entire report:

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/2...tinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/

If you look at the results of the most recent election, you'll see that most of the major media markets were solidly blue, and what the mainstream media considers to be "flyover country" is solidly red. Mainstream media is generated in those major markets, and it's demonstrable that the biggest reason they missed the mark in the most recent election was because they simply did not seek out or listen to the voices of the rest of the country.

Talk radio is far more local in nature, and has tapped into an audience that is not well served by mainstream media. Political leanings vary by market. In many cases, radio is the only media that offers a different view or "the other side of the story" (and there's ALWAYS another side) in markets large and small. It survives because there are those who seek it out for support of their own views, or seek a broader view than what they're getting from other media.

Media, more than ever, is following the market in search of revenue. That's a greater driver to "point of view" than media ownership. When you own a significant niche that can get you healthy ratings, you'll find advertisers. When a point of view is distributed among a LOT of media outlets, it's tougher to be the dominant source for a particular audience.

 

[ckg279]

I do find 1 fault with this post, though, SirRox: The graph refers to the AUDIENCE for those shows, not their ideological tilt. Without bogging down this board in political talk, I would say that on the whole the media in its reporting seems to steer toward the center in its coverage.

As far as whether common sense talk would have a place....good question, and I don't have the answer. BigA is correct in that Diane Rehm's replacement show(titled 1A)isn't available in Buffalo; however WXXI in Rochester does air it live.

 

[TheBigA]

the biggest reason they missed the mark in the most recent election was because they simply did not seek out or listen to the voices of the rest of the country.

Not necessarily. Because every national media organization followed the candidates on their campaign, and did interviews with people in those areas. If everyone who spoke with the media had voted, the results might have been different. That's the real story here. Not who voted, but who didn't, and why. And as we've seen, even those directly involved with the Trump campaign were surprised at the results. Sure they felt they had a chance to win, but not by the margin they ultimately received. You never know the results of an election until the votes are counted. Critics of the media don't understand what they were reading, and really don't understand the power of the vote, because the people who voted determined the results, not the people who spoke to pollsters or journalists.

 

[KeithE4]

There's A LOT of anger out there, and for a change, it's not coming from the right. It's coming from the left and the middle. And people are seething mad. Never seen this before.

You must have slept through the George W. Bush administration, beginning with Election Night 2000.

 

[DXingRadio]

Common sense talk? Is it time?

Is there ANY place for non-wingnuts to vent on the radio?

Possibly, but right now it seems the content isn't available (well at least not available for local AM/FM stations). A liberal talker in Ithica just ended citing, basically, there aren't enough liberal talk shows. Only so many times you can repeat Thom Hartman.

Seems a lot of past liberal talkers have gone the online, or satellite radio, route. I guess if there's an uptick in liberal radio shows and listener-ship then stations may take the risk again?

 

[flybynight]

You must have slept through the George W. Bush administration, beginning with Election Night 2000.

No, but you must've, because you're under the impression that the outrage and anger is the same. It is not.

The difference is that, while George W. Bush did not win the popular vote, he was still someone we expected to behave with some predictability.

Donald J. Trump is an absolute wildcard. Many, myself included, view him as dangerous. He's a loose cannon with a massive ego, a lack of knowledge of current events and no apparent desire to learn. He is vengeful and spiteful and has the disposition of a spoiled teenage girl: The bragging, the exaggeration, the twitter tantrums.

MANY people I know who normally don't even comment on politics are upset/angry/disgusted at his becoming President.

No, in 2001, that was not as prevalent a sentiment as it is right now.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I do find 1 fault with this post, though, SirRox: The graph refers to the AUDIENCE for those shows, not their ideological tilt. Without bogging down this board in political talk, I would say that on the whole the media in its reporting seems to steer toward the center in its coverage.

As far as whether common sense talk would have a place....good question, and I don't have the answer. BigA is correct in that Diane Rehm's replacement show(titled 1A)isn't available in Buffalo; however WXXI in Rochester does air it live.

Agreed that the graph refers to the audience without evaluating the actual tilt of various media outlets, but those studies that attempt to tiptoe through that minefield largely agree. As the rest of the discussion indicates, radio programmers tend to program for their primary audience. WBFO is decidedly more liberal than WBEN. I don't consider either of them to be centrist, but WBFO does do a much better job of presenting opposing views. Generally, on their talk shows, there's more representation of a left-of-center POV than a right-of-center POV. That may be in part because many conservatives don't want to appear on NPR because they'll be vilified by the real wingnuts on the right. That means that NPR has few choices for "the other side". In many ways, the center is the toughest place to be (ask Joe Lieberman). You get hammered by wingnuts on both extremes. The American people in many studies appear to be closer to the center. It would be nice if there was a party that represented that view. Neither party seems to be headed in that direction at the moment. It might be time for a third party that rejects both extremes.

 

[davideduardo]

Not necessarily. Because every national media organization followed the candidates on their campaign, and did interviews with people in those areas. If everyone who spoke with the media had voted, the results might have been different. That's the real story here. Not who voted, but who didn't, and why.

One of the dangers in polling is that people will sometimes answer according to either expected behaviour or according to a perception of the response that will make them appear to gain status.

The polarization of the past election is such that many people would not admit publicly, particularly in heavily blue states and metro areas, to favoring Trump. It made them look bad among the majority.

This is no different than the diary or personal interview radio ratings decades ago when country listeners would not declare themselves as country partisans, and would name a station that they thought to be more "classy" but which they actually did not listen to. I even saw someone who was the listener to that type of station who said they listened to the classical station!

Peer group influence, interviewer and questionnaire bias and other factors affect the outcome of polls. The more controversial the subject, the greater the likelihood of inaccuracy.

Another example in radio used to occur when there were a number of "Lovelines" type sex talk shows. It was basically useless to try to research those shows as "nobody" listened... even when they had a 10 share in some markets.

 

[TheBigA]

The polarization of the past election is such that many people would not admit publicly, particularly in heavily blue states and metro areas, to favoring Trump. It made them look bad among the majority.

One place where we saw this happen was in suburban Philadelphia. They said one thing to pollsters, and did something different in the polling booth.

The one detail often left out about the 2016 election is that only 55% of voting age citizens voted. That's the lowest in 20 years. That doesn't mean registered voters. But you get the idea. Something kept people from voting. This was a concern of both parties, expressed consistently in media interviews between the conventions and the elections. Party officials constantly talked about getting the core to the polling places, even if they had to drive them there themselves. Obviously one party was more successful than the other in accomplishing this. I know the conventional wisdom is "the media got it wrong." But there's a lot more to it than that.

 

[TheBigA]

That may be in part because many conservatives don't want to appear on NPR because they'll be vilified by the real wingnuts on the right.

I haven't noticed that. Bill O'Reilly said he was most concerned about getting a fair shake. When he finally appeared, he was pleased with his reception.

 

[davideduardo]

I know the conventional wisdom is "the media got it wrong." But there's a lot more to it than that.

As I have observed previously in another thread, a poll is a blurry snapshot of a particular moment that is not the same as a closeup in the voting booth.

What the media got wrong was the proper usage of polling data to show trending, and not a time-machine view of the future.

 

[TheBigA]

What the media got wrong was the proper usage of polling data to show trending, and not a time-machine view of the future.

How much of that was the media, and how much of that was user error or misperception? The media is a big thing. We shouldn't blame everyone for the mistakes of a few.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

One place where we saw this happen was in suburban Philadelphia. They said one thing to pollsters, and did something different in the polling booth.

I disagree. The counties around and including Philly gave Hillary Clinton a margin over Donald J. Trump of 65/32. 2% voted for minor party candidates. This is in line with what polls expected: In those 5 Philly counties, the last Monmouth poll had Mrs. Clinton at 62%, Mr. Trump at 29%, third parties at 3%, with the balance undecided.

What pollsters in PA did not see coming was a wave of voters who had not voted in recent years, who came out to vote Trump. Turnout in Carbon Co, PA was up 10% from 2012. Schuylkill Co PA was up 9%, up 6% in Luzerne Co., and so forth. And turnout went down in some Democrat-friendly areas, like Erie Co. down 6%, Philadelphia Co down 3%, and Delaware Co. down 3%, which pollsters probably also did not forecast.

Now, there were some really terrible polls of Pennsylvania. One, in the final week, said Hillary Clinton was up 11 points. Oops.

 

[gr8oldies]

You can quote all the election results you'd like and it doesn't predict what radio formats or shows will or won't work. A vote for Hillary doesn't make one a talk radio listener. Millenials are watching Samantha Bee or Trevor Noah on their iPads in short snippets.

With all the yelling, screaming and marching, it's doubtful even one person decided to change their political party affiliation. Even anti-Trump Republicans aren't turning Democrat.

I disagree. The counties around and including Philly gave Hillary Clinton a margin over Donald J. Trump of 65/32. 2% voted for minor party candidates. This is in line with what polls expected: In those 5 Philly counties, the last Monmouth poll had Mrs. Clinton at 62%, Mr. Trump at 29%, third parties at 3%, with the balance undecided.

What pollsters in PA did not see coming was a wave of voters who had not voted in recent years, who came out to vote Trump. Turnout in Carbon Co, PA was up 10% from 2012. Schuylkill Co PA was up 9%, up 6% in Luzerne Co., and so forth. And turnout went down in some Democrat-friendly areas, like Erie Co. down 6%, Philadelphia Co down 3%, and Delaware Co. down 3%, which pollsters probably also did not forecast.

Now, there were some really terrible polls of Pennsylvania. One, in the final week, said Hillary Clinton was up 11 points. Oops.

 

[KeithE4]

I disagree. The counties around and including Philly gave Hillary Clinton a margin over Donald J. Trump of 65/32. 2% voted for minor party candidates. This is in line with what polls expected: In those 5 Philly counties, the last Monmouth poll had Mrs. Clinton at 62%, Mr. Trump at 29%, third parties at 3%, with the balance undecided.

What pollsters in PA did not see coming was a wave of voters who had not voted in recent years, who came out to vote Trump. Turnout in Carbon Co, PA was up 10% from 2012. Schuylkill Co PA was up 9%, up 6% in Luzerne Co., and so forth. And turnout went down in some Democrat-friendly areas, like Erie Co. down 6%, Philadelphia Co down 3%, and Delaware Co. down 3%, which pollsters probably also did not forecast.

Now, there were some really terrible polls of Pennsylvania. One, in the final week, said Hillary Clinton was up 11 points. Oops.

Did those pollsters even bother to poll folks anywhere but in metro Philly and Pittsburgh? It's almost like the pollsters were giving out results that the East Coast media wanted to hear. And they really, really wanted to hear that Hillary Clinton was going to win, and win big (Fox being the exception, of course).

 

[TheBigA]

And turnout went down in some Democrat-friendly areas, like Erie Co. down 6%, Philadelphia Co down 3%, and Delaware Co. down 3%, which pollsters probably also did not forecast.

Because a poll isn't a forecast, and there's no way to ensure what people say they'll do is what they'll in fact do. It's a snapshot of what a group says at a particular time. But it's always in motion. Lots of reasons or excuses why people didn't vote. I'm sure at some point, Hillary WAS up 11 points. Probably right after the convention. And those people either became complacent by the polls or depressed by the FBI news, and stayed home.

And they really, really wanted to hear that Hillary Clinton was going to win, and win big (Fox being the exception, of course).

Fox was reporting the same polls as everyone else. So Fox was not the exception, and several of the anchors admitted it. What the polls did was energize the anti-vote to get out and prevent what was seen as the inevitable from happening. And it worked. Had the polls said that Trump was winning, that would have motivated the people against him. As he said yesterday, where were all those women demonstrators on election day? Did they all vote? Maybe they should have.