• 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

A Change Coming to KGO

Exactly. I get that there's been massive de-regulation in the industry, but at no time has the FCC formally said it is striking the words "to in serve the public interest as a public trustee".
And, repeating what another poster mentioned elsewhere, CBS's Paley once said, "the public interest is what the public is interested in".

"Public interest" is a government concept that falls under "we're from the government and we're here to help you". In other words, the "huddled masses" are ignorant and the government has to be the regulator of everything.

"What the public is interested in" means that the media covers and focuses on what the public wants to hear, not what the government wants them to hear. Big difference.
 
Except in California, which we're discussing, where the people's chance to vote comes November 8, and according to polling released last week, it's not looking favorable:

Now that’s funny. All that out of state money can’t get sports betting passed in California. They can’t even get the legislature to consider it here in Texas. But we have a new sports station here in Dallas at 97.1 that runs a syndicated overnight show pushing sports betting.

Maybe the public just isn’t as interested in sports betting as these stations are.
 
I'd appreciate your opinion and commentary: For at at least a decade I have found that there is a political mindset that we might call "financially conservative and socially liberal" in urban California that sets people apart from both Red and Blue.

It's not "Libertarian" (I've never met a Libertarian that had consistent perspectives with the next Libertarian) as that is too "no government at all" for most or us. And, for those of use who believe in some form of a Creator, we see extreme distancing from faith by both Libertarians and Democrats

It is a feeling that throwing money at social issues by treating the symptoms rather than the causes is not productive. This week's Newsome move to give Californians free "gas tax refund money" based on income would be a symptom treatment.

So what we have are a lot of what I'd call West Coast Conservatives who, to give an example or two, believe in first trimester abortion, qualified and screened increased immigration, amnesty and citizenship for "dreamers". But the don't agree with cutting police forces, some of the gender education at grade school level and the strenuous push away from fossil fuels without an adequate replacement infrastructure.

Because of that, many of us who were Reagan Republicans 40 years ago are now not nailed-to-the-wall republicans (with a small "r") today. So we are about 50% philosophically allied with the GOP, and, perhaps, equally allied with traditional Democrats and support universal health care and a lot of the long standing Democrat ideas.

So we register as Independents. We vote mixed tickets, and pay more attention to ballot initiatives than the candidates. We are a de facto and huge third part that has no spokespersons.

Note: this is liberal usage of "editorial we".

And there you have the real issue. This is one that makes talk radio programming so difficult in California.

Liberal talk never worked in CA (or anywhere else, either) mostly due to the lack of entertaining talent. Conservative talk using the Reagan definitions won't work. KFI has come the closest with more of the attitude that I'm describing... but mostly the have focused heavily on local issues in the LA metro that are seen as "talking about the news" rather than "political talk".

I used to listen several times a week to KGO when I programmed KTNQ. It had San Francisco flavor and that was what I tried to do with KTNQ: no national politics, absolutely no Mexican politics but lots of stuff about things like a school principal who punished kids for speaking Spanish at recess.

When the PPM arrived, KGO, however, had become too much of a "we are a voice of reason" and somewhat didactic. People don't want "a voice of reason" on the radio... they want someone to express their perspectives out loud, or someone to argue with as they talk. Some KGO talent sounded more like our college professor from Philosophy 101 and less like a voice of the people. They stopped being entertaining when they got too high and mighty. Then the PPM arrived and every "fix" they made was like putting Bondo on a car that was totaled.

So I think that there might be 40% to 50% of the coastal urban population in CA that fits in this sort of central zone. But most don't speak up as they are not woke enough for more progressive democrats (and in sectors ranging from government sector jobs to the entertainment and technology industries, that could put your employment in jeopardy) and they are not radically Trump & His Ship of Fools MAGA to be accepted by the loudest Republicans. So they shut up.

And there is no voice for this segment. Radio has ignored the possibility that there are many who think both parties are significantly wrong in many areas and don't want pure Red or pure Blue radio... they want, in true Hollywood tradition, a technicolor party that dissects both the left and the right and tries to unite somewhere near the middle.

Could that be an actual radio format? I think that it requires a lot of two-person hosted shows and some younger voices. It requires some non-binary voices as well as some believers in God along with some understanding of taxes, government spending and the like.

I mean, I'd love to believe that's something we could do. You're essentially describing most of my neighborhood. I'm in an upper-middle class Sacramento suburb that was reliably red 15 years ago and has morphed to purple. Largely on the issues you describe.

But I don't know. It's such a politicized time. Even dinner conversations between friends who know the other one's heart is in the right place can get testy when someone says something suggesting that maybe they're okay with giving a universal basic income for poor people and another is comfortable with giving Congress the ability to alter or end Social Security every few years.

Can the non-binary voices and the believers in God respect each other on air? Can one colleague defend the other as a decent person whose political and social views are somewhat different from their own?

More to the point, the listeners---the callers. If we are serious about giving these people a voice, it shouldn't be six surrogates who get paid to sit in a room, do monologues and score points. Will they respect the nonbinary host who prefers to be referred to as "they" when they call in or will some callers try to bait them? Will other callers gut the believer hosts on-air for all the atrocities committed in the name of religion?

And because it's essential to hear from the listeners themselves, what happens when you get the caller---not a stereotypical right-wing wackjob, but the guy who's 47, white and scared for his kids, who suggests that it might be okay to vote for the election denier who can't be trusted to walk away when his or her time is up because at least that person will clean up the streets and get the gas prices under control?

I grew up listening to Michael Jackson on KABC (and before that KNX and KHJ). I tuned in shortly after the '92 riots and Michael's opening question was:

"Are we still a melting pot, capable of blending, adopting and enhancing each other's flavors? Or have we become a wok, where we're all being thrown against each other violently with the heat turned up?"

Most of all, can it be compelling radio without contributing to the divisions? Will people listen? Will people stay tuned in? Even among people with good intentions who aren't radicals in either direction, short attention spans are a real thing. And discussing your way to consensus takes time.
 
Well, YouTube has commercials, unless you pay for YouTube Premium, which is $11.99 a month. Spotify and Apple Music are $9.99 a month, no commercials and both are really very different from YouTube. YouTube's audio quality is entirely dependent on the quality of the upload. Spotify and Apple Music's are consistently high quality (audiophiles, hold your fire---I mean within the bounds of streaming---true audiophiles go up a rung or two to the Qobuz streaming service).

I'm confused as to how you got an impersonal, never anything different experience from Spotify. I could understand that with Pandora, which chooses for you based on your ongoing responses to what it plays for you. My tastes are so eclectic I confuse Pandora. My stock joke is that within 20 minutes, Pandora starts to cry and asks "What do you WANT from me????"

I use Apple Music and basically, I have an album collection with every album I've ever owned plus a couple thousand of the ones I would have bought back in the day, but didn't have the money. I can access any album, any cut in not just my library but Apple Music's, instantaneously. And it's all accessible from my phone, which goes everywhere with me, so I can listen in the car, on a walk, whatever.

In the mornings, when I'm having my first cup of coffee and reading the news on my iPad, I'll play an album or two on it while I'm reading.

I can create playlists for moods and activities from any song in the Apple Music library (75 million songs) or anything in my audio collection. In fact, I use Apple Music playlists to organize and access my aircheck collection.

If I'm lazy, I can use one of their hundreds of curated, pre-programmed playlists, but I'm rarely that lazy. I'll maybe do that on a long road trip with my wife when she's in the mood to hear familiar music.
True, Spotify can be personalized to meet your taste, but it’s impersonal because there is no care or personality being put into the overall delivery. It certainly doesn’t beat listening to a good on-air host, from my perspective. I find myself listening to the radio more, even if I don’t care for a few of the songs, just to hear a host that I like and feel like I’m not sitting alone in an office all day long when I’m trying to work.
 
Now that’s funny. All that out of state money can’t get sports betting passed in California. They can’t even get the legislature to consider it here in Texas. But we have a new sports station here in Dallas at 97.1 that runs a syndicated overnight show pushing sports betting.

Maybe the public just isn’t as interested in sports betting as these stations are.
That last line is the key. Station groups see money. And, as has been mentioned a few times here, they don't need sports betting to be legal in a state to broadcast the format. Audacy has had it on KCBS-HD3 for nearly two years.

I'm a California native who left at 21, came back at 57 and has been home for nine years. This state doesn't vote according to who buys the most ads. Big ad buys raise awareness of a candidate or a proposition, but if the voters don't like it, it's not going to move the needle.

Where out-of-state money matters in California is in the Legislature. Major lobbying efforts can get bills drafted and (a lot of the time, but not always) passed.

That's why voters passed the initiative process more than 100 years ago here. In those days, Standard Oil got what Standard Oil wanted at the Capitol. Voters came up with the idea of ballot propositions (like the ones on the ballot this November regarding sports betting) to give themselves input.
 
True, Spotify can be personalized to meet your taste, but it’s impersonal because there is no care or personality being put into the overall delivery. It certainly doesn’t beat listening to a good on-air host, from my perspective. I find myself listening to the radio more, even if I don’t care for a few of the songs, just to hear a host that I like and feel like I’m not sitting alone in an office all day long when I’m trying to work.
Help me out here---is there care and personality in music on YouTube (serious question)?
 
I would prefer them move conservative talk KSFO to 810, and put the sports betting on the weaker 560.

KGO has a MUCH better (cleaner) signal, and reaches further. I'm not really a fan of "the answer" on 860, plus they are having some really bad technical issues with there audio modulation / transmitter. I love listening to the old radio programs/shows from the 1940s late at night, but with digital burps always interrupting the audio, is not fun to listen to. They really need to get a technician to see whats going on, as this has been going on for over a year now.
 
Maybe the public just isn’t as interested in sports betting as these stations are.
Or maybe the public isn’t overly interested in legalized sports betting, as sports betting has been happening for years even if it isn’t legal. I’d guess even in states with legal sports betting, there is still a fair amount of “illegal” sports betting happening. Legalizing sports betting probably isn’t stopping workplace betting pools from continuing to exist.
 
I’m fine with seeing sports betting remain illegal for a long, long time. Sure, many people do it without consequences, but I’ve also seen it destroy lives. I once knew a guy with an extremely good career who would bet a significant portion of his income away all of the time. I think he actually came out ahead once or twice, but lost so many times that he ended up filling for bankruptcy.
 
I’m fine with seeing sports betting remain illegal for a long, long time. Sure, many people do it without consequences, but I’ve also seen it destroy lives. I once knew a guy with an extremely good career who would bet a significant portion of his income away all of the time. I think he actually came out ahead once or twice, but lost so many times that he ended up filling for bankruptcy.
Many people hire prostitutes and get away with their wives never finding out too. It’s even legal in some counties in Nevada. Want to legalize prostitution in California?

How about a radio station covering the cathouse scene 24-7 with interviews from the best girls.

How about having to explain all that to your kids.
 
How about a radio station covering the cathouse scene 24-7 with interviews from the best girls.

There are laws about that. It's allowed, however it has to be after 10PM. Commercials are also permitted after 10PM.

I think I mentioned this earlier in this thread. Stations and groups have policies about it too.
 
I’m fine with seeing sports betting remain illegal for a long, long time. Sure, many people do it without consequences, but I’ve also seen it destroy lives. I once knew a guy with an extremely good career who would bet a significant portion of his income away all of the time. I think he actually came out ahead once or twice, but lost so many times that he ended up filling for bankruptcy.
Alcoholics, tobacco smokers, overeaters, anorexics, shop-a-holics ... all potentially ruining their lives through use of 100 percent legal products. Maybe advertising of nearly everything ought to be banned.
Many people hire prostitutes and get away with their wives never finding out too. It’s even legal in some counties in Nevada. Want to legalize prostitution in California?

How about a radio station covering the cathouse scene 24-7 with interviews from the best girls.

How about having to explain all that to your kids.
Most kids grow up to be adults who understand what "all that" means without pre-emptive strikes from dear old dad or the government.
 
I've followed a young African-American couple who "react" to 60s, 70s and 80s music. They actually are pretty good, and respect, not trash the music.
I've heard of that couple. I watched them react to Dolly Parton's Jolene, and they actually enjoyed it (and spoke well of it, too).

c
 
Alcoholics, tobacco smokers, overeaters, anorexics, shop-a-holics ... all potentially ruining their lives through use of 100 percent legal products. Maybe advertising of nearly everything ought to be banned.

Most kids grow up to be adults who understand what "all that" means without pre-emptive strikes from dear old dad or the government.
Here’s the thing though… you probably hear tons of commercials for casinos (and other modes of gambling). While gambling is almost always a bad idea, it isn’t too impactful if the message isn’t overly forceful. The same is true with commercials for alcohol and tobacco products. I think there’s a pretty big difference between a 30 second spot for a product you could, theoretically, buy, and 24/7 content that directly tells you what bets you could (or should) take.
 
KGO was by no means conservative talk radio. It may not have been as outright progressive as it was in the glory days (the failure of Air America and the fact that KQED had cornered the market on a liberal audience might have made them a little gun-shy), but by the standards of the day, the hosts on KGO the last six years have been about as center-left as you'll find on a commercial AM talk radio station.

And conservative talk radio has made consistent money for Cumulus for close to 30 years now at KSFO. No, the numbers aren't any better than KGO's, but it and KTRB (as someone else noted, that's a Salem) station, are two places for an advertiser to reliably reach conservatives in the Bay Area.

It helps to remember that San Francisco is a city and county with about one million people but the Bay Area is a nine-county area with 7.75 million people. Registered Republicans as of 2021 (newest I could find) make up 6.75% of San Francisco County voters, but 11% of Alameda, 13% of Marin, 14% of San Mateo, almost 17% of Santa Clara and Sonoma, almost 19% of Contra Costa, and 22% of Napa and Solano.

Given that the statewide average for GOP registration is 23.9%, some of those places aren't far off.
Yes, agreed. Anyone who thinks KGO was a conservative talk station did not actually listen to KGO. I would say the hosts like Mark Thompson leaned slightly left, but not anything extreme by any means. It’s part of the reason why I like hearing Mark Thompson on with Tim Conway on Tuesday nights on KFI. They play off each other really well and Mark is a sensible guy. I hope maybe he finds a spot at KFI as a more frequent fill-in host now that his gig at KGO came to an abrupt end.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom