55KRC dumps Glenn Beck?

[gr8oldies]

"Educate the masses"? Did regular WLW caller Nick just check in?

 

[nmoore6676]

"Educate the masses"? Did regular WLW caller Nick just check in?

Nope, but once radio and than TV held the promise of providing information or education but there doesn't seem to be a lot of that going on. I have no problems with entertainment but it is a dangerous thing when the only idea people have of what is going on comes from Rush Limbaugh or KFI's John and Ken. Glenn Beck seems to be less knee jerk and tries to present verifiable facts. The question then is why can't liberals do that as well. Anytime one side is more predominate is not good for the discourse because all of us are colored by experience and prejudices of some degree. I don't want the "fairness doctrine" back again but it could be forced on us if the right people get their way.

 

[Uncas]

There is plenty of great stuff on both TV and radio. I think they exceeded any possible expectations.

Shakespeare would have run out of material if he had to fill up those times 24-7, 365 and in perpetuity!

I tend to look at talk as entertainment especially since it allows me to do something else. I prefer local talk to the national guys but they are ok.

If I want to be really informed in depth, I read books. And, the internet provides a lot of quick information with many reliable sites.

 

[KyDXIn]

There is plenty of great stuff on both TV and radio. I think they exceeded any possible expectations.

Shakespeare would have run out of material if he had to fill up those times 24-7, 365 and in perpetuity!

Is it just me, or does it seem like Rush is repeating or rerunning his first hour monologue again in the 3rd hour quite a bit recently?

 

[gr8oldies]

Reaction to PPM which shows the audience turns over almost completely btwn houp 1 and 3 and the 2pm audience doesn't stick around if Rush isnt "playing the hits"

 

[nmoore6676]

There is plenty of great stuff on both TV and radio. I think they exceeded any possible expectations.

Shakespeare would have run out of material if he had to fill up those times 24-7, 365 and in perpetuity!

I tend to look at talk as entertainment especially since it allows me to do something else. I prefer local talk to the national guys but they are ok.

If I want to be really informed in depth, I read books. And, the internet provides a lot of quick information with many reliable sites.

I am a multitasker, read A.D.D., so I tend to read and listen simultaneously and to me TV has always been more of an aural experience. I guess maybe because I am old enough to recall dramas and comedy programs on radio plus that early TV was more or less radio with pictures. There is some of what I would consider quality material on TV like the Discovery and Learning channels. My main issue is that for our type of government to work requires that the voters be really accurately informed.

If elections are determined solely on people like Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz then we are in trouble and I think that now we ARE in trouble. As good as I may think Glenn Beck is he should not be the lone authority from which I or anyone takes their views. Also we are subject to the movie and TV glamorized idea of historical figures, the Disney Version of Davey Crockett is burned in my mind and I grew up thinking that Don Ameche invented the telephone. The recent attribution of the quote "I can see Russia from my house" to Sarah Palin rather than the parody of Ms. Palin by Tina Fey is an excellent example of how entertainment can be a threat to Democracy.

But my question is still not answered, why are there no big stars on the Liberal talk front? It can't be that they are all dull and not as clever as Conservatives. A one sided discourse is not at all good for us either.

 

[Uncas]

Of course there are dumb and ill informed voters but the bedrock people of this country are not so easily influenced.

Talk radio has a long way to go to offset the influence of the so called main stream media whether TV, papers or magazines.

Have you read Time or Newsweek lately? Both venerable publications that might as well be house organs for the Dems. They don't even pretend to be neutral anymore.

Sheesh, you can not even read National Geographic anymore without missionary work being done for climate change including bashes on Bush and stories about the downtrodden rather than geography.

 

[gr8oldies]

It's a myth that conservatives aren't exposed to liberalism and they would "convert" if they were. They listen to talk radio to get away from the liberalism in every other media source

 

[Uncas]

Quite true and there are plenty of times I don't even want to hear a host I generally agree with because I am not in the mood to be aggravated about what is going on in my country.

 

[Limp73]

One can hope. That would be the best decision 55krc has ever made to dump Glenn Beck in favor of Tony Snow. The best one since they dumped Pat Berry.

Yeah, we need a good American, level headed, a real role model, maybe like Jerry Springer. Oh, that's right, they tried that before. No takers. Sad. Us liberals are SO much smarter than the rest of you.

An interesting point, why do conservative talkers do better, especially the Limbaughs and Hannitys? Springer wasn't that interesting on radio and unless he attempted a kind of clone of his TV schtick with a little Howard Stern mixed in, not likely to be.

Perhaps attempting to educate the masses is a futile attempt, all that the great hordes seem to enjoy is like Wrestling, a lot of noise and action but no substance.

...and why do "conservative" talkers sensationalize,irrationalize and use so much self-invented rhetoric in their repotoire to justify their arrogance?...you'd think they were radical right wingers from the Birchers to the defunct Liberty Lobby and of course... the militias...at least that is the gut feeling being coveyed to me. This is creepy stuff....let alone the cover of Glen Beck's new book Arguing with Idiots depicting Beck as a Nazi commandant. Is this what he means when he says that he is "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment"? If he is entertainment than he shoud be likened to World "Wrasslin'" ENTERTAINMENT and as just as enlightened as binLaden is to members of his hate cult.

Sensationalism turns me off..for I have heard it all before. I am conservative from the standpoint that I am pro-life...but when the problem with the elderly on fixed incomes and the unemployed and homeless have sold their souls to Cash Land (among other preditory buisinesses) which persists to this day and are virtually (or completely)ignored by conservatives,then I see another conspiracy happening here.

Oh BTW..Beck makes a lot of moola as does Limbaugh and O'Reilley while the average radio station employee makes about the same income as the elderly on a fixed income. Granted I do not agree 100 per cent with what Obama is trying to do...but when the economy is at the worst low since the Great Depression and healthcare is only affordable for the well to do,then the conservatives are completely out of touch with paycheck to paycheck employees struggling with paycuts,skyrocketing APR rates by credit card companies at will and the general standard of living being reduced to new lows...then I have to support the president for what he is trying to do.

 

[smedge2006]

Oh BTW..Beck makes a lot of moola as does Limbaugh and O'Reilley while the average radio station employee makes about the same income as the elderly on a fixed income.

... and is told how lucky he/she is to have a job. Wonder how they handle the cognitive dissonance with all the rhetoric they are forced to hear at work?

 

[Uncas]

I don't listen to Rush although I have done so in the past on an infrequent basis.

I think the left is not used to blunt talk whether it is from a run of the mill citizen or some radio/tv host.

It actually cracks me up to hear the left ranting about this and assuming these guys created conservatives.

Maybe Bill Buckley did but these current guys were created by us.

I don't know why there are not highly rated leftwing radio shows. I guess those personalities dominate TV and the print media so why mess with radio?

 

[KevinFodor]

"Educate the masses"? Did regular WLW caller Nick just check in?

Nope, but once radio and than TV held the promise of providing information or education but there doesn't seem to be a lot of that going on. I have no problems with entertainment but it is a dangerous thing when the only idea people have of what is going on comes from Rush Limbaugh or KFI's John and Ken. Glenn Beck seems to be less knee jerk and tries to present verifiable facts. The question then is why can't liberals do that as well. Anytime one side is more predominate is not good for the discourse because all of us are colored by experience and prejudices of some degree. I don't want the "fairness doctrine" back again but it could be forced on us if the right people get their way.

Very interesting point. But, let's go back in time here. The history of radio shows that General Sarnoff envisioned radio as a "public service" venture...fine programming (along the lines of today's PBS) that would be supported by, but not sponsored by, various business pursuits. With educational programs which would educate the masses.

Then came along Bill Paley at CBS. Sure, they did features such as "School Of The Air", but Paley went full bore into commercialized broadcasting, with advertising agencies developing their own shows, many of which were low-brow, yet drew big audiences. And CBS could be a bastion of liberal thought, while it also aired the speeches of Father Coughlin.

Sarnoff capitulated and made NBC a commercial network. What may have been lost in all of this is certainly incalculable to consider.

But remember, too. So-called "Progressive" thinking and opinions dominate the internet. Huff Po, Daily KOS, just to name a couple. You have progressive radio shows in talk radio as well as NPR (and NPR's ratings in many cities are close to, if not in the top 5.) So to make the suggestion that there's little or no progressive shows on radio is simply false. They simply haven't made the "splash" on radio the Limbaugh's and Hannity's have, that they have on internet. That may annoy some people of that political persuasion, but progressive thought is not, as they might suggest, being stifled around the world. It's easily found, if you want to find it.

Lastly, a word about the Fairness Doctrine. To understand why it shouldn't be brought back, you only have to go back and discover why the FCC put it in place way back when: in those days, many American cities were lucky to have any more than about 2 to about a dozen "local" media outlets. And granted, any consolidation, thought or intent that would stifle one type of speech or thought over another in those days certainly would be a serious concern. To put it in a more local perspective:

In Dayton, Ohio in 1960, the media landscape looked something like this:

2 daily newspapers (Journal Herald/Dayton Daily News)

Radio: WLW-AM, WONE-AM, WAVI-AM, WHIO-AM, WING-AM, WHIO-FM, WIFE-FM (WONE's FM).

TV: WLWD-TV (channel 2), WHIO-TV (channel 7).

That's it. The other smaller nearby stations were programmed, and listened to by their own locales. Rock and roll wasn't big enough yet to be having much multi-city listenership, unless you were south of town listening to WSAI. But, I don't think that was much of a thing until the early-mid 60's. Thought or speech could possibly have been stifled under the right circumstances with so few outlets.

Now, do the numbers on the media landscape in Dayton today. Include AM/FM, daily papers, weeklies, VHF/UHF and Cable and Satellite TV, and the internet. Tell me you can't find any type of thought, speech, persuasion, or perversion you want to find. No free speech...No free thinking is being prevented...nor can it be.

Which is exactly why no revived Fairness Doctrine is needed.

 

[Uncas]

We have been stuck with the concept that the "public" owns the airways since FDR. The fact is that means the Federal Governement owns the airways. I do not accept the idea that public = government.

We also have a Constitutional provision that is pretty clear even though many would like to confuse it. In short, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." yet regulating content is exactly that.

In my mind, the purpose of the FCC should be limited to technical matters and not content matters. Let the market decide what happens over the airways much as is done with books, magazines, newspapers and other forms of speech.

 

[Board Editor]

MOVED: TIO: 55KRC dumps Glenn Beck?

Some post in this thread have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=162510.0]http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=162510.0[/iurl]

 

[KevinFodor]

We have been stuck with the concept that the "public" owns the airways since FDR. The fact is that means the Federal Governement owns the airways. I do not accept the idea that public = government.

We also have a Constitutional provision that is pretty clear even though many would like to confuse it. In short, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." yet regulating content is exactly that.

In my mind, the purpose of the FCC should be limited to technical matters and not content matters. Let the market decide what happens over the airways much as is done with books, magazines, newspapers and other forms of speech.

Good point. And I agree government likes to refer to AM/FM/TV as "the public airways". However, I would suggest calling it that is WAY outdated, when you consider that (if you have a decent music collection, for (and I'm lowballing it here):

$400 - for a computer with software
$400 - for station software
$250 - to sign a subscription to a service such as Live 365
$110 - monthly fee for a small pro subscription to Live 365
$ 50 - monthly internet charges.

And you can have your own radio station on the internet with no FCC rules...no political clatter about content...it's your own broadcast facility, and it can be heard around the world!

So...is there really any need for a "public airways" consideration anymore? Makes you wonder...

 

[FRR]

I haven't been one to watch Beck very often. I've seen his program on Fox News a couple of times, but when I have seen his show, he usually presents a lot of facts and figures and stats and of course, some opinion. I've never hear the libs argue with him about the facts, but only that they don't like him or his style, or his attitude toward our Great Leader, or that he only gives one side of the story. What is it about the facts that he presents that they have a problem with? Is it that he isn't "unbiased"? Hell, neither is Keith, or Couric,or that loud mouth Chris M. The American people figured out long ago that the mainstream media doesn't even TRY to be balanced, so these guys like Beck and others that take on stories that the mainstream media won't touch, end up with tons of listeners, and the libs just cry all the time about how biased they are. Well no kidding! But wake up, cause your guys are also, so face it. To me it boils down to one sentence.......The attempt to return the Fairness Doctrine is simply an attempt to insure that liberals have folks on the media who haven't made it in the free market model. Comments?

 

[Uncas]

Just read national, famous mags like Time or Newsweek and you will see the media has become so bold that it does not even hide its leftwing, pro-Obama agenda.

It is so bad that my wife and I have decided not to renew either rag after years of subscribing.

TV news and whatever the other shows are called are not part of my viewing habits and that has been the case for years.

Local is slap happy and national is slanted. Fox? OK I guess but more amusing is who the left reacts to Fox.

 

[IWorkThere]

So...is there really any need for a "public airways" consideration anymore? Makes you wonder...

It seems TV has been looking into the future as well and is going mobile: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15mobile.html

As for the reasons Left Wing radio has failed has been proven time and time again in studies and is obvious to most: Liberals by definition are simply open minded and will listen to opposing views just to hear what they have to say and/or to challenge themselves to expand their knowledge base. When listening to a program that agrees with an ideology they already hold dear, they get bored.

On the other hand, Conservatives by definition like to only hear what they already agree with to strengthen their beliefs. (The post above proves it. )

 

[Uncas]

Open minded left?

Now that is funny. You should write for radio.