Actually he’s a 95 year old paper tiger. Hard reality: Not a long term concern for anyone, regardless of personal politics.
-
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
Miami/Fort Lauderdale A failed experiment: WAQI Radio Mambí
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
I'm not very smart, but as I recall, the problem was the regimes were totalitarian more than socialist.
Also, hardly anyone knew who George Soros was until the right started demonizing him because, well...they needed someone to demonize.
David, while we are completely aware of the brutal repression of left wing regimes in Latin America, your perspective would carry more weight if you also acknowledged the horrible conditions that far right wing governments imposed on their countries. Argentina under the generals? Chile under Pinochet? Guatemala? El Salvador? Nicaragua under the Somozas? Brazil and its military regime? Paraguay under Stroessner? The Dominican Republic under Trujillo? Death squads? Being thrown out of helicopters? Suppression of all dissent? Murder of religious figures along with large numbers of ordinary people? The absolute corruption of the Batista regime in Cuba?
I never said that left wing oppression should not be criticized.😡😡😡
I was simply pushing back at the notion that brutal oppression is somehow unique to left wing governments, when right wing governments in Latin America have done exactly the same thing. For example, ask any member of Madres de Plaza de Mayo in Argentina who are still searching for the desaparecidos.
I have no sympathy for the leftist governments in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, and would love to see them gone, replaced by democratically elected leadership. However we should not ignore the social and economic conditions that resulted in those those left wing governments coming to power.
When talk radio, in whatever language, has become highly politicized in the U.S. it is rather hard to discuss the format without politics itself being involved.
As for what happened in Latin America “decades ago” shall we point out that the Cuban Revolution was two-thirds of a century ago, yet is still the focus of talk radio in South Florida? We should also point out that many of those involved in that debate are the descendants of the Cuban power elite that created the social and economic conditions that resulted in the Cuban Revolution.
Yes, many have fled left wing governments in Latin America, but there are also those who were forced to flee right wing dictatorships.
Just my $0.02. I think I’ll stay out of this thread going forward.
The main reality influencing talk radio in Miami now is that the audience for the format is too small and too old to attract enough advertising to pay for it. Particularly on AM radio. There may be some Cuban businesses that are still willing to support it in order to hear their political views expressed. But not enough to pay for rising talent and operating costs. Especially for local talk radio. This is why iHeart is having layoffs now. This is why LMN changed the format of WQBA from local talk to music.
Because the talk itself is political. That's what the article in the OP was saying. The intent of LMN was to "moderate" the talk. I remember an interview with one of the founders, who was horrified at the lies being pushed on conservative talk radio. All they really wanted to do was to moderate the talk, and get away from all the negativity. Not unlike what some moderators here try to do. There are other subjects to talk about besides politics. But what we've seen is that the more extreme you go, the higher the ratings. Why? Because extreme political opinions drive passion more than saying things are great.
That's why Mambi was so popular. Not because they were entertaining or funny, but because they were extreme and that drove passion. We've talked in this thread about the LMN founders not having radio experience. If they had radio experience, they'd know that the goal in talk radio is driving passion, and by passion, we mean anger. So if you come in and "moderate" the anger, chances are you kill the golden goose. But as we said, all this was happening at a time when the audience for this kind of talk was aging and dying, and AM radio itself was in trouble.
I go back to a question I have had for years, most of these rabble rousers on the left and the right are not stupid. In fact, most of them are pretty durn smart. Do they really believe the BS they are spouting or are they just saying whatever it takes to get the suckers into the tent?
My view is it's a little of each. Let's face it: It's still radio. They probably wouldn't put up with the negatives of radio without some level of agreement.
But if extremism drives passion, passion drives ratings, and ratings drive money, then what would you do?
People don't tune in for a college lecture. They don't want to hear some expert giving facts. They'd rather hear that the election was stolen.
I think it's likely they hold strong political opinions off the air, but on the air, I think the best ones are entertainers first and foremost, and cranking up the crazy is part of the performance. If it's done well, it's a good listen whether you agree or disagree, but done poorly it's boring at best and cringey at worst.
A case can be made that Socialism and its big brother Communism are, by definition, totalitarian. But the governments of all those countries is some form of socialism where the government controls the economy, owns all or key elements of production, and thwarts any opposition. Marx and Engels did not contemplate anything but a single party system.
Ah.... ask anyone in England and in a number of European nations.
If you read Reuters or France Press dispatches, you knew a lot about him.
Actually, the "stuff" talked about on Radio Mambí was not a lot different from that on Radio Martí. The main difference was the passion of the commentators. So you are right about the passion... attributable to people who had lost family members, careers and opportunity to the Castro socialist regime.
I've worked with both WAQI and Radio Martí. It's not about anger... but about passionate hatred of regimes like those of Castro, Maduro, Ortega and Petro.
I would not say, again, "anger". I would use the term "hatred" against regimes that have cost so much to those who opposed them.
Yet there is a whole new generation in Miami of Venezuelans, Colombians and even Peruvians who are vehemently opposed to those that have ruined their homelands.
What I mean by "anger" is that the presentation generates anger on the part of the listener. I had an uncle who listened to conservative talk radio. Every time I saw him, he was yelling about what he had heard on the radio. He wasn't passionate. He was angry. The anger was driven by what he had heard on the radio. But sure, hatred is the same as anger. Hatred is defined as being more extreme than anger.
As the article said, the intent of LMN was for a more moderate approach. My view is that's bad for ratings.
You think this new generation is aware that the naturalized citizens on Radio Mambi and elsewhere resent their presence in this country?
But today, the era of such military governments has been converted into socialist single-party systems being supported by the military, with Venezuela being the worst example.
Colombia had been a well performing democracy for over 50 years when Petro and his declared socialist crew came in and created one of the most violent places on earth. Same with the now-socialist governments in Perú and Venezuela that destroyed decades of democratic rule.
Not correct. The people engaged in discussions today are both part of (people of middle and upper class status were still fleeing Cuba even when I was involved in the Mariel Boatlift in the 80's. They had just been waiting for a chance to leave. And they were teachers, small business owners, farmers, professionals and the like.
There were only a few thousand "power brokers" from Cuba who left when Castro came to power. The rest were most of the college grads, professionals and the like who did not like getting 2 eggs a week and ration cards.
Of the people who have arrived in the last quarter century, how many fled right wing dictatorships?
There is a difference between American or even European partisan politics and the feelings of people who have been forcibly displaced from their country.
No, because they don't. In Miami, the Cuban community welcomes Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, Peruvians and Ecuadorians because those people arriving today and in the last two decades have been educated and bring considerable experience and wealth with them.
The article said LMN intended to present a more "moderate" approach. That's not good for ratings in any language.
They're still undocumented. We'll see how ICE views them.
Most of those from Ecuador, Perú and Colombia who are arriving get visas immediately based on sustainable incomes and investments. Believe me, those coming to South Florida from places like Miraflores in Perú not coming in without documentation... they are the most wealthy and affluent in each nations.
The wealthier Venezuelans legally arrived decades ago with full visas and lots of money.
My daughter in Ecuador and her family got a resident visa in a few weeks several years ago. But they have decided to "stick it out" in the hopes that the new president will control the gangs, the trafficking, the murders and violence.
I have enjoyed this discussion very much and learned some things. A question for David, who seems to be very knowledgeable on these subjects: Do the people fleeing these oppressive regimes care one way or the other whether they are fleeing rightwing oppression or leftwing oppression"? Seems to me they are just fleeing oppression that has made their lives miserable.
If they're as successful as you say, they're likely no longer a potential audience for AM Spanish language talk radio.
The key word is their. Fleeing an oppressive regime doesn't necessarily make you pro-democracy. Many of them were (and still are) fine living under an oppressive regime, as long as it is oppressing other people, not them.