• 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 Schedule to attract both sides(Fairness?)

D

dustintv

Let me use a hypothetical AM radio station called WXFA set somewhere out on the east coast. WXFA had decided to make their audience more diverse, so here is the new weekday schedule for WXFA:

5AM-9AM: The WXFA Morning News
9AM-12PM: Stephanie Miller
12PM-3PM: Rush Limbaugh
3PM-6PM: Ed Schultz
6PM-7PM: The WXFA Evening News
7PM-10PM: Sean Hannity
10PM-1AM: Randi Rhodes
1AM-5AM: Coast to Coast

Thoughts on if it could work at all? Or is this some laughable fantasy posting?
 
Here's mine:

5-9 am Local News.
9-noon Stephanie Miller
noon- 3pm Dennis Miller (the Millers in Midday: one liberal, one conservative)
3-7 pm Local news
7-10 pm Clark Howard
10 pm - 1 am Jim Bohannon
1-4am Phil Hendrie
4-5am Bohannon hour 1 repeat
 
Obviously programmers are posting here....

Chase off your audience all day and then the always successful 4 hour news block in afternoon drive.
 
I wonder how many times a decision to go with a particular show is simply ease of operation. It comes on the same satellite channel as something else, it's easy to automate, etc. This is one factor that may discourage hopscotching between conservative and progressive talk programming. Those stations that have one Premiere show tend to pick up others. Ditto TRN, Salem, etc. even if they are not "o-&-o" stations.
 
Quote:

"I wonder how many times a decision to go with a particular show is simply ease of operation. It comes on the same satellite channel as something else, it's easy to automate, etc."

reply:
Indeed - sadly, PD's have told us this, and it's frustrating and it costs syndicated programs potential affiliates and money.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, it's more about what side is telling the truth.

Progressive talk hosts think that only they have the truth, and likewise with conservative talk hosts.

This sort of provincial thinking doesn't serve the American people well, and we need more hosts like Bohannon to facilitate discussions of diverse points of view.

Sadly, radio journalism is dead, with few exceptions like Paul Harvey.

But you still can run a passionate, opinionated, caller driven talk show, with BOTH sides debating, and generate good ratings. Good examples would be Michael Medved as a conservative host, and Alan Colmes as a liberal. They will at least listen to opposing callers and guests. Bad examples would be Michael Savage as a conservative host, and Randi Rhodes as liberal host, they won't listen to opposing callers and guests.

Here's a good article to think about from Jay Diamond, who will be in for Alan Colmes on FOX NEWS RADIO sometime in August:

"We need a Truth Doctrine right here and right now to finally put an end to the steady torrent of destructive, death-dealing blasted out the low-brow, right-wing radio death squads who have been terrorizing America with mass poison for the last thirty years."

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/pr...edne_jay_diam_070802_the_fairness_doctrin.htm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/041807b.html
 
Good points, ABQ Tom.

I do like listening to Michael Medved, as he does regularly - I think everyday - allow opposing views.
You can always plan to hear the other side there, same with Colmes.


My ideal lineup would be the following:

5-9 a.m. Local show - strong news with lots of calls and interviews.
9 a.m. - Noon Local morning host
Noon- Rush or Bill O'Reilly.
3 p.m. Strong local host(s). Conservative along with a more moderate host.
6 p.m.-Syndicated host. Likely conservative like Savage. (today)
Ideally: a host of Tom Snyder or Gil Gross' stature. Not necessarily a political show. Can be interviews as well as opinion, as both hosts did.

9 p.m.- Midnight - Moderate like Alan Colmes (live) or Ed Schultz tape delayed.

OVernight - Coast to Coast

This schedule is similar to KMBZ, the NT leader in Kansas City, except it's a bit more moderate (in the evenings).
We don't need everything to be all-conservative-all-the-time. Blurs everything together.
 
ABQTom makes a good point, except that where the media is concered there is no such thing as "Truth". Any sort of "Doctrine" should be about equality, not truth.

Having said that, I like the schedule:

Doug Stephan (moderate)
Joe Farah (right)
Thom Hartmann (left)
unknown
Michael Savage (right)
unknown
Coast to Coast (moderate)

I am not a programmer, but I like nonpolitical night shows. In fact, there shoud be a law against political shows during night :p
 
All have merits. Mine would be somthing like this:

5a-9a Local news, sports, weather, interviews

9a-12p: local

12-3 Rush or someone like rush

3-7: Local with same format as morning

7-10: local with political bent

10p-midnight: something still local with no politics

mid-5a: You pick it.
 
Of course, when the format tanks, do you replace didn't work ideologically or with what brings the most ratings and revenue? Truth doctrine? Who decides what is the "truth"?
 
gr8oldies said:
Of course, when the format tanks, do you replace didn't work ideologically or with what brings the most ratings and revenue? Truth doctrine? Who decides what is the "truth"?
Click to expand...
What makes you think these great hosts would tank?

I for one would love to hear Stephanie Miller's and Ed Schultz's shows go onto more affiliaties - and consequently generate more listners.

Anyone listening to Steph's show can tell it's no snooze fest like Hannity's can be.

In fact, I'd wager Stephanie could whip old Sean hands-down in any real kind of debate, one where neither controls the microphone.

I'm no liberal either. I just would to hear more less-predictable radio. Those above mentioned hosts are not predictable.
 
Of course, when the format tanks, do you replace didn't work ideologically or with what brings the most ratings and revenue? Truth doctrine? Who decides what is the "truth"?

I just love some of the posters to this and other sections of this board. If it ain't right off the edge conservative talk then it is no good, is bound to fail and therefore there is no reason for it to even go on the air.

These folks have a skewed sense of "success" and "failure" and even less of an understanding of the responsibility of having and keeping a license.
 
It's simple...so far the liberal side hasn't come up with hosts that draw enough of an audience to consistently dethrone the hosts who are already there. "Responsibilities of having a license?" That means dropping proven winners for hosts who will have ratings and revenue drop substantially? You still can't make the folks not change the channel.
 
gr8oldies said:
It's simple...so far the liberal side hasn't come up with hosts that draw enough of an audience to consistently dethrone the hosts who are already there. "Responsibilities of having a license?" That means dropping proven winners for hosts who will have ratings and revenue drop substantially? You still can't make the folks not change the channel.
Click to expand...

It's probably mostly because progressives feel they don't need to be lead around
by the nose, having somebody giving them 3 hours of talking points every day.
Their only goal is to inflame their base and force their ideology onto others.
Being truthful or supporting what's best for the country, THE WHOLE COUNTRY,
doesn't enter into their preaching.
 
There are better media for the emotional liberal message, such as movies. Even Michael Moore once criticized the idea of "liberal talk radio" as a "liberal pony express".
 
Justareporter said;
These folks have a skewed sense of "success" and "failure" and even less of an understanding of the responsibility of having and keeping a license.
_________________________
Have you geniuses EVER been a pd, a manager, or an owner?
AHA...I didn't THINK so.

I HAVE and, NO, The FCC doesn't care about "balance."

The last few posts "bashing" a viewpoint are NOT radio people talking, they are POLITICAL people without any real knowledge of radio.

The fcc doesn't give a RIP about "fairness" right now. "KEEPING a license" has much more to do with building a SUCCESSFUL revenue flow - and the bs here about half consevative/half lib would really not work as well as you think, because of the "dial-twisting" by moderates that you would cause (who are MOST of us, Americans).

The bashing crap is no good if the audience is in the middle. You have to either have VERY RADIO SAVVY HOSTS (like Rush - who knows how to work it)....

OR

study a PRIME EXAMPLE of RADIO SUCCESS; WGN, Chicago is AM. Their air hosts are quite MODERATE most of the time and their news is second to none.

The CALLERS to the programs, however, are from both sides.

WGN has been doing THIS formula since the mid-60's and is often the HIGHEST RATED CHICAGO station, and on again off again the HIGHEST REVENUE RADIO PROPERTY in the US!

WGN is entertaining and informative and it's WITHOUT any "fairness" check. Most oif the time, nobody is BASHING anybody.

WLS and WIND are both conservative competitors - and 950 (call letters forgotten) is the dopey ERR AMERIKKA."

None of these jokers have a chance.
 
gr8oldies said:
It's simple...so far the liberal side hasn't come up with hosts that draw enough of an audience to consistently dethrone the hosts who are already there. "Responsibilities of having a license?" That means dropping proven winners for hosts who will have ratings and revenue drop substantially? You still can't make the folks not change the channel.
Click to expand...
Not enough audience? Ed Schultz is the biggest progressive host there is, in terms of audience.
I'm sure he would have little trouble de-throning Hugh Hewitt, Jerry Doyle, Rusty Humperies, et. a.

gr8oldies said:
There are better media for the emotional liberal message, such as movies. Even Michael Moore once criticized the idea of "liberal talk radio" as a "liberal pony express".
Click to expand...
So Mr. Moore, the arch-enemy of the right, is now a source?

Wew.
 
hammondo said:
study a PRIME EXAMPLE of RADIO SUCCESS; WGN, Chicago is AM. Their air hosts are quite MODERATE most of the time and their news is second to none.

The CALLERS to the programs, however, are from both sides.

WGN has been doing THIS formula since the mid-60's and is often the HIGHEST RATED CHICAGO station, and on again off again the HIGHEST REVENUE RADIO PROPERTY in the US!

WGN is entertaining and informative and it's WITHOUT any "fairness" check. Most oif the time, nobody is BASHING anybody.

WLS and WIND are both conservative competitors - and 950 (call letters forgotten) is the dopey ERR AMERIKKA."

None of these jokers have a chance.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that station and its legacy.

However, weren't you the one arguing that the venerable WGN within 5 years would go the route of the other chickensh-- talk stations, only running a local morning show and taking every other show off satelite?

Yuck. What a lousy way to go.
 
Mr. Hammondo, just for the record: I've been in front of cameras and microphones for most of the 30 plus years of my broadcasting career. When I wasn't doing that I was running news operations in medium and large markets.

Please be so kind as to not think you know everything. I don't and I know without question neither do you.

Good luck. Try again.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom