Are many news/talk hosts lazy?

[Nate Wesley]

An interesting tidbit from Friday's "Taylor on Radio-Info" newsletter (2-1-08):

I heard from talk consultant John Mainelli – the guy who brought Rush to WABC, New York – and John says “The funny thing is that I now think that returning the Fairness Doctrine would be a very good thing. The Fairness Doctrine would sure as hell put an end to all these one-note, crusading, agenda-driven talkshows. Or at least the hosts would have to be a tiny bit clever to sneak around the rules, like everybody used to. Maybe they would actually have to become thoughtful, insightful, open-minded, and possibly even humorous.”

I'll take a guess that's he's really speaking more toward talk shows today than actually wanting to see the FD return. Thoughts?

 

[dustintv]

In a word, yes. Heaven knows that bashing and gossiping about [insert group or political party name here] can be fun, but sometimes it's nothing more than a dreadfully boring conversation.

 

[smedge2006]

There has always been a certain degree of sloth in talk radio. In the 80's, show prep was "reading the paper" and deriving a couple of "questions of the day", seasoned by talking points from the right-wing Boring Institute (Alan Caruba) or whatever push-group was advertising in Radio TV Interview Report that month. Rush enabled a whole new group of parasites. Many of them didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting. They just followed the Rush template and added a catchphrase or two, such as calling Democrats "Dumbocrats" and repeating "Billary" over and over.

In the 80's, the thoughtful and insightful hosts stood out against the paper-readers and ideologues. The last fifteen years have not been kind of them, while bestowing all kinds of undeserved glory to the Limclones. Not only a fairness doctrine but some kind of local origination quota would be necessary to restore some fertility to the fallow fields of talk radio.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Rush enabled a whole new group of parasites. Many of them didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting. They just followed the Rush template and added a catchphrase or two, such as calling Democrats "Dumbocrats" and repeating "Billary" over and over.

I have heard this before, but has anyone ever named names of the hosts who "didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting?"

Smedge can you?

 

[GarretBreedlove]

I vote yes. LAZY. Most.

 

[hootmon]

If you define LAZY as: throw out a basic topic (Dems good, Repubs bad or vice versa, latest example of government waste from some accounting study, police tasering unarmed helpless old lady news story) and then take calls only from people who agree with you, then yes, most I have heard are lazy.

It really is interesting when a host will find a news story, dig into the details, evaluate and posit an original opinion based on logic and facts. Sadly, this type of show is in short supply.

 

[smedge2006]

Rush enabled a whole new group of parasites. Many of them didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting. They just followed the Rush template and added a catchphrase or two, such as calling Democrats "Dumbocrats" and repeating "Billary" over and over.

I have heard this before, but has anyone ever named names of the hosts who "didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting?"

Smedge can you?

I can, based on their previous positions on issues and knowing from experience that most people don't have a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus ideological moment.

Mike Siegel (Seattle) , Steve Kane (SoFla) and Al Rantel (So Fla and LA) were all liberals before the Rush phenomenon.

There were also other hosts for whom I have some respect, who posed as a conservative in one market or another because the PD told them to or whatever. I shall not post their names here.

Do you think that a host that uses "Dumbocrats" as a rhetorical prop has anything but the most superficial grasp of the issues and is doing anything other than catching a wave and trying to ride it?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Rush enabled a whole new group of parasites. Many of them didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting. They just followed the Rush template and added a catchphrase or two, such as calling Democrats "Dumbocrats" and repeating "Billary" over and over.

I have heard this before, but has anyone ever named names of the hosts who "didn't even believe in the ideology they were parroting?"

Smedge can you?

I can, based on their previous positions on issues and knowing from experience that most people don't have a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus ideological moment.

Mike Siegel (Seattle) , Steve Kane (SoFla) and Al Rantel (So Fla and LA) were all liberals before the Rush phenomenon.

There were also other hosts for whom I have some respect, who posed as a conservative in one market or another because the PD told them to or whatever. I shall not post their names here.

Do you think that a host that uses "Dumbocrats" as a rhetorical prop has anything but the most superficial grasp of the issues and is doing anything other than catching a wave and trying to ride it?

I was unaware of complete ideological shifts.

Who says "dumbocrats and how the hell do they stay employed?

 

[gr8oldies]

Stacy taylor has been mentiond on this board. On WLS he was a libertarian, if he's now a big-government leftist on his liberal talk station (haven't heard him, don't know that he has) that would be a change.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

What amazes me about the current blood-in-the-streets condition of the industry is how the "dregs" have risen to the top... ???

 

[dustintv]

As far as national talkers go, I think it can breakdown like this...:

Not lazy:

Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
Clark Howard
Jim Bohannon

Lazy:

Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
Randi Rhodes

 

[mred]

They seem to get their stuff from Drudge or the local newspaper.

 

[flashback]

perhaps the lazy hosts wouldn`t be so lazy if they didn`t use call screeners and just answered calls that came in .that would keep them on their toes.

 

[lamey]

I was asked recently when I filled in for a Talk show by the GM how much prep I had done for the show and when I told him, he seemed surprised. Acoording to others I have talked with, there are a number of Talk Show Host that rip and read and allow the content to be delievered via one service. I've always thought Prep was something that never stops however taking it all and putting into an outline for the show can take an hour for every hour on the air? Does that sound about right?

 

[jimwalsh2001]

I was asked recently when I filled in for a Talk show by the GM how much prep I had done for the show and when I told him, he seemed surprised. Acoording to others I have talked with, there are a number of Talk Show Host that rip and read and allow the content to be delievered via one service. I've always thought Prep was something that never stops however taking it all and putting into an outline for the show can take an hour for every hour on the air? Does that sound about right?

You're very much on target. As my acquaintance Tommy Kramer would say, the best "show prep" in the world is to listen in on what folks are talking about on the street. ;D

 

[cm454]

I was asked recently when I filled in for a Talk show by the GM how much prep I had done for the show and when I told him, he seemed surprised. Acoording to others I have talked with, there are a number of Talk Show Host that rip and read and allow the content to be delievered via one service. I've always thought Prep was something that never stops however taking it all and putting into an outline for the show can take an hour for every hour on the air? Does that sound about right?

You're very much on target. As my acquaintance Tommy Kramer would say, the best "show prep" in the world is to listen in on what folks are talking about on the street. ;D

Wow. Talk about consultant-speak.

Sounds good, but HIGHLY impractical and unrealistic.

Show prep? Read a lot, watch a lot. Observe.

Use your head.