• 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

Beck: Hillary, gay or just being fashionable?

F

FredLeonard

Guest
Here's another off-topic thread we can (and should) all ignore.
 
Avid Listener said:
Here's another off-topic thread we can (and should) all ignore.
Click to expand...

Sorry, AV. I didn't realize you were the moderator. Please explain to me how things talk show hosts say on their shows (especially outrageous or controversial things) is "off-topic" in a discussion of talk radio. Or are only on-air comments by hosts you don't like relevant?
 
Hey, look, another out of context hit piece.

This, however, isn't out of context. And it's pretty outrageous.

FredLeonard said:
Sounds like that's exactly what's happening. But I guess the station gets affirmative action points for Watson because it can't be drawing power. How many different hosts trounced him?
Click to expand...


Comment, Fred? Why are you such a racist?
 
Last edited:
FredLeonard said:
Sorry, AV. I didn't realize you were the moderator. Please explain to me how things talk show hosts say on their shows (especially outrageous or controversial things) is "off-topic" in a discussion of talk radio. Or are only on-air comments by hosts you don't like relevant?
Click to expand...

A moderator would have written, "This is an off-topic thread you MUST ignore".
 
Sorry for my snarky response but I'll now ask seriously: How is what a nationally syndicated talk show host says relevant and appropriate for discussion here? Howard. Imus. Rush. Beck. Rhodes. Any of them. Such comments affect careers (people get fired), affect ad revenue and ultimately affect the direction and viability of the format. And they are news. Michael Harrison picks up such stories. Why shouldn't we?

There related issue, also worthy of discussion, is managements push hosts to be increasingly outrageous and then when something back fires, management acts shocked, shocked and throws talent under the bus.

Such incidents are not completely management's fault. We know from cybernetics that any system receiving only positive feedback goes out of control. Talk show hosts hearing only something along the lines of "mega-dittos" also are prone to going off the deep-end.

As pointed out in another current thread, political talk radio is in decline and this is a big part of the problem.
 
Avid Listener said:
A moderator would have written, "This is an off-topic thread you MUST ignore".
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not off topic at all. It's just dishonest cherry picking. As these threads always are. Anyone who uses "right wing watch" as a source is automatically subject to extra scrutiny since they're a known manipulator of facts.
 
"Glenn Beck now is saying Hillary Clinton will be engaging in lesbian sex on the White House lawn if she thinks it will help her popularity."

If you're going to dangle a red herring, at least get it right. He said desk, not lawn, and it was an attempt, perhaps a poor one, to point out that she does change several positions based on the way the political winds are blowing.
 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62786

Sort of a shame, and lucky for Hillary, that Beck made the comment leading to this thread. I write this because he had Sharyl Atkisson on yesterday discussing the latest Benghazi revelation. That news would've been unfavorable to Hillary but is lost in the noise of his inartful comment detailed above.
 
umfan said:
"Glenn Beck now is saying Hillary Clinton will be engaging in lesbian sex on the White House lawn if she thinks it will help her popularity."

If you're going to dangle a red herring, at least get it right. He said desk, not lawn, and it was an attempt, perhaps a poor one, to point out that she does change several positions based on the way the political winds are blowing.
Click to expand...

Do you expect honesty from Fred?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's time to stop the name-calling. We don't have to agree on the subject matter but we should show each other some respect.
 
umfan said:
....to point out that she does change several positions based on the way the political winds are blowing.
Click to expand...

As if she's the only one.

Come on, people. Let's grow up. Politicians pander to voters. It's how the game is played. We don't need to listen to talk radio to learn that.

It strikes me that when you remove the personal attacks, the name calling, and the useless information, there's not much for these guys to say.
 
TheBigA said:
As if she's the only one.

Come on, people. Let's grow up. Politicians pander to voters. It's how the game is played. We don't need to listen to talk radio to learn that.

It strikes me that when you remove the personal attacks, the name calling, and the useless information, there's not much for these guys to say.
Click to expand...

When you remove attacks, name calling and useless information, you get Thom Hartmann.
 
Name calling is inflammatory and against the TOS here. Please refrain from it.

Being industry professionals, amateurs, hobbyists and fans of broadcasting, we should show each other respect. Everyone does have an opinion. Please do not let someone else's differing opinion on any subject matter discussed here reduce you to comments that require moderation. You all are pleasant people... and despite the disagreements, I know you can "get along".
 
Actually, the current style of talk radio has been very effective at removing listeners.
 
FredLeonard said:
Actually, the current style of talk radio has been very effective at removing listeners.
Click to expand...

I said the same thing about tight playlist music formats chasing away listeners through boredom. But the suits who post in here swear that radio listening is on the increase. I suspect they'll say the same thing about news/talk stations. Reality cannot withstand being rebutted by "scientific" testing, even if it is about as accurate as reading the entrails of a chicken.
 
Avid Listener said:
I said the same thing about tight playlist music formats chasing away listeners through boredom. But the suits who post in here swear that radio listening is on the increase. I suspect they'll say the same thing about news/talk stations.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that most people who can afford access to the very best research and audience studies usually have "a horse in the race" and they quote the portions of research and studies that supports their horse.

So. If I am the consultant or executive at a major market highly ranked station, and I execute programming changes at the station I am responsible for, and honchos at similar stations at markets all across the nation spot the same trends and make the same changes, when we get together at the next convention, we will sit around and talk and all come to the same observation. This format change made the audience larger.

These folks have no vested interest in asking: Where did the new listeners come from? Are they people who previously were not listening to radio of any kind, and when they found out about my changes, they suddenly became NEW, ADDED listeners to radio.... or did I just steal listeners from other stations in the market, and from smaller market stations clustered around the metro market who don't subscribe to surveys and don't show up in surveys.

I am looking for the guy who can step up in front of the room and demonstrate to me that today's total radio audience at any given time is larger than the total radio audience 15, 20 or 30 years ago. Curious minds want to know.

And I would want that expert to explain whether more people are listening more hours, or more people (total) are listening today, but they listen fewer hours per week and interesting flotsam that a number-grinder like me would find interesting.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom