Biased terminology on KTRH

[Delete My Account]

I would argue that the use of "hordes of" makes the phrase sensational and slanted to alarm or confirm the politics of the audience.

I wonder if they're equally passionate about law and order when they're covering the events of Jan. 6th or the legal issues of the preferred presidential candidate of their hosts?

In 2021 86% of convictions for trafficking fentanyl were US citizens:

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Fentanyl_FY21.pdf

90% of the fentanyl interdicted is captured at ports of entry, primarily in vehicles driven by those US citizens. Not "illegals."

Fact Sheet: DHS is on the Front Lines Combating Illicit Opioids, Including Fentanyl | Homeland Security

Updated data from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released on December 22, 2023, shows that through the end of November, over 5,500 pounds of illicit fentanyl have already been seized by CBP and HSI in the first two months of FY 2024, with over 3,000 pounds seized in November alone.

www.dhs.gov

I get why it's being broadcast the way it is, but it's irresponsible and slanted. But too many people just want to hear what they want to hear, and not be confused with the facts when their mind is already made up. Stations like KTRH have become the aural equivalent of the National Enquirer. Most of the talk shows are just the political equal to Coast to Coast AM.

And at one point there was pretty significant support for immigration reform by a Republican president long before the "language policing" and before most people outside the civil rights movement had even heard the term "woke." So maybe one side prefers softer language, but it could be argued their political opponents have grown to prefer more radical positions and rhetoric.

 

[tb_]

I listen to quite a bit of KTRH's talk programming, and enjoy it -- but IMO, it's hard to consider KTRH a "news" station anymore, despite the "News Radio" moniker, and I think they'd be better served by not referring to themselves accordingly.

Take into context what runs during the 9am hour on KTRH... Michael Berry's show, a very conservative talk program. Not saying it's right by any means, but KTRH is just making an effort at providing the content that their listeners want to hear.

 

[Rusty Muck]

It gives the impression of credibility. Plus they're sponsored. Advertisers don't want their spots in controversial talk programming. So you schedule them during the newscast, that's supposedly not controversial. Except it basically promotes the same agenda.

The Wall Street Journal Radio Network shut down because blue-chip advertising wanted no part of the talk format after the Sandra Fluke fiasco and the WSJRN was collateral damage. Most network newscast spot loads are less than desiring. Newsmax has been an advertiser on ABC News Radio and that is not what I'd call a quality advertiser.

Having a six-minute hole at the TOH for a newscast that is at total odds with the format is not smart programming. It barely made sense in 1994. Just start the shows at :00 and give up any pretenses of trying to be something you are not.

 

[TheBigA]

The Wall Street Journal Radio Network shut down because blue-chip advertising wanted no part of the talk format after the Sandra Fluke fiasco and the WSJRN was collateral damage.

Not exactly true. The network had a terrible affiliate base and it came when a lot of services aimed at AM radio were in decline. Dow Jones found cheaper and better ways to get its content to investors.

But yes, most national advertisers have clauses in their contracts that specifically say the spots may not air in controversial programming. Newscasts usually don't get that label.

 

[radiofan2023]

Most of the talk shows are just the political equal to Coast to Coast AM.

Coast to Coast AM also includes political segments at the top of the hour and has some political guests too. I think that earthquake in New York was caused by Art Bell spinning in his grave.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm not going to discuss my own views on immigration here because that's not what my post was about. The post was about the use of loaded, biased language in what ostensibly were newscasts. Anything otherwise is a form of deflection and evasion of a discussion of such usage.

To you, that is "biased language". To many, calling undocumented migrants "illegals" is simply stating the fact that they have entered the U.S. without a visa or permit and with no verification of their identity, criminal history, etc.

My relatives who were born outside the U.S. had to go through a lengthy process starting with filling in forms at an American Consulate, then proceeding to an interview with a consular official to get a temporary visa and then having to go through additional paperwork once in the US to achieve permanent residence... usually requiring the help of an attorney... and then more years of wait until citizenship eligibility was possible. And for that there was a further background check, a test even I could not pass without studying and, finally, the swearing in ceremony.

I find it ironic, to put it mildly, that those who are quick to growl about threads turning political have engaged in exactly that behavior here. Not that credibility seems to matter to those of you who did that, either in that or the original topic that I started on the use of biased terms.

This is about a station in Houston using the term "illegals" to describe illegal or undocumented (same thing) immigrants.

I get annoyed when I hear "other" kinds of news stations talking about those same immigrants as "refugees" and "undocumented immigrants". Most are not refugees, and the other term is pure hyperbole.

There are multiple perspectives here, and we are talking about one radio station in Houston's use of a term that some people find demeaning and other find, simply, factual.

 

[davideduardo]

I would argue that the use of "hordes of" makes the phrase sensational and slanted to alarm or confirm the politics of the audience.

I wonder if they're equally passionate about law and order when they're covering the events of Jan. 6th or the legal issues of the preferred presidential candidate of their hosts?

You are changing the subject. In this case, it is about the propriety of a station in Houston using the term "illegals" on the air to describe undocumented immigrants making illegal entry into the United States.

In 2021 86% of convictions for trafficking fentanyl were US citizens:

Of course that is true. Once the "wholesalers" get their drugs across the border, the traffickers are nearly always local residents across the country who sell the drugs retail. The cartels are far better organized and don't get caught because they don't engage in the "street corner and club" sales of drugs.

In any case, we are discussing the massive flow of undocumented migrants, not drug trafficking, and the terminology used to describe those migrants on one station in Houston. And the term "hordes" seems to be synonymous with "massive flow" as evidenced by hundreds of pictures of huge throngs of migrants coming across the U.S. border.

Again, there are those of us who seem to favor an open door limitless migration policy and others who want the U.S. to have the same requirements today as they did decades ago when many of my family members came, legally, to the U.S. Or what I had to do to establish residency in Ecuador in the 60's.

 

[TheBigA]

This is about a station in Houston using the term "illegals" to describe illegal or undocumented (same thing) immigrants.

Actually I don't care about the one word. My problem is with the imagery of ''hordes of illegals.'' As in swarms of locusts.

The intent is to create panic and to motivate anger. Keep in mind there are people in this country who resent LEGAL immigrants or even people born in this country, but raised with ethnic heritage. That kind of anti-immigrant language isn't good for anyone.

 

[davideduardo]

Actually I don't care about the one word. My problem is with the imagery of ''hordes of illegals.'' As in swarms of locusts.

It is, of course, a bit exaggerated. But when you speak with those opposed to open door policies, it is simply "dramatic". You should hear the comments I heard from family members yesterday when I polled them on the immigration wave of the last three years: the terms can't be posted here!

I find the "coddling" terms of some other media outlets to be equally problematic. But each is speaking to their constituency in the language they use.

 

[davideduardo]

I listen to quite a bit of KTRH's talk programming, and enjoy it -- but IMO, it's hard to consider KTRH a "news" station anymore, despite the "News Radio" moniker, and I think they'd be better served by not referring to themselves accordingly.

Take into context what runs during the 9am hour on KTRH... Michael Berry's show, a very conservative talk program. Not saying it's right by any means, but KTRH is just making an effort at providing the content that their listeners want to hear.

I think this sums up what I wanted to say: radio stations or any other media outlet will speak to their followers in the manner that those same people speak with friends and followers. As you say, "what their listeners want to hear".

 

[davideduardo]

Speaking as moderator and not "poster" now: let's keep this about the language used by KTRH in Houston, not about the politics of January 6th or the upcoming presidential campaign.

Fact: KTRH called undocumented immigrants "illegals". Is that appropriate for a radio station and radio show... or not?

 

[TheBigA]

Fact: KTRH called undocumented immigrants "illegals". Is that appropriate for a radio station and radio show... or not?

As I said, it's not just the use of one word, but the imagery of "hordes of illegals." It's factually not true. Immigrants know what their status is. Gathering in hordes makes them more susceptible to arrest and deportation. But the question isn't whether or not it's appropriate. President Biden used the word during his SOTU. He recognized what he did. It's more about the intent and the purpose. You might as well call them vermin or animals, poisoning our blood. Oh, sorry, someone already has. That's obviously made it acceptable. But a day will come when what began as talk will be used as a weapon. The question is how far do people want to go?

 

[Rusty Muck]

At the end of the day, the question needs to be if a talk radio station should be airing newscasts of any kind to begin with. The current format clocks are from a method of programming that is decades old and is as obsolete as the notion that a typical talk radio listener wants to hear the news from anyone else other than the show host.

 

[TheBigA]

At the end of the day, the question needs to be if a talk radio station should be airing newscasts of any kind to begin with. =

That's a question for the radio station. They do it for a reason.

 

[Rusty Muck]

That's a question for the radio station. They do it for a reason.

It's a question of if they even care.

It's no secret the audience for talk radio as a whole continues to get older, grayer and die off and no plan B exists for the majority of these stations. So just put it on autopilot and ride the station into irrelevance and obsolence. KTRH is all-syndicated after 8am on weekdays (Michael Berry is syndicated enough to the point his show is no longer "local" in any sense of the word and hasn't been for over a decade) so it's just a soulless jukebox with minimum overhead, just like any other generic talk station in Chillicothe, Ohio, or Mobile, Alabama.

But I digress.

 

[TheBigA]

It's a question of if they even care.

Its sponsored, so damn right they care. As you yourself said, doing local news is an expense. If they didn't care, they'd cut the expense.

 

[Rusty Muck]

As you yourself said, doing local news is an expense. If they didn't care, they'd cut the expense.

Again, wouldn't a typical talk radio listener only want to hear the news as delivered by the show host? That's learned behavior from how Rush did his show 30 years ago.

iHeart has cut, merged and consolidated news departments at all their talk stations over the years (WTAM's newsroom has been managed by WLW for years and is a pale shadow of what it had been) so it is very much an expense they have already cut and will continue to cut.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, wouldn't a typical talk radio listener only want to hear the news as delivered by the show host?

Again, if the station wants to save money, wouldn't they cut the news guy? If not, maybe there's a reason.

What's your interest in having iHeart fire more people?

 

[Rusty Muck]

They're two different functions. Newscasters aren't talk show hosts, and talk show hosts aren't newscasters.

Listeners to talk radio ascribe newscaster duties to the show host anyway. They did it with Rush, and because Rush was (in his heyday) enough of an entertainer, the lines were easily blurred back then and never got unblurred.

 

[TheBigA]

Listeners to talk radio ascribe newscaster duties to the show host anyway. They did it with Rush, and because Rush was (in his heyday) enough of an entertainer, the lines were easily blurred back then and never got unblurred.