I won't claim to have heard every ABC radio newscast in the last 30 days, but I happened to hear a good number in morning drive (with Doug Limerick) during the contentious republican primaries. ABC news anchors or reporters respectfully referenced republican candidates as "mister speaker," "senator," "congresswoman," or "governor." Actually, the candidates appeared to be more critical of each other, at times hurling charges, characterizations and accusations that seemed like a circular firing squad. Many of those same soundbites aired on Fox radio news, CBS and NPR.
-
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
BIG CHANGES AT WYSL AM-FM
- Thread starter Savage
- Start date
Savage said:
"We" can't have even a suspicion of ABC's supposedly left-wing advocacy on our airwaves, can we? "We" believe it might provide too much balance to our wall-to-wall right-wing advocacy.
And so it goes - one more fragment of America's radio audience is dumbed-down.
What it comes down too is that WYSL is owned by Robert C. Savage and if one does not like the programs or news that the station carries there are two options.
1. Call Savage on the phone, or email him, and make him an offer to buy the station then make changes.
2. Don't listen.
1. Call Savage on the phone, or email him, and make him an offer to buy the station then make changes.
2. Don't listen.
listener-in said:
You do realize that there's a difference between advocacy during newscasts and advocacy during opinion programs, right? Did you really call for news to be slanted so as to balance opinion programs?
(#2) = Agreed! (Which, without prejudice, may account for the station's standing in the Rochester book.) WHAM, with Rush, Ned Flanders and a 50kW signal, owns the core (republican segment of the) news-talk audience, leaving the crumbs for other players to divide among themselves.Mark_Giardina said:
I've been tempted to jump into this conversation at many points. After mixing it up with Mr. Savage in the past, I thought it was best to stay quiet in this thread. But in the end, I do want to weigh in here, and it may surprise him to learn that I agree with those sentiments posted by a couple of others. WYSL is his radio station, and he can do with it what he pleases, as long as he does not violate any FCC regulations, which, obviously, he is not with this change in network affiliations. Plus, I was truly pleased to learn that he now has a news director in place to enhance the stations local news coverage. That's good!
But that said, I do want to argue with his contention that ABC's newscasts were biased. I hear a lot of network newscasts here in Buffalo, from NPR to CBS to FOX. (I don't know of any ABC affiliates in Buffalo.) And in just a few minutes of news during any of the top of the hour newscasts from these networks, you get just the facts. I can't believe I'm defending FOX here, but I hear their quick hourly newscasts on the Breeze and can't detect any bias. "There are wild fires in Colorado." "The Supreme Court issued rulings on several issues today." That type of thing. The only annoying part of the newscast is their inane tag line, "We report, you decide." Now, I can't comment on the quality of SRN because I haven't heard it, and haven't taken the time to sample it. But I believe that I can safely make an assumption that in a time of big breaking news, I'd rather have a network with the resources of an ABC than an outfit such as SRN which can't have the bureaus and correspondents that ABC radio relies on because it's tied to the TV network operation.
But again, the bottom line is that WYSL is owned and operated by Mr. Savage, and he is making programming decisions that he believes are best for his listeners. I'm in Buffalo, so I'm not one of them. And because I have no desire to listen to right-wing radio hosts, I won't be checking it out online. But I still wish him well in his attempt to cover Rochester area news through the hiring of a news director.
But that said, I do want to argue with his contention that ABC's newscasts were biased. I hear a lot of network newscasts here in Buffalo, from NPR to CBS to FOX. (I don't know of any ABC affiliates in Buffalo.) And in just a few minutes of news during any of the top of the hour newscasts from these networks, you get just the facts. I can't believe I'm defending FOX here, but I hear their quick hourly newscasts on the Breeze and can't detect any bias. "There are wild fires in Colorado." "The Supreme Court issued rulings on several issues today." That type of thing. The only annoying part of the newscast is their inane tag line, "We report, you decide." Now, I can't comment on the quality of SRN because I haven't heard it, and haven't taken the time to sample it. But I believe that I can safely make an assumption that in a time of big breaking news, I'd rather have a network with the resources of an ABC than an outfit such as SRN which can't have the bureaus and correspondents that ABC radio relies on because it's tied to the TV network operation.
But again, the bottom line is that WYSL is owned and operated by Mr. Savage, and he is making programming decisions that he believes are best for his listeners. I'm in Buffalo, so I'm not one of them. And because I have no desire to listen to right-wing radio hosts, I won't be checking it out online. But I still wish him well in his attempt to cover Rochester area news through the hiring of a news director.
(#2) = Agreed! (Which, without prejudice, may account for the station's standing in the Rochester book.) WHAM, with Rush, Ned Flanders and a 50kW signal, owns the core (republican segment of the) news-talk audience, leaving the crumbs for other players to divide among themselves.
[/quote]
With regards to "the book." do you honestly feel, in your professional opinion, that there are more people in Rochester that actually listen to stations in Waterloo and Dansville but don't listen to WYSL? "The book" wants us to believe that the station in Dansville has a larger audience than WYSL; even though I personally can't pick up the Dansville station or Waterloo in my car radio.
Also consider why would major media buyers purchase time on WYSL if the station did not have an audience.
The reason WYSL does not show up in the book is because the station does not subscribe to it...plain and simple.
[/quote]
With regards to "the book." do you honestly feel, in your professional opinion, that there are more people in Rochester that actually listen to stations in Waterloo and Dansville but don't listen to WYSL? "The book" wants us to believe that the station in Dansville has a larger audience than WYSL; even though I personally can't pick up the Dansville station or Waterloo in my car radio.
Also consider why would major media buyers purchase time on WYSL if the station did not have an audience.
The reason WYSL does not show up in the book is because the station does not subscribe to it...plain and simple.
I too, have refrained from jumping on this "train leaving the station".
As the quote above notes, there are "ownership" privileges. In this case, it's "OK" for RCS to excercise them. However, on MANY, MANY other threads associated with "Group" ownership changes, M & A's, the rise and fall of dynasties et.al., the comments tended to go the other way on this concept. In other words...you can pick your nose, you can pick your seat, but you can't pick your station owner. Those "changes" occurred in these cases ALSO. IRONIC.
That's my take on human nature (FWIW) "to keep your friend close, but your enemies within firing distance, finger on trigger".
This writer is not blasting RCS by any means. In fact, I have watched the M & A's from a distance...and reached the same conclusion throughout. Roman law: ownership is 9/10ths of the law. As takeovers happened, who was the judge & jury?
The listeners, not the participants.
That's all.
HDBG
This "biased news" debate has been going on as long as I can remember. I will never be resolved("perception is reality").
As far as WYSL running SRN: whatever your personal feelings, from a business standpoint, it's the right fit for WYSL's mostly conservative talk format. Bottom line: reach your audience always(and I think Mr. Savage is doing exactly that with this move). That said, SRN would probably be the wrong news network for WWKB ;D
As far as WYSL running SRN: whatever your personal feelings, from a business standpoint, it's the right fit for WYSL's mostly conservative talk format. Bottom line: reach your audience always(and I think Mr. Savage is doing exactly that with this move). That said, SRN would probably be the wrong news network for WWKB ;D
Mark_Giardina said:
Do the stations in Dansville, Batavia and Waterloo buy the book? Dunno. Prob'ly not. So. What's to be made of that? If WHAM didn't buy the book would it suddenly slip to #7? Prob'ly not. We know the ratings game can be a crap shoot. No need to cite nomographs, deviation curves, diary recall aberrations and the like. If Arbitron really played the "buy the book and we'll give you a two share bonus game," they'd have been exposed years ago and out of business. Kudos to the WYSL sales reps for getting the big buys. The best reps sell response and relationships rather than ratings. As to the book. Sales guys, jocks, PDs and GMs have been asking questions and poking holes in theories since the first days of Hooper and Pulse and it continues today, regardless of diary or PPM.
Element9 said:
I hardly doubt neither station buys the book. But I can tell you something that will shed a light on how accurate the ratings are.
Shortly after I retired from radio my wife received a diary from Arbitron. She filled it out as requested. She mostly listens to WYSL and thus recorded it in the diary on a daily basis. Well guess what? The next book showed that WYSL did not have not a single listener. Kind of strange don't you think?
Actually, not to get too wonky on the ratings here, but....if you know anything about the "diary editing protocols" used by Arbitron and/or have made any trips to Beltsville/Silver Springs to do an actual diary inspection, the no-show of WYSL (and similar stations like Dick Greene's WECK) isn't surprising.
We generate sales because we generate results. And, without being mean, WYSL bills a multiple of what some "rated" stations do. Listen to any of the national talk shows we air - Ingraham, Quinn, Huckabee, Dr. Harry Fisch - you hear Rochester calls. The advertisers get results. Taking it all as a whole, we know there are listeners, and plenty of them, so we lose zero sleep over not showing in the dopey book.
We generate sales because we generate results. And, without being mean, WYSL bills a multiple of what some "rated" stations do. Listen to any of the national talk shows we air - Ingraham, Quinn, Huckabee, Dr. Harry Fisch - you hear Rochester calls. The advertisers get results. Taking it all as a whole, we know there are listeners, and plenty of them, so we lose zero sleep over not showing in the dopey book.
As long as I have been in broadcasting (which is way too long) there has always been excuses for bad books. Bad placement, the ratings company is crooked etc. You never hear a complaint for a good book. It does seem that WYSL does well without ratings. Of course, we don't know how much is trade or what they really charge on rates. They do seem to have a lot of agency business that other stations in the market ( that do show up in the book) don't have. WYSL does not show in the Arbitrons and my guess is, what you could find in their core audience are angry, old white guys. They make it work and since they are an independent broadcaster I think it's great. They know what works for them and it works. It's just I am old, and white enough, but not angry enough to listen.
Oh, please, Jim. You're not really going to trot out the old "old, angry white guys" stereotype again for the conservative (I would use the term "middle America") viewpoint, are you?
Look, we can note for the record: you don't like conservative talk radio. That's fine; you have a right to your opinion. So go listen to Stephanie Miller (if you can find an affiliate) or Ed Schultz or NPR and spare a successful local station operator undeserved pejoratives.
Talk radio is the most popular radio format in the industry. Its growth has been explosive ever since abolition of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It's a format which works; if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be all kinds of syndicated content flooding out of TRN, Premiere, Salem, Cumulus, Dial Global and others, plus countless local talkers on individual stations. Nobody would be interested in the "old, angry white guys" format if it didn't deliver audience. Maybe you're missing something by reflexively dismissing this format.
I knew I was whacking a hornet's nest by announcing progress for a conservative, independent talk station, all the more so when I mentioned we were affiliating with SRN, but I never thought the reaction was going to be so over-the-top. Some of the posts here are exhibiting an appalling level of xenophobia and intolerance.
I won't put anybody down here for their choice in talk content. I would appreciate the same professional courtesy.
Oh, and one more thing: there are about ten trade accounts on the radio station. We declare it all to the IRS and trade is not included in our billing figures. We only count actual cash deposited in the bank, but thanks for your concern.
Look, we can note for the record: you don't like conservative talk radio. That's fine; you have a right to your opinion. So go listen to Stephanie Miller (if you can find an affiliate) or Ed Schultz or NPR and spare a successful local station operator undeserved pejoratives.
Talk radio is the most popular radio format in the industry. Its growth has been explosive ever since abolition of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. It's a format which works; if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be all kinds of syndicated content flooding out of TRN, Premiere, Salem, Cumulus, Dial Global and others, plus countless local talkers on individual stations. Nobody would be interested in the "old, angry white guys" format if it didn't deliver audience. Maybe you're missing something by reflexively dismissing this format.
I knew I was whacking a hornet's nest by announcing progress for a conservative, independent talk station, all the more so when I mentioned we were affiliating with SRN, but I never thought the reaction was going to be so over-the-top. Some of the posts here are exhibiting an appalling level of xenophobia and intolerance.
I won't put anybody down here for their choice in talk content. I would appreciate the same professional courtesy.
Oh, and one more thing: there are about ten trade accounts on the radio station. We declare it all to the IRS and trade is not included in our billing figures. We only count actual cash deposited in the bank, but thanks for your concern.
Mark Giardina brings out an excellent point in his account of his wife's Arbitron diarykeeping. Arbitron methodology requires any listed station to exceed a certain threshold in share of market cume and/or in-tab diary mentions. If you don't clear that bar, you're listed as officially having "no audience."
Arbitron's methodology for sorting out confused/conflicting diary entries (called "diary editing protocols") is crude, antiquated and strongly favors strong incumbent stations with the same format. Consequently new stations launching new versions of heritage formats in any market are generally underrepresented in the audience estimates, sometimes massively. It's a very well-known phenomenon - and, contrary to suggestions made here by those who don't know better, it is NOT an "excuse for a bad book." It's just the way it is.
Arbitron's methodology for sorting out confused/conflicting diary entries (called "diary editing protocols") is crude, antiquated and strongly favors strong incumbent stations with the same format. Consequently new stations launching new versions of heritage formats in any market are generally underrepresented in the audience estimates, sometimes massively. It's a very well-known phenomenon - and, contrary to suggestions made here by those who don't know better, it is NOT an "excuse for a bad book." It's just the way it is.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"So go listen to Stephanie Miller (if you can find an affiliate) or Ed Schultz or NPR and spare a successful local station operator undeserved pejoratives."
These damn stereotypes keep popping up--NPR and its affiliate stations, as their listeners from all parts of the spectrum know, are the places where you can be sure that you'll hear EVERYONE, and no attempt by the network, or its stations, to sell any particular slant or viewpoint is acceptable. Go to the nonpartisan Pew Research Institute studies (should be able to find the info online) and you'll see that they consistently score the best of all broadcast media for balance and inclusiveness.
No one will criticize anyone here for bias, different people will find it in different places--but IMHO when you have a media outlet that goes out of its way to AVOID bias and present fair, inclusive coverage, it deserves to be given credit.
These damn stereotypes keep popping up--NPR and its affiliate stations, as their listeners from all parts of the spectrum know, are the places where you can be sure that you'll hear EVERYONE, and no attempt by the network, or its stations, to sell any particular slant or viewpoint is acceptable. Go to the nonpartisan Pew Research Institute studies (should be able to find the info online) and you'll see that they consistently score the best of all broadcast media for balance and inclusiveness.
No one will criticize anyone here for bias, different people will find it in different places--but IMHO when you have a media outlet that goes out of its way to AVOID bias and present fair, inclusive coverage, it deserves to be given credit.
I do listen to NPR. I have to say I think they go out of their way to present different points of view. If they have a Republican Congressperson on with a one point of view, they will go out of their way to find a spokesperson with another viewpoint & vice-verso. And I do listen to FOX radio. I think they ARE fair & balanced. Once again, if I hear a soundbite from a conservative, a liberal soundbite will follow. I hear no slant in their reporting -can't say the same for FOX-TV.
As far as listening to WYSL, I wouldn't listen to it if it was all Hispanic programing or opera either. Does that make me a bad person? Don't take it personal Bob. I only wish you success. I am not offended by the way you program your station. It just isn't my cup of tea.
As far as listening to WYSL, I wouldn't listen to it if it was all Hispanic programing or opera either. Does that make me a bad person? Don't take it personal Bob. I only wish you success. I am not offended by the way you program your station. It just isn't my cup of tea.
Savage said:
A proponent of right wing radio throwing out accusations of xenophobia, that's rich. Isn't that like Paris Hilton calling out someone for being vain?
Don't be afraid of the angry old man, he is your life-blood. Ironically enough, old guys are also a large portion of the NPR audience as well. It was Freud who 1st pointed out the phenomenon known as the narcissism of minor differences, and it certainly applies here. Embrace your inner angry old man
I am sorry, please do not take this personally, but I feel a rant coming on.....
It is so tiresome to listen to radio stations that feature less than a couple hours a day of actual local programming, claim to be “local”. A long, long time ago the local, small town AM radio station really was local. They actually had living, breathing local people employed in their programing all day. They were where young people who wanted to be in radio went for their first job, usually as a board op. This was where you could put your foot in the industry's door. Now the “local” stations pick up their low cost programming from the same national syndicates as everyone else, and there are very few feet looking to get in radio's door, and that's probably good, because there are very few doors remaining, unless that young person wants to sell airtime.
Local, small town AM radio stations used to serve entire communities, now they mostly serve only those of a certain political leaning. They cater to those who don't care for civility in political discourse, and sell their time in blocks daily to shabby PI outfits like 'Purity'. How is that serving any interest other than the bottom line?
Good grief. Let's add "clueless" to the list including "xenophobic" and "intolerant." Purity Products isn't a "shabby PI outfit." WYSL does not accept PI advertising. Purity buys program-length infomercial segments in non-critical time periods, and pays promptly for the time just like any other advertiser. They sell a high-quality line of health supplements. Their professionally-produced half-hour shows run on other stations in the market including WRMM. It's a little hard to understand why WYSL is being singled out for abuse here - unless, of course, you suspect (as I do) that it's because we cater to people who identify with center-right culture or politics. THAT apparently exposes us to a very, very high level of critical scrutiny in all we do.
Okay, I think I've got it figured out.
You guys don't like Big Corporate Radio because they overspent, piled up too much debt and have cut local product and laid off tens of thousands of talented radio professionals so they don't go broke. You're upset with public stations, because as much as you like their programming they have laid off people, cut local content and you're especially offended by WXXI's CEO's robber-baron compensation. And even though WYSL has ADDED local content and re-employed local radio pros who were downsized elsewhere, the desiderata clamored for on this board for years, you've got problems with US because we carry conservative programs and news from a network which happens to include the dreaded word "Christian" on its website. Can't have THAT.
So, I think I see the business model which would make you happy: a 50kw station powered by cow methane or solar panels from here to Lockport. Programming running the gamut from Ed Schultz to Tom Leykis to Stephanie Miller to Garrison Keillor, provided by an on-air staff of 25 people, each and every one identically compensated $110,000 per year (the all-night people get exactly the same as those on morning drive because anything else wouldn't be FAIR.) And everyone gets to program their own shifts with talk or oldies or jazz without any interference from a repressive management. Any content that's middle-American, traditional, or Christian is strictly off-limits, but if it concerns open borders, gay marriage, tax-the-rich, race-baiting or Christian-spanking, it's in. Everyone gets each Thursday off to attend SEIU, Project Acorn, Occupy Whereever and Democrat National Committee gatherings, all pursuant to a union contract that essentially makes everyone unfireable. Norm Silverstein runs the station for minimum wage but still has to donate half of it annually to the Sierra Club. The only advertisers permitted are Ben & Jerry's, Birkenstock, Whole Foods and Solyndra.
Everyone happy now?
You guys don't like Big Corporate Radio because they overspent, piled up too much debt and have cut local product and laid off tens of thousands of talented radio professionals so they don't go broke. You're upset with public stations, because as much as you like their programming they have laid off people, cut local content and you're especially offended by WXXI's CEO's robber-baron compensation. And even though WYSL has ADDED local content and re-employed local radio pros who were downsized elsewhere, the desiderata clamored for on this board for years, you've got problems with US because we carry conservative programs and news from a network which happens to include the dreaded word "Christian" on its website. Can't have THAT.
So, I think I see the business model which would make you happy: a 50kw station powered by cow methane or solar panels from here to Lockport. Programming running the gamut from Ed Schultz to Tom Leykis to Stephanie Miller to Garrison Keillor, provided by an on-air staff of 25 people, each and every one identically compensated $110,000 per year (the all-night people get exactly the same as those on morning drive because anything else wouldn't be FAIR.) And everyone gets to program their own shifts with talk or oldies or jazz without any interference from a repressive management. Any content that's middle-American, traditional, or Christian is strictly off-limits, but if it concerns open borders, gay marriage, tax-the-rich, race-baiting or Christian-spanking, it's in. Everyone gets each Thursday off to attend SEIU, Project Acorn, Occupy Whereever and Democrat National Committee gatherings, all pursuant to a union contract that essentially makes everyone unfireable. Norm Silverstein runs the station for minimum wage but still has to donate half of it annually to the Sierra Club. The only advertisers permitted are Ben & Jerry's, Birkenstock, Whole Foods and Solyndra.
Everyone happy now?
- Status