Bill Press Finally Announces National Launch Date

[OldAkronite]

Re: In Perspective

> Sigh all you want, but I find it odd that Brian Maloney has
> somehow become the go-to guy for right-wing pundits when it
> comes to denigrating liberal/progressive talk radio. But
> maybe it will lead to a real job for him somewhere.

Or maybe he's just writing a blog because he enjoys writing a blog. Do you have an inside track into Brian's current career prospects? Careful, or you'll look silly if he's about to land on a major station somewhere.

Besides, "right-wing pundits" don't need a "go-to guy" for this stuff. They do it all on their own anyway. Most of the current syndicated conservative voices who take pot shots at liberal talk radio in general are certainly versed enough in the business to take those pot shots without Brian's help.

If anything, if they want something in their hands when they take aim at their left-leaning competitors, they have a printout from Matt Drudge's site in hand.

-OA

 

[Tom_]

Re: Brian was NOT the only conservative let go from KIRO...710 KIRO transitions to a mostly liberal station...

I think that Brian has some valid points in his articles about problems with both liberal and conservative talk radio. As to Brian's Seattle situation with 710 KIRO (Entercom), Brian was NOT the only conservative let go late last summer. Conservative veteran weekend host Gary Ryan was also let go at about the same time.

The entire KIRO weekend schedule is now mostly liberal, with Erin Hart, Carl Jeffers, Turi Ryder, and centerist Frank Shiers, along with organic-gardening host extraordinaire Cisco Morris, gourmet chef Tom Douglas, Bob Brinker, and local news 6a-10a on Sat and Sun. Weekend host Frank Shiers seems to be a centerist with conservative viewpoints, so they could have easily kept Brian as a conservative weekend host, in my opinion.

I forget my exact calculation, but I think 710 KIRO now has at least 70-80 hours of live, local, liberal call-in talk programs per week...Prior to the transitions the station had just 40 hours per week (Ross,Webb,Jeffers,Hart). Now they have added 7 more hours each weekday (Prell 9-NOON, Ventrella 3-6, and one more hour of Mike Webb, 9p-1a M-F).


> > Sigh all you want, but I find it odd that Brian Maloney
> has
> > somehow become the go-to guy for right-wing pundits when
> it
> > comes to denigrating liberal/progressive talk radio. But
> > maybe it will lead to a real job for him somewhere.
>
> Or maybe he's just writing a blog because he enjoys writing
> a blog. Do you have an inside track into Brian's current
> career prospects? Careful, or you'll look silly if he's
> about to land on a major station somewhere.
>
> Besides, "right-wing pundits" don't need a "go-to guy" for
> this stuff. They do it all on their own anyway. Most of
> the current syndicated conservative voices who take pot
> shots at liberal talk radio in general are certainly versed
> enough in the business to take those pot shots without
> Brian's help.
>
> If anything, if they want something in their hands when they
> take aim at their left-leaning competitors, they have a
> printout from Matt Drudge's site in hand.
>
> -OA
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: In Perspective

> > Sigh.
>
> Sigh all you want, but I find it odd that Brian Maloney has
> somehow become the go-to guy for right-wing pundits when it
> comes to denigrating liberal/progressive talk radio. But
> maybe it will lead to a real job for him somewhere.
> >
>

I agree with OA--I think "right-wing pundits" can judge liberal talk for themselves by listening to it. I've done so, and I'm far from a pundit, and not necessarily right-wing. Air America is a shabby operation; Ed Schultz is pretty good. Jerry Springer needs to stop shouting at me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.

And for the record, I was sighing the invocation of Richard Mellon Scaife. Much like George Soros doesn't fund EVERY left-wing cause, so Scaife doesn't fund every right-wing one, despite what the talking points may mention.

Also for the record, unlike Soros (whose AAR ties are still mere conjecture), Scaife is a radio man--he's a major investor in Calvary Inc., which has owned Newsradio 1410 KQV/Pittsburgh since the early 80s. And before you go off on it, it is a news station: all news; the only talk is Bruce Williams on the weekends and old-time radio shows weekend nights. The only right-wing bent is maybe in the editorials/commentaries by the GM Robert Dickey--where such things are and have been in radio for many years.

 

[Scribbler]

Re: In Perspective

> >
>
> I agree with OA--I think "right-wing pundits" can judge
> liberal talk for themselves by listening to it.

They could, but there's been a recent spate of columns and blogs heralding the "failure" of liberal talk radio and citing the same 12+ ratings that Brian so carefully cherry-picks to prove his point. I seriously doubt that Michelle Malkin, etc. are scouring the Arbitrons on their own.

> so, and I'm far from a pundit, and not necessarily
> right-wing. Air America is a shabby operation; Ed Schultz
> is pretty good. Jerry Springer needs to stop shouting at
> me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.

Fine. That's your opinion. I notice that you haven't tried to back up your opinion by comparing the 12+ shares of suburban pea shooters with 50,000 watt powerhouses to prove that lib talk is "failing." Good for you.
>
> And for the record, I was sighing the invocation of Richard
> Mellon Scaife. Much like George Soros doesn't fund EVERY
> left-wing cause, so Scaife doesn't fund every right-wing
> one, despite what the talking points may mention.

The invocation of Scaife was done tongue-in-cheek, in response to the right-wing fantasy that Soros is the only reason that Air America is still on the air.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

The lib talk future: In Perspective

> > so, and I'm far from a pundit, and not necessarily
> > right-wing. Air America is a shabby operation; Ed Schultz
>
> > is pretty good. Jerry Springer needs to stop shouting at
> > me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.
>
> Fine. That's your opinion. I notice that you haven't tried
> to back up your opinion by comparing the 12+ shares of
> suburban pea shooters with 50,000 watt powerhouses to prove
> that lib talk is "failing." Good for you.

And I have advocated here that it is WAY too early to determine how liberal talk as a full-complement format is doing compared to conservatice talk. AAR has been around for a little over a year--on a small handful of stations. The bulk didn't come until later.

However, at some point in the semi-near future, even if the lib talkers don't get off the pea-shooters, we will have to compare what they have done vs. the conservative talkers, signal-coverage issues and all. That time is not now. But there will have to be a comparison at some point in the future, and we'll have to look at things as they are. The "we have a bad signal" argument will either end because of better signals, or out of respect for empirical comparison--and those who latch onto the poor signal argument say a year or so from now are those who are unwilling to accept whatever the result may be.

My opinion/prediction--in a year, you won't have AAR as currently situated (too many hosts, not enough talent, not enough stations), and you won't have nearly as many liberal talk hosts in general. Not all of them can succeed in the marketplace; some may be regional hits, others national, some neither and will go back to their local stations or some other employ. There will be a big one or two--so as to equal (balance?) Limbaugh and Hannity. There may well be a network of lib talk hosts, lesser ones, on stations owned by the network (ala Salem). But the tier factor will be in place--you won't be able to get everyone on one station, or even in one market.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 06/21/05 01:13 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Scribbler]

Re: The lib talk future: In Perspective

>
> And I have advocated here that it is WAY too early to
> determine how liberal talk as a full-complement format is
> doing compared to conservatice talk. AAR has been around
> for a little over a year--on a small handful of stations.
> The bulk didn't come until later.
>
> However, at some point in the semi-near future, even if the
> lib talkers don't get off the pea-shooters, we will have to
> compare what they have done vs. the conservative talkers,
> signal-coverage issues and all. That time is not now. But
> there will have to be a comparison at some point in the
> future, and we'll have to look at things as they are. The
> "we have a bad signal" argument will either end because of
> better signals, or out of respect for empirical
> comparison--and those who latch onto the poor signal
> argument say a year or so from now are those who are
> unwilling to accept whatever the result may be.
>
> My opinion/prediction--in a year, you won't have AAR as
> currently situated (too many hosts, not enough talent, not
> enough stations), and you won't have nearly as many liberal
> talk hosts in general. Not all of them can succeed in the
> marketplace; some may be regional hits, others national,
> some neither and will go back to their local stations or
> some other employ. There will be a big one or two--so as to
> equal (balance?) Limbaugh and Hannity. There may well be a
> network of lib talk hosts, lesser ones, on stations owned by
> the network (ala Salem). But the tier factor will be in
> place--you won't be able to get everyone on one station, or
> even in one market.
>
A good, thoughtful analysis -- unlike the premature death notices in Brian's blogs and the columns and blogs that parrot him, sometimes with credit and sometimes not.

 

[Scribbler]

Re: In Perspective

>
>
> Or maybe he's just writing a blog because he enjoys writing
> a blog. Do you have an inside track into Brian's current
> career prospects? Careful, or you'll look silly if he's
> about to land on a major station somewhere.

Why would I look "silly"? I've never heard the guy's on-the-air work, but his writing indicates that he's skilled in taking quotes and statistics out of context to push his agenda. Sounds like a skill that's highly valued in much of talk radio.
>
> Besides, "right-wing pundits" don't need a "go-to guy" for
> this stuff. They do it all on their own anyway. Most of
> the current syndicated conservative voices who take pot
> shots at liberal talk radio in general are certainly versed
> enough in the business to take those pot shots without
> Brian's help.

Michelle Malkin and other conservative columnists and bloggers based their recent "Air America is a failure" flurry on Brian's blogs and articles, sometimes with credit, sometimes not. And I wasn't aware that Malkin (and others) were versed in the radio business.
>
> If anything, if they want something in their hands when they
> take aim at their left-leaning competitors, they have a
> printout from Matt Drudge's site in hand.

Drudge hasn't devoted this phase of his life to denigrating liberal talk radio and seems to rely on Brian as a source.

 

[nate81]

Re: The lib talk future: In Perspective

> > > so, and I'm far from a pundit, and not necessarily
> > > right-wing. Air America is a shabby operation; Ed
> Schultz
> >
> > > is pretty good. Jerry Springer needs to stop shouting
> at
> > > me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.
> >
> > Fine. That's your opinion. I notice that you haven't
> tried
> > to back up your opinion by comparing the 12+ shares of
> > suburban pea shooters with 50,000 watt powerhouses to
> prove
> > that lib talk is "failing." Good for you.
>
> And I have advocated here that it is WAY too early to
> determine how liberal talk as a full-complement format is
> doing compared to conservatice talk. AAR has been around
> for a little over a year--on a small handful of stations.
> The bulk didn't come until later.
>
> However, at some point in the semi-near future, even if the
> lib talkers don't get off the pea-shooters, we will have to
> compare what they have done vs. the conservative talkers,
> signal-coverage issues and all. That time is not now. But
> there will have to be a comparison at some point in the
> future, and we'll have to look at things as they are. The
> "we have a bad signal" argument will either end because of
> better signals, or out of respect for empirical
> comparison--and those who latch onto the poor signal
> argument say a year or so from now are those who are
> unwilling to accept whatever the result may be.
>
> My opinion/prediction--in a year, you won't have AAR as
> currently situated (too many hosts, not enough talent, not
> enough stations), and you won't have nearly as many liberal
> talk hosts in general. Not all of them can succeed in the
> marketplace; some may be regional hits, others national,
> some neither and will go back to their local stations or
> some other employ. There will be a big one or two--so as to
> equal (balance?) Limbaugh and Hannity. There may well be a
> network of lib talk hosts, lesser ones, on stations owned by
> the network (ala Salem). But the tier factor will be in
> place--you won't be able to get everyone on one station, or
> even in one market.
>

I concur entirely. Any talk of a "death sentence" for lib talk is completly premature. CC even laid out a 50KW station in WCKY/1530 (!), so lib talk isn't just going to tiny 1KW peashooters. It takes time. Deal with it.

AAR easily could go the Salem route of owning most-if-not-all affils (though do I want them to, considering Salem? But that would take years - even though flagship WLIB is under their belt.

Oh, and MSNBC's had the same flurry of death watches over the past few years, but somehow they manage to survive...

- nate81<P ID="signature">______________
Nathan Obral
University Partership Representative
Student Senate
Lorain County Community College, Elyria, Ohio

http://www.lorainccc.edu</P>

 

[doc9464]

Re: In Perspective

> They could, but there's been a recent spate of columns and
> blogs heralding the "failure" of liberal talk radio and
> citing the same 12+ ratings that Brian so carefully
> cherry-picks to prove his point. I seriously doubt that
> Michelle Malkin, etc. are scouring the Arbitrons on their
> own.

I doubt it too....from many of the postings listed in google or other sources, the cut and paste function seems to be leading the way over any detailed analysis....its a shame..... I wish there was a way to see the demographic data even in a reduced way as is done with the 12+ data....until then, I don't see a good way to measure the success of Lib Radio...but i think as long as more stations sign up and the word of mouth continues...then lib radio will have a home in several towns...


> > me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.
>
Then I know you havent been listening to NPR...there is a wealth of great and entertaining options on NPR...if you don't like NPR thats ok but at least listen to it..and not just the shows people use to "show" they listened to NPR...all things considered and morning edition...


> The invocation of Scaife was done tongue-in-cheek, in
> response to the right-wing fantasy that Soros is the only
> reason that Air America is still on the air.

I think all Conservatives and Liberals can agree that this Soros thing is a talking point and a result of the "echo" machine....Soros is not funding AAR to help it survive. Until someone can prove that, then this should go on the distortion list or list of falsehoods until data appears to the counterwise on it

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: In Perspective

> > > me. NPR needs to be less goddamn boring and monotone.
> >
> Then I know you havent been listening to NPR...there is a
> wealth of great and entertaining options on NPR...if you
> don't like NPR thats ok but at least listen to it..and not
> just the shows people use to "show" they listened to
> NPR...all things considered and morning edition...

For the record, and to avoid confusion, it was I who stated that opinion about NPR, and not Scribbler. That said, my aversion to NPR is a personal thing--I have listened, as much as I was able to stomach, and I just find it boring and overly stodgy: there's a place for that in the overall debate, as I relate a number of the Salem hosts to the "NPR of the conservatives" (e.g., Dennis Prager and Bill Bennett). They're rather straight fact, straight talk oriented--sort of like news readers hosting a talk show.

I like Rush, and Schultz (at times) and G. Gordon Liddy because of the excitement they bring to the air...to them, it is a radio show, a theatre of the air, a show in and of itself--from imaging, to bumpers, to parodies, etc. Sure they probably ripped off alot of the stuff from others (and each other). And that's what keeps me tuned in, something MORE than just the facts, the story, the ideology. I disagree with Rush at times, I disagree with Schultz at times--but despite same, I listen because those shows are diversion and entertainment at the same time they are political discussion and contribution to the "national debate".

Just saying...