Bonafied News

[TheBigA]

I originally posted this last Friday, and it was lost in the shuffle:

Bonafide News

Here we go again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/tom-wheeler-fcc_b_3343395.html

All Access credited this story to Huffington Post. As though HP has an editorial staff. But you can see it's an opinion post from a political action committee. This story got a lot of coverage today from the radio newsletters. But when you read the specifics, it really opens a very scary door that most broadcasters don't want opened. Or at least THIS one doesn't.

Let's start with the two Milwaukee radio stations. Yes, they are two very popular stations. But they are only two in a city that has more than 20 stations licensed to it, plus another 20 in surrounding areas. These two stations account for 15% of the listening audience. That means 85% of the audience chooses something else. Probably for good reason. Like most places, the market is filled with news sources, from broadcast, cable, online, and print. So even if we accept the fact that these two stations broke the intent of the law by denying to allow the opposing side any time, so what? It's like saying the Catholic Church refuse to allow Muslims the chance to preach to their congregation. Which, by the way, they do. And yes, radio airwaves are a public resource, and should therefore be available to all voices. But in point of fact, the way stations have been run for the past 50 years haven't been totally inclusive to all tastes and points of view.

Let's broaden the discussion from talk to music. Every day, I get an email from a listener demanding that I play their favorite artist. The airwaves are public, and they're a member of the public, therefore, they should get their favorite song played. But that's not how radio stations choose music. Back to talk: We all know that the easiest way to empty a room is to start talking politics. One side simply doesn't want to hear the other side. Just scan discussion boards to see what happens when someone presents an unpopular point of view. That's what these talk stations have to face. If they dare open the door to the other side, they risk the loss of their dedicated audience, whose only interest is to hear their opinions repeated back at them. These radio stations are private businesses, dependent on advertising for their revenue. That advertising is based on the size of their audience. To require a station to air both sides of a political discussion would not be in the best business interests of the radio station. That's why they don't do it.

Back in the days of the Fairness Doctrine, radio stations, even those that did talk, stayed away from controversial issues, because the law required them to offer the same time to any and all qualified representatives. At my station, we realized that there are so many sides to most controversial issues that it would take all day to allow everyone to present their views. So as a result, we (and many other similar stations) chose not to even open the door. We ignored all controversial issues, thus we were able to sidestep the requirement. I predict that if the FCC hears this complaint, and agrees to it, that the current news/talk format as we know it will simply go away. In a way, that's starting to happen anyway, driven by aging demographics and an advertising ban. More and more radio operators are seeing negative or controversial talk as bad for business. This complaint would simply accelerate the decline.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Same response as last time:

This complaint would simply accelerate the decline.

That's what they want.

 

[TheBigA]

I expect that Tom Wheeler will react to this the same way previous FCC Chairman have: By ignoring it. There is no upside to him getting involved in this issue. He has far bigger fish to fry.

 

[FredLeonard]

Re: Bonafide News

HERE IS MY EARLIER REPLY TO THIS POST (COURTESY OF LAZARUS)

Re: Bonafide News

Some erroneous comments:

First the "fairness doctrine" applied to station editorials, now a largely abandoned practice, not to talk shows. Talk shows were considered entertainment and the Fairness Doctrine did not apply.

Second, talk radio back then was live and local - and expensive. As a result, the format was limited to a few major market stations. Stations typically included both conservative and progressive hosts (Joe Pyne AND Michael Jackson) and took callers representing different views - not just "mega dittos." Yes, a few right-wing hosts would call those who disagreed names but the callers' views were expressed. But overall, because schedules were not limited to hosts of one political viewpoint, audiences were not limited to that viewpoint either. So, hosts had to disagree without being disagreeable to much of the audience. Hosts once did it, although BigA now wants us to believe it's impossible.

In no market with talk radio with which I am familiar were controversial issues ignored. That's simply false. A lot of wrong history has been spread in the last quarter century about the Fairness Doctrine, mainly by those in the industry with a vested interest of keeping anything other than Limbaughesque talk off the air.

The figures I've seen show talk radio getting about five per cent of the audience, not 15 per cent. And that's a small slice of an ever shrinking pie.

 

[FredLeonard]

ANOTHER REPLY

Re: Bonafide News

You know how I know you have an agenda?

Yes, a few right-wing hosts would call those who disagreed names

That's how. As if somehow left wing leaning hosts can't be "mean". Mike Malloy is 100 times more hateful than even Savage has ever been. Ed Schultz has made a career of being the combative liberal host.

You're right about the pie shrinking, but it has nothing to do with content and everything to do with new technology and the overall radio industry's lack of innovation. Music radio is dying just as fast, and you can't blame Rush Limbaugh for that.

Look to your own agenda, due, and re-read what I said. I was talking about the era in talk radio when the "fairness doctrine" was still around and hosts of various political viewpoints co-existed on one station schedule. Mike Malloy wasn't around. Wally George, Bob Grant and most especially Joe Pyne glorified in insults. Michael Jackson was unfailing civil to all. The one exception I know of was Alan Berg and he was murdered.

Bottom line: Most hosts in the day took calls from people of various viewpoints and were civil to callers - including most conservative hosts (exception noted).

Yes, there is new technology and more options. And radio showed itself unwilling and unable to compete - and plays the helpless victim. Radio managements were more interested in borrowing money to buy more stations and in cutting costs by getting rid of local talent and local content. Radio drove away advertisers by lumping commercials together into blocks making advertising far less effective and talent less necessary. Radio always had competition. Once upon a time it was willing to compete. Now it just wants to be cheap.

And nobody listens to talk radio except people representing one political segment and one demographic advvertisers don't want. I blame Rush for that. Even more, I blame the people who program Rush and his clones exclusively in talk radio. The angry, working class White geezer demo is Rush's target and that's all radio has left.

 

[FredLeonard]

Re: Bonafide News

And as you said, talk radio then was a lot nicer, friendlier, and agreeable. Hard to attract an audience that way today.

It does not seem like anybody has tried, so there's no way to know for sure.

NJ 101.5 has been successful for some 20 years in two New Jersey markets. It's not ideological. It has some edge but it's not rude - at least not to callers, sometimes to elected officials. And even with aging demographics and declining revenue for Rush-style talk, the rest of the industry won't touch the NJ 101.5 approach, which makes money and gets younger listeners. Somehow, the industry is addicted to a one-size fits all formula of right-wing rudeness.

 

[TheBigA]

First the "fairness doctrine" applied to station editorials

There was a part of the FD that applied to editorials. But no, it didn't only apply to editorials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

So, hosts had to disagree without being disagreeable to much of the audience. Hosts once did it, although BigA now wants us to believe it's impossible.

I didn't say it's impossible, but clearly audience expectations for talk radio have changed. What worked 40 years ago would be considered boring now.

Consider Congress. As Bob Dole recently said, back then, he was able to disagree without being disagreeable. He admitted that won’t work today.

In no market with talk radio with which I am familiar were controversial issues ignored. That's simply false.

My point was that a lot of radio stations then chose NOT to do talk programming specifically because of rules covering controversial issues.

And as you said, talk radio then was a lot nicer, friendlier, and agreeable. Hard to attract an audience that way today.

The figures I've seen show talk radio getting about five per cent of the audience, not 15 per cent. And that's a small slice of an ever shrinking pie.

My post specifically dealt with two stations in Milwaukee. Those two stations, according to the latest Arbitron, account for 15% of the radio audience. I thought I was very clear in that.

It does not seem like anybody has tried, so there's no way to know for sure.

NJ 101.5 has been successful for some 20 years in two New Jersey markets.

The people behind NJ 101.5 have tried to repeat their success in many other markets. In some places, it's worked, in others, it's not.

Certainly, the top syndicated hosts like Rush, Hannity, and Beck are the ones that get most of the attention. But that doesn't mean no one else is trying.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I don't buy into the line that being nice is the way to get to the top, but one part is true.

Yes, there is new technology and more options. And radio showed itself unwilling and unable to compete - and plays the helpless victim. Radio managements were more interested in borrowing money to buy more stations and in cutting costs by getting rid of local talent and local content. Radio drove away advertisers by lumping commercials together into blocks making advertising far less effective and talent less necessary. Radio always had competition. Once upon a time it was willing to compete. Now it just wants to be cheap.


There are a million reasons why radio is not doing very well now, and they're almost all related to ownership being cheap. There's no farm system to cultivate hosts to replace Rush and gang. That's due to cheapness. The same 5 or 6 syndicated guys are on every station, making them all sound the same. Cheap. Ditto for music radio. Cheap cheap cheap.

A good host can be either nice or mean to callers, and if he's good and engaging, people will listen. Political radio that advocates a particular point is usually not best served by taking opposition calls. Unless the caller is so dumb it makes his point look bad, or provides a laugh, it's just not part of the format for that kind of show. It would be like asking a classic country station to play Slayer. Shows that are based on being "fair" work best when the callers have differing views. It's all on the host.

 

[TheBigA]

There are a million reasons why radio is not doing very well now, and they're almost all related to ownership being cheap. There's no farm system to cultivate hosts to replace Rush and gang. That's due to cheapness.

Radio has always been cheap. At one time, the farm system was cheaper than hiring experienced talent for those shifts. Most of the people who were in the so-called farm system never made it to the majors. It was a cheap way to cover a shift. Now there are cheaper ways to do the same thing. But there are lots of ways to cultivate new talk hosts, and a lot of them are being cultivated right now.

 

[ProducerGuy]

But there are lots of ways to cultivate new talk hosts, and a lot of them are being cultivated right now.

I sure hope you're right. Other than where I am now, I have seen no interest in hiring good radio people for host jobs. What I have seen is lawyers and bloggers get jobs that I, as a radio guy, had to train them to do.

 

[KFodor]

Re: Bonafide News

HERE IS MY EARLIER REPLY TO THIS POST (COURTESY OF LAZARUS)

Re: Bonafide News

Some erroneous comments:

First the "fairness doctrine" applied to station editorials, now a largely abandoned practice, not to talk shows. Talk shows were considered entertainment and the Fairness Doctrine did not apply.

Second, talk radio back then was live and local - and expensive. As a result, the format was limited to a few major market stations. Stations typically included both conservative and progressive hosts (Joe Pyne AND Michael Jackson) and took callers representing different views - not just "mega dittos." Yes, a few right-wing hosts would call those who disagreed names but the callers' views were expressed. But overall, because schedules were not limited to hosts of one political viewpoint, audiences were not limited to that viewpoint either. So, hosts had to disagree without being disagreeable to much of the audience. Hosts once did it, although BigA now wants us to believe it's impossible.

In no market with talk radio with which I am familiar were controversial issues ignored. That's simply false. A lot of wrong history has been spread in the last quarter century about the Fairness Doctrine, mainly by those in the industry with a vested interest of keeping anything other than Limbaughesque talk off the air.

The figures I've seen show talk radio getting about five per cent of the audience, not 15 per cent. And that's a small slice of an ever shrinking pie.

OK, Fred:

In the early 1970's, in Dayton, Ohio...you had WAVI-AM. Locally owned, and all 2 way telephone talk from sun up to sun down (they were a daytimer). They covered both ends of the political spectrum. (Morning host was Libertarian, Midday guy was a liberal, afternoons tended to be conservative, though hosts from both ends did occupy that slot at various times.) They hung between a 3 and 6 share thru most of their existence and did, in fact make money. The company was owned by a staunch Republican, who believed in free speech. I know. I worked for him for a while. Controversial issues were not ignored. I know. I was a news guy who for a day or two was followed by local police on news beats because of death threats the station had received.

What's different today? Well, for starters...a lot more radio stations than even back then. And a lot more media outlets, too. You can find any kind of thought on the internet. Radio has niched itself in so many ways. From music to talk. The conservative talk, it turns out, brought the biggest audience. And yet, somehow people such as yourself think though information of all types is widely available today, conservative talk, the most popular and most salable form of the format, should be squelched and forced to air other thought out of "fairness". When such is not the case in other forms of media, all due to a concept of "the public airwaves" that was becoming archaic by the 1990's or certainly the early 2000's.

Yes, I will criticize all of radio for what is the bigger sin, not providing programming to serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". And many companies whose owners are from all ends of the political spectrum are flat-out guilty of this. But the internet alone negates the need for a "Fairness Doctrine" that would only apply, according to those who want it, to one type of programming on one type of station in one form of media.

I won't apologize for radio being a business.

 

[FredLeonard]

Jason, you say radio had fewer stations but more diversity in political opinion back in the day. You also say right-wing talk gets the biggest audience but the numbers you cite indicate the audience to talk radio was bigger then, too.
Does not compute.

You worked in radio. You know people in management lie. How can you tell they are lying? As we used to say, their lips are moving. What can you expect? Managers come from sales.

So, they claim their decision to do conservative talk only (even on talk duopolies) is "just business." Talk gets a bigger audience is the often-repeated claim. Really? Drive away all but the conservative choir and you get a bigger audience? How does the math work for that?

Many advertisers, blue chip consumer products companies especially, won't touch Rush and the Rushettes. The audience left is angry, old White people. Most advertisers won't touch them, either. And managers are still saying it's good business.

People running media companies have had the hubris to confuse good business and public service with whatever ax they have to grind longer than radio has been around.

 

[KFodor]

Jason, you say radio had fewer stations but more diversity in political opinion back in the day. You also say right-wing talk gets the biggest audience but the numbers you cite indicate the audience to talk radio was bigger then, too.
Does not compute.

You worked in radio. You know people in management lie. How can you tell they are lying? As we used to say, their lips are moving. What can you expect? Managers come from sales.

So, they claim their decision to do conservative talk only (even on talk duopolies) is "just business." Talk gets a bigger audience is the often-repeated claim. Really? Drive away all but the conservative choir and you get a bigger audience? How does the math work for that?

Many advertisers, blue chip consumer products companies especially, won't touch Rush and the Rushettes. The audience left is angry, old White people. Most advertisers won't touch them, either. And managers are still saying it's good business.

People running media companies have had the hubris to confuse good business and public service with whatever ax they have to grind longer than radio has been around.

Fred:

Our talk station today is, and has been, top ranked (or top 5) for a number of years now, after adding an FM signal. We have no trouble selling advertising on it, and it ranks second in the market...ratings that are far better than WAVI's back in the 70s.

We offer conservative talk, but also programs as well which are not considered controversial. If an advertiser has a problem with Limbaugh, they are simply steered to a program that might be more to their liking.

Our audience, by the way, is 25 to 54 adults, not just old, angry white men. But then again, we're also on FM, where virtually most all people under 50 are listening.

I work in talk radio today. So I know what I'm talking about. I can read ratings.

And some advertisers (national ones) who advertise on the Limbaugh show are also concerned about their image, so they also advertise on shows like Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, so to be able to tell a complaining customer they're being fair.

We succeed in a county that went for Obama in 2012 by a fairly large margin. But, we also have the best news operation in the area and do local news virtually around the clock, which a lot of the struggling news talkers no longer have, because managements have cut reporters and anchors to save money. That's my opinion. But, all the way back to my days at WAVI, we knew local news was the lynchpin to success, while the talk shows were the "entertainment" that fills the space between the commercials...just as it is today.

And, lastly...anyone who believes any talk show, Limbaugh, Hannity, Schultz or Steph are sources of "news" has rocks in their heads. These people are opinionists, they are not journalists and should not be considered such. I would agree, though because of the dumbed down public that exists that can't figure this out (blame our school systems), that perhaps there's reason to resurrect the old disclaimers we used to run. But, I would suggest an addition to them, "the opinions expressed by the hosts are those of themselves, their callers and guests, and do not necessarily represent the views of this station, it's staff, management or sponsors. While this program may offer talk and opinions about items in the news, you should be aware that this is an opinion show, not a news broadcast".

Again, just my opinion.

 

[FredLeonard]

Jason, agreed. What I find curious is that right-wing opinions are the only ones offered for the most part.

As the old saying goes, people come to the media for confirmation - not information. If a talk show host tells people what they want to hear or want to believe, it's news. If a newscast says something they don't want to hear, it's media bias. That's human nature.

 

[KFodor]

Fred:

Again, remember...these days, as opposed to the 60's and 70's...because of the large number of stations in most markets (a factor that has grown exponentially), radio is more narrowly targeted. Music stations are aimed at "women 18-34" and they couldn't care less what men want to listen to. Conversely, there are music stations which even target in some cases, as narrow as "18-34 with a 25-34 base".

Same with talk stations. You're not trying to cast your net for all listeners, you're targeting a specific demographic or life group (depending upon what type of talk you're doing). The targeting is the key. So, it doesn't surprise me you have "conservative" and "progressive" stations these days. (After all you have different kinds of rock, urban, contemporary, country and even oldies stations, right?) So far, conservative talk tends to work better than "progressive" talk in most cities. My opinion of this is that progressives will listen more to NPR, rather than commercial stations. So, the "pool" for those possible listeners to commercial radio is smaller in a lot of cities. (Which explains why our station will, from time to time, get calls from people who tell us they listen for our news, but would listen more "if we were like NPR". We tell them, "how better can you get than market or format leader?" Some will say, "But the progressive stations are on crappier channels". So was Rush in the early days. But, Rush made a ratings impact on smaller stations that was better than some of those progressive shows did on the same stations. In this business, if you get the numbers on a small stick, the big sticks will come calling.

Conservative talk, just like Fox News, was built around the idea that there was nothing on the air like it that spoke to that type of listener, a group who believed they were underserved. Again, audience targeting at work.

I would agree with your statement on confirmation - not information. But, a conservative talk station has to be very careful with its newscasts. You must report fairly. But, fairness works both ways. There are some talk stations that make the mistake of thinking their news has to always reflect the opinions of the audience. But, that's not what "news" is. Trust me. There are times I joke around the station about being "the most hated news guy in town", because sometimes I have to tell the audience something they don't want to hear.

I get just as angry, as a news person with news sources (wire service or internet) that will, for instance, say something like:

"The new unemployment numbers announced today will be a bright spot for the Administration." (When did you, the anchor, go to work for them?) "Unemployment dropped a tenth of a point, indicating more people are finding jobs". (Source that statement...who says they're finding jobs and how many?) So many times, I see stories like this and wonder if this just a sloppy news writer, or someone with an agenda. And this is what irritates a lot of people.

 

[landtuna]

As the old saying goes, people come to the media for confirmation - not information. If a talk show host tells people what they want to hear or want to believe, it's news. If a newscast says something they don't want to hear, it's media bias. That's human nature.

Well said! I think that is one reason that people like me, who are on both sides of the political fence depending on the specific issue at hand, are not satisfied listening to pompous pundits who continue hammering out their one-sided opinions.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Jason, agreed. What I find curious is that right-wing opinions are the only ones offered for the most part.

This is priceless considering how you immediately dismissed the story about Rush selling plenty of ads in that other thread.