Boortz Admits Station Owners' Agendas Determine Talk Radio Lineups

[smedge2006]

Neal Boortz spent part of his show today explaining why he isn't on the air in Houston anymore.

After his previous Houston affiliate (KFNC) changed formats, Boortz's syndicator (Jones) approached the Houston Salem talker for clearance. The local station manager, Boortz said, wanted to put his show on, but he was overruled by corporate, all the way up to Chairman Stu Epperson, according to an e-mail from the affiliate relations department. The problem was Boortz's pro-choice stance on abortion and his support for legalizing gay marriage, positions consistent with his quasi-Libertarian philosophy.

I find this interesting, since Boortz has been at the head of the parade of those claiming that the only reason Air America had trouble gaining affiliates and went into bankruptcy was because "the marketplace" and ratings showed no support for liberal talk radio.

Is this finally an admission by Boortz that factors other than ratings or audience interest determine what is heard on talk radio stations? That the owners of these stations sometimes have an agenda that thwarts and overrules the actual levels of listener interest?

I think Boortz should do an about face on the Fairness Doctrine. Houston is too important a market not to have...

 

[Radio_Realist]

There are a few mistakes in your launch post and thread title.

First, Boortz "admitted" nothing. He "revealed" something. The word "admitted" implies some sort of confession, which is not the least bit accurate in this situation.

Second, Boortz only reveal that one stationn owner's agenda determined the line-up of that one station. The apostrophe belongs before the "s", because it's only about the owner of KFNC in Houston station, not about station owners collectively. Your tangent about whether it's owners who determine what goes on their stations because of their own agendas is neither proven nor negated by what you said about what Neal Boortz said.

Finally, as has been pointed out in the discussion of the Fairness Doctrine, re-implementing it will not give more people "voices" on the radio, unless one is discussing musical recording artists. Because a return of the Fairness Doctrine will absolutely, positively not bring more diversity to news/talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine will simple cause all political voices on the radio to be silenced.

 

[SaltyDog]

If politics determined programming, Entercom wouldn't have any conservative talk stations. CEO David Field is a Democrat and he runs a bunch of them.

 

[jal41]

If politics determined programming, Entercom wouldn't have any conservative talk stations. CEO David Field is a Democrat and he runs a bunch of them.

Neither would Cox, owner of WSB-AM, and employer of Mr. Boortz. (Cox's only other syndicated show is fellow WSB host Clark Howard). The company was started by a Democrat, former Ohio Governor James Cox about 100 years ago. I am not sure of the current political climate at Cox now, but I suspect more Democratic.

Generally, it doesn't matter political affilation. Most radio companies are united in $$$$$$.

Salem, as well as Crawford Broadcasting, are exceptions to the rule. They were created to preach Bible thumping Conservative Christian views, although they are commercial operations. If a host were to promote a ban on prayer (the "invocation") at local city council meetings, they would be fired within seconds.

Look at the history of the owners, and you generally will know what you are dealing with.

 

[smedge2006]

Finally, as has been pointed out in the discussion of the Fairness Doctrine, re-implementing it will not give more people "voices" on the radio, unless one is discussing musical recording artists. Because a return of the Fairness Doctrine will absolutely, positively not bring more diversity to news/talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine will simple cause all political voices on the radio to be silenced.

Not to beat an old horse, but there was plenty of talk radio in the Fairness Doctrine era, and a higher percentage of it was local than is now the case. The late Joe Pyne, Bob Grant, and many others worked in the era of FD.

The growth of talk radio in the 80's was mainly due to satellites making it cheaper to syndicate shows to smaller markets that couldn't afford to keep a local lineup on all day. The Fairness Doctrine repeal happened at the same time but was only a coincidence. It was seized upon in the early 90's by writers, columnists and pundits who don't have a radio background and were looking for an explanation of the Rush phenomenon.

 

[SaltyDog]

I agree with you smedge but I'm also thinking that no one would welcome the return of "The Fairness Doctrine" more than XM and Sirius. At that point, I think even I'd subscribe.

 

[evnlee]

Finally, as has been pointed out in the discussion of the Fairness Doctrine, re-implementing it will not give more people "voices" on the radio, unless one is discussing musical recording artists. Because a return of the Fairness Doctrine will absolutely, positively not bring more diversity to news/talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine will simple cause all political voices on the radio to be silenced.

Not to beat an old horse, but there was plenty of talk radio in the Fairness Doctrine era, and a higher percentage of it was local than is now the case. The late Joe Pyne, Bob Grant, and many others worked in the era of FD.

The growth of talk radio in the 80's was mainly due to satellites making it cheaper to syndicate shows to smaller markets that couldn't afford to keep a local lineup on all day. The Fairness Doctrine repeal happened at the same time but was only a coincidence. It was seized upon in the early 90's by writers, columnists and pundits who don't have a radio background and were looking for an explanation of the Rush phenomenon.

aww. smedge, are you still sore that AAR got yanked off Atlanta's airwaves? I thought you were content in your conspiracy thoeries that AAR was just wonderful, but that mean ol' station owner couldn;t stand them :

While I believe you are correct about there being more local talk when the FD was in place, there's clearly more talk overall nowadays.

Hey Smedge, the FD wont bring back AAR. Time to move on, buddy

 

[AKLes]

I agree with you smedge but I'm also thinking that no one would welcome the return of "The Fairness Doctrine" more than XM and Sirius. At that point, I think even I'd subscribe.

Until, of course, somebody figures out that the RF XM and Sirius beams down from space passes through the same atmosphere and therefore must, sooner or later, be subject to the same rules that apply to AM, FM, TV, etc. I mean their nasty little rays are coming right through the roof of my house and even an aluminum foil cap can't keep them out. Besides, there's money to be made off this somehow and it's only a matter of time before some future administration gets tax-happy enough to figure that out. Also that the money from fines against satellite broadcasters spends just as well as money from fines against the others.

 

[ajhenderson]

Anything Boortz says about clearances is meaningless. Whenever he gets kicked off a station, he plans a campaign to ruin their ratings (blah, blah, blah) and bashes his former affiliate if and when he gets on another station in the market (most recently, see:KVCE/Dallas vs. KLIF). Unprofessional, bad for JRN, and makes him look like a fool. He's just mad he got booted in "Houston" (read: Beaumont with a shoddy 50dBu pattern over Pasadena). As to Salem, it's not his fault but Salem doesn't run any non-SRN shows, save Laura Ingraham and a handful of superconservatives in a few other markets.

From boortz.com
".... In as short a time as possible I want our numbers on KVCE to surpass those of KLIF. They had their chance, they said no. So now let's grind them into the dirt. So ... spread the word! Boortz is back in Dallas, "
http://boortz.com/nuze/200609/09182006.html