• 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

Boston Globe Columnist Joan Vennochi: Howie Carr Lost His Car!

Jane, I liked Franken, but I was one of the few.

There is a pattern, seemingly backed up by arbitron data, that says that liberals will listen to liberal and conservative radio, but conservatives listen only to conservatives. Additionally, the talk radio audience is at the older end of the radio spectrum, which overindexes among conservatives. NPR does a good job of serving the left-leaning folks and functions well as public radio with a different economic model than the private stations.

I described Field as somewhat left of center because I did not feel qualified to make a judgment of degree - too much opinion involved.
 
Al Franken had great guests, he simply had no radio "personality" and was dull. My choice would be Ed Schultz who is about as center as you can get these days. He is truly "fair and balanced" and smart. I would rather go right down the middle than be left with Savage, Coulter, hannity, etc. etc.

Yes, Randi is hardcore, but we love her. More students are progressive thinkers and if they ever discover radio you could see a big swing. The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they don't realize the power of the radio waves. It should be more of an urgent issue to push for change.
 
jane grant said:
Al Franken had great guests, he simply had no radio "personality" and was dull. My choice would be Ed Schultz who is about as center as you can get these days. He is truly "fair and balanced" and smart. I would rather go right down the middle than be left with Savage, Coulter, hannity, etc. etc.

On this we agree. The liberal talk-show hosts, almost to a person, come across as strident and lecturing...and that goes over on the radio about as well as trying to drive a nail into a piece of wood with a fish.

jane grant said:
Yes, Randi is hardcore, but we love her. More students are progressive thinkers and if they ever discover radio you could see a big swing. The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they don't realize the power of the radio waves. It should be more of an urgent issue to push for change.

If Randi would lighten up a bit (too damn shrill, too much of the time), she'd probably go over better. The biggest problem with the Democrats is not that they don't understand the power of radio, it's that their focus on talk shows is the ideology...and that is NOT what got Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and the rest of the other side where they are today. You have to give the folks a compelling reason to listen...whether it's being entertaining (Limbaugh, although he isn't nearly as entertaining now as he used to be...he's too full of himself now) or being unpredictable (Savage...it's like driving by a wreck on the highway...you have to listen to hear what he's going to do next, and find out how badly he hit the bottle today). Franken is about a close as the left wing came to doing compelling talk radio, but even he leaned too far into the ideology.

Unfortuantely students just plain don't use radio the way previous generations did, and that's mostly due to there being more choices. The baby boomers didn't have CDs, VCRs, DVDs, iPods, cell phones, MP3 players, satellite radio, the Internet or any of the other current choices. (AM radio, whose demos are currently 55 to death, is probably doomed within a decade for that reason alone.) We're seeing, even now, the adjustment of the mass media culture to accomodate all those alternatives, mostly the Internet. Radio is increasingly irrelevant to the younger generations, and any radio company worth its salt is embracing the new media, lest they find themselves out of business all too quickly.
 
dumber than a box of hair said:
The baby boomers didn't have CDs, VCRs, DVDs, iPods, cell phones, MP3 players, satellite radio, the Internet or any of the other current choices. (AM radio, whose demos are currently 55 to death, is probably doomed within a decade for that reason alone.) We're seeing, even now, the adjustment of the mass media culture to accomodate all those alternatives, mostly the Internet. Radio is increasingly irrelevant to the younger generations, and any radio company worth its salt is embracing the new media, lest they find themselves out of business all too quickly.

That's the reality. Not even HD will be able to save AM radio, and FM will soon become an afterthought in the minds of anyone currently 30 or younger.

Radio used to be good at creating a community mood way back when. I guess one could argue that's what internet chat rooms or boards like this are doing now.
 
Mickey, HDs problem is the same problem faced by all that free music on the Comcast channels. I don't know anyone who listens to the "free" music on the pay-for-cable systems. If WZLX can't put good classic rock on 24/7 on 1 channel, why should we think they are going to program compelling stuff on ZLX2, 3, 4 and ZLXHD5?

It's ludicrous. We are in an instant age. It is easier to type what you want into google, find a Pandora or Radio Paradise or Big Mattress or Wolfsgang's Vault or Archive.org online, and hit play.

Wouldn't it be more fun if Comcast and other cable providers used those 30-50 channels to give us more of what we want?
 
jane grant said:
Wouldn't it be more fun if Comcast and other cable providers used those 30-50 channels to give us more of what we want?

It might be more fun, Jane, but I don't know how they'd make a buck on it, unless they made them premium channels. Even then, it would be very hard to produce something every-one would like, just like it is in radio.

They'd have to do a lot of research to find out what "we" (those responding to surveys) want. I don't know how cost-effective that would be in the long run. It certainly wouldn't be in the short run.

Remember, these companies are out to make money, which is their right and even their duty, when you bring in shareholders.

I agree about HD, the most I listen to an HD-2 channel is WTTK's all-Irish music channel, and I only listen to that online (969irish.com). They've gotta start having Arbitron measure listenership on HD channels somehow, and start running paid commercials on those channels. How else will this version of the medium survive?
 
jane, mickey,


if those channels had talk radio from around the country - or Joan Vennochi talking - i'd probably tune in.

what a novel idea - talk radio from around the u.s.a. on the free cable channels
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom