Boston Globe: has talk radio become irrelevant?

[toosmallpaul]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...8/11/08/the_rising_irrelevance_of_talk_radio/

The authors of a book about Jerry Williams wonder if talk radio isn't as influential as it
used to be. Actually it can be. Liberal and conservative talk hosts alike have lately,
and in the past, been influential in getting their listeners to stop proposals and so on.
They may have a point about the "graying of the audience". though some young people
may have caught on to talk radio this past year with the election.

there was also a surge of 'new talk radio fans' after 9/11

 

[Don62]

Great article on talk radio and the election:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...8/11/08/the_rising_irrelevance_of_talk_radio/

And the best part is, the authors understand implicitly that talk radio was not invented in 1988 by Rush Limbaugh or the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. They also take note of how the talk radio "caller" has been pushed aside.

Agreed, on the callers. Callers are what made talk radio special and unique. Now there are far fewer of them, especially on the national shows.
I like this part of the article:

[size=10pt]In other words, if Limbaugh and Michael Savage (not to mention Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and other more recent adventurers in talk) fail to attract many new listeners, they end up talking only to those who agree with their opinions, and thus have a smaller chance to affect the ideas of the electorate in general.[/size]

Maddow, however, like Stephanie Miller, is a non-factor, with such tiny affiliate numbers and openly pro-Obama support.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Talk Radio is growing less and less relevant all the time; the extremely old wingnuts (or as Phil Boyce would call them, "P-1s") are dying off, and they're not getting replaced.

The format is down the toilet unless some serious changes are made. 8)

 

[Ktmac]

I go to talk radio to get the facts. The main stream media only gives me the warm and fuzzy stories which are what I usually see on the local stations. They are so politically correct and seemed so worried about saying the wrong word.
Or the national news seems to report to me what they want to think or know. I always feel like there is a secret the government is keeping from me or that there is more or another side of the story.
I have never tuned into talk radio for the callers.
I know there are talk shows out there that are more on the outrageous side of things - that is not interesting to me at all.
I want to be informed and I seek out ways to become just that.
I feel mainstream media has become irrelevant - along with all these stupid morning shows.
They are boring and have nothing but useless information and are hosted by overpaid semi-celebrities wannabes.

 

[Board Editor]

MOVED: FCC Policy Debate: Boston Globe: has talk radio become irrelevant?

Some posts in this topic discussing the Fairness Doctrine have been moved to FCC Policy Debate.

[iurl=http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=113586.0]http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=113586.0[/iurl]

 

[almaniac27]

Great article on talk radio and the election:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...8/11/08/the_rising_irrelevance_of_talk_radio/

And the best part is, the authors understand implicitly that talk radio was not invented in 1988 by Rush Limbaugh or the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. They also take note of how the talk radio "caller" has been pushed aside.

Agreed, on the callers. Callers are what made talk radio special and unique. Now there are far fewer of them, especially on the national shows.
I like this part of the article:

[size=10pt]In other words, if Limbaugh and Michael Savage (not to mention Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and other more recent adventurers in talk) fail to attract many new listeners, they end up talking only to those who agree with their opinions, and thus have a smaller chance to affect the ideas of the electorate in general.[/size]

Maddow, however, like Stephanie Miller, is a non-factor, with such tiny affiliate numbers and openly pro-Obama support.

Talk radio callers are not that interesting. They either call in to agree with the host and therefore add nothing to the show, or they disagree but then get shouted down by the host and then hung up on. Most people tune in to hear the host say something interesting and/or outrageous.

Maddow's radio show might not be a factor, but her TV show is becoming one. And why would the liberal hosts' pro-Obama stances turn people off? He did win the election. Conservative shows were openly pro-Mccain for the most part.

 

[justareporter]

God save us all if anyone turns to talk radio for "facts."

 

[cm454]

God save us all if anyone turns to talk radio for "facts."

I 2nd that.

Anyone who believes talkradio has any interest in giving "facts" is a fool.

The minute I hear someone say "Mainstream media" I automatically assume they're a kool-aid drinkin' robot.

The Irony?

Those who are telling tales about the "MSM" are pretty big parts of the media themselves---of course the lemmings are too dumb to realize this.

 

[Don62]

God save us all if anyone turns to talk radio for "facts."

I 2nd that.

Anyone who believes talkradio has any interest in giving "facts" is a fool.

The minute I hear someone say "Mainstream media" I automatically assume they're a kool-aid drinkin' robot.

The Irony?

Those who are telling tales about the "MSM" are pretty big parts of the media themselves---of course the lemmings are too dumb to realize this.

I guess the axiom that "the customer is always right" doesn't apply here either, in talk radio, as it doesn't apply in the dominant media culture either.

 

[adma]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/did-talk-radio-kill-conservatism.html

 

[justareporter]

Enjoy.

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes