Boxer and Clinton want 'legislative fix' for talk radio

[Radio_Realist]

The estimates are around 12 not 20 million

The estimates are between 12 and 20 million. The fact is that one of the biggest problems with counting illegal aliens is that because they are illegal aliens, and simply snuck over the border in violation of the law, and are living underground and undocumented lives, no one actually knows the exact number. The best anyone can do is stick a wet finger in the air and estimate. The fact that the exact number is unknown is a fact. So, one simply picks whichever estimate that is circulating around best suits one's needs at the time. If one favors ignoring the law and throwing open the borders to anyone and everyone, then one touts the lower estimates as "fact". When one supports a sensible course of enforcing the law, then one says that the higher estimates are the "facts".

And even if they were, you would penalize spanish speaking americans who come to this country legally

Not at all. That is totally wrong and entirely untrue. I totally support using tax payer's money to fund programs to teach legal immigrants how to speak and understand English. I do not regard the use of the English language as a "penalty". It is not a punishment to become an English-speaking American, it is a privilege.

 

[evnlee]

Dont like Hannity? Tune in real radio WTKS 'real radio' for Lex and Terry...Try and tell me they are not 'alternative talk', they are most definitely not 'conservative'. And they dont play records, they take calls and talk. Boom, your wrong again.

WQBQ 1410 AM went 'silent' in 2003/04.. Why didn't you guys buy it and put Err Amerika on it? It then went to 'traveler information' and now......drumroll please...it's Spanish format.

Oh yeah, I think they have 4-5 sports talkers, as well as 2 college stations, PLUS your NPR which you say airs the very conservative 'Morning Edition'

Oh, yeah, Orlando is ranked # 34, it's not even on the 'top 20' markets board....

the two college stations run mostly music -- not a bad thing, just not talk

QBQ's a bad idea... didn't reach Orlando when it was on. 810 a better idea if it's available, or any of the unrated signals currently beaming around Orange County.

Sports isn't "alternative" ... it's mainstream ... not much to interest a liberal unless Keith Olbermann's doing his weekly shot on ESPN Radio...

I think the thread about yanking the licenses of Spanish stations is amusing... many "secure the borders" conservatives want to do the same thing they accuse us (wrongly) of wanting to do... use the government to shut down a particular type of radio... most conservative criticisms of liberals are a matter of "projection" IMHO...

plenty of 'liberals' listen to Lex and Terry~ and they do a 'talk format' , albeit more of a 'hot talk' format...The point is, although in this market with only 1.3 million listeners, there is 'alternate' programming. The fact that there are 4 conservative talkers is moot, when you consider that there are other things for liberals to listen to~ including NPR ( which you admitted airs 'Morning Edition' , WTKS, and 4 sports outlets...(Oh, liberals listen to sports, too). Now, if your going to make the case that there isn't enough 'political liberal talk' in this market, and that one of the 4 conservatives should be taken by force so that a tiny fraction of the 1.3 million will be better served, then I think you should buy an XM or Sirius receiver, or get it online, IMHO.

I think RR is pulling your chain by suggesting y'all should steal Spanish programmed signals to force feed failed 'progressive talk'...If you think about it, your assertation that one of the 4 'conservative' signals out there should be forced to program liberal talk is just as 'out there' as forcing one of the 4 or 5 Spanish formats to air liberal talk( by snatching the signal license) , or one of the 4 or 5 sports signals having to air badmitton tournaments at the expense of Marlins baseball in the name of 'public interest'. Nobody wants to listen to badmitton play by play, and not enough people in market 34 want liberal talk, either.....

Nice try, though, Smedge

 

[justareporter]

Mr (or Ms.) Smedge.:

Try reading what I write. I am not suggesting one STATION be forced to program "liberal" or "conservative." I am arguing for a variety of views, from the entire spectrum, be programmed on each station. Let's get a little creative here and actually get so-called programmers to actually program stations and look for talent, rather then just making their station either into a satellite downlink or a collection of clones.

As for the other gentleman (or lady) pulling my leg? I don't think so, which is a frightening thought by itself. He would penalize people who weant to listen to radio in their own language simply because a segment of the illegal aliens come from spanish speaking countries. So let me see, government should stay out of programming radio stations except when it comes to language and then government should step in and require english only.

Anyone notice a slight problem with the thinking here?

 

[Radio_Realist]

He would penalize people who weant to listen to radio in their own language

No, I would not. First, being able to listen to programming in English is one of the privileges of being an American. Anyone who moves to this country to become an American is excepted to renounce their former allegiance to their original country in favor of accepting the Unites States of America as their new country. Therefore, their "own" language should be English if they have made the choice to become Americans.

Of course, there is also the point that if someone has to give up access to the American public's airwaves to make room for more liberal programming, it should be those who refuse to speak English instead of Americans who do speak English. If someone is going to argue for taking something away from someone to give it to someone else, then the next logical point in the discussion is who should be the people who have to give up what they have so someone else can have it.

I am arguing for a variety of views, from the entire spectrum, be programmed on each station.

I took that half-baked idea of yours one short step further, and you accused me of being paranoid.

 

[evnlee]

He would penalize people who weant to listen to radio in their own language

No, I would not. First, being able to listen to programming in English is one of the privileges of being an American. Anyone who moves to this country to become an American is excepted to renounce their former allegiance to their original country in favor of accepting the Unites States of America as their new country. Therefore, their "own" language should be English if they have made the choice to become Americans.

Of course, there is also the point that if someone has to give up access to the American public's airwaves to make room for more liberal programming, it should be those who refuse to speak English instead of Americans who do speak English. If someone is going to argue for taking something away from someone to give it to someone else, then the next logical point in the discussion is who should be the people who have to give up what they have so someone else can have it.

I am arguing for a variety of views, from the entire spectrum, be programmed on each station.

I took that half-baked idea of yours one short step further, and you accused me of being paranoid.

exactly. well done.

JaR, lets try this again: if you are arguing that stations that program political talk be 'airing a variety of views, from the entire spectrum, on each station.." then what is your opinion of music radio? Should Top 40 stations air a variety of music, not just the new hits? Should they be forced to play opera? Should Urban oriented radio be forced to play CNW? What about sports formats? Should they air play by play of chess club tournaments? If not, you are in danger of appearing hypocritical.

Stations bill and build on 'stationality' : that is, the CNW stations play CNW, and the ad buyers understand this. Forcing them to carry Jay-Z's latest is not only going to hurt ratings, but possibly billing. It's insane.

Options already exist in most markets, as I have so l aptly demonstrated. If you are arguing for only 'fixing' talk radio, and no other format, that is discrimination in it's highest degree. This is why I think you are dishonest about your true motives: you already know that the other options exist, but would rather see the entire format doomed.

I leave you with the words of John McCain:

“Since President Reagan’s repeal of the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ the number of talk radio shows nationwide has grown from fewer than 100 to over 1,000 today. In addition to talk radio, Americans are able to find opposing viewpoints in more places than ever before, including the Internet,” Senator McCain said.



“With the great number of media sources available today, divergent viewpoints do not have to be offered on the same radio or television show, but can be found simply by channel surfing, reading a newspaper or browsing an Internet blog .



“The legislation would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ a regulation that had required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.



“This regulation had a chilling affect on free speech, and it is hard to imagine that the American people would support reinstating a policy where the Federal government would be required to police the airwaves to ensure differing viewpoints are offered.”

 

[justareporter]

Just goes to prove that a president and a presidential candidate can make mistakes.

More is not necessarily better.

There may be thousands of talk stations but most of the programming is syndicated.

Come talk to me about "talk" when you talk to me about local hosts on local issues that effect people, not some guy/woman someplace pontificating on his/her view of the world for millions to hear and MANY more millions to ignore.

This whole thread about "talk" fails to consider that MOST talk stations are predominately satellite downlinks.

 

[evnlee]

Just goes to prove that a president and a presidential candidate can make mistakes.

More is not necessarily better.

There may be thousands of talk stations but most of the programming is syndicated.

Come talk to me about "talk" when you talk to me about local hosts on local issues that effect people, not some guy/woman someplace pontificating on his/her view of the world for millions to hear and MANY more millions to ignore.

This whole thread about "talk" fails to consider that MOST talk stations are predominately satellite downlinks.

class, once again, see how JaR avoids answering the 'tough questions'?

why did he not respond to my question directly? I'll try again:

"..if you are arguing that stations that program political talk be 'airing a variety of views, from the entire spectrum, on each station.." then what is your opinion of music radio? Should Top 40 stations air a variety of music, not just the new hits? Should they be forced to play opera? Should Urban oriented radio be forced to play CNW? What about sports formats? Should they air play by play of chess club tournaments? "

please step up and answer that simple question... If you cannot, or you sidestep it, then I have no reason to believe you are being honest in your protestations....

 

[Radio_Realist]

please step up and answer that simple question...

And while you're at it, JaR, you might also explain how you managed to shift gears from wanting ideological balance to now advocating more local hosts. Are you advocating more local hosts instead of ideological balance, or in addition to ideological balance?

 

[evnlee]

please step up and answer that simple question...

And while you're at it, JaR, you might also explain how you managed to shift gears from wanting ideological balance to now advocating more local hosts. Are you advocating more local hosts instead of ideological balance, or in addition to ideological balance?

I think that some believe that more 'local ownership' will result in 'less syndicated crap', but that is not always the case.

Take WWAA here in Atlanta...It was bought out by a 'mom and pop', not a Clear Channel or Cumulus..And it was full of 'syndicated crap'. When the guy who bought it decided to use it for his own personal jukebox, the 14 fans of Err Amerika went on a hunger strike. Overnight, the futures values of tofu plunged. Now, since that occurred, how much 'praise' has been heaped on the new owner, which would dovetail into the 'local ownership caps' that Smedge and JaR want in place? None. Because the new owner dumped AAR, he was met with derision and scorn. This guy doesn't use 'focus group playlists' or 'voicetracking' , yet he is a pariah to the left. Yet, in the same breath, JaR and Smedge would have you believe that this is a 'better, more balanced' radio landscape!! Watch the excuse making climb to ridiculous levels...And as far as 'paranoia', it was speculated by none other then Smedge that the new owner was a Zionist! And this was a 'mom and pop' !

What's to say that ownership caps would not limit Jones syndicators growth? They have Schultz and S Miller, as well as Boortz. Ownership caps often kick both ways....I think the ownership issue is a red herring....

 

[Radio_Realist]

I think the ownership issue is a red herring....

It probably is. The thing is, there are multiple parties at play on this issue. You have Democrat politicians who simply want to shut down all news/talk in order to silence the conservatives. Then you have liberal voters who want to here the left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh in order to make themselves feel good. Finally, you have the talk host wannabes (who won't admit it) who believe that more local owners = more local job opportunities to work in radio.

Strikes me as a typical Democrat coalition of diverse groups working against each other who all think they're on the same side.

 

[smedge2006]

Finally, you have the talk host wannabes (who won't admit it) who believe that more local owners = more local job opportunities to work in radio.

Hooray for the wannabes. Talk radio suffers greatly from the lack of a bench. It needs an infusion of fresh talent that arises organically, rather than the hydroponic method of corporate syndication cram-downs. I think the Center for American Progress' proposals, if fully implemented, would provide as many employment opportunities for local conservative hosts as local liberal ones.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

What's to say that ownership caps would not limit Jones syndicators growth? They have Schultz and S Miller, as well as Boortz. Ownership caps often kick both ways....I think the ownership issue is a red herring....

Schultz has gone on record to say that it used to be 20 owners in a market now it's six. Some of those six have never tried any Jones programming/progessive talk even with his success in several markets, he cited Salem and ABC. The quote "how many times and markets do I have to beat Hannity!!! Philadelphia has zero progressive talk and you're telling me that there isn't anyone who want to hear it in that market. Progressives are fighting over the same one hundred stations. Ownership has its privileges.[./b]

 

[evnlee]

What's to say that ownership caps would not limit Jones syndicators growth? They have Schultz and S Miller, as well as Boortz. Ownership caps often kick both ways....I think the ownership issue is a red herring....

Schultz has gone on record to say that it used to be 20 owners in a market now it's six. Some of those six have never tried any Jones programming/progessive talk even with his success in several markets, he cited Salem and ABC. The quote "how many times and markets do I have to beat Hannity!!! Philadelphia has zero progressive talk and you're telling me that there isn't anyone who want to hear it in that market. Progressives are fighting over the same one hundred stations. Ownership has its privileges.[./b]

ummm....Boortz is also syndicated by Jones Media: he is on 140+ stations, including 4 in PA.

So why do the 'last six left' put on Boortz instead of Schultz?

Boortz is better. 35+ years in talk radio. So why is Schultz whining while Boortz gets on the air? It's not the syndicator: it's the talent.

But it's not like Boortz is above whining himself :

"HOW THE NEAL BOORTZ SHOW COULD DOUBLE ITS NUMBER OF STATIONS"

Not that we're doing all that badly, but I would always like to have more affiliate stations for the Neal Boortz Show. There are several reasons why I don't have 500 radio stations out there. First, there is stiff competition with a number of other talk show hosts for my particular time spot. I have to beat all of that competition for each and every precious affiliate. If I was on the air during a different day part, with no competing hosts out there, things would be different. One of the most exasperating excuses we get from some stations who decline to carry the show is that we're "too Southern." Being based in Atlanta seems to be a negative with some station managers. It's part of that anti-Southern, "Southerners talk funny therefore they're stupid" bias that exists throughout the country. Not much you can do about that one I guess ... except move, and I happen to like it right where I am.

There are, however, some things that I could do that would mean an immediate (if not sooner) increase in Boortz affiliates. We toyed with these on one of the shows last week .. but I'm listing them here for your comments. Here's all I have to do:

Make strident diatribes at least three times a week against a woman's right to choose. Call doctors who perform abortions "murderers."
Promote prayer for other people's children in government schools led by government agents.
Advocate symbols of the Christian religion, and only the Christian religion, in all government buildings and courthouse lawns.
Preach hatred of homosexuals no less than twice a week, worry incessantly about the "homosexual agenda."
Teach Belinda to talk like she's from Newark.
Move the home base for the show out of Atlanta and to either the West Coast or New York City.
Slam evolution as false science and promote the teaching of the biblical theory of creation in government schools by government agents.


Sorry, folks. I just don't see much of that happening. I guess I'm just going to remain your "boutique" talk show host.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200503/03082005.html

 

[justareporter]

My last posting on this now very tired subject.

Radio needs new local talent. It also needs more local owners.

"Talk" could seriously do with some balance on the stations that air it.

To the air headed question about stations airing rock and roll, opera and C&W all on the same station...please..spare me such a silly question. "Talk" tries to pass itself as information and sometimes news. It is rarely either. It is usually just opinion with an occassional fact thrown in.

Music is entertainment.

The fact that I have to explain this clearly indcates the individual in question has no understanding of programming.

Done.

 

[gr8oldies]

"Talk" is entertainment, not news and public affairs. The news is what happens at the top of the hour.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

What's to say that ownership caps would not limit Jones syndicators growth? They have Schultz and S Miller, as well as Boortz. Ownership caps often kick both ways....I think the ownership issue is a red herring....

Schultz has gone on record to say that it used to be 20 owners in a market now it's six. Some of those six have never tried any Jones programming/progessive talk even with his success in several markets, he cited Salem and ABC. The quote "how many times and markets do I have to beat Hannity!!! Philadelphia has zero progressive talk and you're telling me that there isn't anyone who want to hear it in that market. Progressives are fighting over the same one hundred stations. Ownership has its privileges.[./b]

ummm....Boortz is also syndicated by Jones Media: he is on 140+ stations, including 4 in PA.

So why do the 'last six left' put on Boortz instead of Schultz?

Boortz is better. 35+ years in talk radio. So why is Schultz whining while Boortz gets on the air? It's not the syndicator: it's the talent.

I don't like to get into these things as it strays a little of topic. I can't let this one slide...

One could say that Boortz is better. However, the most recent Talkers Magazine rankings of the Top 100 Most Important Radio Talk Show Host in America had Boortz only @ #9 while Schultz was #5. Does Talkers Magazine have it wrong?

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44

Schultz was given 15 minutes on the podium at the most recent Talkers' convention in New York City as a keynote speaker while Boortz had to remain on his ass. Schultz had a chance to hold up his P&L sheet to all the doubters of the progressive talk radio format that it doesn't work. Convention time with his peer...did someone screw up with this?

Schultz is getting all these recent TV appearances of Fox, MSNBC & CNN, while Boortz still sits on his ass. You can't tell me that Schultz is that much better looking.

Then, Eddie was a finalist for Radio Syndication host of the year while Neil didn't make the final cut. Makes me wonder who is better?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Does Talkers Magazine have it wrong?

In a word, yes.

However, Schultz does appear to currently have a more effective Press Agent.

When it comes to getting ink, having a better Press Agent wins every time.

 

[evnlee]

ummm....Boortz is also syndicated by Jones Media: he is on 140+ stations, including 4 in PA.

So why do the 'last six left' put on Boortz instead of Schultz?

Boortz is better. 35+ years in talk radio. So why is Schultz whining while Boortz gets on the air? It's not the syndicator: it's the talent.

[/quote]

I don't like to get into these things as it strays a little of topic. I can't let this one slide...

One could say that Boortz is better. However, the most recent Talkers Magazine rankings of the Top 100 Most Important Radio Talk Show Host in America had Boortz only @ #9 while Schultz was #5. Does Talkers Magazine have it wrong?

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44

Schultz was given 15 minutes on the podium at the most recent Talkers' convention in New York City as a keynote speaker while Boortz had to remain on his ass. Schultz had a chance to hold up his P&L sheet to all the doubters of the progressive talk radio format that it doesn't work. Convention time with his peer...did someone screw up with this?

Schultz is getting all these recent TV appearances of Fox, MSNBC & CNN, while Boortz still sits on his ass. You can't tell me that Schultz is that much better looking.

Then, Eddie was a finalist for Radio Syndication host of the year while Neil didn't make the final cut. Makes me wonder who is better?
[/quote]

Schultz says 'he won a Marconi', although that's not entirely true. The Station he workerd for won a Marconi. Schultz was nor singled out.

Boortz? Neal was also a "finalist" for a 2002 Marconi Award as "network syndicated personality of the year."

Boortz has more affiliates, has had more experience, and although I don't know for sure, I bet he makes more $$$$.

When Ed gets more affiliates, more direct 'talk show host' Marconi nominations, and is banking more $$$, then he will be better then Boortz. Everything else ( Like a worthless 'Talkers' award, or an AIR award, etc..) is disregarded. It's like the Oscars~ it doesn't matter if you win the MTV awards, your not considered 'bonoafide' until you can say 'academy award nominee ________' ....

Neal's getting pretty old, so it's not impossible. But for now, Boortz leaves poor Schultz in the dust

 

[gr8oldies]

A press agent is one thing. Apparently its not being followed up by his syndication company being able to get him some clearances.