Callers Are Not Songs

[smedge2006]

One of the longest-standing analogies in talk radio is describing the callers as songs -- or to use 1970's lingo, "records." It helped explain the format to GMs and PDs who came up in music radio. It also gave them
the idea that callers were to be weeded through and only a relative handful selected for the rarefied privilege of exposure, and its use by hosts who couldn't stand to be shown up contributed to the Cult of the All-knowing Host. Talk radio, the first electronic interactive and decentralized medium, has become steadily less interactive and more centralized over the past two decades.

Just as tight music radio playlists have played a role in choking off music radio and driving people to IPods, so I think screening and de-emphasis of caller participation are threatening to induce a slow sclerosis of the talk format. It's time to junk the callers-as-records analogy. Instead, management should think of the callers as mini-hosts, serving the same functions as sidekicks on morning shows or dual-host shows, without the payroll. Seeing callers as an expense-saver rather than as barbarians at the gate might induce a little more opening up on the airwaves and return some of talk radio's interactive edge. If Larry King could do without call screening, surely the industry could get by with a little less of it.

 

[Don62]

If Larry King could do without call screening, surely the industry could get by with a little less of it.

Good points throughout here.
I do recall hearing Larry King say how he never screened calls. I did call in once and true to word, they didn't screen me out! Of course, my call got cut off early as the host rapidly moved to other calls.

I recall one host in Denver saying having a tightly-screened show is like holding a surprise birthday party for someone and telling them they're throwing a party for them.

Talk radio would be wayyyyyyyyy more interesting if the calls weren't so screened.

After all, who wouldn't want to hear that pipsqueak Hannity, that loser Limbo, that boob Stephanie Miller, that whiner Rhandi Rhodes, being verbally beaten-up by some great and clever callers.

 

[gr8oldies]

No one listens to a show for the callers. King may not have screened but he moved thru calls quickly and didnt stick with incoherent ones

 

[smedge2006]

No one listens to a show for the callers.

You didn't live in Tampa in the 80's. It wasn't just Tampa though. A lot of cities had recognizable callers. The PDs declared them "chronics" and treated them like an infestation of cockroaches. Their attitude was like the bartender in Pottersville who proclaimed "we don't need characters to give this place atmosphere."

 

[quadraphonic]

I can see it working both ways, depending on the market.

Every SwapShop/Tradio/BuyItSellIt version around here has the same callers week in and week out. People will call in and ask if someone goes missing for a few weeks. The call-in programs where people are regulars seem to have maximized their audience years back, though. If that's what they are shooting for, and it works for them, that's great. Ride it while it works and build your community/program/show like that.

But for growth, you still have to have some way to get "new blood" in every now and then. Over the last couple years, our local news/talk station got into a rut with their hour-long daily show where the same people would call in about the same things every day and they would monopolize the conversation [because the host let them], and they weren't that interesting to many people outside their own selves. It's good to have "regulars" and "characters" but they have to be interesting in some way.

I remember when 1-on-1 sports used to be on, there was a guy named George that would call into every show and while the host was talking, he would drone on and on listing players and their positions and their heights and weights in a southern drawl. It was a running gag [most likely staged too] for the host to pot him down and talk on, then check back every now and then. Maybe the local hosts need to "go out" and find interesting characters to throw into the mix, that is more like "controlling chaos" than "no screener" though.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Here in Northeast Ohio, talk WNIR-FM 100.1 has had a long list of regular callers, many with nicknames.

The station is so popular in its home market of Akron that we've even seen obituaries mention callers when they pass away.

Though I've been listening since 1974 - a year after midday host Howie Chizek started doing talk on then-WKNT "AM & FM" - then mostly serving the nearby area of Kent/Ravenna in Portage County - I don't listen often enough these days to recognize most of the current regulars...and it's a bit off-putting. The only one I can pick out of a crowd is an old guy with a distinctive voice who doesn't like the current president - they call him the "Booshman" for how he pronounces "Bush".

Basically, a few "regulars" go a long way. I'd feel the station was more accessible if I didn't have to figure out who was who.

 

[gr8oldies]

WLW has had several regular callers over the years. A little of them can go a long way though, and if you just turned the callers loose you would have several conspiracy freaks monopolizing the frequency. A partial list, past and present.

A lady who was determining who the "devil people" and the "God people" were.
"Wacky Joe" who called from phone booths and apparently was in and out of rehab and homeless shelters. Understand he has passed away.

Ken, the Neo Nazi. Even had a jingle "he hates blacks, he hates Jews..here come more of his Aryan views, it's Ken!" Think he's finally been banned.

The late Kabaka Aba, black activist who was unfortunately murdered.

Sensible Don, now retired Metro bus driver who graduated to Saturday morning sidekick with either Gary Jeff Walker or Darryl Parks.

A couple of black racists, one named Lisa.

Nan.

Nick, (Not sure if he's even real) who spouts very liberal views that are somewhat off the wall, like demanding that fireworks be banned because of global warming.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

No Screener: Inmates Running The Asylum?

Great idea - until you blow off some crackpot and he calls back - repeatedly - saying things like, "Why do you keep hanging up on me? I'm just trying to get the truth out about the Illuminati and the Jew-run media and the Communists who keep slandering that wonderful Rev. MacIntyre and the tiny little people in my salt shaker..." Once in a while that can be entertaining; a steady diet gets really old really fast. Next thing you know, the only people listening are the nutjobs.

Not having a screener is inviting all the wingnuts to take over your show. If that's what you want, nutjobs and nothing but, fine. Not me... ;D

(Fact is, stations that don't use screeners are doing it that way because of the money factor.)

 

[smedge2006]

Yes, the caller pool can include a few crackpots. But for every nutjob turned away, there are five or ten others who would like to be funny, would like to deliver a quick one-off (radio graffiti) or would (and often could) show up the host. A little agenda-derailing and topic-derailing would not be such a bad thing. As callers are not songs, hosts are not gods.

Here in Northeast Ohio, talk WNIR-FM 100.1 has had a long list of regular callers, many with nicknames.
Basically, a few "regulars" go a long way. I'd feel the station was more accessible if I didn't have to figure out who was who.

Do you think the Jim Rome show is inaccessible because he has a "gloss" and constantly refers to past Smackoff stars? I think a station website could do a great job cluing in curious newbies.

Programmers have spent the last 25 years turning music and talk radio formats into smooth, consistent peanut butter. I think that if radio is to survive the next 25 years, it needs to add a few chunks back in.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Do you think the Jim Rome show is inaccessible because he has a "gloss" and constantly refers to past Smackoff stars? I think a station website could do a great job cluing in curious newbies.

Romey's different. For one, he's much better about incorporating those elements into his whole schtick than the locals here, are.

In the case of the one regular I mentioned, the "Booshman", his calls are only entertaining because the hosts bounce off of him and occasionally even confuse him, on the air. Listeners don't stick around because of that caller - they stick around because Howie plays him like a grand piano on the air.

Many (but not all) of the others are basically "back fence talk radio" callers who just happen to be talking to the host with a 4,200 watt FM transmitter eavesdropping.

I'm probably not being fair to the station, since I don't listen as much as I did back 20-some years ago.

Programmers have spent the last 25 years turning music and talk radio formats into smooth, consistent peanut butter. I think that if radio is to survive the next 25 years, it needs to add a few chunks back in.

I don't disagree with you 100%.

I'm just warning that stations that try to add back too many "chunks" may get more than they bargained for. Throwing wacky, unscreened amateurs on the air for shock value and surprise isn't a programming solution. Though, who knows...like gr8oldies noted, maybe you'll find a sidekick out of the pile some day!

 

[KFodor]

You must screen callers for some very good reasons. Case in point:

At our station, we are aware of a group of individuals who, shall we say, are residents of an area care facility. Because of their frequent calls to our station off the air, we have been in contact with their doctors. They are on restricted diets for medical reasons.

During the recent windstorm and its' aftermath, these residents called our talk lines repeatedly, trying to get on the air to tell the public they were being "abused" by their doctors since they were not getting a "hot meal." What they wanted was someone from the public to bring them a bucket of fried chicken. (Something not on their diets.) Realizing who they were and having spoken with the people who are in charge of their care, we refused to put them on the air.

That didn't stop them. Reportedly, they called every media organization in town with the story. At least one, I heard tried to take them the fried chicken, but were stopped at the front door by the doctors at the care facility. These gentlemen were not being abused. They were being fed proper healthy, nutritious meals. They just weren't getting what they wanted.

That type of caller is not entertaining, nor amusing. And airing such a call, depending upon its contents could be irresponsible.

Any talk station has its' share of callers who, for whatever reason be it agenda, disability, inability to make a point in less than 30 minutes, whatever are simply not entertaining to listen to. The job of the call screener is to find what is, in theirs and the hosts opinion are the "best" calls, just like a music station goes to great lengths to find and air the "best" music.

OK, a guy like Larry King will blast through a bad call. In his days doing radio talk from Midnight-6 am a "call screener" was probably not financially justifiable back then. But, a bad call is a bad call. How many people changed the station when that bad, uninteresting call hit the air?

That's why stations have screeners.

 

[gr8oldies]

Interesting story! I had heard that Art Bell didn't screen calls, but his type of show was a lot different. There seem to be those who think that if we screened less or not at all, "the American people would have more of a voice". Quite the contrary, only consipracy theorists and nut cases would get on the air because they'd call every 10 minutes. As far as this fantasy that just the right caller will get on the air, totally defeat Rush, Hannity, etc in an argument and send the entire audience scrambling to find the nearest ACORN representatitive to help them vote for Obama..don't bet on it.

 

[smedge2006]

From Henry Raines, host of "Weekend Edition", WWBA, Tampa, Fla., Sunday, October 19th, introducing a caller known as "Screamin' Jim":

"Tampa Bay has a great history of talk radio.... and [part of that] is because of callers who are recognizable by voice and pesonality."

Interestingly enough, he was leading into an interview with someone from ACORN.... 

Any talk station has its' share of callers who, for whatever reason be it agenda, disability, inability to make a point in less than 30 minutes, whatever are simply not entertaining to listen to.  The job of the call screener is to find what is, in theirs and the hosts opinion are the "best" calls, just like a music station goes to great lengths to find and air the "best" music.

I know people who have encountered the calls from psychiatric hospitals as well, as well as the loons who obsess over a bad check arrest in Wyoming in 1978 as the work of the "new world order". They are an infinitesimally small part of radio call-ins. The people who get "screened" out from talk radio are more likely to be among the most articulate and expressive callers -- the so-called "chronics" that have been demonized by talk PDs and consultants. 

The job of the call screener is to find what is, in theirs and the hosts opinion are the "best" calls, just like a music station goes to great lengths to find and air the "best" music.

And just as the rigidity and rote of music programming has helped make music radio irrelevant in the Internet age, so rigid call screening (combined with syndication, automation and general regimentation) threatens to kill talk radio before its time.

As far as this fantasy that just the right caller will get on the air, totally defeat Rush, Hannity, etc in an argument and send the entire audience scrambling to find the nearest ACORN representatitive to help them vote for Obama..don't bet on it.

The ability of a right-wing host to sound all-powerful and all-knowing is not merely a function of screening. The rise of conservative talk radio coincided with the rise of hybrid technology that enabled the host to mute the sound of a hang-up, thus appearing to be destroying a caller's arguments without rebuttal while the caller yells unheard into a cue speaker, as well as the use of the "dump" button for purposes other than removing profanities.

 

[Steven21]

We have a guy on in Buffalo who seems to not screen heavily at all, but he does a masterful job of making the good, the bad and the ugly callers into some entertaining conversation. Issues-wise, he is pretty moderate on balance and is anything but predictable, which is extremely refreshing these days on talkradio.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Let's agree to disagree on this; if you're the kind of host who prefers to work with unscreened calls, and you can make it work for you, more power to ya. Me, I prefer doing it the other way. ;D

 

[Steven21]

Apparently, and not surprisingly, not all hosts are created equal.

Some need a very carefully prepared caller stream, while others are better at punting.

 

[quadraphonic]

Yeah, there's no "one way" to "good radio."
You just know it when you see it.

It depends on all the factors involved: host, audience, topics, etc.....

 

[admanscott]

In a perfect world, a radio talk show host would have NO callers. Why? Simply put, if you have great callers (like that happens often) you have a great show, but if you have uneven callers (which happens with even the best screening), you have an uneven show. You can figure out what happens when you have all crap callers.

I did bomb-throwing right wing talk radio in market #5 for years, and I can tell you, it all comes down to the host, and if he or she leans in any appreciable way on callers, you can never tell from one day to the next how good the show will be. However, if the host is well prepared and has a take, those show can consistently be terrific.

How do I know? I let callers define my show too long before I started to depend on myself for quality control.

Rush Limbaugh (who I think is a ******, but is a great broadcaster nonetheless) rarely takes calls. He doesn't have to. He knows what he wants to say, he is well prepared and he can deliver day in and day out. I wish I was as good as he is as a broadcaster, but I'm glad I'm not the total failure he is a human being.

 

[smedge2006]

The true stars in this business knew how to turn crap callers into gold long before call screening techniques developed to the point that they could be weeded out.

Rush Limbaugh (who I think is a ******, but is a great broadcaster nonetheless) rarely takes calls.

The only thing Rush brought to the table was a baby-boomer top-40 sensibility... pacing, comedy bits, drop-ins, etc. His caller techniques are not the best and far worse than other hosts I've heard who didn't get syndication handed to them by a Mr. E.F. McLaughlin. As bad if not worse than the ideological clones are those who have sought to copy his style. "Why shouldn't I say 'folks' and rattle my papers on the air, Rush Limbaugh does it!"

How do I know? I let callers define my show too long before I started to depend on myself for quality control.

ANY call can be made useful or entertaining. If creative people hear you creatively using calls from morons, they will call more often, riff off the whole concept, and provide entertaining radio. But you have to be willing to let yourself be "had" once in a while. If you must always be right (in all senses of the word), your ability to make the most out of the entertainment these folks are giving you and the listeners -- FOR FREE -- will be limited.

In a perfect world, a radio talk show host would have NO callers.

I could just as easily argue that in a perfect world, a radio talk show would have nothing BUT callers, and no host. Just pay for a call screener. Each caller "hosts" until somebody calls in to debate or bounce him/her out. It's a lot cheaper than a host, it's totally local, all the syndicated stations in town won't have it, and it's unique.

Without that instant interaction from the public, talk radio is nothing but televsion without pictures. Talk radio started as a people's medium before the pundits took over. It sickens me to hear people with Ivy League degrees and Ph.D.'s hosting talk radio shows -- on either side of the ideological divide. It violates the whole concept. Talk radio is supposed to be grassroots, not Beltway figures on high talking down to people. Most right-wing hosts tout that facet of talk radio. They say that it keeps someone from passing off "nonsense" (that is to say, liberalism) without being challenged. Of course, screening helps to water down any real challenges to the Cult of the All-Knowing Host.

 

[radiocph]

In the Bay Area, the local hosts constantly get called by a "Steven Lightfoot",
whose main schtick is a conspiracy theory stating that Stephen King killed John Lennon.

He's been doing this for years. Most of the hosts now just dump him at the sound
of his voice, but one or two will try to talk to him.....

One of the hosts really chewed him out one night. I saved part of the archive; I'll
see if I can find it...