CBS needs to drop talk on 1210 WPHT

[BostonRandy]

Julius - I don't know if you've ever worked in radio or if, only, you're an excited observer. From a programmer's chair, it's easy to see that you couldn't care less about conservative talk radio. From the same chair, it looks as if you have a personal axe to grind.

My solution is simple: get a life, man. Your rantings and ravings are comical, yet sad at the same time.

Radio doesn't exist to please one person. It is there, AMs included, to make as much money as possible.

You posted here, and I quote, "I don't like the way they are doing it, with all of these brokered shows running in their entirety, causing the regular shows to be skipped or start late on weekends after games. I get what you are saying, but I just don't like the station overall."

If this hurts your feelings, well, so be it: CBS Radio/WPHT doesn't care if you like "the way they are doing it". You're an attention-hog - the type of person who announces the organizing of a protest after their favorite air-talent is fired and is the only one to show up at the station's parking lot.

Channel your energies into something important. Yapping on a message board won't change a thing.

 

[Avid Listener]

The thread is about talk stations. You choose to define the format by what's currently popular. The OP doesn't like the approach taken by a particular traditional AM news/talk station, and is seeking an alternative. That's what WHYY is.

The thread is about news/talk stations, a specific sub-format within the world of all spoken word radio formats. All news is a different spoken word format. NPR's approach is a different spoken word format. Sports talk is yet another different spoken word format. News/Talk is as distinctly different from NPR's form of spoken word programming as classic rock is different from CHR over in the world of recorded music formats.

 

[Avid Listener]

Yapping on a message board won't change a thing.

Yapping on a message board isn't intended to change anything. Yapping on a message board is an end unto itself. Message boards are, among other things, a venue for venting. At best, it enables ideas to be brought to light that might cause people to question tired, old conventional wisdom and bring about improvements to whatever is being discussed. In some ways, forums (or fora, to be all Latin about it) like this are an arena for intellectual tennis. Tennis is a game that is only truly rewarding if the players are on opposite sides of the net, hitting the ball back and forth. A tennis match where everyone is on the same side of the net is about as boring a game as could ever be designed.

However, news/talk radio demonstrates a different endeavour. News/talk radio is not an intellectual tennis match. News/talk radio is a sort of secular religious gathering. The host preaches whatever doctrine his faithful flock wants to hear, and his flock feels better about themselves because they hear their opinions and prejudices validated. It's called "news/talk" because it is talk that is about the news.

 

[TheBigA]

News/Talk is as distinctly different from NPR's form of spoken word programming as classic rock is different from CHR over in the world of recorded music formats.

Not sure if I agree with the analogy, since the audiences and presentation are very different in the latter. News/talk's target demo is basically the same as NPR's: They both tend to be older males, and a lot of traditional AM talk hosts aren't taking calls the way they used to. It's clear to me from the data that some listeners find the two interchangeable. And I've also seen, since you brought it up, a lot of sharing between news/talk and sports talk audiences, and they also take phone calls.

However, as I've said twice before, there are three other traditional AM talk stations in the market.

 

[Small Market Guy]

However, news/talk radio demonstrates a different endeavour. News/talk radio is not an intellectual tennis match. News/talk radio is a sort of secular religious gathering. The host preaches whatever doctrine his faithful flock wants to hear, and his flock feels better about themselves because they hear their opinions and prejudices validated. It's called "news/talk" because it is talk that is about the news.

If you don't think NPR (or public radio talk programming in general regardless of provider) is the exact same thing, you're deluding yourself. Sure there might be a few more soft news stories in an NPR program, but it's the same preaching to the choir. Just a different choir. And it most certainly is no more "intellectual tennis" than your average AM news talk station.

 

[Avid Listener]

If you don't think NPR (or public radio talk programming in general regardless of provider) is the exact same thing, you're deluding yourself. Sure there might be a few more soft news stories in an NPR program, but it's the same preaching to the choir. Just a different choir. And it most certainly is no more "intellectual tennis" than your average AM news talk station.

I think that NPR's approach varies in the details sufficiently to be considered different from news/talk. For one thing, news/talk stations don't air programs along the lines of Fresh Air, Marketplace, Living on Earth, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, This American Life, The Splendid Table, The Prairie Home Companion, Commonwealth Club, etc. Those are really old-school radio. I mean, when's the last time any station that carries Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also carried a food show (Splendid Table) or a game show (Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me)? I won't dispute that NPR's newscasts are slanted toward a certain market segment unified by a particular political perspective. But The Prairie Home Companion is just about old-fashioned radio entertainment.

As for NPR being an example of "intellectual tennis", I never said it was. When it comes to NPR's news programs (which are only a small portion of an NPR stations broadcast day, usually limited to drive-time), they're as biased, slanted, and "preaching to the choir" as news/talk, albeit with more subtlety. Morning Edition and All Things Considered are no more unbiased journalism than MSNBC or Glenn Beck. But you can't evaluate an entire programming day based only on drive-time.

 

[TheBigA]

Morning Edition and All Things Considered are no more unbiased journalism than MSNBC or Glenn Beck.

First you say NPR doesn't do talk shows. Then you compare it to a cable talk channel. That's apples & oranges.

If NPR is news, then it should be compared to other news providers, like NBC News, the BBC, or AP. ATC and Morning Edition are more like the old NBC Monitor. If there's bias, it's perhaps in the choice of stories, but not in presentation. When commentary is presented, it is ALWAYS clearly identified. When issues are discussed, both sides are present. And they keep track of these things, so there is proof in what I say.

NPR newscasts aren't "slanted." They are a few minutes of simple, straightforward headlines with actuality, just like any other radio network provides today. It's "consensus news," and those exact same stories are covered by everyone. Perhaps one can say reporting the outcome a Congressional vote is slanted because one side or the other won, or the coverage of an abortion rally is slanted because those opposed to it wouldn't mention it at all. But to make a broad generalization that "NPR's newscasts are slanted" is just ignorant.

 

[Avid Listener]

First you say NPR doesn't do talk shows. Then you compare it to a cable talk channel. That's apples & oranges.

No, I say that NPR isn't wall-to-wall phone-in caller talk shows. NPR has a wide a varied collection of programs. However, it does carry news programs. And, those two news programs (not the entire NPR system, just those two programs) have a bias that is slanted towards one end of the political spectrum. That bias is similar to the bias of ALL of the cable NEWS networks, but not to cable talk channels. To the best of my knowledge, there are no cable talk channels. At least, Comcast doesn't carry any talk channels on my system.

Do you know the difference between news reporting and talk shows that feature commentators who pontificate about events in the news and take phone calls from listeners in the process?

If NPR is news, then it should be compared to other news providers, like NBC News, the BBC, or AP.

But NPR is NOT NEWS. It is a program service network that feeds member stations magazine format newscasts, game shows, special interest programs, and a host of other types of programs. And, though there is a tendency to treat the acronym "NPR" as referring to all public radio, NPR is just one such service. In addition to National Public Radio, there is also Public Radio International, Pacifica Radio, Northwest Community Radio Network, High Country Community Radio Coalition, Northeast Public Radio, American Public Media, World Radio Network, Public Radio Exchange, Heartland Public Radio, plus 25 different state public radio networks.

And for what it's worth, NBC News is a department of a major broadcast network, while the BBC is a government owned broadcast network in the UK that operates a news department, but also is responsible for entertainment programming such as the ScFi series "Dr. Who" and dozens of other shows on both radio and television. Associated Press is an agency that provides news content to broadcast and print news media. It's a non-profit organization operated by newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States. Therefore, not only does public radio not compare to either of those three organizations you named, those three organizations don't really compare to each other!

 

[TheBigA]

And, those two news programs (not the entire NPR system, just those two programs) have a bias that is slanted towards one end of the political spectrum.

No they don't. Have you ever listened? The hosts read short introductions to produced reports, like the BBC. How can they have a bias when the hosts don't actually talk about subjects or issues? They do interviews of newsmakers, and that's not "pontificating about events in the news." It sounds like you haven't listened at all.

MSNBC is basically a cable talk channel. During the week, they feature a series of talk shows built around a single host with a point of view who interviews guests who further that point of view. Neither All Things Considered nor Morning Edition do that. They have rotating hosts, so the show is more built around the stories than the host. The only real bias they have is geographic, being based in Washington. So they tend to cover more Washington based stories.

Maybe you can give me some examples where their hosts or newscasters have advocated a position that you feel is slanted towards one end of the political spectrum.

But NPR is NOT NEWS.

Some of it is. You were talking about their newscasts, and that IS news. It's basic top of the hour news, just like all the radio networks provide. I know all about NBC News, the BBC, and the AP. I work in this business, and I've worked with all three at one time or another, and I've also worked with NPR. The one big difference between NPR and the things you compare it to (MSNBC and Glen Beck) is it's non-commercial, so it's not driven by audience demographics or advertising. That's what makes it closer to the Associated Press. Like the AP, NPR depends on its member stations to pay for the content. Like the BBC it also accepts some government funding. Like NBC News, it does in depth documentary reporting. So there are similarities.

 

[Avid Listener]

No they don't. Have you ever listened? The hosts read short introductions to produced reports, like the BBC. How can they have a bias when the hosts don't actually talk about subjects or issues? They do interviews of newsmakers, and that's not "pontificating about events in the news." It sounds like you haven't listened at all.

In the car in drive time, the ONLY radio station I listen to is the public station. I cannot handle the repetitive tight playlist crap on the music format stations, not when stuck in traffic. And the bias is extremely obvious in the newscasts of Morning Edition and All Things Considered. One simply has to review ALL the news later in the day, once one is home and no longer listening to the radio, to see that stories that further the political agenda of one side of the political spectrum are covered, while stories that further the opposing side's political agenda are simply ignored.

That's a very subtle form of bias, but to people who know how to recognize it, it's as plain as day. There are other, more subtle biases displayed as well, but one would need to know and understand news and how propaganda works to recognize them.

 

[TheBigA]

One simply has to review ALL the news later in the day, once one is home and no longer listening to the radio, to see that stories that further the political agenda of one side of the political spectrum are covered, while stories that further the opposing side's political agenda are simply ignored.

I asked for examples. Give me some from today. And be sure to tell me how the HOSTS (not the interviewees) advocated a particular point of view, as talk hosts on MSNBC or Fox do. The key word here is "advocate."

 

[Avid Listener]

I asked for examples. Give me some from today. And be sure to tell me how the HOSTS (not the interviewees) advocated a particular point of view, as talk hosts on MSNBC or Fox do. The key word here is "advocate."

No. I won't do that. I said that the two programs, Morning Edition and All Things Considered, were biased. That's the entire programs, taken as a whole. I never broke it down to bits and pieces, and never used the word "advocate". They slant the news by including stories that help further a particular agenda, and ignore stories that hurt their particular agenda. If you don't believe me, do your own research.

 

[TheBigA]

They slant the news by including stories that help further a particular agenda, and ignore stories that hurt their particular agenda. If you don't believe me, do your own research.

As I said, I've worked with NPR, so I know how they choose stories, and I know they are very careful to include all viewpoints, and never allow their hosts to take advocacy positions as hosts do on cable channels or conservative talk shows. So I've done my own research and I know you're wrong. Plus, the Pew Trust has done an independent study, and they say NPR is not "slanted." Several major universities have also studied their story coverage, and agree. For example, they covered the C-PAC convention, just like everybody else. But unlike the cable channels and talk radio, they didn't take sides in the speeches. I've worked with a lot of news organizations, including NBC, CBS, and ABC, and none of them spend as much time and money as NPR making sure their coverage is fair. They are closer to a newspaper than a broadcast outlet. And no news organization is as scrutinized as NPR, for obvious reasons.

 

[Avid Listener]

Plus, the Pew Trust has done an independent study, and they say NPR is not "slanted." Several major universities have also studied their story coverage, and agree.

Your sources are about as dependable in rating the lack of bias of NPR as the Tea Party would be in rating the lack of bias on the Rush Limbaugh show. As someone mentioned earlier, news/talk and public news radio are all about "preaching to the choir". Clearly, you're a member of the choir that Morning Edition and All Things Consider is preaching to.

 

[TheBigA]

Clearly, you're a member of the choir that Morning Edition and All Things Consider is preaching to.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the survey is wrong. These are published surveys that are universally accepted and respected.

 

[Avid Listener]

These are published surveys that are universally accepted and respected.

By whom? A statement like that, made in passive voice, without indicating who the people or organizations are who "universally" accept or respect something, is meaningless.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Of course NPR programming is biased. Anyone who disputes this is delusional.

 

[TheBigA]

By whom? A statement like that, made in passive voice, without indicating who the people or organizations are who "universally" accept or respect something, is meaningless.

I could give you a list, but your mind is made up, so it too would be meaningless.

The only people who say it's biased have never presented any facts to demonstrate it...yourself included.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course NPR programming is biased. Anyone who disputes this is delusional.

Sticks and stones....

Here's a simple fact: NPR has no reason to "further a particular agenda." And they've stated publicly, and in company policy, that ANY bias could be detrimental to their funding. If the Congress felt they were using federal funding to "further a particular agenda," they could easily hold hearings and cut the funding. And while a few individuals have complained, no one has produced any proof, so the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee continues to approve federal funding, as it just did in the most recent budget agreement. I guess the House of Representatives is delusional.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Here's a simple fact: NPR has no reason to "further a particular agenda."

Except it's the agenda their listeners expect. Per Pew Research: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...-uses-fuzzy-math-to-fight-liberal-bias-claim/

And just because their hosts don't sound like liberal Rush Limbaughs doesn't mean they're not.

And here are just a few more examples.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/16/earth-tax-dollars-npr/

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...nservative-activist-james-o-keefe-betsy-liley

Then of course there's NPR actually admitting bias.

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

I eagerly await your ad hominem rebuttal.