Clear Channel New Home to Hannity & Limbaugh?

[SeeTerryWrite]

Thanks so much for clarifying talk shows. I was wondering if some hosts were just liberal baiting to get into heated debates. I recently was disillusioned by a conservative host I liked alot. I wrote an email disagreeing on one topic. He wrote back restating his case and said "have a good night." Then a minute later he reads my email at the beginning of the show.. He and his staff laugh at my letter and mock every thing I said and he calls me a liberal with no sense of humor. I am not a liberal ..but have more conservative-libertarian type views. I wrote back and told him .."if he knew me he would not think I was a liberal and that I was also a comedy writer." Didn't mention my radio past writing comedy for a morning show and creative service director for a couple radio stations in the past. He never wrote back to apologize. He says he bases his opinions on facts. "Correct me if I 'm wrong" he says. Clearly in my case he had no facts to label me a liberal. So I figured he just used my email to get his liberal debate fix. His partner had talked about reading the letter in their show prep meeting. LOL .. Damn.. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.. But it was fun to hear it read on the air. I didn't care he disagreed with me.. I just think he should have written back an email which could have taken all of 5 seconds to apologize and thank someone for listening.

Hey, Mr. Writer, the paragraph is your friend -- how 'bout using 'em?

I think you've missed the point that what goes on 'behind the scenes' is irrelevant. It's the show that matters. There are plenty of jerks who are great entertainers -- not just in radio but music and acting as well. It's better not to dig too deep.

Sorry about no paragraphs ..was a bit late at night when writing..

I understand radio is show biz. But it's the listeners that matter more than the host. If you are not truthful, you will lose them eventually..and if you have no listeners, you have no show. Talk show hosts don't realize they could be bringing down their ratings by acting like jerks.

BTW.. this same guy I wrote to used to do afternoons ( I read in his bio).. now he's doing nights. Duh..maybe he pissed a few too many listeners off and they left for good. I think his liberal baiting may have done him in. But I 'm not a PD so I don't know anything. I'm just a listener.

Now Rush Limbaugh is a different case.

My mother told me about him in '89 and I only tuned in on her recommendation. I listened to him at my desk while working for a competing radio station. I liked his comedy bits and agreed with most of what he said.
So I recommend Rush to friends all the time.

Why is Rush so successful for so many years and still on air 12n - 3pm..
Is Rush really a jerk and I haven't found that out yet?

 

[FredLeonard]

Sorry about no paragraphs ..was a bit late at night when writing..

I understand radio is show biz. But it's the listeners that matter more than the host. If you are not truthful, you will lose them eventually..and if you have no listeners, you have no show. Talk show hosts don't realize they could be bringing down their ratings by acting like jerks.

BTW.. this same guy I wrote to used to do afternoons ( I read in his bio).. now he's doing nights. Duh..maybe he pissed a few too many listeners off and they left for good. I think his liberal baiting may have done him in. But I 'm not a PD so I don't know anything. I'm just a listener.

Now Rush Limbaugh is a different case.

My mother told me about him in '89 and I only tuned in on her recommendation. I listened to him at my desk while working for a competing radio station. I liked his comedy bits and agreed with most of what he said.
So I recommend Rush to friends all the time.

Why is Rush so successful for so many years and still on air 12n - 3pm..
Is Rush really a jerk and I haven't found that out yet?

Yes.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Yes.

Says the guy who by his own admission "has no use for charity" when it's pointed out that Rush has raised tens of millions for leukemia research.

Unless you know someone who knows Rush, you're just talking out of the wrong orifice. Yet again.

I mentioned Hannity because I know people who know him, and know people who have dealt with him. He's a genuinely nice guy. The only other big name guy that I have common friends with is Don Geronimo, who is also by all accounts a nice guy.

 

[KFodor]

The basic problem here is that some people have a bias against right wing talk. That should be obvious.

It doesn't matter to them which host raises millions for charity. (Not only does Rush do it, but others as well). They are still "Hitler" to them, no matter what.

Right wing talk radio is still successful, except where poor management makes ridiculous cost cutting decisions with the local programming they offer (specifically: news).

Save your breath for real battles.

 

[FredLeonard]

Yes.

Says the guy who by his own admission "has no use for charity" when it's pointed out that Rush has raised tens of millions for leukemia research.

Unless you know someone who knows Rush, you're just talking out of the wrong orifice. Yet again.

I mentioned Hannity because I know people who know him, and know people who have dealt with him. He's a genuinely nice guy. The only other big name guy that I have common friends with is Don Geronimo, who is also by all accounts a nice guy.

Never meet your heroes, kid.

 

[Small Market Guy]

The basic problem here is that some people have a bias against right wing talk. That should be obvious.

It doesn't matter to them which host raises millions for charity. (Not only does Rush do it, but others as well). They are still "Hitler" to them, no matter what.

Right wing talk radio is still successful, except where poor management makes ridiculous cost cutting decisions with the local programming they offer (specifically: news).

Save your breath for real battles.

No place for facts here, sir.

 

[FredLeonard]

The basic problem here is that some people have a bias against right wing talk. That should be obvious.

It doesn't matter to them which host raises millions for charity. (Not only does Rush do it, but others as well). They are still "Hitler" to them, no matter what.

Right wing talk radio is still successful, except where poor management makes ridiculous cost cutting decisions with the local programming they offer (specifically: news).

Save your breath for real battles.

Let's not talk about the industry's "bias" against progressive talk.

Successful? How do you define "successful?" It's an easy standard to achieve if you set the bar low enough. Audience share has been eroding for several years. The audience is aging with no younger people replacing them. The format is stagnant with Rush and his clones doing the same tired act. Revenue has been consistently sinking. But the apologists for right-wing talk excel at making excuses. The economy. Competition from new media.

Corporate types who run the major mega-owners and small market Babbitts who run local stations and clusters are addicted to right-wing talk. So, they out-source news to Metro. Most listeners can't tell. Besides, these stations got rid of local talk long ago and the industry groupies weren't worried then.

Raising money for charity is PR, no more and no less. Get real.

 

[wadio]

So, they out-source news to Metro.

Not only that ... they boldly lie about it. In NYC, WOR is running a promo that says, other stations (meaning WABC) have empty newsrooms while we've hired all these great reporters (then they list the Metro staffers) headed by News Director Joe Bartlett. Bartlett, of course, presides over an empty newsroom.

Most listeners can't tell.

Maybe, maybe not. What's most important is the quality of the staffers. In the case of Metro some are excellent while others are beyond terrible. When the better staffers are in regular slots it begins to sound like they're part of the station. Still, listeners who also listen to WNYM might wonder why they've "hired" the very same "reporters" over there.

My advice to Clear Channel (and I'm sure they care deeply) is, "Do what you have to do but don't lie about it. It only calls attention to how little regard you have for your listeners."

 

[FredLeonard]

Wadio: Since Clear Channel also owns Metro, maybe they think they are justified in claiming Metro staff as their own. Station promos have stretched the truth a lot further than that.

At one point, WOR was an "affliliate" of the CBS Radio Network. I wonder if anybody wondered about the same national reporters popping up on 710 and Newsradio 880 (with "CBS" removed from the tag lines on WOR).

Stations out-source traffic and weather, so why not news? Network affiliation is ultimate out-sourcing.

Question is: Does the audience for right-wing talk (superannuated, angry White guys) care who provides the local news headlines during the bathroom breaks in Rush's show. They hang on every word Rush says and at their age, they need five minute bathroom breaks every half-hour.

 

[wadio]

Since Clear Channel also owns Metro, maybe they think they are justified in claiming Metro staff as their own.

Fred, that's a valid point.

Stations out-source traffic and weather, so why not news?

Agreed. When our now defunct local AM station in the NY suburbs (a Cox syndicated talker with local AM and PM Drive shows) began outsourcing news, the station sounded better than ever. There's a lot to be said for having pro announcers appear to be in house 24/7. It's something a local station can't afford and it's a reasonable way for big market stations to cut costs. It actually gives the station a news presence somewhere between local staffing and network feeds. It's a pretty good compromise, and probably a necessity.

My only issue was making it appear something it's not, but your point is well taken.