• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Conservative Talk Radio...It's over !..Time for a new talk format...

S

superjj

WRKO adding Rush and shuffling the deck chairs is just another indication of how unimaginative radio has become. Why is it that in a liberal city like Boston where they haven't had a Republican mayor in over 60 years, do we have all conservative talk radio. Any wonder why the ratings are weak for WTKK and WRKO? Because people clearly are sic of hearing the same broken record of topics day after day ( Obama etc.). Conservative talk radio has become so predictable and most importantly , not entertaining. There used t be a time where you could hear a variety of topics and subjects on talk radio, with a non biased presentation. And why so serious all the time. Don't listeners like to laugh and be entetained? I think they do, that's why the majority of all the successfull and highest rated shows in AM drive are talk based humor driven shows ( Matty, Toucher and Rich, and back in the day Stern). Two different genres and demos, yet the same thing in common...humor. That's one of the main ingredients missing in talk radio today. Why is it that morning drive shows on talk stations never do well in the ratings? Because nobody wants to be innundated with heavy issues or political talk on the way to work. Until a programmer with vision figures out what listeners REALLY like to listen to regarding spoken word, you'll keep getting the same old, same old. It's boring, and the ratings reflects that notion.
 
You can make the same statements about progressive talk. It's basically conservatalk from the opposite point of view. Many progressives agree with their POV, but don't necessarily like the format. That's why public radio does so well in many blue cities. It's a largely non-partisian to left-leaning news-talk alternative that's commercial free. It's not as one sided and in your face as commercial talk radio is, on both sides of the aisle.

That said, progressive AM talk never got a fair shake here. It was put on 1200 back when the stick was still out in Framingham and simulcast on 1430 with little to no promotion and only one local weekend show. Despite this, it still hung in just shy of a one share for most of it's life. That was as good as it got for Talk 1200, and that's with the signal upgraded to 50,000 watts and two local weekday hosts. With some time and patience, I think the format could easily find an audience and a client base here.
 
I'd argue that, in a thinking city like Boston, right-wing talk radio vitriol continues to damage the Republican brand here on a local level. A majority of people associate the local Republican party with national blowhards, and the public reaction against Limbaugh and co. keeps people pulling the Democratic lever. If you wonder why Massachusetts is a one-party state, just look at the national GOP and its fans in talk radio. We're too aware here for that buffoonery.
 
from talkers.com

Major Programming Changes at Clear Channel’s WXKS, Boston. Clear Channel Boston’s Joe Mazzei tells TALKERS Premiere Networks‘ “America Now” with Andy Dean is the AM drive show and Sean Hannity airs live from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm displacing Jeff Katz and Jay Severin, respectively. Mazzei says, “Unfortunately, these are never easy decisions to make. We appreciate their commitment and service to the station/company over the years, and we wish them all the best.” No word yet on the status of program director Paula O’Connor. Talk 1200 has had trouble getting ratings traction, even with Limbaugh anchoring the station, and has not garnered more than a 1-share in its incarnation as a news/talk station. Clear Channel may be cutting its losses and eliminating salaries and going with an automated station in light of the challenging talk radio market in Boston.
Click to expand...

http://www.talkers.com/category/news/
 
What about us who are "classical liberal"/Libertarian in some ways/unenrolled? We may lean right on most issues, left on a couple. Anyway nationally at least and for awhile in Boston there was and is conserv. talk radio, a reaction to the folks in power (up in heaven Jerry W. repeats the Howard Beale line I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore! Want liberal talk, you have the VERY exciting Jeff Santos and NPR. Anyway I guess CC keeps 1200 going for now? they were going to have Andy Dean on before but quickly switched to Jason Lewis--who got displaced with Severin pushing Hannity to delay. Now Dean back. I like Howie and Katz (maybe fill ins at RKO though supp. McPhee is to be his primary fill in...maybe have Katz in mornings when she, ugh, does...)
 
One reason for the failure of liberal talk radio to catch on is that with the exceptions of Al Franken (now a Senator) and Stephanie Miller, liberal talk hosts/hostesses have not been as entertaining as their conservative counterparts.

I know of at least a few liberals who listen to Rush because they find him entertaining.

While the talk radio industry likes to think they're informing listeners the truth is they're in the entertainment business.

And it seems to me that in terms of entertainment value, conservative hosts generally are more entertaining than liberal ones.

Were two or three truly entertaining liberal talk hosts to emerge on the national scene, things could change.
 
Joseph_Gallant said:
One reason for the failure of liberal talk radio to catch on is that with the exceptions of Al Franken (now a Senator) and Stephanie Miller, liberal talk hosts/hostesses have not been as entertaining as their conservative counterparts.

I know of at least a few liberals who listen to Rush because they find him entertaining.

While the talk radio industry likes to think they're informing listeners the truth is they're in the entertainment business.

And it seems to me that in terms of entertainment value, conservative hosts generally are more entertaining than liberal ones.

Were two or three truly entertaining liberal talk hosts to emerge on the national scene, things could change.
Click to expand...

Good argument. Certainly, on the television side, Jon Stuart and Bill Maher are both highly entertaining and thought-provoking.
 
You could make the "non-entertaining" argument in 2004 when Air America first launched. Not anymore. Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann are proven progressive talk personalities. So is Stephanie Miller. Randi Rhodes is syndicated by Premiere, so they must think she's "entertaining." They've all been on the air for several years, and all of them are radio people, not policy wonks. Schultz, along with former radio host turned commentator Rachel Maddow are successful hosts on MSNBC as well. There are plenty of progressive voices out there who can draw an audience. It's just been tough to break through when most broadcasting chains are run by conservatives who don't agree with their points of view.
 
fmradio1 said:
You could make the "non-entertaining" argument in 2004 when Air America first launched. Not anymore. Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann are proven progressive talk personalities. So is Stephanie Miller. Randi Rhodes is syndicated by Premiere, so they must think she's "entertaining." They've all been on the air for several years, and all of them are radio people, not policy wonks. Schultz, along with former radio host turned commentator Rachel Maddow are successful hosts on MSNBC as well. There are plenty of progressive voices out there who can draw an audience. It's just been tough to break through when most broadcasting chains are run by conservatives who don't agree with their points of view.
Click to expand...

Half of those hosts you mentioned are syndicated by Clear Channel. Enough of the conspiracy nonsense. Liberal talk on commerical radio doesn't work because liberal people get their talk fix elsewhere. Mainly public radio. If you count the major public radio stations in most markets, left leaning radio is plenty successful.
 
From what I understand about radio (or any other business), they are in it to make a profit. Ergo, there must not be a desireable target audience. Conservative or "hate radio" as it is called by the liberal or "progressive radio" fans must have an audience that's more desireable. The "hate radio" audience would include people who work for a living, own property, and feel that they pay too much in taxes. The "progressive" audience would include intellectuals, people on public assistance, illegal aliiens, public employees, and they feel that the hate radio listeners don't pay enough taxes.

In that, even the most liberal cannot deny a bias against Republicans, by the main stream media, highlighted by Dan Rather trying to rig an election, they seem to target the other side for their audience
 
No Art, the "liberal bias" doesn't exist, and hasn't for years. All the major networks are owned by large conglomerates that are by and large conservative entities. It's amazing how ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN have tilted to the right recently. It's all sloppy journalism wrapped around right-wing talking points. It's un-watchable. What has happened over the last twenty years is that conservatives have become very used to receiving their "news" from a heavily biased, bordering on propaganda, from hard line right wing sources like talk radio, Drudge and Faux News. ANY kind of balance in a newscast is quickly branded as "bias" by the right. When people take in a steady diet of slanted commentary packaged as "news" with no coverage of the other side in a (pardon the term) "fair and balanced" way, this type of reaction is to be expected. Indeed, the continuous drumbeat of "liberal bias" by the hard right when it doesn't exist, and the unquestioning acceptance of it by it's lemming followers is truly scary. It's the exact same tactics that the Third Reich and the Soviet Union used to bring their people "in line."
 
"Faux News" as some call it is #1 with their talk shows, but then again the other networks tend to all lean left so they may have the right all to itself.

http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/media-bias-cartoon-radio.jpg?w=500

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/09/further-proof-npr-caters-extreme-left

>>Apparently, at the end of February, the NPR program "Morning Edition" took the unusual move of airing four consecutive days of interviews with conservative thinkers in a segment they dubbed "Conversations with Conservatives." Each of these conservatives had their own focus, religion, taxes, and the like. But, as Harper discovered, "NPR listeners were not especially pleased in the aftermath of the broadcast segments."
According to NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network, calling the programming "shameful" and a "lovefest with radical, right-wing nuts." There were only a few, she said, that praised the series as "refreshing" and "articulate," among other things.

>>'radical, right-wing nuts.'

Great, my tax dollars (CPB funding) at work. Any great right-leaning shows on NPR I could check out?
Didn't think so. (I think the segments mentioned above were about 7 minutes long. Apparently 7 minutes of
"the other side" was 7 minutes too long for the NPR listeners.
 
And let's see what the reaction would be if Faux even aired "Conversations with the Left." Yeah, like that would happen. Outside of bringing in a "token liberal" to state his opinion before being shouted down, that's about as much as the network would engage the other side. And people would be HOWLING if a thoughtful, respectful discussion about the Left's positions ever made the air.

I'd be curious as to how many tax breaks News Corp. gets from the federal government. As much as you object to your tax dollars going to an entity you don't personally believe in, I object to a multi-national company like News Corps getting "corporate welfare" in the form of tax breaks. I bet it's a lot more than whatever pittance NPR (which is primarily funded by listener donations) gets from the feds.
 
>>if Faux even aired "Conversations with the Left."

"The news channel (FNC) looks for the conservative slant in the stories it selects to tell, and its leading personalities in prime time are right wingers. But you can hear all sides of the debate on Fox."

--Juan Williams, ex-NPR, longtime Fox contributor; liberal, author of "Eyes on the Prize"
in "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate"

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/JuanWilliams-NPR-Hannity-Muzzled/2011/07/25/id/404708
(Williams: A liberal working for Fox. How many conservatives are there on CNN etc?)
 
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)


ArtSpooner said:
From what I understand about radio (or any other business), they are in it to make a profit. Ergo, there must not be a desireable target audience. Conservative or "hate radio" as it is called by the liberal or "progressive radio" fans must have an audience that's more desireable. The "hate radio" audience would include people who work for a living, own property, and feel that they pay too much in taxes. The "progressive" audience would include intellectuals, people on public assistance, illegal aliiens, public employees, and they feel that the hate radio listeners don't pay enough taxes.

In that, even the most liberal cannot deny a bias against Republicans, by the main stream media, highlighted by Dan Rather trying to rig an election, they seem to target the other side for their audience
Click to expand...
 
No Art, the "liberal bias" doesn't exist, and hasn't for years. All the major networks are owned by large conglomerates that are by and large conservative entities.

This is a non-sequitur.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that editorial decisions are made by the non-broadcasting and non-news division suits in the corporate headquarters.

Nope. You don't.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Regards,
TSB
 
TSBench said:
No Art, the "liberal bias" doesn't exist, and hasn't for years. All the major networks are owned by large conglomerates that are by and large conservative entities.

This is a non-sequitur.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that editorial decisions are made by the non-broadcasting and non-news division suits in the corporate headquarters.

Nope. You don't.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Regards,
TSB
Click to expand...
You mean that there's a possibility that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC aren't biased? I just assumed I had been proven wrong by someone in the know. Now I'm confused....no I'm not.
 
raccoonradio said:
"Faux News" as some call it is #1 with their talk shows, but then again the other networks tend to all lean left so they may have the right all to itself.

http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/media-bias-cartoon-radio.jpg?w=500

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/09/further-proof-npr-caters-extreme-left

>>Apparently, at the end of February, the NPR program "Morning Edition" took the unusual move of airing four consecutive days of interviews with conservative thinkers in a segment they dubbed "Conversations with Conservatives." Each of these conservatives had their own focus, religion, taxes, and the like. But, as Harper discovered, "NPR listeners were not especially pleased in the aftermath of the broadcast segments."


Racoonn, with all due respect haven't you been able to pursue your hobby as an amateur broadcaster at a radio station that is partly funded by tax dollars paid by citizens of the Commonwealth? I would contend that the money that was used to put the Salem State station and other public education institutions all over the country on the air were and are funded in some way by tax dollars.? I assume that for example your station does not pay rent to the college for studios and other facilities? Since I realize that stations like the Salem Station serve a public need, I don't mind a small percentage of their funding like the small amount of money the CPB distributes. being derived from public funds.

Is your issue with NPR that it does not necessarily reflect your political views all the time or are you against any public funding of the of the arts?
Click to expand...
 
Racoonn, with all due respect haven't you been able to pursue your hobby at a radio station that is partly funded by tax dollars paid by citizens of the Commonwealth? I would contend that the money that was used to put the Salem State University station and other public education institutions all over the country on the air were and are funded in some way by tax dollars? I assume that for example, WMWM does not pay rent to the University for studio space and other facilities? Since I realize that stations like 91.7FM serve a public need, I don't mind a small percentage of their funding like the small amount of money the CPB distributes. being derived from public funds.

Is your issue with NPR that it does not necessarily reflect your political views all the time or are you against any public funding of the of the arts?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom