• 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

Dave Barber - fluff radio for moron nation

R

RadioHead05

Guest
Hear Dave Barber talking about the gas tax this morning?
Hear Dan Yorke speak on the same subject this afternoon?
Hear both men interview the same politician?
The difference between these two talk hosts on matters of substance and legitimate analysis is vast. Barber is simply a verbal bomb thrower who does little analysis and puts little thought into his point of view.
It's fluff radio designed to appeal to moronnation.
He may have gotten away with that out in Michigan.
He wasn't followed by Dan Yorke out in Michigan.
Yorke, with his depth of analysis and outspoken manner makes Barber look like the weak appeal to the lowest common demoninator talker that he is.
Dave Barber got schooled by Dan Yorke today.
The lesson wasn't about the issue itself but the lack of knowledge and analysis offered by Barber.
 
RE "Barber is simply a verbal bomb thrower"

STILL no takers???

AGAIN, I invite your predictions!
Not just you-to-whose-post-I-reply.

YOU...anyone reading this, can play.

On March 30, Arbitron -- radio's ratings company -- began the 12-week survey from-which Christmas 2006 will be bought, and early 2007 advertising will be planned. These will be VERY IMPORTANT "numbers" for anyone who appears on, or sells advertising on, radio stations.

Yet no Barber-bashers seem willing to venture a guess as to how Smilin' Dave will do.

Admittedly, this is tougher than simply sniping, but SHOULD you care to venture a prediction, I offer to scribe, and report how-close-everybody-came, when the numbers come in.

No purchase necessary. Deadline to enter: 1PM July 20, when "the Advances" for the Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket market are released to subscribers. Don't be surprised if they're leaked here...side-by-side with YOUR plucky predictions.

And if your not-so-well-wishes come nowhere NEAR what-the-numbers-eventually-say, you can always later deny the validity of the measurement itself. It'll be "a tactical retreat," like Rhode Island's governor scampering to the morning show after his handlers heard what another poster here reports having heard at http://www.hollandcooke.com/GraholmCarcieri.mp3 (an actual clip from That Darn Dave's last show in Michigan).

Soooooooooooo...

As Kramer once challenged Jerry and George, "Do you want to have FUN???"
 
Re: RE "Barber is simply a verbal bomb thrower"

Ears honestly I could care less one way or another.
My thoughts re: Dave Barber are addressing what I find to be
his rather superfluous, shallow and lazy talk hosting style.
Barber is after the bottomfeeders of radio listenership.
He's not a heavy lifter or big thinker.



> STILL no takers???
>
> AGAIN, I invite your predictions!
> Not just you-to-whose-post-I-reply.
> YOU...anyone reading this.
>
> On March 30, Arbitron -- radio's ratings company -- began
> the 12-week survey from-which Christmas 2006 will be bought,
> and early 2007 advertising will be planned. These will be
> VERY IMPORTANT "numbers" for anyone who appears on, or sells
> advertising on, radio stations.
>
> Yet no Barber-bashers seem willing to venture a guess as to
> how Smilin' Dave will do.
>
> Admittedly, this is tougher than simply sniping, but SHOULD
> you care to venture a prediction, I offer to scribe, and
> report how-close-everybody-came, when the numbers come in,
> this Summer.
>
> And if your not-so-well-wishes come nowhere NEAR
> what-the-numbers-eventually-say, you can always later deny
> the validity of the measurement itself. It'll be "a
> tactical retreat," like Rhode Island's governor scampering
> to the morning show after his handlers heard what another
> poster here reports having heard at
> http://www.hollandcooke.com/GraholmCarcieri.mp3 (an actual
> clip from That Darn Dave's last show in Michigan).
>
 
NO prediction? THAT'S a shocker.

> honestly I could care less one way or another.

Grammatically, I suspect you mean the opposite.

Anyone less-timid care to venture a prediction?

Young radioaddict1 changed-the-subject when I invited his prediction.
Now you too are quick to critique, but slow to handicap.
Rather like going to the track, but not placing a bet, isn't it?
Or going to the casino...just to watch.

Would I get more takers if I could arrange for Jeff Charles to announce the results on WHJJ?
 
Re: NO prediction? THAT'S a shocker.

Grammatically? lol
I suspect you have no idea what your talking about Ears.
Although it appears you do I don't lose any sleep over Dave Barber and his success and/or failure. Don't care quite honestly.
Merely came here to express a point of view based on the schooling Yorke handed to Barber today. Was men vs boys!


> > honestly I could care less one way or another.
>
> Grammatically, I suspect you mean the opposite.
>
> Anyone less-timid care to venture a prediction?
>
> Would I get more takers if I could arrange for Jeff Charles
> to announce the results on WHJJ?
>
 
Common malapropism

> Grammatically? lol
> I suspect you have no idea what your talking about Ears.

You wrote "I could care less."

You-seemed-to-mean-to-say "I couldn't care less."

Meaning, that-to-which-you-refer is UNIMPORTANT to you.

Not to put too fine a point on your grammar, but when you write "your" above, you seem to mean "you're."

Yet you volunteer to deconstruct professional speakers.
 
Re: Common malapropism

Sea f u cen fohlw mi pownt airs.
n ane gramma u waunt Barbur s stil uh lowse radeo tawk howse.
ohkae?
noh git a lief wood u pleeze dayv?
Tanks! lol


> > Grammatically? lol
> > I suspect you have no idea what your talking about Ears.
>
> You wrote "I could care less."
>
> You-seemed-to-mean-to-say "I couldn't care less."
>
> Meaning, that-to-which-you-refer is UNIMPORTANT to you.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on your grammar, but when you
> write "your" above, you seem to mean "you're."
>
> Yet you volunteer to deconstruct professional speakers.
>
 
As the sign says, "Welcome to The Ocean State."

Although most-who-post-here might only read the Providence board, you will note (over to the left and scroll down) that radio-info.com covers lots more ground. You can click-on dozens of other cities, to read what posters elsewhere are saying about radio in their markets.

When you do, you might find the conversation more polite than some of what you read here.

And to those from elsewhere who may be virtually visiting us, by browsing posts on the Providence board, this assurance:

Some intolerant comments suggest that because someone is not FROM here, he or she is unwelcome, or less-eligible to host radio here than someone who enjoys the happy accident of having-been-born-here.

Please know that such comments are certainly NOT representative of how most Rhode Islanders feel. Our little state has a great big heart, and is filled with warm, welcoming people, whose heritage is a proud immigrant tradition.
 
Re: As the sign says, "Welcome to The Ocean State."

> Please know that such comments are certainly NOT
> representative of how most Rhode Islanders feel. Our little
> state has a great big heart, and is filled with warm,
> welcoming people, whose heritage is a proud immigrant
> tradition.

Unfortunately WPRO has seen fit to foist an untalented hack like Dave Barber on these warm, welcoming people.

You want a prediction? Depetro's ratings in RI on WRKO go up in the next book.
 
> Hear Dave Barber talking about the gas tax this morning?
> Hear Dan Yorke speak on the same subject this afternoon?
> Hear both men interview the same politician?
> The difference between these two talk hosts on matters of
> substance and legitimate analysis is vast. Barber is simply
> a verbal bomb thrower who does little analysis and puts
> little thought into his point of view.
> It's fluff radio designed to appeal to moronnation.
> He may have gotten away with that out in Michigan.
> He wasn't followed by Dan Yorke out in Michigan.
> Yorke, with his depth of analysis and outspoken manner makes
> Barber look like the weak appeal to the lowest common
> demoninator talker that he is.
> Dave Barber got schooled by Dan Yorke today.
> The lesson wasn't about the issue itself but the lack of
> knowledge and analysis offered by Barber.
>
I take a swing at this.

Barber one decent book. down hill from there. Curiousity factor.
Where's Mary Ann these days?
 
RE "You want a prediction?"

>> Unfortunately WPRO has seen fit to foist an untalented hack like Dave Barber on these warm, welcoming people.

You're making my point!
"Untalented" BY WHAT YARDSTICK???

Ratings are "an election."
Technically, 12 weekly elections, beginning 3/30.
The sample = "voters."

THEY will pronounce Smilin' Dave a hit or a hack.
Unless any of us here are diarykeepers, we're just spectators.

Sooooooooooo...I propose that we make it a spectator sport!
Drop the puck, eh?

As John McLaughlin would holler, in his own thick (Cranston) Rhode Island accent: "PREDICTIONS!!!"

>> Depetro's ratings in RI on WRKO go up in the next book.

Prediction noted for the record!

And John-o's an ace alrighty. Hopefully Boston has welcomed him (EEK!!! AN OUTSIDER!!!) more warmly than some here embrace Barber.

But the prediction itself betrays a misunderstanding of Arbitron sampling. "Placement" in ratings lingo. But we HAVE a measurable prediction.

ANYONE ELSE?

PS: Extra credit for first use here of "foist."
(Or is that "foist" use of "first?")
 
> I take a swing at this.

> Barber one decent book. down hill from there. Curiousity factor.

Noted for the record!
And a MULTI-book prediction at that.
Bold.

And a prediction not-unlike what they're saying about "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

One thing to keep in mind about the "curiosity factor."
What PROMOTION would provoke such sampling?
Said another way: How would listeners KNOW Dave's there, and be curious?

Tell me if I've missed any TV commercials or Barber billboards.
You wouldn't know Dave is on WPRO from listening to Dan York.
And they're on the same team!

To-date, the only EXTERNAL media exposure That Darn Dave has gotten is:
1. Andy Smith's ProJo piece on Dave's debut day.
2. NBC10 brought cameras into the studio when Dave broke a story.
3. ABC6 brought cameras into the studio last week, on another story.
4. And there's all those free plugs on WHJJ's Jeff Charles Show.

Although TV-showing-up-twice-in-two-weeks is nothing to sneeze at, it's ad hoc...not the kind of systematic, sampling-inducing off-air advertising that would provoke curiosity in a mathematically-significant way.

Or, as Buffalo Springfield sang, "Stop. Hey, what's that sound?"

But we HAVE a prediction, and it's in the log I offered to keep on an ongoing basis, to compare with eventual ratings.

ANYONE ELSE?
(Where's radioaddict1 when you NEED him/her?)

> Where's Mary Ann these days?

GOOD QUESTION.
Anyone?
I haven't spoken to her in 10 years.
She was a pistol, eh?
As with Jimmy Carter, history may be kinder to her than contemporaries were.
It'd be fun to hear her again, if only as a fill-in.
Maybe on The Jeff Charles Show?
 
RE "fluff radio"

TRUE STORY, about the late William Paley, Chairman of CBS (brilliantly portrayed by Frank Langella in "Good Night and Good Luck"):

In the 1960s, Paley took LOTS of heat from his rich country club pals for "The Beverly Hillbillies," then television's TOP RATED show. Paley would just grin.

If you're sitting there every afternoon with graph paper trying to follow whatever arcane, inside-baseball non-controversy Dan York is screeching about, you're missing The Big Picture.

You're "counting the peanuts while the elephants stampede," as Barber himself quipped recently.

NEWS FLASH for Barber-bashers:
(Grab the arm rest.)

The Dave Barber Show is...
(ready?)
...A SHOW!

Don't confuse it with a newscast, or NPR.

It's A SHOW.
ENTERTAINMENT.

Advertisers -- who pay to keep-the-lights-on at WPRO -- LIKE "fluff," when "fluff" has an audience.

Smilin' Dave isn't there to crack-the-atom.
He gets paid for ratings.

I'd be tempted to say that "he's not there to cure cancer," but that Flint Journal farewell piece another poster referenced described the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars in fundraising Barber did for various charitable causes.

But that's not my point.

IT'S A SHOW.
ENTERTAINMENT.
Like "The Beverly Hillbillies."
 
Re: RE "You want a prediction?"

Does Dave pay you for this silly propagandizing on his behalf or are you a family member of his?
 
Re: RE "fluff radio"

> Don't confuse it with a newscast, or NPR.
>
> It's A SHOW.
> ENTERTAINMENT.

It may be a show, but it's not entertaining.
 
RE "Does Dave pay you for this silly propagandizing..."

>> Does Dave pay you for this silly propagandizing on his behalf or are you a family member of his?


THANK YOU for asking.

Neither.

But the subject you raise is bigger than this thread will support.

Look for new thread above.

But give me a LITTLE credit, willya?

In this particular arena, I appear to be woefully outnumbered. Yet not even the most adolescent of the snipers take issue with my rationale...and VERY few Barber-bashers seem willing to hazard a ratings prediction.
 
RE "It's A SHOW. ENTERTAINMENT."

>> It may be a show, but it's not entertaining.

Again, you're making my point.
The eventual RATINGS will decide that.

PREDICTIONS?
 
Re: RE "It's A SHOW. ENTERTAINMENT."

> Again, you're making my point.
> The eventual RATINGS will decide that.

The ratings only determine whether or not the show is popular, not whether or not it is good or entertaining.

And I suspect it will not be popular, either.
 
*** HERE...HERE is the REAL issue!

>> The ratings only determine whether or not the show is popular, not whether or not it is good or entertaining.

Think that through.

By definition, good ratings demonstrate that those-listening ARE entertained, or provoked, or otherwise-engaged. To them, what they're hearing is "good." Or it's SO vile that -- like many of Rush Limbaugh's listeners -- they hate it 5-days-a-week.

The aesthetic you're suggesting -- that there's a difference between success and worth -- has no practical consequence. "Good" is simply YOUR aesthetic.

AND DON'T GET ME WRONG: THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION IS NOTHING LESS THAN WONDERFUL. Opinions-about-Dave Barber aren't the issue. They're a symptom...of something GREAT. Here we all are, sharing, passionately, about RADIO. Despite iPod, satellite radio...heck, FM, which nudged AM to the side before The Talk Radio Revolution...AM radio is, once again, something people CARE about.

Deft carnival barkers like Limbaugh and Barber CAUSE us to debate aesthetics once given-up-for-dead. And THAT is WONDERFUL.

Meanwhile, in the dollars-and-cents real-world...
Ratings produce winners and losers.
Winners are said to have "good" ratings.
But they're just numbers, voting.
The numbers have what Camus called "the benign indifference of the universe."

LISTENERS will vote.
We, here, are just spectators.

Or, as Captain Kirk would have pronounced it, "WE...HERE...ARE...JUST SPECTATORS..."
 
Re: *** HERE...HERE is the REAL issue!

> By definition, good ratings demonstrate that those-listening
> ARE entertained, or provoked, or otherwise-engaged.

No, good ratings demonstrate that people are listening, period. It says nothing about the quality of the show itself. Barber is a hack. Whether he is a popular hack remains to be seen.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom