Dave Barber - fluff radio for moron nation

[IamAllEars]

BREAKTHROUGH! YOU'VE GOT IT!

>> 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.

PRECISELY, though stated in a more pejorative fashion than how-I-said-the-same-thing. By comparison to the tone of most posts here, I must seem nerdy analyzing this ratings matter in more-agnostic terms.

This is why I would make an AWFUL talk host. While everyone-else-in-the-room is waving-their-arms, and EMOTING, I'm studying them, ANALYZING. Talk hosts are rewarded for provoking callers' emotions. Clearly, Barber has your ear. After all, you're not writing -- as passionately as you are -- about that Jeff Charles, eh?

As Senator Chris Dodd would say, "Lookit..."

YOU BET I'm a Barber fan.
I GET that you're not.

"Barber is a hack?"
"Barber is a hack?"
O'Reilly ISN'T?

These people do-what-they-do in a very calculated fashion. You may not view their craft as being as-noble as however-you-earn-a-living, but you, they, and I all made our career choices.

Barber and O'Reilly play by rules set by the-standard-of-measurement. Do you think O'Reilly doesn't KNOW he's a buffoon? He REHEARSES his buffoonery.

The common ground you and I have now found is that how-you-and-I-feel ("the aesthetic") is irrelevant to the measurable success that ratings gauge.

DON'T FEAR VOX POPULI.
Scrutinize it!
There is a PILE of money to be made UNDERSTANDING it.

If you find the profit motive distasteful, think in less-capitalistic terms. In the public policy arena, you can DO GOOD by counting-the-votes carefully.

Whether you're writing commercials or PSA's, you want to ride the horse in the direction he's facing, y'know?

And please don't breeze-by my point that OUR ALL BEING HERE...CARING ABOUT AM RADIO...is a wonderful thing.

As Bill Murray's character said in "Stripes:" "IT IS ALIVE..."

 

[coolidge]

Re: BREAKTHROUGH! YOU'VE GOT IT!

> Barber and O'Reilly play by rules set by
> the-standard-of-measurement. Do you think O'Reilly doesn't
> KNOW he's a buffoon? He REHEARSES his buffoonery.

O'Reilly is a fairly low stardard to measure against, either in terms of quality or popularity. If you are saying that Barber aspires to the dreck that O'Reilly provides, I would not be surprised.

You seem fixated on Barber's ratings. I am not that interested. Barber has the advantage of having no real competition. If WHJJ's management were not so completely incompetent they would bring in Glenn Beck or hire Matt Allen away from WPRO. Barber would not last long under those circumstances. Spending an hour talking about how customer service isn't as great as it used to be isn't exactly interesting radio.

 

[IamAllEars]

And yet, you listened, again today.

>> Barber has the advantage of having no real competition.

I think you're being a little unfair to WHJJ's Helen Glover, who stikes me as earnest; and did win a prestigious award.

>> If WHJJ's management were not so completely incompetent...

YOU said it, not me.

>> ...they would bring in Glenn Beck or hire Matt Allen away from WPRO. Barber would not last long under those circumstances.

THANK YOU. THAT will go into my ongoing Tally-O-Predictions, as your prediction, if only for future reference.

Anyone else care to handicap the ratings now being taken?
OR venture a what-if such as the above?
I'm keeping track of all predictions, to compare with eventual ratings.

>> Spending an hour talking about how customer service isn't as great as it used to be isn't exactly interesting radio.

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SPENT AN HOUR ON THAT?

Did you...LISTEN?
If so, this is what Arbitron calls "horizontal recycling."
(Same-time-of-day consecutive-day listening. GOLD for AM stations.)

Here's a tip on Talk radio technique.
Not my opinion.
An undeniable observation.

WITH ONE EXCEPTION:

When an hour is one-caller-after-another, it's hard to call that topic irrelevant.

When an hour is few-or-no-callers, it's hard to call that topic relevant.

The exception? Psychics, who ring-the-phone-off-the-hook, but are lousy "eavesdropping" for the listener. They're point-to-point service delivery that the listener can't weigh-in-on, or relate to.

I didn't hear the Dave Barber hour on customer service that you apparently suffered-through. AND I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP. I had to turn the radio down, because someone here was, in conversation, making-a-point-about how-customer-service-has-gone-to-hell.

If I had said that ON The Dave Barber Show, he'd say "SAY SWEAR."

And please don't breeze-by my point that OUR ALL BEING HERE...CARING ABOUT AM RADIO...is a wonderful thing.

 

[coolidge]

Re: And yet, you listened, again today.

> >> If WHJJ's management were not so completely
> incompetent...
>
> YOU said it, not me.

I've said it many times.




> >> Spending an hour talking about how customer service isn't
> as great as it used to be isn't exactly interesting radio.
>
> HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SPENT AN HOUR ON THAT?
>
> Did you...LISTEN?

I listened for about 30 seconds before I turned to WRKO. I can only assume Barber did the same topic for an hour.

 

[IamAllEars]

WRKO

RE Dave Barber topic:

>> I listened for about 30 seconds before I turned to WRKO. I can only assume Barber did the same topic for an hour.

WHAT TOPIC was the WRKO host working, concurrent with Barber's hour of callers' stories about lousy customer service?

 

[coolidge]

Re: WRKO

> WHAT TOPIC was the WRKO host working, concurrent with
> Barber's hour of callers' stories about lousy customer
> service?

Race and class issues re: Duke rape case, MA Health insurance law.

 

[IamAllEars]

CURIOUS: "Analysis" (A leak???)

Note "analysis" FOUR TIMES in the following.
To the trained ear, it has a familiar ring.
Sounds like a phrase someone lifted from a perceptual research summary.
If so, that could out RadioHead5.

> 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.

And "out in Michigan" sounds like someone who's never left the Area Code in which he/she was born.