DEATH TO TALK RADIO

[raFessenden]

Correction: Death To CONSERVATIVE Talk Radio.

(my apologies for the caps and language, but I am supremely ANGRY right now, and I've just got to vent a bit...)

On Labor Day, a certain Ann Coulter-ish B@#$% named Dana (I forget her last name) was subbing for Glenn Beck; when one caller in particular suggested that she would vote for some third-party candidate for President, the B@#$% Dana started interrupting her, going "Bla, Bla, Bla," in some impossible, condescending tone for which I would have slapped her @$$, had she done it to my face.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE what talk radio in this country has turned into - a bunch of tyrant kings who so cannot stand to hear anything that deviates from their party line (Soviet Russia or NAZI GERMANY, anyone?) that the deviant caller is INSULTED, CALLED NAMES, and otherwise DEHUMANIZED.

Are we as a people so degraded that we call this crap ENTERTAINMENT?

Do advertisers have no moral compunction about supporting it? No shame concerning what they are doing to our culture?

Has the art of civil discussion been completely FORGOTTEN?? What the F$%& is going to have to happen before this parade of calumny ceases? End rant...

 

[radiowizard101]

There's the radio off-on button. Internet radio offers a good alternativer. PBS is another. The conservative blabbers are not the most enlightened bunch on the air. They ALL live in an alternate universe and are mean spirited.

You might want to try Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, or Ed Schults for starters.

 

[DToTheJ]

... a certain Ann Coulter-ish B@#$% named Dana (I forget her last name)...

That would be St. Louis-based Dana Loesch, who does work for the late Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website (though with her subbing for Beck, I guess she's with The Blaze now)...

 

[wadio]

You might want to try Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, or Ed Schults for starters.

You're kidding, of course! That's the same mean-spirited, polarizing crap from the opposite perspective.

Nonpartisan talk show hosts are rare but they do exist: Michael Smerconish, Jon Grayson, Geraldo. Whether these shows can gain traction in an environment where partisan talk is a listener habit (or an addiction) is the question. It's up to the audience to vote with their dials.

 

[Tim]

Remember, guys: talk radio is in reality show-biz. Some of us on this board and other radio-hobby forums realize this.

But, apparently, most Americans (general public) really believe what most talk hosts say is gospel, and that the hosts really, really believe what they say.

It's a gig....a show...not anything that's real.

There's been many, many former music disc jockeys and/or newspeople who've carved a wonderful, big-money career basically faking it for ratings.

Oh, I'm sure I'll get torn to pieces here by the true-believers, so here goes: I've spent 40 years in larger market broadcasting, including a number of years at a pioneer talk station who's been #1 or #2 in their market for more than 25 years. I worked with many talk show hosts as a co-worker.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh at a weekend disc jockey in Pittsburgh. Howard Stern as a jock in Detroit. And, a radio friend of mine showed a young Glen Beck how to run the control board at WFLA in Tampa.

It's all or mostly fake, guys. Schtick.

 

[raccoonradio]

The only "death to talk radio" will be shows and stations going off due to a lack or ratings or
billing.
Yes it does occur on both sides. Yes there are some who try to be civil and some who try for middle of the road, or to appeal to different issues without being totally left- or right- but usually the ones who stick to the extremes get the most success.

Rush Limbaugh: $59 million/yr salary.

In Boston where you'd think liberal talk would be a huge success someone had to pay to put it on.
Now he (Jeff Santos) is getting squeezed out in favor of sports talk (his show goes off in Nov.
on 1510 WWZN, and shows like Steph Miller and Ed Schultz already got dropped).In Boston. Though maybe a) NPR stations are strong, and b) WTKK 96.9 seems to have some hosts who may be moderate/liberal, etc. and maybe that's where the libtalk audience went. When I
mentioned Eagan and Braude on WTKK were getting an extra hour, my liberal sister replied,
"Jim and Margery? I LOVE them!" So that could also account for the situation with 1510, etc.

Not that conserv talk is a guaranteed success. CC failed with their Talk 1200 Boston experiment.
Whether it's an act or not, entertainment is the key. Sometimes it can do quite well.
Or half decent. Sometimes not so well, but again if the ratings and billing decline you will
indeed see "the death of talk radio". Until then, it's doing OK. For some.

 

[ProducerGuy]

And conservative hosts are the angry ones?

 

[Tim]

Producer guy: I don't think anybody on this forum is angry.

Just telling it like it is: most heavily-political talk radio personalities say what they say, do what they do, because it's a job. A gig. It's show-biz. It isn't real.

99% of people in radio already know that. It's the general public that doesn't so much.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Dana (I forget her last name) was subbing for Glenn Beck

This is ironic. I try to stay away from the beautiful music station when Glenn Beck is on, but she didn't sound as bad as he does.

It won't matter anyway. That station is going all-talk soon, so instead it will be the station with the potential to interfere with my ability to hear Rush Limbaugh, should I choose to.

I tried the other station's button. Lots of static.

 

[recto101]

Don't Worry in SOme Markets like Washington DC and San Francisco there are NPR affiliates(WAMU-FM and KQED-FM) that air News/Talk during Drive time and they are on the top 5 in their markets. These NPR stations are head to head with CBS affiliate All-news stations (KCBS-AM(KCBS-FM aka KFRC 106.9) and WTOP-FM in DC for the top spots in their markets. I know in Chicago WBBM-FM all-news and WGN-AM are head to head for top ratings in their markets.

 

[recto101]

The only "death to talk radio" will be shows and stations going off due to a lack or ratings or
billing.
Yes it does occur on both sides. Yes there are some who try to be civil and some who try for middle of the road, or to appeal to different issues without being totally left- or right- but usually the ones who stick to the extremes get the most success.

Rush Limbaugh: $59 million/yr salary.

In Boston where you'd think liberal talk would be a huge success someone had to pay to put it on.
Now he (Jeff Santos) is getting squeezed out in favor of sports talk (his show goes off in Nov.
on 1510 WWZN, and shows like Steph Miller and Ed Schultz already got dropped).In Boston. Though maybe a) NPR stations are strong, and b) WTKK 96.9 seems to have some hosts who may be moderate/liberal, etc. and maybe that's where the libtalk audience went. When I
mentioned Eagan and Braude on WTKK were getting an extra hour, my liberal sister replied,
"Jim and Margery? I LOVE them!" So that could also account for the situation with 1510, etc.

Not that conserv talk is a guaranteed success. CC failed with their Talk 1200 Boston experiment.
Whether it's an act or not, entertainment is the key. Sometimes it can do quite well.
Or half decent. Sometimes not so well, but again if the ratings and billing decline you will
indeed see "the death of talk radio". Until then, it's doing OK. For some.

Well Younger audiences in some parts of the country has bypassed Talk radio and Cable Talk for Facebook chats in certain issues. The complaints about cable/talk and talk radio is that its basically Maury Povich/Jerry Springer trash talk show with political ideologies and not Whose baby it is scene. Also anybody that's labeled far left or far right will play the NAZI Card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6N6vHEnBMY&list=UUvzLfnG2_v6h0uVq4bQMibQ&index=1&feature=plcp
John Burton of the California DNC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhXZVfgBRFQ

Glenn Beck who is known to push the Tea Party Agenda.

 

[MC]

Look at Beck he has 200k web subscribers paying $10 a month = $20 million A YEAR. SO WHERE THERE I A WILL THERE IS A WAY. CUT OUT THE MIDDLE man...radio stations and networks. Young people are on the net and social media.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is a tangent to this conversation, but some of you will find it interesting.

Because of a web site that I maintain, my "throwaway" address... the e-mail that does not normally have any hint of my actual name was picked up by someone who thought I was "one of them". Apparently a lot of bloggers and activists are looking for anyone who might be or become "one of them" so my e-mail address keeps getting passed around and added to some.... how can I say this???? let's settle for "colorful websites and blogs".

I am now on the mailing list for DOUG GILES. When I Googled him I was amazed. He and his people certainly know how to make sure only THIS Doug Giles comes up when you Google, and ONLY the stuff HE wants you know about him comes up. (There are two other poor souls out there, one trying to make a living as an insurance agent. Out of 700 returns these other two guys maybe came up twice each.

There IS a point to this tale. When it was pointed out that Dana Loesch (Eaton?) doing the Glen Beck show works or has worked for Breitbart, I went back to Doug Giles and Google to find the names of his daughters.... for one of them was the young lady dressed up and made-up like a floozy in the undercover video in which the ACORN organization appeared to be willing to help someone posing as a pimp find government housing.

I know we have a lot of disagreements in these threads about Talk Radio and what Talk Radio should and should not be. But when you track down some of these people who have added me to their Blogs... whether I want them or not... You begin to find some connections and networking among the wacka-doodle fringe.... and what is becoming the direction of significant parts of Talk Radio.

I know... if I don't like all the e-mail blasts and the Blogs, just ask to be removed from their mailing lists. But this has been a bit of a hobby with me now for... for... well, since I did Talk Radio back in the late 60s. Most of our guests (back then we did a lot of in-studio guests and a lot of phone calls which they had to deal with if they were going to be on MY show!) were wholesome and worthy and serious about their project or cause. But the few wacka-doodle fringe folks that slipped in because we were willing to be adventuresome and open, really began to arouse my appetite to know: Who are these people? Where do they come from? And who are the followers and supporters who get roped in by them.

For a nation and a society that in many ways becomes more and more sophisticated and well informed with every passing year, How is it that we today are victimized by today's "wacka-doodles-on-steriods".... and why are some of them on the radio?

 

[Tim]

Talk radio is all about making money. Say or do anything to sensationalize, get ratings, make money. If society is damaged because too many listeners are naive and believe what these (mostly political topic) talkers say...too bad. It's all about the $$$$$. Really, simple.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Talk radio is all about making money. Say or do anything to sensationalize, get ratings, make money. If society is damaged because too many listeners are naive and believe what these (mostly political topic) talkers say...too bad. It's all about the $$$$$. Really, simple.

Are you simply making an observations of how things are.... or are you supporting what you have just described as being a disaster.

Are you saying the "If society is damaged".... that is of no consequence... that the primary purpose of our nation is "making the big bucks" even if the damage to society eventually destroys the nation... and puts a stop to the making of big bucks?

 

[MC]

All you need is 10,000 people going to you website, buying stuff, getiing your podcast, books, etc. and you have a nice upper middleclass lifestyle. How you do in the radio ratings does not matter that much to the "talent."

 

[blue67ccm]

There's the radio off-on button. Internet radio offers a good alternativer. PBS is another. The conservative blabbers are not the most enlightened bunch on the air. They ALL live in an alternate universe and are mean spirited.

You might want to try Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, or Ed Schults for starters.

You're saying Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz DON'T live in an alternate universe?

Rhodes and Schultz are crazier than any "mean spirited conservative talk show host" has ever been.....

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You might want to try Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, or Ed Schults for starters.

You're saying Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz DON'T live in an alternate universe?

Rhodes and Schultz are crazier than any "mean spirited conservative talk show host" has ever been.....

Since this conversation remains in the News/Talk forum (as in NOT in Take-It-Outside!) we probably need to see if we can tie this little tangent to broadcasting.

I assume there is a constant, on-going tension that the licensee of every station doing Talk Radio has to measure. (1) As has been stated here, the primary function of a company owning a radio station is to bring in enough revenue to at least pay the operating expenses, and then enough more to meet the expectations of ownership for reasonable return-on-investment. (2) To keep the license alive and healthy and to keep the nation alive and healthy, the licensee must always consider whether the programming material is doing any significan damage to the economy of the nation and any damage to the cohesive bonding of our people. A dysfunctional economy and a dysfunctional population will not provide an economy that makes radio function profitably.

We've just had a couple of posts accusing opposite sides of the political spectrum of being "the Alternate Universe". Under our system of governance, who gets to decide when some "school of thought" or some identifiable group or institution is so far out of the mainstream that it must be identified as being "part of the Alternate Universe". Professional football is being laughed at today because of the keystone cops dressed up a replacement referees. When I read these threads (and participate in them!) I get the feeling that the keystone cops/replacement referees are deciding what is mainstream in American thinking and what is so far off the main highway that it qualifies as "Alternate Universe".

When I get up tomorrow morning, if I become worried that maybe I have drifted over the "fog line" at the edge of the road and am participating as part of an "Alternate Universe".... how do I prove or disprove that. What is my yardstick to find the acceptable center ground? Where do I turn for guidance on staying within the "primary?" universe? Is there an atomic clock that measures decency rather than time?

And when someone gets in my face as says: "You are really, really off base!", what document, what rulebook do I hand them and say: "Here is the Robert's Rules of Order on The Acceptable Universe. Show we what rule I am violalting!" What rule book, what yard stick would I present to them?

 

[kc1ih]

You can add WBUR Boston to that list.

 

[Al Timiter]

I have not listened much to Ed Schultz or watched his TV show (I don't have cable). However, I have listened extensively and continue to listen to Randi and Thom. I will say this about both of them: They tend to use cold, hard facts when making their cases.

In all my listening to Thom, I have never, ever heard him use a disparaging term to describe people on the other side of his arguement. Never. His delivery is thoughtful, low-key and intelligent. His content and demeanor certainly cannot be compared to the vitriol that comes from Conservative talk's heavy hitters.

As far as Randi, she is a bit more complicated. She does use disparaging descriptors of her opponents occasionally. She can be testy with her callers. But again, her weapons are cold, hard facts. Her wrath cannot even be compared to what I hear coming from Levin, Savage and Limbaugh.

And as a caveat: I am fully aware and acknowledge that these two fall well below the right wing talkers audience levels.