• 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

Definitions

K

kaufcom

I think it is useful to come up with some names to define the various kinds of political talk stations operating in the U.S. I'd like to propose the following names to describe the various types of political talk -- conservative and liberal. Of course it is understood that all political talk stations do program some non-politcal talk shows i.e. paranormal (overnight) and health, computer,sports, automotive, etc. on weekends.

True Believers-- 100% of programming offering one political view

Marginals-- offer one weekday host (either local or syndicated) with an opposing point of view.

Hybrids-- offer two or more weekday hosts (either local or syndicated) with opposing points of view.

I think that these three definitions would accurately identify all talk radio stations that feature political talk.





<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by barooosk on 11/27/05 08:21 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> I think it is useful to come up with some names to define
> the various kinds of political talk stations operating in
> the U.S. I'd like to propose the following names to
> describe the various types of political talk -- conservative
> and liberal. Of course it is understood that all political
> talk stations do program some non-politcal talk shows i.e.
> paranormal (overnight) and health, computer,sports,
> automotive, etc. on weekends.
>
> True Believers-- 100% of programming offering one political
> view
>
> Marginals-- offer one weekday host (either local or
> syndicated) with an opposing point of view.
>
> Hybrids-- offer two or more weekday hosts (either local or
> syndicated) with opposing points of view.
>
> I think that these three definitions would accurately
> identify all talk radio stations that feature political
> talk.
>

How about:

1) Slightly Slanted
2) Strict Party Line
3) Singing To The Choir
 
> > I think it is useful to come up with some names to define
> > the various kinds of political talk stations operating in
> > the U.S. I'd like to propose the following names to
> > describe the various types of political talk --
> conservative
> > and liberal. Of course it is understood that all
> political
> > talk stations do program some non-politcal talk shows i.e.
>
> > paranormal (overnight) and health, computer,sports,
> > automotive, etc. on weekends.
> >
> > True Believers-- 100% of programming offering one
> political
> > view
> >
> > Marginals-- offer one weekday host (either local or
> > syndicated) with an opposing point of view.
> >
> > Hybrids-- offer two or more weekday hosts (either local or
>
> > syndicated) with opposing points of view.
> >
> > I think that these three definitions would accurately
> > identify all talk radio stations that feature political
> > talk.
> >
>
> How about:
>
> 1) Slightly Slanted
> 2) Strict Party Line
> 3) Singing To The Choir
>

I think its hard to put labels on anything...but if the consensus agrees that labels should be required.....i think the True Believer and Hybrid should suffice.....the marginal classification offers little over what hybrid does.

KGO (my all time fav station) serves just about every view....so it has to be a hybrid. I assume AAR would be a True Believer as its clearly liberal/progressive. If you have some hosts who "muddy" the waters by keeping their views a little unclear....how does that work?

I use Neal Boortz as an example.....my opinion he's hiding out as a Liberatarian but actually speaks as a hard conservative. He's a water "muddier". I would say he's a true believer as he only speaks to the right and never to the left. I have listened to him several times and i just don't seem him as very liberatarian. Is he a hybrid? doubt it...

Gene Burns is more of a hybrid as libratarians normally agree more with liberals socially but can exist with conservatives as well...also my opinion.

Im also curious why it would be necessary to label the hosts and stations mostly because its usually clear to all the host and the staions target audience.....so i would express that Labels are clearly un-necessary.
 
I used the term hybred the other day talking to a class of college kids to describe the type of host who does some politics and some bits, people like Glen Beck, who come from rock radio.
 
> Im also curious why it would be necessary to label the hosts
> and stations mostly because its usually clear to all the
> host and the staions target audience.....so i would express
> that Labels are clearly un-necessary.

Just a way of looking at talk radio stations. I've identified 1,708 stations that do political talk. "Radio and Records" breaks these down into "talk" and "newstalk." I have no idea what the difference is between these two labels. I think it would better to have the definitions tied in with the political content.
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>
 
> > > I think it is useful to come up with some names to
> define
> > > the various kinds of political talk stations operating
> in
> > > the U.S. I'd like to propose the following names to
> > > describe the various types of political talk --
> > conservative
> > > and liberal. Of course it is understood that all
> > political
> > > talk stations do program some non-politcal talk shows
> i.e.
> >
> > > paranormal (overnight) and health, computer,sports,
> > > automotive, etc. on weekends.
> > >
> > > True Believers-- 100% of programming offering one
> > political
> > > view
> > >
> > > Marginals-- offer one weekday host (either local or
> > > syndicated) with an opposing point of view.
> > >
> > > Hybrids-- offer two or more weekday hosts (either local
> or
> >
> > > syndicated) with opposing points of view.
> > >
> > > I think that these three definitions would accurately
> > > identify all talk radio stations that feature political
> > > talk.
> > >
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > 1) Slightly Slanted
> > 2) Strict Party Line
> > 3) Singing To The Choir
> >
>
> I think its hard to put labels on anything...but if the
> consensus agrees that labels should be required.....i think
> the True Believer and Hybrid should suffice.....the marginal
> classification offers little over what hybrid does.
>
> KGO (my all time fav station) serves just about every
> view....so it has to be a hybrid. I assume AAR would be a
> True Believer as its clearly liberal/progressive. If you
> have some hosts who "muddy" the waters by keeping their
> views a little unclear....how does that work?
>
> I use Neal Boortz as an example.....my opinion he's hiding
> out as a Liberatarian but actually speaks as a hard
> conservative. He's a water "muddier". I would say he's a
> true believer as he only speaks to the right and never to
> the left. I have listened to him several times and i just
> don't seem him as very liberatarian. Is he a hybrid? doubt
> it...
>
> Gene Burns is more of a hybrid as libratarians normally
> agree more with liberals socially but can exist with
> conservatives as well...also my opinion.
>
> Im also curious why it would be necessary to label the hosts
> and stations mostly because its usually clear to all the
> host and the staions target audience.....so i would express
> that Labels are clearly un-necessary.
>

I lived in the Bay Area for many years. I still listen to Ronn Owens (KGO - the greatest talk station ever)on the internet nearly everyday. Three things make him a better listen than Limbaugh.
First, he's intellegent, secondly, he's interesting, third, he is OPEN to ideas.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radio-outsider on 11/28/05 12:25 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Archaic

Almost all talk radio, especially in major and large markets, is what you call "True Believers." Anything else is not good programming because it disrupts audience flow and creates audience churn. It's a hodge podge. The idea is people who like one program on the schedule will like all the programs: Please some of the people all of the time.

The other two you're describing are relics the "fairness doctrine" era.

The distinction between news-talk and talk stations is also somewhat archaic. In theory, news-talk stations did more news. News-talk stations theoretically would do news blocks in morning and/or afternoon drive, or would have some news-oriented talk shows emphasizing interviews more than call-ins. The line between the two has blurred.
 
OK, let's look at WLW.

Morning: Liberal host but mostly short features (news and entertainment) with lots of news, weather and traffic
Midday (9-12noon). McConnell, somewhere between Libertarian and Conservative, intermixing light topics.
Midday (12:30-3 after Paul Harvey).Cunningham, conservative politics interspersed with sex and sports.
PM Drive..Burbank. Humor which can go either political direction, "Sports or Consequences", weather, traffic and news.
Early eve. "Sportstalk"
Late evening (when no play-by-play) Sloan, somewhere between Libertarian and Conservative..with sex topics on occasion.

Guess that would be a hybrid? Flanked by "True Believer" stations of both the left and right (WKRC and WCKY).

<P ID="signature">______________
..from the Ball Park Franks sponsored gr8oldies keyboard...</P>
 
> OK, let's look at WLW.
>
> Morning: Liberal host but mostly short features (news and
> entertainment) with lots of news, weather and traffic
> Midday (9-12noon). McConnell, somewhere between Libertarian
> and Conservative, intermixing light topics.
> Midday (12:30-3 after Paul Harvey).Cunningham, conservative
> politics interspersed with sex and sports.
> PM Drive..Burbank. Humor which can go either political
> direction, "Sports or Consequences", weather, traffic and
> news.
> Early eve. "Sportstalk"
> Late evening (when no play-by-play) Sloan, somewhere between
> Libertarian and Conservative..with sex topics on occasion.
>
> Guess that would be a hybrid? Flanked by "True Believer"
> stations of both the left and right (WKRC and WCKY).
>

I think maybe that's whats wrong with our country. Everyone and everything has to have a label. It's the "them's" and "those who", the "librulls", and the "crischins". How about just being a person with a viewpoint, or an opinion. Hell, we might have to stop and actually listen. Nope. Gotta have a label. Easier that way. Makes us not have to think. Thanks Rush!!! We owe it all the you.

One of "them"
 
> OK, let's look at WLW.
>
> Morning: Liberal host but mostly short features (news and
> entertainment) with lots of news, weather and traffic
> Midday (9-12noon). McConnell, somewhere between Libertarian
> and Conservative, intermixing light topics.
> Midday (12:30-3 after Paul Harvey).Cunningham, conservative
> politics interspersed with sex and sports.
> PM Drive..Burbank. Humor which can go either political
> direction, "Sports or Consequences", weather, traffic and
> news.
> Early eve. "Sportstalk"
> Late evening (when no play-by-play) Sloan, somewhere between
> Libertarian and Conservative..with sex topics on occasion.
>
> Guess that would be a hybrid? Flanked by "True Believer"
> stations of both the left and right (WKRC and WCKY).
>
lets look at another hybrid-wtam1100:
morning drive-conservative news host bill wills
mornings-jjeewwyy, mr. liberal
midday-rush-mr. conservative
pm drive--triv-mr. anything goes
late eves-sprts or kevin keane/mark schwab/andre knott doing sports
overnights-george noory and art bells ufo groupies

a true beleiver station would be whlo640:
morning drive-quinn and rose-conservative
late mornings-glenn beck-conservative humor
midday-el rushbo
pm drive-hannnity-rush jr
evenings-savage nation-libertarian
9pm-laura ingraham-conservative politics
11pm-rollye james-conservative humor
overnight-lala land with george noory

another true beleiver is warf-radio free ohio 1350/sister to whlo640
24/7 error uh-mar-i-ka, except handle on the law saturday mornings

salem 1420 is conservative religious talk with bennett, ingtraham, prager, medved, hewitt, gallagher and local ernie anderson.

even wcer900 is positioning itself as a religious/consrvative talk station by carrying jerry dolyl, dr.laura, bill o'reilly and point of view(founded by marlin maddoux, now hosted by kirby and penna)

just some programming examples from neohio--david5258
 
Re: KGO n/t 810

> Almost all talk radio, especially in major and large
> markets, is what you call "True Believers." Anything else
> is not good programming because it disrupts audience flow
> and creates audience churn.

Sometimes this is true. However, how would you explain the continued ratings success at KGO?

KGO features everyone from Prof. Bill Wattenburg on one side to the Rev. Rafael Talliaferro on the other side.
 
> > Im also curious why it would be necessary to label the

> Just a way of looking at talk radio stations. I've
> identified 1,708 stations that do political talk. "Radio
> and Records" breaks these down into "talk" and "newstalk."
> I have no idea what the difference is between these two
> labels. I think it would better to have the definitions tied
> in with the political content.

Look at the four Arbitron definitions:
All News, All Sports, News/Talk, Talk

...click here for ratings
http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/fmttrends2.asp
 
Exception proves the rule

KGO is unique. They go completely against the current trends of talk radio programming. As I suggested in an earlier thread, they may know something the rest of the talk radio community (or even the ABC Radio Stations group) does not know.

- All local. (The station knows its market.)
- Personlities/Hosts who are interesting rather than ideological (not disagreeable, even though one disagrees).

Most important, they are already at the top of the hill and have been as long as anybody can remember. There is a lot of be said for inertia in talk radio. AM talk stations can keep an audience; it's very difficult for them to get one.
 
Have you ever heard of the Shift Key? There are actually two of them for your convenience: One right next to "Z," and another right next to "/."
 
> Look at the four Arbitron definitions:
> All News, All Sports, News/Talk, Talk


If you look at my previous posts on here, you'll see that I've said this for many months - I think the news/talk/information radio industry needs more accurate breakdowns.

I propose the following:

* All News.
* Conservative News/Talk - where over 50% of programming during the business week are conservative hosts.
* Progressive/Liberal News/Talk - where over 50% of programming during the business week are prog/lib hosts.
* News/Talk - where 50% of programming is primarily local N/T hosts, N/T that has hosts from both sides, N/T that doesn't fit neatly into L/P or Con dichotomies; catch-all for non-News, non-Lib/Prog, non-Conservative Talk stations).
* Sports Talk.
* Religious Talk.
* Business News/Talk.
* Comedy Talk.
* Public Radio News/Talk.
* Non-Commercial / Community News/Talk - Pacifica-type stations.
* Hot Talk / FreeFM / Lifestyle Talk.
* Race/Ethnicity Talk.
* Women's Talk.
 
Another exception.

What about WJNO in West Palm Beach, the 47th market? A mixture of syndicated conservative hosts (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) and syndicated liberals (Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz), plus a local morning show. It's the top-rated AM in the market.

> KGO is unique. They go completely against the current
> trends of talk radio programming. As I suggested in an
> earlier thread, they may know something the rest of the talk
> radio community (or even the ABC Radio Stations group) does
> not know.
>
> - All local. (The station knows its market.)
> - Personlities/Hosts who are interesting rather than
> ideological (not disagreeable, even though one disagrees).
 
Re: Talliaferro and Wattenburg!

> KGO is unique. They go completely against the current
> trends of talk radio programming. As I suggested in an
> earlier thread, they may know something the rest of the talk
> radio community (or even the ABC Radio Stations group) does
> not know.
>
> - All local. (The station knows its market.)
> - Personlities/Hosts who are interesting rather than
> ideological (not disagreeable, even though one disagrees).

That's it! Talliaferro and Wattenburg (KGO n/t 810) are polar opposites politically, yet are interesting for both conservatives and liberals, and they've had huge ratings with their loyal audiences of several decades! Their personalities are so dynamic and histrionic that their political affiliation doesn't matter among the listeners.

> Most important, they are already at the top of the hill and
> have been as long as anybody can remember. There is a lot
> of be said for inertia in talk radio. AM talk stations can
> keep an audience; it's very difficult for them to get one.

710 KIRO/Seattle is sometimes said to like KGO, but they've been going downhill since 2002, with multiple hosts and newscasters leaving the station 9am-10pm and on weekends. What's going on with KIRO's recent ratings? I guess Seattlites must prefer Hartmann, Franken, and Schultz on 1090.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom