DO SOME RADIO TALK SHOWS FAN THE FLAMES OF HATE UPON THE UNBALANCED

[Talk_Dude]

if hosts took calls without call screeners it would keep the hosts from stacking the deck on the calls mostly being in support of the host.it would bring up chalanges to their points more.

More importantly, it would plunge the shows down the ratings toilet.

The day that music format radio stations allow every caller who wants to call in and request whatever song he wants and they'll play it is the day that talk show stations will allow every caller who phones in "equal time" to disagree with the host.

 

[EW0350]

But "screeners" are necessary to prevent "off-topic" and "self-promoting" callers. Why not have the screeners have one queue "for" and another "against?" Don't show the host the queues, just feed the callers in alternating order. If the host is any kind of talent, they could handle the pinig-pong effect. If they can't they might not ought to have the spot on the air.

 

[Talk_Dude]

But "screeners" are necessary to prevent "off-topic" and "self-promoting" callers. Why not have the screeners have one queue "for" and another "against?" Don't show the host the queues, just feed the callers in alternating order. If the host is any kind of talent, they could handle the pinig-pong effect. If they can't they might not ought to have the spot on the air.

It would still put the ratings in the toilet.

 

[EW0350]

It would still put the ratings in the toilet.

Pardon me for sounding noble and perhaps old-fashioned, but weren't we called to work in and for an industry whose design was to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity?" With the beginning worship of the almighty dollar, the solid bottom line, the blackest of ink on the balance sheets that radio -- and not just talk radio, and TV, too -- began a descent into the morass it finds itself now. "Talent" borders on indencency and is often questionable in value. "Artists" are shallow with artificial personalities. Topics and guests are selected for the shock impact, not for the purpose of truly exploring a subject with sincerity. Now when a story breaks and there is the cry of "Get it on the air!" there's an equally loud shout from the Accounting Dept. of "But only until we stop breaking even!" Broadcasting is no longer an "art" or hardly even an "industry." It has become a "business" with cash flow being the only goal. How much revenue did CBS and NBC lose covering the D-Day invasion? What was the price of the dynamic triumph of all three TV and the 4 radio networks in November 1963? When the next terror strike happens will The Suits respond the same as they did on 9/11/2001, or will the calculators come out first?

If we want radio to regain its glory, its statue, then we need to stop looking at "the ratings" and look to what we can do for society.

 

[jabba17]

It would still put the ratings in the toilet.

Pardon me for sounding noble and perhaps old-fashioned, but weren't we called to work in and for an industry whose design was to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity?" With the beginning worship of the almighty dollar, the solid bottom line, the blackest of ink on the balance sheets that radio -- and not just talk radio, and TV, too -- began a descent into the morass it finds itself now. "Talent" borders on indencency and is often questionable in value. "Artists" are shallow with artificial personalities. Topics and guests are selected for the shock impact, not for the purpose of truly exploring a subject with sincerity. Now when a story breaks and there is the cry of "Get it on the air!" there's an equally loud shout from the Accounting Dept. of "But only until we stop breaking even!" Broadcasting is no longer an "art" or hardly even an "industry." It has become a "business" with cash flow being the only goal. How much revenue did CBS and NBC lose covering the D-Day invasion? What was the price of the dynamic triumph of all three TV and the 4 radio networks in November 1963? When the next terror strike happens will The Suits respond the same as they did on 9/11/2001, or will the calculators come out first?

If we want radio to regain its glory, its statue, then we need to stop looking at "the ratings" and look to what we can do for society.

But a whole lot of commercial- and profit-minded decisions prior to that enabled CBS, NBC, ABC/NBC Blue, and Mutual to Be There. Obviously not enough of those decisions were made for NBC Radio, ABC Radio, and Mutual, which is why two of them now belong to Westwood One and the third to Citadel (which just went through bankruptcy).

 

[Talk_Dude]

It would still put the ratings in the toilet.

Pardon me for sounding noble and perhaps old-fashioned, but weren't we called to work in and for an industry whose design was to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity?"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Pardon me for sounding noble and perhaps old-fashioned, but weren't we called to work in and for an industry whose design was to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity?"

ROTFLMAO!!!!
You really drank the Kool-Aid, didn't you?

I'm not rolling in the floor with laughter, but I so begin this post with: "Chuckle, chuckle."

I am not surprised someone might raise an eyebrow at "a calling to service." I am surprised at the source of this message. In reading deeply into your posts, I think you are familiar with the "language" of the Christian faith and the concept of calling. The teaching that people are "called" to preach or to be missionaries or other idealistic endeavors. When I was in college, one of the more prominent ministers in Arkansas showed up at my college and made a great "confession". I never should have been a pastor. I felt called, and that is the only call I ever heard about in my little church, he said. Now I know after all these years, I should have been a missionary to the foreign lands. His message to us was: Look at a big, wide world for the locations to spend your life as a called person.

Now, for many of you who read this, this whole concept is one big puzzle or bore. So let get out of here quickly. Talk_Dude.... I suspect you are familiar with this language and this concept. I am surprised that you would so abruptly do a "put down" of EW0350. Maybe what he drank was the Kool-aid served up by the well meaning people of his church. There must me a more civil way to let him know that submitting to a call is not always a winner.

EW0350: I, too, drank the Kool-aid. Radio in my day was an entity where it looked like a person could live a life of serving the community and at the same time put groceries on the table. Apparently the industry didn't get the memo.

 

[Tom Wells]

EW350- That was a highly articulate outburst, and the only thing I'd modify is to remove the beginning words;
"Pardon me for sounding noble and perhaps old-fashinoned, but weren't".

Making no qualifications, you really do feel that radio:

IS an industry with a design and calling to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.

I fully agree, even if economics and unbridled corporate policies do not.

I'm shocked that defending integrity should be labled as drinking the kool-aid.

Never give up trying to figure out a way to make things better, for there is certainly profit there somewhere.

Yours is my favorite kind of "editorial". You expect BETTER than "we" currently are doing.

The business people will have thousands of reasons why it can't be that way,
and in many cases would rather profit than serve.

Now if we are to consider WHY every last iota about broadcasting need first bow down to the profit god,
since no one "owns" ether but we license the use of it's physical properties, I can't see a good reason why.

Since we have totally forgotten and become numb to the magic inherent in the art ( and the good it could do ), we should expect the result of our choices to reflect such a narrowminded view that comes when the license to use becomes understood and operates as ownership of private property.
And the result to be as predictable as food at a national chain heat-em-from-frozen italian restaurant.
But profitable.

I think you should tell 'em more. I like your pespective so far.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Now, for many of you who read this, this whole concept is one big puzzle or bore. So let get out of here quickly. Talk_Dude.... I suspect you are familiar with this language and this concept. I am surprised that you would so abruptly do a "put down" of EW0350. Maybe what he drank was the Kool-aid served up by the well meaning people of his church. There must me a more civil way to let him know that submitting to a call is not always a winner.

EW0350: I, too, drank the Kool-aid. Radio in my day was an entity where it looked like a person could live a life of serving the community and at the same time put groceries on the table. Apparently the industry didn't get the memo.

I put him down for two reasons. (1) Because such starry eyed naivete is unbelievable and (2) I find the use of ecclesial terms to discuss something as secular as radio to be inappropriate and offensive.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I put him down for two reasons. (1) Because such starry eyed naivete is unbelievable and (2) I find the use of ecclesial terms to discuss something as secular as radio to be inappropriate and offensive.

In the ancient world, both secular and ecclesiastic, the experience and wisdom of the "elders" was valued. (Today there is too much readiness to label people in that role as elitists and snobs.)

And the role through the centuries of the elders has been harness the energy and eagerness of those with naivete by blending the wisdom and naivete into some useful alloy. If you simply destroy and remove all the naivete, you have created something of a pessimistic drone. The duty of the youthful people still enjoying their naivete is to keep the elders from becoming pompous boulders littering the road of life. Cut the guy some slack. We can learn from him.... and can learn from others.

When I was young and naive (now I am old and naive) I did not know there conservatives and liberals in politics, in religion, in business philosophy. I stumbled headlong into the fury of all three of those areas of life in the 1960s and when my mentors pointed out to me that I would recognize the evil liberals of the church world when they began promoting their ecumenical movement. COCU. And in religious broadcasting for three years, I had a grand stand seat for foaming, frothing fever of that effort. And out of that era came a phrase: "Taking the Gospel to the market place" and sometimes the term "market place Gospel". If you are offended when people use terms we used to think could only be used within the seminaries to describe what is taking place in the market place, you may be somewhere between 30 and 50 years behind the times.

Microsoft has job descriptions for "database evangelists" and churches today may have a staff person who is a "program analyst" and the job has nothing to do with computers and software... it has to do with how the people of the church flow through the educational process and the delivery of social services (or benevolent services as we said a couple of generations ago.)

Now, I can identify with your feelings about something being "inappropriate and offensive". Related to our thread topic of talk shows, broadcasting and political fervor, I am not yet mature enough to get over my disgust with the merger and incestuous marriage of conservative Christianity and conservative Republicanism in this country over the last 25 years. That love affair seems to have cooled down in the last two years and maybe the two entities can return to the business of fine tuning their individual goals and methods which do share some values and methods, but each needs the freedom to be true to its own primary goals and truths. They do not have identical goals and values.

Talk radio lost some of its luster in my life when I realized it was making a living serving as the Match Maker for this corrupt marriage. If the marriage is indeed coming apart, Talk Radio may have to scour the horizon for new ways to enhance the revenue flow.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I put him down for two reasons. (1) Because such starry eyed naivete is unbelievable and (2) I find the use of ecclesial terms to discuss something as secular as radio to be inappropriate and offensive.

In the ancient world, both secular and ecclesiastic, the experience and wisdom of the "elders" was valued. (Today there is too much readiness to label people in that role as elitists and snobs.)

This isn't the ancient world.

 

[EW0350]

First of all, thank you for those who sought to defend my post and position. I am gratified that there are those who share my viewpoint, understand my perspective, and seek, as I do, to seek ways of restoring this industry to its proper professional standing.

When I used the term "calling" I had no intention of bringing religious symbolism or language into the discussion. I consider it appropriate to describe a burning desire to have a particular career as being "called." Viewing the viscous way in which I was typographically assaulted, a more popular choice would have been "driven" or "drawn." Those of you who latched on to the ecclesiastical concept, I appreciate that, but again, it was not my intention. I apologize for having offended those who find any religious reference to be unforgivable, even if unintentional. I suspect a very sore spot there which I do not chose (I almost said "elect") to address.

No matter, my point was some of us saw work in broadcasting as an opportunity to serve others, whether reading news, reporting traffic, or playing music, or stirring political discussion pots. A plumber or auto mechanic who derives pleasure out of his work is in the same class as I about broadcasting.

As far as being naive -- I've sat at boards at 250-watt daytimers, 25K AM/FM combos, state networks. I've met with and known corporate suits, and guys who were just breaking even with their stations. I have seen struggles and triumphs. I've associated with those who are in broadcasting because they love it, and those who see it was a "quick buck money machine." I've studied the greats and the near-greats. My opinions come from those years, not from a "starry-eyed" view of what might be. This is what separates those with an affection and dedication to the medium from those who see it as a paycheck or glory train.

I stand by my comments and still maintain radio is salvageable if the overriding emphasis on economics could be sidetracked. I'm even to the point of considering financial underwriting of stations (similar to what the Pacifica Foundation did) as a means or offering the public decent, fair and worthwhile programming.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm even to the point of considering financial underwriting of stations (similar to what the Pacifica Foundation did) as a means or offering the public decent, fair and worthwhile programming.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bob Dylan said it best when he said we all gotta serve somebody. This debate is going on now among journalists, who are concerned about the demise of serious reporting, both at newspapers and in broadcasting. How do you fund something so important without becoming affected by or beholden to that funding in some way. There's a thought-proving book out now called "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again." It's written by Bob McChesney and John Nichols. I think anyone who is interested in this issue should read that book.

The line you quote, about "public interest, convenience, and necessity," is one that came from the 1920s and was included in all utility regulations at the time. Nothing unique about broadcasting that made it different or better than water or electric service. But the fact is that it's never been used to disqualify a licensee. Numerous books have been written using that line to justify regulations requiring local staffing or public affairs programming, but the past 40 years of broadcast law have taken us in the opposite direction. So while it is fine to feel a sense of public service obligation in the job one does, it's not a requirement.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The line you quote, about "public interest, convenience, and necessity," is one that came from the 1920s and was included in all utility regulations at the time. Nothing unique about broadcasting that made it different or better than water or electric service. But the fact is that it's never been used to disqualify a licensee. Numerous books have been written using that line to justify regulations requiring local staffing or public affairs programming, but the past 40 years of broadcast law have taken us in the opposite direction. So while it is fine to feel a sense of public service obligation in the job one does, it's not a requirement.

I am "called" to quibble with you here, but I know I am not going to be terribly successful because I don't have "chapter-and-verse" examples that will satisfy you. I am getting ready to post a funny in a totally different discussion space (Not Radio-Info) this afternoon where they have a series going about unusual locations for radio studios. (Funeral homes is one of the entries so far.) I shall write about the one in my home town where you would enter the barbershop that looked like the one right out of Mayberry, and you would go through the door that looked like it went into a back room where they would keep the brooms and stuff, but when you walked into the backroom you found yourself in the office of a real estate agent. Now the real estate agent had a door to a back room and you know this is going to be the toilet and broom closet. But no, you now step into the radio station which did have a toilet but no broom closet.

This station went through several years of hanging on by the skin of it's teeth because the FCC was figuring out how to hang the original owner out to dry and they kept approval of the license renewal of the new owner on cold-storage forever. This was the era when "trafficking" in station ownership was a no-no. You and I will not find in the FCC records where this station lost its license for failing the test of "public interest and necessity" because the FCC browbeat the original owner into giving up his other stations and CPs voluntarily while allowing him to keep his one original station in HIS hometown, and the second owner to keep the station he purchased from the "evil doer" which was located in my hometown. We won't find it in the records. But those of us who had some kind of involvement in this three-ring-circus know that license forfeiture was on its way to happening.

That would have been the 1960s. So your statement that for the last 40 years the direction of regulation has taken a different direction in true. Some of us are not sure the direction of the last 40 years has been in the best interest of maintaining a healthy form of self-government.

AN AMUSING WRAP-UP OF MY TALE: Nine or ten years after the little tortured radio station went on the air and all this tug-of-war drama over license renewal vs license revocation, I was in Washington and paid a visit to the FCC office. I went to the window where you ask to see the files available to the public and asked to see the file of this station. In the file I found on the letterhead of a very prominent U.S. Senator a letter suggesting to the FCC he would be very pleased to see the license of the new owner renewed (which it was) and attached to his letter was the letter from the purchaser of the station asking for the senators assistance. When I tell this story face to face I leave a pause here where the listener can jump in as ask: "What did the file look like?" And the answer: It looked like the radio station was in a back room behind a real estate agent who was behind the barbershop in Mayberry. Those of us who worked in small town radio in that era are familiar with some station operators that were so frugal that instead of going to the office supply to buy a typewriter ribbon, they would put one of those ooey, gooey, greasy teletype ribbons on the typewriter and when one of those letters is preserved in a file folder for years, it is nasty! The letter from the station owner to the U.S. Senator was typed on fan-fold yellow teletype paper using one of those overloaded teletype ribbons.

Before leaving the building I found a rest room to wash the blue oil off my fingers.

 

[TheBigA]

That would have been the 1960s. So your statement that for the last 40 years the direction of regulation has taken a different direction in true. Some of us are not sure the direction of the last 40 years has been in the best interest of maintaining a healthy form of self-government.

I agree. No one is more critical of the last 40 years of broadcast regulation than me. One mistake begat the next one, it seems to me. But at the end of the day, we are bound by present day regulation, not what may have been written in 1927. We can't ignore all that's happened afterwards just because we don't like it. To me, the scary part is where today's attitudes will take us in the next 40 years.

 

[EW0350]

Who is
capable of getting some of these over the top talkers to tone down their anti-rhetoric?

To cycle all the way back to the start of this thread and to carry on the thoughts above concerning FCC regulations: With today's political climate and its infestation of the FCC, those who would seek to impose their standards of what talk-radio ought to be will attempt to use the power established by the Communications Act to do as they please. Unless, of course, cooler and more balanced minds prevail and the issue is laid to rest.