Does anyone know the precise listening audience of the Michael Savage radio show?

[Small Market Guy]

are NPR listeners so stupid that they need to hear the sound of a tractor -- can't they just be told it's a tractor?) and the music interludes that are a waste time. I don't like any of it.

They do that because they think it makes them sound intelligent. Just like mid 70s prog rock bands overproduced everything because they thought it made their music sound deep. No, Yes/ELP/Genesis, your music isn't "deep", it's pretentious overproduced crap. Same deal with NPR.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Unfortunately, today's political talk radio is more often inane than thought-provoking or brilliant. Not really entertaining much either.

That could be said of pretty much ALL media. Lowest common denominator programming isn't unique to talk radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

That could be said of pretty much ALL media. Lowest common denominator programming isn't unique to talk radio.

And this is a good thing?

Print still has selective and targeted media going after high income, well educated people. But many businesses alienate the customers/audiences they have by going after those they don't have. Generally, they end up with neither.

 

[wadio]

Just curious: Do your criticisms of scripted news apply to Paul Harvey (who always worked from a script)?

That's in interesting question. Paul Harvey was unique and had his own quirky way of working a script but he didn't sound "stiff."

Maybe it isn't the scripting per se that bothers me about NPR, it's the predictability. There's never any passion in the readers' voices ... they just read the copy in a sing-songy tone, the way a parent reads a bedtime story to a child.

Even the interviews on NPR are so, so polite. When an author, for example, is interviewed, the interviewer asks "important" questions in quiet, intimate tones ... then feigns absolute interest in the answer no matter how mundane. When the author says something mildly amusing, the interviewer gives a hearty, "Ha ... ha .......ha ............. ha ....................ha ........................HA!" that's as disingenuous as a three dollar bill. It all sounds very formulaic.

Much of what's on commercial talk radio today is the exact opposite ... all yelling all the time. To me, Savage manages to hit a middle ground, especially in recent months. Sure, his rants are over the top but that's no doubt what got him the necessary attention in the first place. Jerry Doyle is a better example of a host who's smart, spontaneous, opinionated and funny ... qualities that used to be far more common on AM talk stations but, IMO, are absent on NPR.

 

[FredLeonard]

That's in interesting question. Paul Harvey was unique and had his own quirky way of working a script but he didn't sound "stiff."

Maybe it isn't the scripting per se that bothers me about NPR, it's the predictability. There's never any passion in the readers' voices ... they just read the copy in a sing-songy tone, the way a parent reads a bedtime story to a child.

Even the interviews on NPR are so, so polite. When an author, for example, is interviewed, the interviewer asks "important" questions in quiet, intimate tones ... then feigns absolute interest in the answer no matter how mundane. When the author says something mildly amusing, the interviewer gives a hearty, "Ha ... ha .......ha ............. ha ....................ha ........................HA!" that's as disingenuous as a three dollar bill. It all sounds very formulaic.

Much of what's on commercial talk radio today is the exact opposite ... all yelling all the time. To me, Savage manages to hit a middle ground, especially in recent months. Sure, his rants are over the top but that's no doubt what got him the necessary attention in the first place. Jerry Doyle is a better example of a host who's smart, spontaneous, opinionated and funny ... qualities that used to be far more common on AM talk stations but, IMO, are absent on NPR.

I have to admit I agree with your observations. Thinking back, NPR didn't always used to be that way. More accurately, All Things Considered (which was their only program for several years) didn't used to be that way - back when NPR didn't have any money and FM radio was still AM's step-child. The joke later was they did news a day late and call it analysis. I'd put instead of personal anecdotes and interviews with people in diners passed off as reporting - plus artsy-crafty radio production (as you noted) - they called up really knowledgeable and articulate people, interviewed them and actually let them talk. In addition, many of their pieces were irreverent and even funny. NPR was to the commercial radio networks' news what underground FM rock stations were to AM top 40.

I miss the old ATC. Once in a great while, I hear little snippets of what the show used to be. I still listen to NPR - self-righteous political correctness and all - because the commercial radio "networks'" news are just headlines with TV sound bites. I like the audio medium for news and unfortunately NPR is all that's left.

In the matter of dumbing down, commercial radio in larger markets used to have classical, jazz and serious news and then corporate radio decided to vacate all that to public radio.

Occasionally Scott Simon talks on the air like a real person but unfortunately he thinks the weeks' news is based on him and the show is called "A Week In The Life of Scott Simon." WHYY-FM's Terry Gross is uneven but sometimes she is very a good interviewer. The only really good and insightful interviews on public radio are on the CBC's "As It Happens" (broadcast in the US by APM).

For the record, I hate it when Ditto-heads who never listen to NPR start repeating all the talk radio canards about NPR being liberal. Your comments make it clear that's not you and apologize for assuming it was. That said there's room for legitimate criticism of NPR other than the mindless rants and lies of right-wing talkers "stirring up the crazies."

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

In reading through your post, Fred, I began to feel.... uncomfortable about myself. Why don't I recognize all these fragile things about NPR and have the same amount of unhappiness over them?

In case you haven't thought about it lately, there is a human condition called "aging". It comes as a factory-standard accessory of a human being. And as I listen to people talking about the perception of NPR turning into some kind of pitiful shell of it's former glory, I wonder how much our tastes have changed, and how much we have changed, but it's all NPRs fault... THEY are the one who has changed.

Though I grew up in some pretty crude rural areas, even out in the sticks we had some kind of sense of dignity and accomplishment in our lives. We said "Yes Mam" and "Yes Sir" to one another. Today is another story. My grandchildren are light years ahead of what we were educationally back then, and yet, they live in a world of what appears to me to be uncivilized conversation, their favorite TV programs and movies are... by OUR standards... quite gross, quite "cheap"... well... obnoxious.

For about four decades now NPR has had internal discussion and negotiation over style and standards. They have tried some things and walked away from them. They have tried some things and in Aha! moments, recognized good stye and added to it.

You see the NPR style as maybe phony, affected, maybe even obnoxious. I see the NPR style as everything I ever wanted to be and do when I worked in broadcasting.

In reading through your post, Fred, I began to feel.... uncomfortable about myself. Why don't I recognize all these fragile things about NPR and have the same amount of unhappiness over them?

 

[FredLeonard]

GRC: I see two pitfalls NPR fell into in your post. (1) NPR tried to change their style to attract other listeners. In the process, they became less attractive to the listeners they had. (2) NPR had internal discussion. Apparently lots of internal discussion with arrogant disregard for the wants of their listeners. Radio, especially radio news, seems to be one of those endeavors where the customer is always wrong. They consider themselves "objective" to the extent they displease everybody.

You say that as broadcaster you judge NPR by the standard of the kind of radio you wanted to do. Well, that's not how listeners judge it. Sounds like you are getting close the view so often expressed here in response to complaint or criticism: You don't work in radio. You don't know what you're talking about. So, you comments are invalid.

Have you checked out the Ombudsman's forum on NPR.org lately?

Please note I did not object to NPR's civility, although there are times I wish they'd stop being gracious and get to the point. But civility is one of the reasons I always admired (and miss) Michael Jackson. And even some conservatives can be civil, like George Putnam.

 

[JeffM]

I can't understand why people on this board hold up Paul Harvey as some kind of paragon. I always thought of him as a pompous bore, hopelessly infatuated with his own stentorian voice and snickering pregnant pauses; doing endless slobbering commercials for the sometimes bogus mail-order products who sponsored him. Sort of a real-life "Ted Baxter," certainly the prototype for El Rushbo. Steve Allen once said that venerability could be an asset in broadcasting, but that didn't apply to Harvey.

 

[FredLeonard]

Sorry, the real life Ted Baxters (there were two of them) were: Appearance - Jerry Dunphy. Delivery - George Putnam.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Fred Leonard: I wish I could sit down for breakfast at a restaurant table and the person sitting across from me could slip me a note: "The two guys at the next table.... the one sitting immediately to your right is the guy who posts as Fred Leonard on Radio-Discussions."

I would like to just observe how you communicate when you are not "on stage". What do you say in seriousness. What do you say in jest and tease. Would such eavesdropping let me see that you have a very solid grasp on how life works? Would such eavesdropping let me see that when the 'train of reality' pulled out of the station... you were not on board.

You see, I can't tell from the way you write your posts what is real.... and what is a big extravaganza. (I'm sure there are some people who at times feel that way about my posts.... )

GRC: I see two pitfalls NPR fell into in your post. (1) NPR tried to change their style to attract other listeners. In the process, they became less attractive to the listeners they had. (2) NPR had internal discussion. Apparently lots of internal discussion with arrogant disregard for the wants of their listeners. Radio, especially radio news, seems to be one of those endeavors where the customer is always wrong. They consider themselves "objective" to the extent they displease everybody.

What other choice do human beings have that assemble words and thoughts to share orally or in print? They have to consider changes in style and content. Some changes work very well. Some changes.... no so well. That's the way we did it in little 250 AM day-timers down in the Ozarks a couple of eras back, that's the way we did it in large metro markets. What are you suggesting the folks at NPR should have done? Throw something together in the early 1970s and NEVER change anything? Who else does anything like that?

Do I gather that ALL radio newspeople are some kind of sub-humans in your view of the world?

You say that as broadcaster you judge NPR by the standard of the kind of radio you wanted to do. Well, that's not how listeners judge it. Sounds like you are getting close the view so often expressed here in response to complaint or criticism: You don't work in radio. You don't know what you're talking about. So, you comments are invalid.

Ah.... but I have been a CONSUMER of radio programming and radio news longer than I was a producer/creator/participant in the business. So when I sit down at the keyboard to compose something like this, I ask myself as I review my composition: Are you speaking as a 'former broadcaster' or are you speaking as a 'current consumer/listener'?

It would help conversation in our forums if a little less often we threw a bucket of cold water on what someone else just posted, and instead, we now and then responsed: "What you just wrote confused me a bit. help me understand where you are coming from? How do you account for the following positions that some people express?"

Have you checked out the Ombudsman's forum on NPR.org lately?

No, I listen for content that seems to be worth listening to.... whatever that means. I go through about 600 e-mails, blogs, forum messages per day. Since I am reasonable happy with the select segments of NPR that I take the time to listen to, I decided that I didn't need to read the Ombudsman on a regular basis to see if I was happy with the select segments that I take the time to listen to. When I become unhappy... I just won't listen. The Ombudsman can listen to whatever makes HIM happy.

Please note I did not object to NPR's civility, although there are times I wish they'd stop being gracious and get to the point. But civility is one of the reasons I always admired (and miss) Michael Jackson. And even some conservatives can be civil, like George Putnam.

Make up your mind. You said early in your post: "NPR had internal discussion. Apparently lots of internal discussion with arrogant disregard for the wants of their listeners. Radio, especially radio news, seems to be one of those endeavors where the customer is always wrong. They consider themselves "objective" to the extent they displease everybody." but now you want to wrap yourself in the flag of "sometimes they are just too gracious and too civil."

Like I said. I wish I could sit at the table next to your table at the IHOP or other breakfast establishment and just listen to you converse when you are not "on stage". I would like to wrap my head around "the REAL Fred Leonard".

 

[FredLeonard]

Goat Radio Cowboy: I don't really do iHop and never for breakfast. Maybe brunch if somebody insists. In college, late at night, for the munchies, OK. iHop doesn't seem like a place for NPR listeners. But as I thought about it, NPR is sort of like iHop. It's stuff I like but I'm never really satisfied and keep thinking they could have done it better.

I wish NPR were more like the places in Roadfood. Especially, the diners.

You like NPR, fine. At one time, it seemed like NPR was for someone like me. Now, not so much. As they try to appeal to others, they appeal less to me. If you're still happy with them, great. Don't make me wrong because I'm not. Keep listening and send money.

 

[Small Market Guy]

And this is a good thing?

No, it's a bad thing. But it's also reality. If anything, talk radio audiences are MORE informed than the general public. Things are that bad.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If anything, talk radio audiences are MORE informed than the general public. Things are that bad.

Talk radio audiences seem to be well informed on subjects that are everyday topics in their form of talk. Conservative talk radio listeners seem to be very well informed on the current "talking points" of conservative talk radio. For the liberal side, we don't have much, if any radio to observe, but looking at the audience for say MSNBC which seems to be the most active, nearest-thing-to-talk-radio for liberals, those listeners/viewers seem to be well informed about the current "talking points" of liberal communications.

How do we go about isolating and "testing" a group of talk radio listeners.... and then how do we go about isolating and testing some people who do not listen to talk radio?

How broad would our test questions be before the whole exercise becomes laughable?

Just one topic of thousands we could reach out and grab: Last night I watched the second half of the testimony before the Congressional Committee on the V.A. and "whistleblowers". A topic came up that a few people in the room understood and most did not. The concept of "anyone can yank the chain". A couple of people tried to explain what that meant and the Congressmen blew them off. It was obvious most of the congressmen didn't understand what they were talking about. Does the Talk Radio audience know what they were talking about? Do people who are NOT talk radio listeners understand what they were talking about?

How would we go about proving or disproving that talk radio listeners are more informed than the general public?

 

[Avid Listener]

Perhaps it's good to remember that one of the things that sets a good performer apart from a not-so-good performer is the ability to read a script (or deliver memorized lines from a script) and make them sound like they weren't being read.

 

[FredLeonard]

No, it's a bad thing. But it's also reality. If anything, talk radio audiences are MORE informed than the general public. Things are that bad.

Make that "misinformed." There have been more than enough instances of talk show hosts making blatantly false statements.

After all, it's entertainment - not news, not social research.

 

[Small Market Guy]

How would we go about proving or disproving that talk radio listeners are more informed than the general public?

The same way you go about anything else. You do a poll.

http://www.people-press.org/2007/04...-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

Within the margin of error, there is little difference between the Daily Show, newspaper websites, Rush Limbaugh and NPR.

Make that "misinformed." There have been more than enough instances of talk show hosts making blatantly false statements.

After all, it's entertainment - not news, not social research.

See above. You're wrong.

 

[L Chanon Gade]

The same way you go about anything else. You do a poll.

http://www.people-press.org/2007/04...-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

Within the margin of error, there is little difference between the Daily Show, newspaper websites, Rush Limbaugh and NPR.



See above. You're wrong.

Trying cite these general knowledge polls to exculpate the malfeasance of right-wing media is disingenuous. The fact that a similar number of Democrats and Republicans or AM talk vs. NPR listeners can name their reps in Congress etc means nothing in this context.

An typical AM talk radio listener listening to Limbaugh & clones will believe that President Obama is a Muslim, communist and "out to destroy America"etc.

A listener-viewer of Public media (NPR-PRI-PBS) will know those assertions are ridiculous.

Be thankful that you right-wing propagandists can't be sued for malpractice.

Chen/NYC

 

[Small Market Guy]

Trying cite these general knowledge polls to exculpate the malfeasance of right-wing media is disingenuous. The fact that a similar number of Democrats and Republicans or AM talk vs. NPR listeners can name their reps in Congress etc means nothing in this context.

An typical AM talk radio listener listening to Limbaugh & clones will believe that President Obama is a Muslim, communist and "out to destroy America"etc.

A listener-viewer of Public media (NPR-PRI-PBS) will know those assertions are ridiculous.

Be thankful that you right-wing propagandists can't be sued for malpractice.

Chen/NYC

Good lord, not this drivel again. BLAH BLAH BLAH MY GUYS ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOUR GUYS!

Get a new act. This one is getting old.

 

[L Chanon Gade]

Good lord, not this drivel again. BLAH BLAH BLAH MY GUYS ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN YOUR GUYS!

Get a new act. This one is getting old.

Relax, no need to shout just because your attempt at deception didn't work out. the fact is that typical, right-wing talk is on it's way out (along with it's audience). Even in markets where the 6+ are still decent -the 25-54 are awful. All top heavy and getting steadily worse.

The last sentence about 'get a new act" is one you might take-to-heart. Get familiar with the Hot-AC playlist and practice those liners if you expect to work beyond the next 3-4 years.

Chan/NYC

 

[Small Market Guy]

Relax, no need to shout just because your attempt at deception didn't work out. the fact is that typical, right-wing talk is on it's way out (along with it's audience). Even in markets where the 6+ are still decent -the 25-54 are awful. All top heavy and getting steadily worse.

The last sentence about 'get a new act" is one you might take-to-heart. Get familiar with the Hot-AC playlist and practice those liners if you expect to work beyond the next 3-4 years.

Chan/NYC

Grow up. You have no idea what my show is about.

And trust me, I'm not going anywhere until I'm ready to. Stations don't normally fire the morning guy on the number one station in the market. Not number one "talk" station. Number one station.