Doubling the cost of radio to subsidize liberal talk

[vchimpanzee]

Go to mikehuckabee.com and click on "on demand". Select the transcripts option and it should be easy to see which broadcast this is.

This is a crackpot idea from some liberal who just doesn't understand that if liberal talk made money, there would be liberal talk.

Other than on NPR, of course.

I only listen to Mike Huckabee because eh replaced Paul Harvey where I live. He has some good ideas. But I'm no conservative.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Go to mikehuckabee.com and click on "on demand". Select the transcripts option and it should be easy to see which broadcast this is.

This is a crackpot idea from some liberal who just doesn't understand that if liberal talk made money, there would be liberal talk.

Other than on NPR, of course.

I only listen to Mike Huckabee because eh replaced Paul Harvey where I live. He has some good ideas. But I'm no conservative.

Huckabee is crying wolf.

And companies such as Dial Global, which syndicates four progressive talkers (Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press) along with likes of Michael Smerconish and Neal Boortz, would certainly see no need for subsidy.

Huckabee doesn't even discuss anything involving subsidizing in the transcript.

Non-issue. Can we move on to something of more substance?

 

[ropertex]

This garbage is caused by the wingnut rumors that Obama has established a new post at the FCC -- a "diversity officer" and appointed A BLACK MAN!!! to censor right wing talkers and tax conservative radio 100%

The FCC does indeed have a "diversity officer," Mark Lloyd. But federal agencies are REQUIRED to have "diversity committees" which make sure that the government HIRING follows equal opportunity laws. It has nothing to do with diversity of PROGRAM CONTENT. And the President of the US does not appoint chairs of internal committees of government agencies.

Not a peep from the wingnuts when Lisa M. Fowlkes was appointed to the same post in 2006 under George W. Bush.

 

[jh]

A few years ago, Mark Lloyd wrote a book "Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America" where he proposed commercial stations be taxed with the funds used to support public radio. He's also proposed more diversity of programming and ownership. But he hasn't proposed this in his role with the FCC.

 

[willcail]

Dial Global doing just fine. It might be the only commercial syndicator thats not loosing money. Westood One, Premire/CC are not doing so well. Plus Dial Global just sign Ed Schultz fill in for a show.

Randi Rhodes is with CC.

If you think that the Huckabee Report is "news". Then you aren't that bright.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Our civilization would have a much better chance of surviving if we could get at least a few people to realize and remember that not all discussions, not all conflicts are made up of conservative and liberal issues.

Yes, some people are proposing that because conservative talk is more abundant on radio that maybe a mechanism should be put in place to insure the presence of adequate liberal talk. May I propose that is putting the cart before the horse.

Whether a city should adopt 25 mph or 35 mph as the default speed limit for all streets that do not have a posted speed limit is not a conservative or liberal issue. It can be contentious. People will have various opinions on what is the appropriate limit. If this is a topic in a given town, radio should make time for it to be discussed.

Whether property taxes should be due in September or be due in November does not strike me as a conservative vs. liberal issue but we should expect various media to make discussion time/space available on some kind of a fair and equitable basis.

If radio in a given community is in the discussion and debate business, and they figure out how to handle these "non partisan" issues, then they will probably be capable of handling the hot-button issues with grace and dignity.

If debate and discussion is seen only as a cash cow, then there will be no interest in these not-so-partisan issues and there will be no training of the audience and training of the on-air talent on how to discuss differences gracefully.

And if that is where we are, then kiss self-government as we know it good-bye. It may take 30 to 90 years for the corpse to die, but die it will. Looks to me like we are now about 20 years down that path.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Forget about the political agenda and focus on finding hosts who know how to entertain and galvanize the audience.

All right, I said it. Let the brickbats fly...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Forget about the political agenda and focus on finding hosts who know how to entertain and galvanize the audience.

All right, I said it. Let the brickbats fly...

We emulate what we know. We know what we hear on other radio stations. Do we know how to entertain and galvanize? Or do we only know how to mimic the trash around us? If you found a human being who could entertain and galvanize, how would you keep him/her from gravitating to the food-fight that dominates the airwaves? How would you convince the audience that this strange but refreshing program is what they should embrace? After all, competitiors have done a good job of convincing the audience that this is a blood sport and if there is no blood, it is NOT good ralk radio. How do we overcome that?

 

[vchimpanzee]

Dial Global doing just fine. It might be the only commercial syndicator thats not loosing money. Westood One, Premire/CC are not doing so well. Plus Dial Global just sign Ed Schultz fill in for a show.

Randi Rhodes is with CC.

If you think that the Huckabee Report is "news". Then you aren't that bright.

Normally it is. But when he rants like he did that day, I have to question him like I do Rush Limbaugh.

 

[smedge2006]

Getting back to the original title, the whole problem with radio these days is too many operators trying to cheap it out. Something that would cause them to double the amount of money (and double the amount of hiring) they put into the product is a good thing. Since when is it good to keep local people sidelined for The Best of Limbaugh, The Best of Hannity, the Best of Rusty Humphries (?), the Best of Blanquita Cullum, and the Best of Infomercials?

 

[willcail]

Thats sounded like localism to me, having local people to do talk radio thats a bad ideal according to the righties. To them local host is the exact same thing as their favorite boogyman known as the Fairness Doctrine. The reason why CC is doing so poorly is the lack of local talkers and DJ's. The reason people are tuning out that majority of the syndicated talkers are predictable. Please a short form commentary isn't news of any kind.

 

[TheBigA]

The reason why CC is doing so poorly is the lack of local talkers and DJ's.

Huh? Maybe you can be more specific.

In most markets, CC runs less syndicated talk than their competition. And CC usually has at least two stations in the Top 5 of the markets where they're located.

I wouldn't say CC is doing any poorer than anyone else in radio right now.

 

[gr8oldies]

WLW=Local 24/7 except for a couple of shows that they syndicate (an overnight show and two weekend shows). Most markets have at least one local shift on their news/talker (even Akron and Lima). No, stations aren't doing badly because there isn't some guy sitting in a chair in the same town. You may think Local=always good and syndicated=always bad, but not the case. You think anyone in Providence RI cares that Oprah is based in Chicago?

Yes, Mark Lloyd is a far left nut case.

 

[smedge2006]

You think anyone in Providence RI cares that Oprah is based in Chicago?

The "television is syndicated/network so radio should be too" argument is getting a little tired. These days, the average network-affiliated TV station, with a two to four hour local morning show, an hour of news at noon, and two hours of news adjacent to prime time, has as much or more local content on a given weekday than most "local" talk radio stations -- especially the ones that run Doug Stephan in the morning and stay on the bird 24/7.

 

[TheBigA]

The "television is syndicated/network so radio should be too" argument is getting a little tired.

So the way to deal with facts is to say they're tired? Address the issue.

If the goal of programming is attracting an audience, and the audience clearly doesn't care where the show originates, then it shouldn't be an issue. And localism isn't an issue in radio when you're dealing with a show people want to hear. THAT is the problem, not where it originates. People throw the localism thing around as an excuse to cover up their lack of imagination when it comes to creating compelling programming. They think, "Oh we'll make it local," and that will cover up the fact that the show sucks. That doesn't cut it, and there are lots of radio stations that are live & local that get 1 shares.

 

[smedge2006]

So the way to deal with facts is to say they're tired? Address the issue.

The argument that TV is syndicated, therefore radio should be, is tired and dated when local net-affiliated TV stations are doing MORE local content than talk radio stations in most comparable markets.

The station that gets a one share doing talk is usually the second-tier or third-tier station with third-tier syndication (usually gorged-out on TRN or Westwood product) and little or no local non-brokered programming.

 

[TheBigA]

The argument that TV is syndicated, therefore radio should be, is tired and dated when local net-affiliated TV stations are doing MORE local content than talk radio stations in most comparable markets.

You're comparing net-affiliated stations, which are often the richest and most profitable stations in town, with talk radio, which is often on AM. Talk about apples and oranges. It's apples and prunes! Come on! Let's be fair. They're doing more because they can afford it.

But numerous trade publications have pointed out that even net O&Os in New York City are starting to cut back on staff and live origination because of the current economy.

 

[willcail]

If you want to listen to predectable talk radio then that's your business. If WLW dip below a seven share then CC will be looking to cut costs.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Getting back to the original title, the whole problem with radio these days is too many operators trying to cheap it out. Something that would cause them to double the amount of money (and double the amount of hiring) they put into the product is a good thing. Since when is it good to keep local people sidelined for The Best of Limbaugh, The Best of Hannity, the Best of Rusty Humphries (?), the Best of Blanquita Cullum, and the Best of Infomercials?

But they'd need double the advertising revenue.

And Mr. Hackabee wasn't talking about what you are. He said the extra money would go for subsidizing the other stations (even if he didn't use the word, that's what he meant). It would be like a tax. And a lot of stations can't afford something like that.

 

[bossbill]

Private broadcasters must rely on ADVERTISING revenues to pay their bills. In our rural market, the revenues are tapped out, expenses have been pared to the bone, and any additional expenses would need to be directly offset by staff reductions. Government bureaucrats have no understanding of the costs and risks of running a business.

I've visited a number of NPR affiliates over the past 20 years; they ALL have much nicer, newer equipment than I could ever afford.