Contrary to the folks who suspect the petition we put up (yes we-- I am a consultant as many of you know, and when I am working, I am totally objective; I have trained my share of "righties", and helped conservative stations to sound good. But on a personal level, I liked some of what Boston's progressive talk was trying to do, and wish they had been given a chance), I can assure you the vast majority of the signatures ARE from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Yeah, a few people may have heard my guest appearance on Sam Seder's show on AAR, or maybe they will hear me on Ed Schultz soon, but most folks heard about this from the Boston Herald article and word of mouth. Does Arbitron measure Internet listening? A lot of us live on the south shore and couldn't get the 2 allegedly "Boston" stations clearly no matter how we tried, so we listened on line. There really are more people out there who were listeners than some of you might think.
-
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
Globe finally mentions Save Prog Talk group
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
B
bjohns
Guest
Become a power and WRKO/WTKK will react? What is this person smoking? There isn't a market in America where Air America and its spinoffs are a "power," and few where it's even a relevant presence.
They're called "ratings," and Air America doesn't get them. Air America has no listeners, that's why they have no money and that's why they're not on the air in Boston or many other places. Period.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of "progressive" radio, subsidized by taxpayers, on every NPR station in America.
They're called "ratings," and Air America doesn't get them. Air America has no listeners, that's why they have no money and that's why they're not on the air in Boston or many other places. Period.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of "progressive" radio, subsidized by taxpayers, on every NPR station in America.
>>They're called "ratings," and Air America doesn't get them.
I'm trying to be objective myself. Sometimes I find myself chuckling over the lack of success prog talk has had
in this blue-est of areas, being mostly of a conservative bent (but lib/moderate on a couple issues). But sometimes, since I find it's an interesting topic, I try to look at why it hasn't been more successful and what
maybe can be done to remedy it. Not all will agree with what I have to say:
--CC didn't promote it as much as they should have (despite some good press in the Globe, etc.) and it was on weaker signals. BIG MISTAKE: No local daily show.
--Mistake: trying to win elections (no prob for the Dems in this state!) rather than be-entertaining,
though many may feel the likes of Franken are hilarious. All up to one's opinion.
--People who haven't done radio (whether it be talent or producing/programming) suddenly getting
thrust into it, with mixed results. Miller, Schultz, have done radio. Franken hadn't. (Rhodes has some
experience) Some feel the Jones shows worked better; other preferred the AAR shows.
--In the past there have been liberal talkers, locally and nationally, but the conservative ones tended
to click. Well before AAR started, Ann Coulter wrote a piece in one of her books about the failure of
the likes of Cuomo, Jesse Jackson, and Hightower
--I'm sure we can all agree that "the other side" is strident, that they aren't funny, that they're
extremist wackos (Malloy, Savage), that they can be annoying, and so on. All depends on the side
of the street you're on.
Fact of the matter is, if stations like WRKO or WTKK wish to give one or two shows or the whole network
a try, so be it, but they may feel conservative talk works better. Generally it has. But times do change
and for all we know, libtalk may eventually be all the rage.
There were some interesting opinions on the following page:
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/257335.htm
One person, who said he considered himself a social liberal, said that while Franken was funny, his show wasn't as entertaining as that of O'Reilly or Hannity. He claims that liberal hosts don't have conservative guests on as much as conservative hosts have liberals on (I'm sure many will disagree with that) and also brings up
the point that maybe many liberals prefer to listen to music.
Another said he was "mildly left of center" and while he found conservative talk shows were obnoxious,
he found them more entertaining than AAR. And one comment was from someone who felt that while,
yes, O'Reilly and Hannity had hosts from "the other side" on, they then proceeded to shout them down or
use "yes or no" rhetorical questions.
Though I am reminded of some times when Ingraham asked someone on the Left something like "Are we
better off with Saddam out of power" several times, and they simply would not answer the question.
All she wanted was a simple yes or no, and they wouldn't oblige.
Though it probably happens with hosts on the other side as well.
All I'm saying is if a station like WRKO or WTKK feels it might get good ratings--and serve the audience
certainly--by putting liberal hosts on, then we'll see what would happen. And if the ratings then
plummeted you could say "well, they tried it with a more powerful station and it didn't work there,
either.
The real question may be what is best for libtalk: getting on a station that is all lib all the time, or trying to
share a station with conservative hosts? Would you want to be on a WXKS-AM (or "WSKS" as the
save prog. talk site says, oopsie...) with all liberal radio, or would you prefer to have a few left-leaning
shows on the likes of a WRKO? One you actually might be able to pick up?
Generally I enjoy conservative hosts though some Stephanie Miller and Alan Colmes in the past weren't
too bad. Keep in mind also not everyone is totally lefty or righty, too.
As Amy Hess, writer of the piece in the site I mentioned says, "The average American doesn't yell and shout and walk the streets about his or her beliefs. But, the average American does listen to conservative talk radio, and in relief says, "Wow. This talk show host is finally saying the things I've been thinking all along."
But maybe many liberals found themselves thinking the same thing when AAR came along...but were there
as many of them as there were conservatives...?
I'm trying to be objective myself. Sometimes I find myself chuckling over the lack of success prog talk has had
in this blue-est of areas, being mostly of a conservative bent (but lib/moderate on a couple issues). But sometimes, since I find it's an interesting topic, I try to look at why it hasn't been more successful and what
maybe can be done to remedy it. Not all will agree with what I have to say:
--CC didn't promote it as much as they should have (despite some good press in the Globe, etc.) and it was on weaker signals. BIG MISTAKE: No local daily show.
--Mistake: trying to win elections (no prob for the Dems in this state!) rather than be-entertaining,
though many may feel the likes of Franken are hilarious. All up to one's opinion.
--People who haven't done radio (whether it be talent or producing/programming) suddenly getting
thrust into it, with mixed results. Miller, Schultz, have done radio. Franken hadn't. (Rhodes has some
experience) Some feel the Jones shows worked better; other preferred the AAR shows.
--In the past there have been liberal talkers, locally and nationally, but the conservative ones tended
to click. Well before AAR started, Ann Coulter wrote a piece in one of her books about the failure of
the likes of Cuomo, Jesse Jackson, and Hightower
--I'm sure we can all agree that "the other side" is strident, that they aren't funny, that they're
extremist wackos (Malloy, Savage), that they can be annoying, and so on. All depends on the side
of the street you're on.
Fact of the matter is, if stations like WRKO or WTKK wish to give one or two shows or the whole network
a try, so be it, but they may feel conservative talk works better. Generally it has. But times do change
and for all we know, libtalk may eventually be all the rage.
There were some interesting opinions on the following page:
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/257335.htm
One person, who said he considered himself a social liberal, said that while Franken was funny, his show wasn't as entertaining as that of O'Reilly or Hannity. He claims that liberal hosts don't have conservative guests on as much as conservative hosts have liberals on (I'm sure many will disagree with that) and also brings up
the point that maybe many liberals prefer to listen to music.
Another said he was "mildly left of center" and while he found conservative talk shows were obnoxious,
he found them more entertaining than AAR. And one comment was from someone who felt that while,
yes, O'Reilly and Hannity had hosts from "the other side" on, they then proceeded to shout them down or
use "yes or no" rhetorical questions.
Though I am reminded of some times when Ingraham asked someone on the Left something like "Are we
better off with Saddam out of power" several times, and they simply would not answer the question.
All she wanted was a simple yes or no, and they wouldn't oblige.
Though it probably happens with hosts on the other side as well.
All I'm saying is if a station like WRKO or WTKK feels it might get good ratings--and serve the audience
certainly--by putting liberal hosts on, then we'll see what would happen. And if the ratings then
plummeted you could say "well, they tried it with a more powerful station and it didn't work there,
either.
The real question may be what is best for libtalk: getting on a station that is all lib all the time, or trying to
share a station with conservative hosts? Would you want to be on a WXKS-AM (or "WSKS" as the
save prog. talk site says, oopsie...) with all liberal radio, or would you prefer to have a few left-leaning
shows on the likes of a WRKO? One you actually might be able to pick up?
Generally I enjoy conservative hosts though some Stephanie Miller and Alan Colmes in the past weren't
too bad. Keep in mind also not everyone is totally lefty or righty, too.
As Amy Hess, writer of the piece in the site I mentioned says, "The average American doesn't yell and shout and walk the streets about his or her beliefs. But, the average American does listen to conservative talk radio, and in relief says, "Wow. This talk show host is finally saying the things I've been thinking all along."
But maybe many liberals found themselves thinking the same thing when AAR came along...but were there
as many of them as there were conservatives...?
raccoonradio said:
I think the era of Republicanism is over and it's going to be mixed for a while.... So, stations should have a mix of opinions.... Many who are socially liberal are fiscally conservative, while others are the reverse. Since Reagan was elected in 1980, social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have partnered and it's been very successful. However, many of the fiscal conservatives are distancing themselves from the social conservatives/authoritarians since they aren't getting what they want fiscally and they don't agree with the social agenda (including the war).
To find out where you are politically, check out this political quiz.... a lot of conservatives come up libertarian...
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html.
Finn said:
The 2006 elections were more of a "throw the bums out" than an actual shift to the left. Yes, the Republicans got arrogant and over-played their hand, but I see little enthusiasm for Democrats either. Face it, both parties are completely clueless...they just cater to different special interests. For either party to become and remain relevant in the 2st century they need to throw out the old ways and bring fresh ideas to the table. Not that I expect to see that anytime soon. :-\
Oldbones said:
Agree Oldbones, which is why we could call it a really interesting time if the stakes weren't so high... Anyone who just toes the party line isn't going to be credible. So, talk show hosts are going to have to think a lot more about their positions and back them up rather than conservatives just 'carrying water' for their side and liberals sniping at those positions.... You already see a lot of criss-crossing on issues - everyone is an independent ...
Donna, sometimes it isn't worth even discussing things with people. Take Raccoon, he's hardcore about his conservative likes and he will skew the facts without ever backing them up with credible links.
He quotes Howie Carr and V.B. liberally, so there you have it.
There is a "buzz" around progressive talk that music used to have. Now that conglomerates have neutered
music the door is open for a commercial station to get the audience NPR enjoys.
One big fact Raccoon ignores, NPR blows RKO out of the water in the ratings; because they are not commercial they don't show up in the regular arbitrons but they show the power of Progressive Talk. It is much bigger than any of these people will ever admit.
He quotes Howie Carr and V.B. liberally, so there you have it.
There is a "buzz" around progressive talk that music used to have. Now that conglomerates have neutered
music the door is open for a commercial station to get the audience NPR enjoys.
One big fact Raccoon ignores, NPR blows RKO out of the water in the ratings; because they are not commercial they don't show up in the regular arbitrons but they show the power of Progressive Talk. It is much bigger than any of these people will ever admit.
My friend the Racoon said "I'm trying to be objective myself. Sometimes I find myself chuckling over the lack of success prog talk has had in this blue-est of areas, being mostly of a conservative bent (but lib/moderate on a couple issues). But sometimes, since I find it's an interesting topic, I try to look at why it hasn't been more successful and what maybe can be done to remedy it."
I'd agree with you, except look at how progressive talk is doing in another blue part of the state-- Amherst, Northampton, Springfield. WHMP got rid of its righties and went entirely to a combination of Jones (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller), some AAR (Thom Hartmann, Al Franken delayed), and some local (a live and local morning show and lots of local PSAs and news). The most recent Arbitron, they went from a 1.2 to a 3.4 and the PD told me the response has been outstanding. This is a format that has to be done right in order for it to succeed. I think eventually the best of the progressive talkers will survive, and the weakest links will vanish. Something similar has happened on the right, where talk shows come and go, but very few talkers get the ratings that Rush or Michael Savage get. There are plenty of wanna-be's, but that doesn't mean they are successful. Since the conservatives have been doing talk radio longer than the liberals and progressives, I am not shocked that there is a bit of a learning curve. But I do see signs in a number of markets that certain progressive hosts ARE building a following because they know how to do a good radio show.
I'd agree with you, except look at how progressive talk is doing in another blue part of the state-- Amherst, Northampton, Springfield. WHMP got rid of its righties and went entirely to a combination of Jones (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller), some AAR (Thom Hartmann, Al Franken delayed), and some local (a live and local morning show and lots of local PSAs and news). The most recent Arbitron, they went from a 1.2 to a 3.4 and the PD told me the response has been outstanding. This is a format that has to be done right in order for it to succeed. I think eventually the best of the progressive talkers will survive, and the weakest links will vanish. Something similar has happened on the right, where talk shows come and go, but very few talkers get the ratings that Rush or Michael Savage get. There are plenty of wanna-be's, but that doesn't mean they are successful. Since the conservatives have been doing talk radio longer than the liberals and progressives, I am not shocked that there is a bit of a learning curve. But I do see signs in a number of markets that certain progressive hosts ARE building a following because they know how to do a good radio show.
Let's see, who am I going to believe, a college d.j. of 25 years or a radio consultant that is a published author, is well respected, and who discovered RUSH!
Gee...wonder if Raccoon has ever even played RUSH? You can thank Donna, Bob, for discovering that band.
You would also be wise to pick up her published work and start reading.
http://www.rushweb.net/donna.htm
Gee...wonder if Raccoon has ever even played RUSH? You can thank Donna, Bob, for discovering that band.
You would also be wise to pick up her published work and start reading.
http://www.rushweb.net/donna.htm
>>This is a format that has to be done right in order for it to succeed. I think eventually the best of the progressive talkers will survive, and the weakest links will vanish.
Well she's right but we'll have to see if the bigger stations will give it a chance. Whether or not it'll reach the listenership of a Rush or a Hannity I don't know, but it could do well...if DONE well. As for the fact that conservatives have been doing talk longer, wasn't Jerry Williams considered a liberal way back when?
(Later he termed himself a "populist", etc.)
I haven't played Rush and am not all that into them and yes I knew Donna discovered them (and have known that for many years) . But I do
like the novelty hit Take Off by Bob & Doug McKenzie (Dave Thomas--no, not the Wendy's guy,
and Rick Moranis, before he shrunk the kids) which features Geddy Lee.
http://www.dreamwater.org/art/gtr/images/GWN.jpg
Well she's right but we'll have to see if the bigger stations will give it a chance. Whether or not it'll reach the listenership of a Rush or a Hannity I don't know, but it could do well...if DONE well. As for the fact that conservatives have been doing talk longer, wasn't Jerry Williams considered a liberal way back when?
(Later he termed himself a "populist", etc.)
I haven't played Rush and am not all that into them and yes I knew Donna discovered them (and have known that for many years) . But I do
like the novelty hit Take Off by Bob & Doug McKenzie (Dave Thomas--no, not the Wendy's guy,
and Rick Moranis, before he shrunk the kids) which features Geddy Lee.
http://www.dreamwater.org/art/gtr/images/GWN.jpg
T
trifecta123
Guest
Varulven said:
NPR sucks off the government tit. I guess they can't hack it in the free enterprise system. Let's see "progressive" talk make it on its own without bankruptcy or government subsidies. Can they do that?
The save prog talk effort now is selling T-shirts (see site) and such; one article for sale is a clock
that says "TEN stations running right wing talk and NONE for progressive talk"?
Let's see: WRKO, WTTT, throw in WROL as well for nights, WTKK...that makes 4. Maybe throw WBZ in
but they're more centrist, so that's 5. Where do they get 10 from? (Maybe add WEEI for political
content in the morning, OK we're up to 6...)
that says "TEN stations running right wing talk and NONE for progressive talk"?
Let's see: WRKO, WTTT, throw in WROL as well for nights, WTKK...that makes 4. Maybe throw WBZ in
but they're more centrist, so that's 5. Where do they get 10 from? (Maybe add WEEI for political
content in the morning, OK we're up to 6...)
raccoonradio said:
50kw WCRN in Worcester hits the market, so that could be #7
Their complaint area on the website also included the New Bedford/Fall River area, so you could include WPRO and WHJJ (another former progressive) in Providence, WBSM New Bedford, WSAR Fall River...
Yup good point. Had they been approached to carry AAR/prog talk, WCRN could have been quite a feather in their cap..good signal
trifecta123 said:
Since NPR gets only 1% of its revenue directly from the government, and the rest from corporate donations and individual contributors, the 'dependency' is more on corporations and people than the government. You could argue that NPR has an advantage in that donations are tax deductible. However, this doesn't really hold water - NPR has to compete with a million other organizations to get charitable donations, including churches.
Further, churches have an advantage since 1) the names of contributors to NPR are published while those of contributors to churches are not, and 2) NPR must meet stringent requirements having to do with the percentage of large donors compared to small donors in order to maintain its designated 501(c)(3) status.
I think you could make an argument that NPR is extremely competitive.
btw, trifecta123's language is not only vulgar, it isn't even funny.
Finn said:
Yes, ratings wise. To illustrate, here are the rankings of the leading NPR station in some major markets where they came in within the top ten among all stations in the demo from this past summer's book. These are the 12+ ratings, bear in mind that NPR's usually do MUCH better in the 25-54, but I don't have those numbers.
Boston - 3.9 share, 7'th (beat the commercial talk stations). They were 1'st in the 25-54 in some dayparts.
Top 15 other markets with top ten ranked NPR's, by market size, Summer '06 12+, compiled by combining published commercial Arbitrons with the leading non-commercial station rating from the Radio Research Consortium:
[EDIT]
While NPR's didn't quite make top ten in some major markets such as NYC, LA, Chicago or Philly, here are just 16 examples of the largest markets where they made top ten among all stations, and there are many more if you keep going down the list. Not too shabby. These stations certainly appear attractive to underwriters, corporate sponsors and grant writers, and don't rely on government/taxpayer funding for a significant percentage of their income. I'm sure they also do well on their pledge drives. Also, in many other markets in between these in size, I found the NPR station just under the top ten, though I didn't list those here.
[EDIT--Post truncated to remove ratings. Posting lists of ratings is a violation of TOS.]
- Status