• 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

Goodbye Lib Talk, You're Off To Join The Circus...

You are correct - he is a massive failure in life.

Additonally, all lib talk radio is a failure - even though the rest of AM radio is thriving these days.

That is as perfect an example of the flaw in the attitude of most liberal talk radio hosts I have heard that relegates them to the lower rungs of the success ladder. While one can find people at all points of the political spectrum who can't handle the concept of incremental degrees, there tend to be more of them on the left side than on the right side. Whether it's a discussion of an entertainer's talent or matters of government policy, the left has an even stronger bias towards absolutism than the right is often accused of. And it is that lack of willingness on the part of hosts and listeners alike that dooms liberal talk radio to the lower levels of success.

Liberal talk radio will always have the same relationship to Conservative talk radio that the Arena Football League has to the NFL.
 
That is as perfect an example of the flaw in the attitude of most liberal talk radio hosts I have heard that relegates them to the lower rungs of the success ladder.
Click to expand...

Um, ok - if that's what you want to think, so be it. You have fun at the top of the ladder. What was that recent description on this board from Holland Cooke - "misplaced agression" was it?
 
justareporter said:
I absolutely love the unfounded sweeping generalizations.
Click to expand...
spoken like a true 'journalist' ;)

Now, get in there and make the news!
 
Sorry...I've been doing this WAY too long. I just report...and I'm good at it.

I leave the "we report...you decide" to the folks with an axe to grind...but keep trying.
 
I absolutely love the unfounded sweeping generalizations.

Really! Where did you see any?

The "Sweeping generalizations" I made were summaries of the results of large amounts of diligently conducted marketing research. Or, do you mean to say that my reluctance to give away precise data for free somehow makes my conclusions less valid? If I were to say that research has proven that 62.3% of those tested who identify themselves as "liberal" in their political outlook displayed a reluctance factor in excess of the 95th percentile at identifying any politician's actions or decisions at any point on a five point scale other than "Totally Wrong" or "Totally correct"?

BTW, those numbers were chosen for illustrative purposes only. Getting the precise data would be prohibitively expensive for you.
 
Simply admitting that one has a "liberal" or "conservative" personal viewpoint in no way suggests any reporter would then allow those opinions to color their work.

Okay, let me fix that....any good reporter. I am happy and honored to admit to knowing lot of good ones. Many are "conservative" many are "liberal."

All treat their profession and their listeners/viewers with respect by keeping their opinions out of their reportage.

I guess you just need to know better working journalists.
 
justareporter said:
All treat their profession and their listeners/viewers with respect by keeping their opinions out of their reportage.

I guess you just need to know better working journalists.
Click to expand...

well, so does most of America. According to a Pew research study :

Besides inaccuracy and intrusiveness, the press is attacked for its lack of fairness. Two-thirds (67%) say that in presenting news on political and social issues, news organizations tend to favor one side rather than dealing fairly with all sides. Again, this negative view of the press is more prevalent now than it was twelve years ago, when a much smaller majority (53%) criticized news organizations for biased coverage of political and social issues.


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=112

Geez, you would thin someone who's 'just a reporter' would have access to these stats and know about them! :eek:

Keep up the good work, son ;)
 
Simply admitting that one has a "liberal" or "conservative" personal viewpoint in no way suggests any reporter would then allow those opinions to color their work.

The thing is, media bias is seldom caused by reporters being less than honest and accurate. Media bias is accomplished by the editors who decide which stories get covered, and which get buried. It's accomplished by story placement in print media. It's accomplished by selective use of film in television. It's hard to say how it might be accomplished on radio, since there is so little actual news broadcast on radio anymore.

As "just a reporter", you might honestly and accurately file a report on a bona-fide story that give creedence to a claim by the current administration. One of your colleagues might file a report on a bona-fide story that makes the current administration look bad. Both stories might be honest, accurate, and objectively reported. If the editor puts your colleagues story on the air, and sends yours to the circular filing cabinet, did your honest and objective reporting result in honest and objective news broadcast? Hell no!

Since few radio news broadcasts are more then five minutes, the classic "all the news that fits, we print" situation exists. No matter how objective a journalist might be fresh out of college, it doesn't take a professional long to learn what kind of stories are selected for broadcast, and what stories don't fit into the five minutes available. If you want to advance in your career, you learn how to cover the kind of stories that get included.

That means journalists learn to be selective in what they cover. If you keep reporting on stories that your editor won't put on the air, you won't be working very long. You still might maintain your objectivity in how you cover a story, but any objectivity in what you cover goes out the window. Or, you can find a new job covering shoppping mall openings in Smalltown, USA.
 
Two quick replies.

#1: whther or not the public thinks we are "good" for them is of no interst to me what-so-ever. Our job is to tell people stuff they may not actually want to know but, as Richard Salant once said they "need to know." thanks to the marketing genius of Fox news I now not only have to do a great job but have to listen to sophmoric arguements about whether or not the general public thinks we're fair. Of course we're fair. It is our job to be fair and most reporters do it well. None of us ever got into the journalism field to make friends. If I want another friend I'll get another cat.

You'll need to find a better arguement...this one doesn't hold water.

As to which story gets on: most small and medium market reporters would kill to be in the situation where there are more stories then time. At some level the problem exists at the network level. That said, good reportes and good editors fight as to which is the BETTER story. I've worked enough shops to know that editors look for the best story...not the one that fits their political bent. If all you do is learn to cover the stories you know will get included you never wind up at the majors.
 
" whther (sic) or not the public thinks we are "good" for them is of no interst (sic) to me what-so-ever. Our job is to tell people stuff they may not actually want to know but, as Richard Salant once said they "need to know."

Good for you. I hope you enjoy your tenure at Mother Jones.

For the rest of the 'reporters' out there, thier job is to sell ads and keep people tuned in.

" thanks to the marketing genius of Fox news I now not only have to do a great job but have to listen to sophmoric arguements about whether or not the general public thinks we're fair. "

First, no one's 'making you' do anything.

Second, you point the finger at others, calling thier arguments 'sophmoric" (sic), including your obvious disdain for 'Fox News'. Which means your probably not employed by Fox News. So your used to getting beaten by them ;)


"Of course we're fair. It is our job to be fair and most reporters do it well. None of us ever got into the journalism field to make friends."

Well, I'm glad you and your reporter 'friends' don't care what the public thinks. Riiiight.

Since you did not get into journalism to 'make friends', perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you chose this particular field?

I sleep well at night knowing your on watch, making sure we all get the news we 'need to know' ::)
 
No reporter worth their while would tell you their job is to sell ads. the fact you even think that clearly indicates how little you know about jorunalism or news.

I have yet to see a market where the "fox" radio news operation even shows up in the ratings. So I am not getting beaten by them at all. As for their TV news...their talk show do well. The ratings on their news...well...not as good.

You've obviously never been a journalist and never been a reporter. the good ones are more concerned about what we do then anything else.

as for why I got into the job...you wouldn't understand so why bother.

As for sleeping well at night...just don't take any of those pills that make you sleepwalk. Me...I sleep just fine.
 
That said, good reportes and good editors fight as to which is the BETTER story.

And I've never met a senior editor who didn't find that stories that suited his personal bias tended to be "better" than stories that didn't.

Then again, I got out of the news business about 35 years ago. Since then, I've only dealt with news from the perspective of listening to radio station salesmen brag on how good their news programs were, and how the public listened to them because they reported the news the public wanted to hear. And, I hear the war stories told by friends who stayed in broadcasting as they lament the fact that the editor's idea of a "good" story is a fire, a flood, a major traffic accident with fatalities, or some other catastrophic tragedy. And the only way any story about anything that the public would "need to know", like stories of taxation, local government operations, contracts issued for vital services, or any other such boring topic only gets covered if it embarasses someone that the station owner doesn't like. And then only if the editor gets a phone call from the owner reminding him who signs the paychecks. I hear those stories from people who work as reporters on all (well, both) of the stations in my market that actually have reporters on their payrolls.

Tell me, are you mild mannered? And, do you fight a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the Ameican Way?
 
On the contrary I'm told I do not suffer fools lightly.

As for the GM calling and mentioning who signs the paychecks...I've been at this for a long time in big and small markets in front of the camera/microphone and behind it. I NEVER got that call. Would have ignored it and/or walked out if I did.
 
I NEVER got that call.

Of course you never got such a call. You're "justareporter". You're not a managing editor with responsibility for a corporate bottom line. You're just a reporter.
 
The Talking Radio blog notes that AAR/prog talk is losing its 21st station in the past year, in El Paso.

http://talkingradio.blogspot.com

"The on again off again status of liberal talk radio in El Paso seems to be off again. The Newspaper Tree in El Paso reports today that KHRO-AM 1650 will flip from Air America programming to oldies some time in April...The new management of AAR would be better advised to spend their time trying to reverse the trend of lib talk flips than to battle with Fox and the Republican Party over presidential debate coverage"
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom