Goodbye Progressive Talk in San Francisco

[michael hagerty]

It's really very simple. Liberals tune in to conservative radio, listen, become outraged and call in...hoping, if not to convert the host and his or her audience, to demonstrate moral, ethical or intellectual superiority. Which increases the entertainment factor of the conservative show.

While they're doing that, they're not listening to liberal radio.

Conservatives have no interest in missing out on what their favorite hosts have to say, much less arguing with a liberal host, so they stay tuned to conservative radio.

Moderates just go where the entertainment value is highest. All the conservatives+most of the moderates+enough of the liberals=winning ratings.

Even if liberals boycotted conservative shows and supported liberal ones, they'd be at a disadvantage. There's no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other. If liberals stopped calling conservative shows, those hosts would simply move the line and argue with callers for "not being conservative enough."

That's the math. And programmers know it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Oh, my. What a convenient bunch of suppositions.

It's really very simple. Liberals tune in to conservative radio, listen, become outraged and call in...hoping, if not to convert the host and his or her audience, to demonstrate moral, ethical or intellectual superiority. Which increases the entertainment factor of the conservative show.

What is your guess on this one? One out of every three liberals do this? 1 out of 10? 1 out of 1,000? 1 out of 100,000? 1 out of every 3,000,900. Are there any credible studies that support this idea?

Conservatives have no interest in missing out on what their favorite hosts have to say, much less arguing with a liberal host, so they stay tuned to conservative radio.

Is that any different than liberals? Do liberals want to hear their favorite hosts? Do MOST liberals have no interest in arguing with a conservative host? Got any studies that back up your assertion?

Moderates just go where the entertainment value is highest.

Is it possible conservatives go where the entertainment value is highest? Is it possible liberals do that also. Studying this assertion would get to be mind boggling. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then conventional wisdom would also assert that "entertainment value" is in the ear of the beholder. We are all simply giving it our best guess when it comes to debating this claim.

Even if liberals boycotted conservative shows and supported liberal ones, they'd be at a disadvantage. There's no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other.

Wait a minute. Why do conservatives listen to conservative hosts... if there is no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other?

That's the math. And programmers know it.

You may have math, logic and wishful thinking all scrambled into one breakfast-burger here. I know the logic you have proposed makes a lot of sense to you. But it simply puzzles my brain because I don't have any facts to back up what you claim, I don't have any facts to dispute your claim.

I don't know that programmers have any math to work with other than what the audience surveys report in audience size. Audience surveys give us very little to judge what percentage of the audience is listening because they agree, what percentage is listening for entertainment value, and what percentage is listening so they can call and challenge the host. Maybe you can help me understand where those attributes are found in the audiecne measurements.

I have some opinions on who listens to what and why... but it is just speculation on my part. Do you have a better methodology to share with us?

 

[michael hagerty]

Goat:

Credible studies? Nope. Just 25 years of looking at the ratings and listening to the shows. As a career broadcaster and long-time programmer, I'm fascinated. And understanding how people actually use the medium as opposed to what they tell researchers is always instructive.

The percentage of liberals listening and calling in to conservative talk radio is irrelevant. One call contributes mightily to the entertainment value of the conservative program.

Do liberals want to hear their favorite hosts? I'm sure some do. But there is no liberal equivalent to Limbaugh or Hannity on radio. Ask any ten liberals to name something Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh has said that outrages them and you'll get some stunningly accurate quotes. Ask them to name something great Stephanie Miller or Randi Rhodes has said and watch them flounder.

You ask if it's possible conservatives and liberals also go where the entertainment value is highest. The answer is yes. And you're still back at big ratings for conservative radio and much lower ratings for liberal radio.

And I'm surprised you asked the question why conservatives listen to conservative talk radio if there's no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other. We're back to square one: Liberal callers provide the controversy and entertainment value.

You say you have your own thoughts as to who listens to what and why. I'd love to hear them.

 

[LKellerIII]

Goat:

Credible studies? Nope. Just 25 years of looking at the ratings and listening to the shows. As a career broadcaster and long-time programmer, I'm fascinated. And understanding how people actually use the medium as opposed to what they tell researchers is always instructive.

The percentage of liberals listening and calling in to conservative talk radio is irrelevant. One call contributes mightily to the entertainment value of the conservative program.

Do liberals want to hear their favorite hosts? I'm sure some do. But there is no liberal equivalent to Limbaugh or Hannity on radio. Ask any ten liberals to name something Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh has said that outrages them and you'll get some stunningly accurate quotes. Ask them to name something great Stephanie Miller or Randi Rhodes has said and watch them flounder.

You ask if it's possible conservatives and liberals also go where the entertainment value is highest. The answer is yes. And you're still back at big ratings for conservative radio and much lower ratings for liberal radio.

And I'm surprised you asked the question why conservatives listen to conservative talk radio if there's no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other. We're back to square one: Liberal callers provide the controversy and entertainment value.

You say you have your own thoughts as to who listens to what and why. I'd love to hear them.

I was under the impression that most callers to conservative talk hosts were from like-minded "ditto-heads." I guess not, if what Michael says is true.

I understand that liberal talk host Ed Schultz frequently says outrageous things that get him in trouble. But frankly, I wouldn't know personally because I don't listen.

I don't know if I'm typical of liberals or not. I was a talk radio junkie in the 1980s (my 30s), less so in the 90s, and now - in my dottage - I find that Talk Radio just gets me all wound up and upset, so I rarely listen. I stay informed - primarily through NPR, news websites (including the SF Chronicle's site), and some TV news. But I'm no longer interested in hearing angry talk hosts (conservative or liberal) spewing biased rhetoric, and getting into it with callers.

Though I'm sad at what has befallen KGO (see other thread), it will make very little difference to me personally.

 

[michael hagerty]

Goat:

Credible studies? Nope. Just 25 years of looking at the ratings and listening to the shows. As a career broadcaster and long-time programmer, I'm fascinated. And understanding how people actually use the medium as opposed to what they tell researchers is always instructive.

The percentage of liberals listening and calling in to conservative talk radio is irrelevant. One call contributes mightily to the entertainment value of the conservative program.

Do liberals want to hear their favorite hosts? I'm sure some do. But there is no liberal equivalent to Limbaugh or Hannity on radio. Ask any ten liberals to name something Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh has said that outrages them and you'll get some stunningly accurate quotes. Ask them to name something great Stephanie Miller or Randi Rhodes has said and watch them flounder.

You ask if it's possible conservatives and liberals also go where the entertainment value is highest. The answer is yes. And you're still back at big ratings for conservative radio and much lower ratings for liberal radio.

And I'm surprised you asked the question why conservatives listen to conservative talk radio if there's no entertainment value in hearing people agree with each other. We're back to square one: Liberal callers provide the controversy and entertainment value.

You say you have your own thoughts as to who listens to what and why. I'd love to hear them.

I was under the impression that most callers to conservative talk hosts were from like-minded "ditto-heads." I guess not, if what Michael says is true.

I understand that liberal talk host Ed Schultz frequently says outrageous things that get him in trouble. But frankly, I wouldn't know personally because I don't listen.

I don't know if I'm typical of liberals or not. I was a talk radio junkie in the 1980s (my 30s), less so in the 90s, and now - in my dottage - I find that Talk Radio just gets me all wound up and upset, so I rarely listen. I stay informed - primarily through NPR, news websites (including the SF Chronicle's site), and some TV news. But I'm no longer interested in hearing angry talk hosts (conservative or liberal) spewing biased rhetoric, and getting into it with callers.

Though I'm sad at what has befallen KGO (see other thread), it will make very little difference to me personally.

Llew:

Most callers to conservative shows are like-minded "ditto-heads". Which is why they get 20 seconds to say something and then Rush, Sean or whoever riff on it and you never hear the caller's voice again. It's also why these shows are taking fewer calls than ever, letting the hosts spar with pre-recorded sound bites from progressive politicians in the news.

But when an opposing view calls in...and you only need one of these an hour...that's when the fur flies. The host will milk that call for all it's worth...they get minutes of airtime instead of seconds. Rush frames these as "opportunities to educate", whereas I think they genuinely get Sean's dander up, but the result is the same. They both know it's radio gold.

 

[DJBigOne]

What is your guess on this one? One out of every three liberals do this? 1 out of 10? 1 out of 1,000? 1 out of 100,000? 1 out of every 3,000,900. Are there any credible studies that support this idea?

Nationwide, 85% call themselves conservative. I'm sure that percentage is smaller in the Bay Area.

As others have mentioned, the number one reason for listening? Is a talk show entertaining???
For example, I think Dennis Miller is brilliant, but his radio show is boorrrring...so I rarely listen.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What is your guess on this one? One out of every three liberals do this? 1 out of 10? 1 out of 1,000? 1 out of 100,000? 1 out of every 3,000,900. Are there any credible studies that support this idea?

Nationwide, 85% call themselves conservative. I'm sure that percentage is smaller in the Bay Area.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I think it is quite different than what Michael Hagerty was saying. A casual reading of what Michael said could run anywhere from: "All liberals love to call conservative talk shows so they listen and they call, thus they have no time left to listen to liberal broadcasts." I'm guessing that is not what he was trying to say, but in the context of the other points he made, a reasonable person could assume he was saying that.

When he came back with his follow-up response, I think he is indicating that a conservative talk show only needs ONE LIBERAL CALL PER HOUR to "properly season the broth" called conservative talk radio. That leaves plenty of time for the rest of the liberals to "tend to their knitting"...... whatever that might be: (1) listening to something with a liberal bias (2) cleaning out the pantry to send surplus and soon-to-be-stale food to a charity (3) composing a liberal blog. (4) packing their knapsack to spend the day with the Occupy group tomorrow (5) Contemplating their navel. As a substitute for Item 5 I find it interesting to contemplate what conservatives do when NOT listening to talk radio.

Now, let's clarify what YOU are saying. Nationwide.... what? 85% of all people claim to be conservative? 85% of people listening to conservative talk radio are conservative? I assume you are not trying to sell the first point. Everything I find when all added together indicates that about 33% of the people in the U.S. claim to be conservative, 33% of the people claim to be liberal and 33% claim to be independent. In a national effort like running for president, in addition to the base of your party (Republican or Democrat), you have to get a big, big chunk of the people who call themselves independents. Is that in conflict with what you are saying?

If there is any agreement within this group that the American electorate is rather evenly divided three ways, that leads to further interesting theories on what happens when people listen to the radio and the survey companies measure the audience.

 

[michael hagerty]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I think it is quite different than what Michael Hagerty was saying. A casual reading of what Michael said could run anywhere from: "All liberals love to call conservative talk shows so they listen and they call, thus they have no time left to listen to liberal broadcasts." I'm guessing that is not what he was trying to say, but in the context of the other points he made, a reasonable person could assume he was saying that.

I see where I'm not being especially clear. Let me try to crystallize it:

A big part of the success of conservative talk radio comes from liberal callers. They provide the spark and controversy that a host then hopes to turn to his or her advantage.

By and large, conservatives don't call in to liberal shows, depriving them of that same spark.

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

So back to the question: Why doesn't liberal talk radio do as well as conservative talk radio? Conservative talk radio is more entertaining (and liberal callers are part of the entertainment) and there are no high-voltage liberal talk radio stars drawing and consistently holding an audience.

 

[FightingIrish]

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

Actually, Rachel Maddow did do talk radio before MSNBC.

 

[recto101]

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

Actually, Rachel Maddow did do talk radio before MSNBC.

National or Local?

 

[FightingIrish]

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

Actually, Rachel Maddow did do talk radio before MSNBC.

National or Local?

National. Air America. Had quite a few affiliates too.

 

[michael hagerty]

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

She needed to do it while on MSNBC and cross-promote. Not enough people knew who she was before MSNBC.

Actually, Rachel Maddow did do talk radio before MSNBC.

National or Local?

National. Air America. Had quite a few affiliates too.

 

[uncamark]

As I've always understood it, for the most part, except for the most fired up activist portion of the left, most people who consider themselves left-of-center don't like talk radio in general because they don't care for all of the shouting, whether it be Limbaugh or Schultz. They prefer public radio, where the topics on the call-in shows are pre-announced, aren't always political and are generally driven by hosts and guests with civil (that is, measured) tones in their voices.

The other problem that AAR had was its commercial set-up, which I presume did not appeal to a good portion of the activist left, who once again will go to the non-coms, but more likely to the Pacifica and Pacifica-ish stations, where "Democracy Now!" and the local talk shows give them read meat (in some cases, in measured tones, but still red meat) and if there are any underwriting announcements, they're for local co-op groceries and hand-made clothing stores, not Archer Daniels Midland or Walmart (which is what they don't like about mainstream NPR/PRI/APM). A good portion of the activist left also prefers music to news-talk programming in the first place, with the exception of "DN!", "Free Speech Network News" or a local program of a similar length (as KBCS in Seattle found out when they tried to run "The Takeaway" in morning drive).

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Progressive Talk might be paying for the sins of the Democratic Party whose values they espouse. Even some party loyalists are frustrated over the Dem's left turn of recent years.

Surfing AM "Talk", here's what I find: on the liberal stations-- talking heads, mostly preaching to the choir. Callers offer some, but much too little confrontation. Callers tend to be cheerleaders, while the hosts pontificate on platitudes. Alan Colmes is an interesting study; he sounds fresher and more confident on the radio than on TV. It's been that way with Colmes since his WNBC AM days in NYC, when I believed he hosted the market's most captivating show on radio. But on TV he withers on the vine, resorting to soapboxing. His FOX TV days were a little brighter when he collaborated with Hannity. They were friends demonstrating mutual respect.

On conservative stations-- robust, though sometimes angry hosts, Michael Savage to name one. Bob Grant was another hot-head. Both could be poster-children for Valium. But most of the righty shows sound fresher to me, like their hosts have done their homework, ie Hannity, as opposed to the southpaws, like "Ed" and Rose M., who come off wimpy and whiney.

I am a baby-boomer. I was reared in a Democratic household, enamoured by the values of Truman and the Kennedys, so I speak with some confidence. Following Hubert Humphrey's loss to Richard Nixon in '68, I witnessed in my parents the birth of a years-long, growing discontent with the shrill tone rising from what was once laughed off as the Democrat's fringe element. Today's Democratic party suffers because that same "fringe" now controls them, and that too could be the core of Progressive Talk's problem.

Today's muletrain no longer represents my own bedrock value system, although I do trust some Democrats. But I'm not a Republican either. Rather, I have found refuge in the secure political enclave of the so-called independents. Here, I can select my candidates based on their qualifications, free from the harassment of partisanship from either side. Here might be found the solution to Progessive's decaying market share, if only they would listen.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You say you have your own thoughts as to who listens to what and why. I'd love to hear them.

Groups of people are not monolithic.... today more-so than ever before. Some of our forum conversations about radio tend to put people into two or three groups, and everybody in the group is supposed to be alike. If we talked about the automobile market the way we talk about the radio audience, we would say there are two kinds of buyers: People who buy 4-door sedans, and people who buy pick-up trucks. Look how splintered the automobile market is.

At the foundational level, I put people into two general groups based on what they were born with coupled with their early-life nurture.

(1) Very structured people. Things are either right or wrong. Logic and solutions are always simple. These people are well suited to being bureaucrats... either in government or in corporate America. If they leave work a bit late and come across the janitor sweeping the lobby at the building entrance, they may chastise the person for using a #2 broom when the company manual clearly states that a #3 broom is the preferred tool for cleaning lobbies with hard surfaced flooring. The new sign installed on the front of the building today is either the correct color according to the company logo specifications, or it is totally wrong if a couple of shades too brilliant in color. These people often enjoy being accountants because each line on the financial statement carries ONE very specific, very accurate, very correct number. These people make good police officers because they are comfortable with the concept that 33 m.p.h. is legal in this block, 37 m.p.h. is a violation of the speed limit in this block. A shift captain who tells police officers to go out and use some good judgement today in when to write and not write a ticket can irritate the "truly structured person". My personal observation is that "very structured people" have a high probability of being comfortable with the tenets of Conservative political thinking. But since there are basically two political camps you can join and people come in at least 57 varieties, conservatives come in many shade, sizes and personalities.

(2) Creative/Artistic/Flexible people. There is more than one way to perform this song. There is more than one correct color for the rock formations in my painting of the Arizona canyon. My jacket lapels do not need to be exactly the same width as everyone else is wearing. These people make great entertainers, counselors, clergymen, and sport stars. These people make good historians, do well at playing the role of mother in a family, and hiring out as a handyman for household repairs. My personal observation is that "Creative/Artisitic/Flexibile people" have a high probability of beiong comfortable with the tenets of Liberal political thinking. But, again, two political camps, 57 varieties of people.

When I am traveling across the country and we stop at a fast food place to grab a quick breakfast or lunch so we can keep the miles rolling, I listen to the other people in in line ordering their Egg McMuffin, their hamburger or whatever, and for many of them, I can quickly tell you their probable political party and their probably church affiliation (or lack there-of) by the way they order their food, the way they deal with or treat the worker behind the cash register, and how they organize and structure the flow of their food order. (Organized or haphazard.)

Let me point to another genre of broadcasting for some parallel thoughts. Behold the religious broadcaster. Preach and Teach radio in particular, and most religious radio is created by, done by, paid for by Conservative and/or Fundamentalist people or groups. Liberal theology is basically missing from paid religious broadcasting. Listeners who have or desire a "very structured spirituality" will listen to religion on the radio. Listeners who have or desire a Creative/Artistic/Flexible do not tend to turn to broadcasting for guidance or nurture. Explain that one to me, and we will be on our way to understand the difference between political talk radio that attracts the conservative listener, and radio that does not attract the liberal listener.

Liberal listeners have yet to rally around liberal radio personalities in the same way that conservatives have rallied around Rush, Hannity and (to a lesser extent) Michael Savage. If Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann had done talk radio instead of MSNBC, that could have been different. I think they both could have been huge drivers for liberal talk radio.

So back to the question: Why doesn't liberal talk radio do as well as conservative talk radio? Conservative talk radio is more entertaining (and liberal callers are part of the entertainment) and there are no high-voltage liberal talk radio stars drawing and consistently holding an audience.

There were First Century Romans who gathered at the coliseum to watch the lions devour religious zealots. Other Romans stayed home because that was not a satisfying use of time to them. Explain that one to me, and we will be on our way to understand the difference between political talk radio that attracts the conservative listener, and radio that does not attract the liberal listener.

As I've always understood it, for the most part, except for the most fired up activist portion of the left, most people who consider themselves left-of-center don't like talk radio in general because they don't care for all of the shouting, whether it be Limbaugh or Schultz. They prefer public radio, where the topics on the call-in shows are pre-announced, aren't always political and are generally driven by hosts and guests with civil (that is, measured) tones in their voices.

I don't quarrel with that statement. If a person's "personality" and "mental make-up" are significant factors in shaping their political mindset, that would also account for the trend of liberals not being excited about harsh prison sentences, not being excited about loading up Latinos on a bus and dumping them across the border, not being excited about having citizens carrying guns so they can shape the lives of people around them, and a lot of other political positions that are the equivalent of "shouting on the radio".

If you want to be a successful radio broadcaster (owner / manager / on-air talent ) your career at this time is best served in you have a "everybody either wants a pick-up truck or a 4 door sedan" mentality. Don't get all caught up in psychology and Myers-Briggs test results. Just assume Conservative talk radio works, Liberal talk radio is either very soft or does not work at all. You'll make a good living. If you try to understand the reality of what make people tick.... you may do what I did: walk away from radio and find something to do that doesn't tear your soul apart.

P.S. If you go find 100 people that I worked for or worked with through the years, and ask them about me, at the end of the day you won't know if I am a slave to being very structured, or if I am a Creative/Artistic/Flexible "free spirit". I took a simplified version of the Myers-Briggs one time.... and the test had a nervous breakdown. ;D

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Progressive Talk might be paying for the sins of the Democratic Party whose values they espouse. Even some party loyalists are frustrated over the Dem's left turn of recent years.

I don't know if Talk Radio in smaller markets turns it's attention away from the "unison national political story" that dominates syndicated talk, but in reading your excellent post, I am struck that we are like the old grade school fable about the blind men and the elephant. We evaluate radio and Talk Radio in different ways depending on our own personal geography and the political picture in our region. Because of your family's past political affiliation you have a view of what you perceive the Democratic party used to be which affects you perception of what the Democratic party is today... you define the change as you see it and you have the good fortune to be able to tune in liberal talk in your area and you evaluate the reaction of talk show hosts to the perceived changes in the Democratic party.

I live in a part of the country where I cannot offer an assessment of liberal talk radio.... because it just doesn't exist here. Thus I cannot say: "Where I live, liberal talk radio hosts are supportive of the Democratic Party." ... nor can I say: "Where I live, leberal talk radio hosts are frustrated with the current positions of the Democratic Party."

Surfing AM "Talk", here's what I find: on the liberal stations-- talking heads, mostly preaching to the choir. Callers offer some, but much too little confrontation. Callers tend to be cheerleaders, while the hosts pontificate on platitudes. Alan Colmes is an interesting study; he sounds fresher and more confident on the radio than on TV. It's been that way with Colmes since his WNBC AM days in NYC, when I believed he hosted the market's most captivating show on radio. But on TV he withers on the vine, resorting to soapboxing. His FOX TV days were a little brighter when he collaborated with Hannity. They were friends demonstrating mutual respect.

Talking heads. Preaching to the choir. Cheerleaders. Pontificating hots. Do these same description not also fit conservative talk radio hosts where you live?

You spoke openly about your family views which have influenced you. I guess I arrive for this discussion from the other side. My family was reasonably independent, but during my time at home we lived in two states which both were Confederate states that were one-party political schemes. When I left home, Winthrop Rockefeller brought "The Republican Gospel" to Arkansas, and then I moved north just in time to get swept up in the era of Goldwater. You see what you perceive as radical change in the views of the Democratic party.... I see what I perceive as radical change in the views of the Republican party. You see what were the fringe elements of the Democrats now controlling the party. I see what I perceive as the fringe elements of the Republicans now controlling the party.

I suspect if you and I were called in and given tests to evaluate of mental status, our level of intelligence, our social awareness, our abilities to reason and be rational, we would both score reasonably well on the tests. What does it say about talk radio that the two of us seem to be looking at the same industry (radio) and the same nation, and it is like we are looking into the telescope from opposite ends? What does it say about talk radio, (as a social influence, not as a business success or failure) that because of talk radio we seem to have a nation heavily infested with people who are as confused and ill-informed as the two of us may or may not be?

Of all places in the world where those of us looking in from the outside would assume that Liberal Talk Radio should be viable, how is it that we find ourselves discussing: Goodbye Progressive Talk in San Francisco. If it won't work there, I don't expect to see it work during my lifetime here where we may have The Most Conservative congressional district in all of America. The radio broadcaster smart enough to make it work here probably hasn't been born yet!

 

[Sam VZ]

Interesting - this conversation's a couple of days old and already made irrelevant by KGO's changes. What's there for talk audience now? I like Randi, and KKGN says they're looking for a local afternoon talker, but this leaves slim pickin's - especially for local topics of interes. I think the signals for both stations leave a lot to be desired. Both progressive and conservative syndicated talkers are preaching to the choir, and you can set your watch by when Hannity channel the ghost of Reagan and Osama to put down a liberal challenger. Boring! I guess I'll see what KGO's news format sounds like, but I think there's a gap in the market waiting to be filled.

 

[michael hagerty]

Interesting - this conversation's a couple of days old and already made irrelevant by KGO's changes. What's there for talk audience now? I like Randi, and KKGN says they're looking for a local afternoon talker, but this leaves slim pickin's - especially for local topics of interes. I think the signals for both stations leave a lot to be desired. Both progressive and conservative syndicated talkers are preaching to the choir, and you can set your watch by when Hannity channel the ghost of Reagan and Osama to put down a liberal challenger. Boring! I guess I'll see what KGO's news format sounds like, but I think there's a gap in the market waiting to be filled.

Irrelevant? I think KGO's loss makes the premise even more critical.

 

[radiowizard101]

My take on this. I think it was the plan all along to gut KGO because of its LIBERAL stance. Cumulus is very conservative and doesn't feel comfortable with the expression of any kind of liberal agenda. Especially, in an election year.

Also, keep in mind that Mitt Romney has a vested interest in Bain Capital, the company that is supporting Clear Channel. I would bet that Bain is very uncomfortable with any of their properties broadcasting a LIBERAL point of view to the masses.

And we can thank DE-REGULATION for this situation. We will not hear Progressive or Liberal talk radio for at least the forseeable future, or until the 2012 election cycle is over. This is what happens when the few control the media. So much for the airwaves being owned by the people (sic). Then again, I may be wrong about this.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I would bet that Bain is very uncomfortable with any of their properties broadcasting a LIBERAL point of view to the masses.

Your "bet" is a guess. You guessed wrong. http://www.themic921.com/main.html Notice which way the mic leans in the graphic. They not only do it, they can do it with style.