• 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

HAS GLENN BECK PEAKED?

Don C said:
Which is worse, reverse snobbery or normal snobbery? Instead of nitpicking about someone's academic credentials, I think we'd be better off having different sides of an argument discuss the actual merits of the issues.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al have any interest in discussing the actual merits of an issue.

They do not. They are only interested in spinning information, true or not, into a convenient excuse to blame "the other side".

As far as nitpicking someone's academic credentials: It's true that you do not need to have a college degree to succeed, HOWEVER, when you are so reckless with "facts" and so short on knowledge of a subject you're railing about, it's difficult to ignore a LACK of higher education on your resume. It's not often as much a coincidence as it is a predictable indicatior of why you may defend a particular position.
 
jerry367 said:
You're assuming that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al have any interest in discussing the actual merits of an issue.

They do not.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Randi Rhodes or Ed Schultz are any better? Hint: THAT'S WHAT POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOSTS DO. They advocate for their opinion. How do they do so? By pointing out flaws in the other side, and ignoring the flaws in their own side. Guess what? There's nothing wrong with that.
 
jerry367 said:
You're assuming that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al have any interest in discussing the actual merits of an issue.

They do not. They are only interested in spinning information, true or not, into a convenient excuse to blame "the other side".
Click to expand...
They are far from the only ones doing that.
They just have the biggest forum for doing it.
 
The only place where I DON'T hear the blame the other side as the main objective of the show is on NPR. Yes, there will be callers who will blame the GOP, but I've also heard the libs get blamed by callers as well. Granted NPR's "Talk of the Nation" does lean left, but unlike the commercial lib or GOP talkers who are angry and blame the other side for every problem known to mankind, NPR's talkers do examine the issues in an intelligent way. They may not, generally, pull in as large of an audience as Beck/Hannity/Rush (and this depends on the market as 12+ numbers PPM in Philly show consistantly the NPR station WHYY-FM have a slightly higher rating than WPHT that airs Beck/Rush/Hannity), but at least the topics are intelligently discussed so that you can actually learn something new about a given issue rather than just arguing the talking points of each side.

Yes I know many consider NPR to be boring. But if you want something better than the daily harangue of the libs are always wrong or the GOP is always wrong, then NPR is where it's at. I don't work for NPR, but do appreciate what they do and do donate on occasion.
 
NPR just "sounds" more substantive because they're so quiet and civil. Their shows are no more substantive than someone like Levin. It's just a perception that people have about them because they're much more low key. It works for them, so I say good for them. If my tax dollars are going to pay for radio, I'd rather it be that type than some guy yelling for 3 hours about something or other. (Don't get me wrong, I like that kind of radio, but I don't think it should be subsidized.)
 
NPR is more substantive than anything the commercial radio networks provide as Morning Edition and All Things Considered offer long form interviews that you'd never hear anywhere else on radio or TV. The talk shows have well educated guests that are experts on the subject being discussed so it isn't only the host's point of view being presented as is the case, generally, on commercial radio/TV.

Unfortunately, advertisers won't support such programming on the commercial stations as those advertisers want the young and gullible audience (because they'll believe the line pitched in their spots). Only a small part of the money to NPR / PBS does come from the government. Most comes from individual donations and then corporate underwriting.
 
There are shows like this on commercial radio and TV. Just not in drive/prime time. Unfortunately they're just not what the average listener or viewer wants. We live in an American Idol world now.
 
"I wonder if it's a real chalkboard or just an effect on the IR machine?"

I believe that you do.

quadraphonic said:
It works for their talk radio LIBERALS audience.
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Beginning the-day-after-the-ratings-came-out, that station started coming-out-of-every-stopset thanking listeners for making 'em "North Carolina's #1 FM Talk station," a claim not-being-made by either of the Beck/Rush-affiliated FMs there.

'Probably something a dang consultant put 'em up to.

Don C said:
Actually, I have little interest in political talk
Click to expand...

Nor, mathematically, does the audience.
Thus the hypothesis which began this thread.
HAS that bluster peaked?

In most markets, Rush Limbaugh-type Talk gets, what, a 5 share?
So about that other 95%...
 
Don C said:
I wonder if it's a real chalkboard or just an effect on the IR machine?
Click to expand...

Don't matter. Theater of the mind.

Oddly when listening to that cut, I visually imagined the guy with the thick 1" diameter chalk making his notes on a chalk board.

That's the way radio works best is effective use of theater of the mind.
 
Re: "I wonder if it's a real chalkboard or just an effect on the IR machine?"

Holland Cooke said:
I believe that you do.

quadraphonic said:
It works for their talk radio LIBERALS audience.
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Beginning the-day-after-the-ratings-came-out, that station started coming-out-of-every-stopset thanking listeners for making 'em "North Carolina's #1 FM Talk station," a claim not-being-made by either of the Beck/Rush-affiliated FMs there.
Click to expand...
I don't know man, I never listen to Brad & Britt for the chalkboard or for their liberal leanings. Handelman, maybe, on the latter. :D
 
Re: "I wonder if it's a real chalkboard or just an effect on the IR machine?"

Holland Cooke said:
Nor, mathematically, does the audience.
Thus the hypothesis which began this thread.
HAS that bluster peaked?

In most markets, Rush Limbaugh-type Talk gets, what, a 5 share?
So about that other 95%...
Click to expand...

I don't think those guys are going to lose any audience. What I think is that there is an entire new audience to capture. People that may be interested in politics, but also interested in other stuff. The whole show doesn't need to be what's going on in Washington. What about what's going on in the state capital? Or in the next town over? Maybe even what's going on in Hollywood? I really do think there's an audience for a show like that. Sort of like Hot Talk without the FCC-unfriendly content. Talk about what the listeners are interested in, not just about politics.
 
He sure won MY ear!

For those just tuning-in, references above-and-below are to Brad & Britt (mornings) and Allan Handelman (afternoons) on North Carolina's SuperStation FM Talk 101.1, WZTK (http://fmtalk1011.com/staff.asp):

quadraphonic said:
Handelman, maybe
Click to expand...

Allan ROCKED...ROCKED, yesterday afternoon, and I'm NOT just saying that because I gave him his topic.

I gave EVERYONE this topic is the meaty April issue of the HC newsletter, and Allan ran with it.
As Mother's Day approaches, he asked "THE BEST ADVICE SHE EVER GAVE YOU?"
Callers stories were incredible.

Of the 5 stations I was assigned to monitor on my west-to-east I-40 trans-Carolina trek, he won more of my TSL than the other 4.

DON'T BELIEVE ME.
Try it, if you're on this weekend.
You'll save the aircheck.
If you missed it, do it again next month for Father's Day.

You'll do it again next year.

And cawl ya muthuh, willya?
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
cklw800 said:
I absolutely loved Glenn Beck in the early 2000s. I remember one show around 2004 he bragged about how he didn't go to college and yet became a success. In the entertainment industry especially it is perfectly normal and OK because natural talent has a place. Just like our non-degreed millionaire singers, on-air talents, athletes, actors and musicians we spend our money on and travel to go and see. I thought that was very cool. But his natural talent for entertainment on the big stage gave him passage into an area where his college-trained co-workers/competitors live, and I think that's where we see the breakdown. He's having a hard time bridging entertainment and academia with respect to credibility talking about the issues of the day. Some college-educated viewers and listeners can tell. If he takes himself too seriously, what he lacks will show itself. If he made it more of a parody of sorts while still getting his opinons through, he may not come off as clownish. Where he fails is taking himself way too seriously, so what he lacks in intellect with respect to the forum he has to explain his views, shows itself and has been harmful. Maybe when he slams the current administration he could be a little less serious and actually strive to take it in a more entertaining vein (which he seems to do sometimes by accident) and it wouldn't be as embarassing to watch. When he talks about race in particular he comes off like Archie Bunker did in the episode where he went on TV to talk about gun control. Beck is a great entertainer, and if he were doing something other than politics on the air he'd blow all of his detractors/competitors out of the water. I know we have many examples of great and knowlegeable newspersons who got into journalism in the back door, but they didn't have as big a stage as Beck, given the current political environment, and they certainly didn't have as much freedom to express their political views. They spent much of their time reading the scripts and asking for everyone else's opinions, while giving of themselves straight, honestly and intelligently from the heart.
Click to expand...

Irving Berlin was completely illiterate. He composed "God Bless America".
 
Call me crazy but entertaining talk radio is more than just giving the audience a simple question to answer. I stopped listening to NJ 101.5 but what they were great at was branding the station, what they were not great at was creating compelling personality driven content. Howard Stern is compelling content. Rush Limbaugh is compelling content. Glenn Beck is compelling content. Bubba The Love Sponge is compelling content. Monsters of the Morning are Compelling. Same goes for John and Ken. What makes their content more compelling than others? The personalities delivering it. Sure a consultant can tell you to mine parade magazine for content but unless you actually care about it and can sell it on the air, you are just full of hot air. We, as talk radio programmers, consultants, talent is try to understand why a particular show does well and others fail but the answer is simple; Do you have a personality that is likable, charismatic, funny, smart, witty and clever? If you don't, it doesn't matter what comes out of your mouth.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom