Has Talk Radio reached it's peak?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Well run corporations have this pyramid system that is well organized. They know they can't keep the young, talented people if they can't see opportunity for themselves in their lifetime. So most big public companies require CEOs to retire at 65 or so. It made big news about 10 years ago when Jack Welch retired at GE. It turns out that they had three candidates in the system. They all knew that only one of them would get the job so they all did their best to be the one selected for the big job. It also turns out the three of them knew that it was the duty of the two NOT SELECTED to fall on their sword and leave the company. This system was designed to keep the very talented 35, 40, 45 and maybe 50 year olds in the pipeline hopeful that there was all the opportunity they could eat available in the pipeline.

Radio as practiced today does not seem to offer anything like that. And I don't know that radio going forward can ever hope to offer that kind of "fish ladder" to talent, to sales people or to engineering staff. The development of good Talk Radio people really needs some kind of farm-team methodology where Talkers can develop and mature.

A Talker talent can probably be hired for the same price or less than the cost of imported syndication. But that is not the total cost. Until a young Talker has the right experience under his/her belt, the Talker needs a minder, a big brother listening in who comes running during the next commercial sometimes to advise: "My conscience, NEVER say something like that on the air. You just offended all the left handed people in your audience." Or the farmers. Or the men who work as servers in restaurants. Very few people are born with maturity that allows them to see all the got'chas.

Even in music programming I think that is part of the reason for so much automation. Those of us who have walked this earth for many, many, many years remember hearing announcers ad-lib things on the spur of the moment that you NEVER want to hear on your radio station. Yup. The good one were clever, and gathered big ratings. The poor ones could be one disaster after another. The automation machine is much more predictable.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio as practiced today does not seem to offer anything like that. And I don't know that radio going forward can ever hope to offer that kind of "fish ladder" to talent, to sales people or to engineering staff. The development of good Talk Radio people really needs some kind of farm-team methodology where Talkers can develop and mature.

I keep hearing that said, and it completely ignores the fact that we live in a world where people can reach an audience without towers and transmitters. Reaching an audience is what it takes to become a successful talk host today. Not staying in some insular world or radio studios and double pane glass. That's what's killing radio. Get out among the people and build an audience. Do it the hard way, one person at a time. You build an audience that way, and radio stations will kill to put you on the air.

Do you know how Bruce Williams got his start in talk radio? Golf. He was had been the mayor of Franklin Township NJ. The GM of the local radio station lived in his town. Bruce was a successful businessman, running a local florist shop. They got to meet on the golf course, and one day the GM offered Bruce a job one night a week giving people financial advice. The show became a hit, and Bruce shopped the idea around to stations in New York. He treated this show like a business, and came into the stations with a business plan. He sold them on hiring him. He had no experience in radio. He had experience in business and politics. He had credibility. And it led to a 40 year career in radio. How's that for a Goat-like story? It worked then, and it can work now.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Huh? Older hosts retire? Like who? Has anyone retired at WGN or WLW lately? That's where the clog is. Local stations are relying on the same local hosts who've been there for 40 years. Generations have been raised on the same local guys. And generations of new hosts have been overlooked because the previous generation refuses to move on. There are loads of young talkers in small markets hoping to some day get a job at a major so they can afford more than a 1-bedroom apartment. But no one is giving up their gig. Regis just announced he's quitting his TV show at age 80! How many generations of younger hosts would have loved to replace him. Now, most of them are too old. A lot of these talkers criticize politicians for staying in Congress too long. Look who's talking!

How many syndicated talk hosts have "dominated" radio for the past ten years? Really only one. The rest are pretty weak. There's lots of room for someone GOOD (and that's the problem) to come along. Stations know they can do more and make more money with local talent than syndicated. All they're waiting for is a qualified local talker to make them an offer they can't refuse. But once someone gets a good gig, they refuse to give it up. They want to be carried out in a box.

You're saying what I was getting at, in a much better way.

The old guys hang on too long, running the young guys out because they have to make a living somehow. When the old guy finally does retire, there is no one to replace him. In ye oldern days, that young guy would have been doing Saturday nights for a few years, then doing weekday overnights, then 9-midnight and so on until he ends up in mornings somewhere.

 

[TheBigA]

The old guys hang on too long, running the young guys out because they have to make a living somehow. When the old guy finally does retire, there is no one to replace him.

Because the rest of the staff is also over 55. And young people don't need to waste away their Saturday nights. If they're any good, they can get a DJ gig at a local club, and pick up girls while the computer segues the songs. Who would turn that down? They own their own gear, work two nights a week, and can make $50K a year. What radio station pays its part-time help that much money?

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Quote from: MikefromDelaware on January 12, 2011, 03:59:46 PM
I think NPR offers a clue about the future of talk radio. NPR stations seem to be doing quite well ratings wise and seem to do fine in donations and corporate underwriting.

Note that NPR's Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air, On Point, Radio Times, Diane Rhems Show, etc, are not exclusively political talk. They also do topics about science, health, international issues, music, the arts, history, sometimes even sports, AND political. So it isn't the same thing day in and day out. Granted NPR talk show hosts are tamer than the syndicated talk hosts, but why couldn't Premiere, ABC radio, CBS radio, Westwood One, Salem, etc, find knowledgeable people, who are a bit more cutting edge than an NPR host and offer the similar type of format?

Other than sports talk and NPR talk, the rest of talk radio is GENERALLY very predictable and very boring. There are some local talkers, I've heard, who are more interesting than their syndicated cohorts in talk, which might be why the rise in live and local talk is growing as people are simply burned out with GOP good, Dem bad talk. Most syndicated talk shows are right wing talk show's whose politics are the same from show to show: all Democrats and liberals are evil and are trying to destroy America. Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, are the good guys who are trying to stop the evil Democrats from doing their dastardly schemes.

Maybe a commercial version of NPR talk with the variety of issues and topics might be the shot in the arm that commercial talk radio needs.

NPR is not a shot in the arm, it's a good treatment for insomnia.

To each his/her own. You find NPR boring, I find it interesting and worth tuning in to hear. Thankfully there is more than one station on our radios and an ON/OFF switch. As NPR has good ratings in many markets, I'm apparently not alone.

 

[radioguy39nj]

Look at the Gamblings at WOR! There's been a John Gambling doing morning drive on that station since 1925! The only exception was when the present Gambling did a stint at WABC.

WOR is a heritage station that could use a re-invention!

 

[MattParker]

Much of our conversation is based on the premise that everyone has to be either fully to the right or fully to the left. It may well be that 50% of the people (or more) are neither right or left. They are centrist. If you want to meet some people who are pissed-off.... well maybe more of them are just bewildered.... a large number of people are really disappointed they have to wade through all this right/left bickering just to gather enough information to keep themselves informed enough to vote and participate in society.

Now. Back to your bit of tongue-in-cheek humor about a radio with an NPR auto alert. Cute. But damaging to the effectiveness of the overall conversation. The general assumption in these threads is that NPR is the voice of the left. I ask the question: Is NPR the voice of the left, or is NPR actually the voice of the center 90% of the time and allows access to what the left is saying? If you find fault with my question (which, yes, is making a statement) then share with us WHO IS a voice that represents and informs the center?

When you follow the news and interview programs of the three major TV networks, are you getting the center, the left or the right? I would propose they are centrist.

While we are talking about premises, yours seems to be that the political spectrum is uni-dimensional. Some positions are defined (arbitrarily) as left; some as right. People accept all left or all right wing positions: One size fits all. Then there are these undefined "centrists." What are they? People who can't make up their minds? People who don't know? People who want to cut taxes a little but also want to allow some welfare? Actually, most political scientists see "centrists" or "independents" more in the don't know-undecided-don't care category.

Political scientists see the political continuum as multi-dimensional. Libertarians, for example, are classified as conservatives on economic regulation but liberals on issues of personal freedom (i.e., drug legalization, abortion). Labor or New Dealers are liberal on economic regulation but conservative on military policies. Social conservatives, libertarians (small l), neo-cons, Wall Street, and paleo conservatives are pretty much fighting for control of the coalition known as the Republican Party (centrists are pretty much out) - often in private. Progressives, social liberals, labor and centrists are jostling for control of the Democratic Party - usually in public.

Neo-cons have pretty much taken control of the ABC-Citadel branch of talk radio. Social conservatives have Salem. Dial Global's so-called "progressive talk" actually more represents social liberals.

NPR does strive for he-said, she-said coverage of political issues and campaigns, letting everybody have their say. But the assumptions of political correctness do underlie much of their reporting and are treated as beyond debate and beyond question.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR does strive for he-said, she-said coverage of political issues and campaigns, letting everybody have their say. But the assumptions of political correctness do underlie much of their reporting and are treated as beyond debate and beyond question.

Democracy requires a certain amount of tolerance, allowing everyone their own space, giving them the freedom to pursue their own religion or opinion without the threat of violence. Yet to some, that tolerance is seen as liberal. One man's political correctness is another's tolerance. The term "African American" is seen by some to be politically correct. But if the person you're identifying wishes to be identified that way, and it's an accepted term that is generally used among members of the group, why should it be seen as politically correct? Same with Latino and Native American. Democracy gives them the same rights as others, and their opinions should be given the same level of respect without being labeled "politically correct." You don't have to like them, but you do have to tolerate them. And there should be no debate about that.

 

[MattParker]

Democracy requires a certain amount of tolerance, allowing everyone their own space, giving them the freedom to pursue their own religion or opinion without the threat of violence. Yet to some, that tolerance is seen as liberal. One man's political correctness is another's tolerance. The term "African American" is seen by some to be politically correct. But if the person you're identifying wishes to be identified that way, and it's an accepted term that is generally used among members of the group, why should it be seen as politically correct? Same with Latino and Native American. Democracy gives them the same rights as others, and their opinions should be given the same level of respect without being labeled "politically correct." You don't have to like them, but you do have to tolerate them. And there should be no debate about that.

All well and good. Where we differ is I don't see much "tolerance" in politically correct crowd. As the saying goes, "Diversity in everything but thought" (and language).

And I wasn't referring only to prescribed (and proscribed) language. I was referring to ideas and assumptions of political correctness. Victim groups. Entitlements of victim groups. Non-assimilation of members of these groups. Double standards for members of victim groups and those in the mainstream culture.

 

[TheBigA]

All well and good. Where we differ is I don't see much "tolerance" in politically correct crowd. As the saying goes, "Diversity in everything but thought" (and language).

It's just journalism, not a lifestyle. Just because you report that cigarettes cause cancer doesn't mean you become a tobacco nazi.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I'd agree with those who said that NPR in the past 10 years has become more middle of the road, leaning left, than being a leftwing talker. That's what I like about NPR. During the Iraq War under Bush 43, NPR gave excellent coverage with both lib and conservative politicians, military brass, etc. So you heard both pro and con of what that war. This trend has continued in their reporting. Even the NPR talk shows generally have both points of view represented and both are given equal opportunities to present their point of view, even if the host is a lib.

Unlike Hannity, when he has a lib guest on, he continually talks over them and makes snide remarks, and is generally rude and obnoxious to the lib guest, where he'll fall all over himself to be nice and polite to his conservative guests. Tell me he's not biased. Rush doesn't have lib guests, sometimes lib callers. So for me that makes NPR far more interesting and compelling radio network than anything elrushbo, Hannity, etc, are doing. So as I said before, to each his/her own. That's why radios have a station selector and and ON/OFF switch. Each of us get to pick what we listen to, so be at peace, and listen to Rush/Hannity/Beck/ aka as the 3 stooges in my opinion, if you choose, you have that right. Just as I have the same right to listen to NPR, which for your ear is boring. That's known as freedom of choice. Ain't America great!

 

[quadraphonic]

NPR does strive for he-said, she-said coverage of political issues and campaigns, letting everybody have their say. But the assumptions of political correctness do underlie much of their reporting and are treated as beyond debate and beyond question.

Democracy requires a certain amount of tolerance, allowing everyone their own space, giving them the freedom to pursue their own religion or opinion without the threat of violence. Yet to some, that tolerance is seen as liberal. One man's political correctness is another's tolerance. The term "African American" is seen by some to be politically correct. But if the person you're identifying wishes to be identified that way, and it's an accepted term that is generally used among members of the group, why should it be seen as politically correct? Same with Latino and Native American. Democracy gives them the same rights as others, and their opinions should be given the same level of respect without being labeled "politically correct." You don't have to like them, but you do have to tolerate them. And there should be no debate about that.

The form of government is a form of democracy.
The way that people discuss politics and political issues isn't a democracy, and isn't codified by the Constitution. So it's a lot more fluid.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The form of government is a form of democracy.
The way that people discuss politics and political issues isn't a democracy, and isn't codified by the Constitution. So it's a lot more fluid.

Could you flesh that out a bit more. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I think I read it:
Just being a democracy does not automatically include or require pleasant speech habits.
Just being a democracy does not automatically include freedom of speech.
The constitution does give freedom of speech, but does not codify required pleasantness of speech habits.

If (big IF) that is what you are saying, then we are left to support any arguments for pleasantness of speech habits by applying logic and common sense, not interpretation of documents written by our founding fathers.

 

[TheBigA]

I was equally confused by that post, Goat.

I wasn't talking about discussion of politics, I was talking about reporting of it, and behavior among people.

Because if you don't behave with tolerance towards others, the police will arrest you, regardless of what it says in the Constitution. All of these people throwing around the Constitution keep forgetting we are a nation of laws, not just a Constitution.

People say intolerant things on some radio talk shows. They some things on the radio that they might not say in public. And when some of those things get picked up and reported in the mainstream press, usually the host has to answer for it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I guess I am old fashioned. We carve out a little nest here on the Internet, and especially when we are using something other than the name Momma gave us, and we push the limits a bit and watch other people push the limits a bit and we get bold and say some abrasive things now and then.

Down at the corner tavern where you can look around the room and do a mental census, you might get even more abrasive in a discussion.

In a room full of people, where you may be wearing a name tag with your real name for all to see, we tend to calculate the tolerance factor into our speech pattern very quickly.

I was in a room full of people last night. A pastor was trying to prepare his flock for a vote on major change in the constitution of an entire denomination. There was a lot of tip-toeing going on in that room because it is a contentious issue in some geographies. And those people had resumes from every imaginable geography in the nation and a few from overseas.

Somehow the people who operate Talk Radio and many of the people who listen/participate in Talk/Radio do not comprehend why anyone would ever tip-toe through any conversation.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Because if you don't behave with tolerance towards others, the police will arrest you, regardless of what it says in the Constitution. All of these people throwing around the Constitution keep forgetting we are a nation of laws, not just a Constitution.

This is disturbing to read. The Constitution IS the law. By definition, any law that does not meet the guidelines set by the Constitution is not the law of the land.

Also, behaving with intolerance is perfectly legal and protected by the Constitution until you deprive another person of his Constitutional rights. Like it or not, people like the Westboro Baptist Church and Louis Farrakhan have every right to spew their hate. Those rights aren't "given" to us. We're born with them. The Constitution (and by extention, all laws) are there to protect them.

Now, before someone thinks this has nothing to do with radio, I'll tie it in. You may not like what some radio hosts say. Personally, I think Democracy Now is a vile, disgusting display of anti-American propaganda. They have a convicted cop killer as a "correspondent". That's pretty low. But guess what? They have every right to spew their hate over the airwaves, as long as they abide by obscenity guidelines, which they seem to do. I'd never even THINK of trying to have them removed frome the air, nor would I start a new thread here when one of their LPFM affiliates dropped them. If someone started a "happy birthday" thread for their hosts, I'd just not post in it.

 

[Ultimajock]

Where we differ is I don't see much "tolerance" in politically correct crowd. As the saying goes, "Diversity in everything but thought" (and language).

...what I find in those who decry "political correctness," as if it's a concept that actually exists anywhere outside the imaginations of Bill Buckley wannabes, is that they want to flaunt what H.L. Mencken used to call "the courage of their prejudices" without the risk of being called out for it...

 

[TheBigA]

This is disturbing to read. The Constitution IS the law. By definition, any law that does not meet the guidelines set by the Constitution is not the law of the land.

Tell that to the police as they arrest you. Bring in a copy of the Constitution as your defense. You will go to jail.

Also, behaving with intolerance is perfectly legal and protected by the Constitution until you deprive another person of his Constitutional rights. Like it or not, people like the Westboro Baptist Church and Louis Farrakhan have every right to spew their hate.

And the local police have the right to tell them where they can hold their protest. And arrest them if they take one step beyond the space they've been given. And if the protest gets violent, they will be arrested.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is disturbing to read. The Constitution IS the law. By definition, any law that does not meet the guidelines set by the Constitution is not the law of the land.

Also, behaving with intolerance is perfectly legal and protected by the Constitution until you deprive another person of his Constitutional rights.

Are you talking about this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I can't recall a paragraph where the Constitution spells out THE DEFINITION of "peaceably"... thus it is left to the deputy sheriff, the police officer, as instructed by the practices of the local magistrate court which in turn may be instructed by city ordinances and state law. You may eventually win your case, but for tonight, if the policeman doesn't like your way of acting out the phrase "peaceably"... you are going for a ride in the back seat of a "Black and White".

Remind me again. This relates to radio.... how?

 

[quadraphonic]

I was equally confused by that post, Goat.

I wasn't talking about discussion of politics, I was talking about reporting of it, and behavior among people.

Talk Radio, at least the part that's being discussed almost all the time, is about the discussion of politics, which is all about behavior among people.

Because if you don't behave with tolerance towards others, the police will arrest you, regardless of what it says in the Constitution. All of these people throwing around the Constitution keep forgetting we are a nation of laws, not just a Constitution.

You were talking about "democracy." That comes from the founding documents, not really from laws that make us treat each other a given way.