Hosts that don't interact with callers

[vchimpanzee]

I finally remembered to look at the station's web site and didn't find who it was, and then I called and found out it was Andrew Womack.

My clock radio comes on every morning a few minutes after 7 but on Sunday I don't need it to. One day as I was turning it off I just happened to hear the host play back a call from a listener, but he responded to the caller without actually talking to him on the phone.

 

[Avid Listener]

What station's website? What national news/talk subject are you talking about? Are you talking about Andrew Wommack. the American conservative Evangelical Christian TELEVISION evangelist?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Are you talking about Andrew Wommack. the American conservative Evangelical Christian TELEVISION evangelist?

Thank you, guys, for introducing a new name to me. The Rev. Wommack was not on my radar screen.

Just to be a nit-picker.... maybe it would have been more grammatically correct if you had used a lower-case "E" on the word Evangelical in this case. Among the theological crowd, "Evangelical" is traditionally used to describe a well-defined theological school of thinking, and early on the two words combined (Conservative Evangelical) really signaled: "I am referring to a very distinct and identifiable 'school of thought' within the big wild world of theology."

From what I found on the Internet, Wommack seems to embrace some theological concepts that go outside the boundaries that Evangelicals typically draw around their territory.

Hey! If music listeners to radio can debate and argue over which recordings belong in which radio formats... we should be just as pristine about some other programming genres including religious broadcasting.

 

[Avid Listener]

Just to be a nit-picker.... maybe it would have been more grammatically correct if you had used a lower-case "E" on the word Evangelical in this case. Among the theological crowd, "Evangelical" is traditionally used to describe a well-defined theological school of thinking, and early on the two words combined (Conservative Evangelical) really signaled: "I am referring to a very distinct and identifiable 'school of thought' within the big wild world of theology."

The word "evangelical" is an adjective when in lower case and a proper noun when in upper case. If someone refers to his particular church, denomination, or faith tradition by name, and includes that word as part of the proper name, then it is rightly capitalized. If someone simply refers to theological school of thought, then lower case is appropriate. For example, I might say, "I am an evangelical catholic, and a member of a congregation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America".

Now, I'm not sure if this is about Andrew Wommack or someone else. I don't know (or care) if he has a radio show or not. If he does have a radio show, it might be a live call-in talk show, or it might be a pre-recorded show where he responds to questions submitted via voice-mail. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what the hell this thread is about. I wish someone, like the guy who started it, might enlighten all of us.

 

[boombox4]

There are a couple 'talk' shows that don't even have callers. They're just monologues. Some of the big time talk shows have very few callers, and sometimes there isn't really any 'interaction', just the caller saying something and the host responding to it afterwards. Not much back-and-forth going on sometimes. Even the sports talkers, they don't always have lots of calls.

So, I really don't understand what the deal is. Never heard of an Andrew Womack. Perhaps the OP could explain a bit more about what his beef was concerning the broadcast he heard.

 

[Ravens]

A lot of the shows without callers are on time delay.

 

[vchimpanzee]

it might be a pre-recorded show where he responds to questions submitted via voice-mail.

Based on what I heard one morning, this is what I think is going on. Like I said, the clock radio comes on and I might hear a few words before I turn it off, but I'm in no mood to listen to enough of it to figure out what is going on.

There are a couple 'talk' shows that don't even have callers. They're just monologues.

That's all I've ever heard him do in the past.

And whoever this is, he wrote a biography of Albert Einstein.

 

[Avid Listener]

Based on what I heard one morning, this is what I think is going on. Like I said, the clock radio comes on and I might hear a few words before I turn it off, but I'm in no mood to listen to enough of it to figure out what is going on.

What the hell is this about? None of us know what station your clock radio is set to. If you're only listening to a few words of something, how the hell are the rest of us going to know what you're talking about?

 

[vchimpanzee]

I think I may have finally solved the mystery. I asked someone at a library what radio talk show host also wrote a biography of Albert Einstein. I was given the name Michio Kaku. I called the station again and explained why I didn't believe they were correct about Andrew Wommack. For one thing, his web site showed they aired his show on Saturday, not Sunday. What I was told was that Talk Radio Network provides their weekend programming and, while Michio Kaku is part of that, the hosts vary from week to week.

So I don't know who responsded to a message from a caller, but Avid said, "It might be a pre-recorded show where he responds to questions submitted via voice-mail." So what this is about is: how many talk show hosts do this instead of interacting with callers, and do people who listen like this?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So what this is about is: how many talk show hosts do this instead of interacting with callers, and do people who listen like this?

I would think RADIO talk shows are more likely to take calls that TV talk shows.

I would then make an assumption that people who do both, if they take calls on the radio, may be less robust and dynamic about phone calls that is a PURE PLAY RADIO TALK SHOW.

But all of that is a guess on my part. I would question how many listeners actually listen to enough multiple talk shows to give us really solid observations to your questions.

Any one who voluntarily listens to enough TALK SHOWS to answer your questions probably no long has the mental ability to answer you questions. Just like drugs, if you OVERDOSE on talk show, you have a good chance of becoming a vegetable.

 

[Ravens]

Judging by the average quality of the talk radio caller, maybe they're better off with none.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Judging by the average quality of the talk radio caller, maybe they're better off with none.

Probably a good observation of current conditions.

However, if quality callers knew from experience that they would be cleared and put on the air by the screeners, would the "average quality of the talk radio caller" be much higher than what experience tells us it is today?

If quality callers felt they would be treated with dignity by the host once they got on the air, and treated with dignity by the host after the call was completed, would the "average quality of the talk radio caller" be much higher than what experience tells us it is today?

I would suggest that we are not shooting straight if we try to argue the point that "talk radio callers" are a pretty crappy bunch of human beings and "quality callers" cannot be found and encouraged. After all, "quality callers" might demonstrate that talk radio hosts tend to be a pretty crappy bunch of human beings.

 

[boombox4]

I've heard Mitsiu Kaku before, he's a physicist and used to be on Art Bell's show a lot. He talks about science. Doesn't get many callers. Sometimes his show is interesting -- probably not easy to make science interesting in a talk show.

 

[Avid Listener]

Where is it written that to be a "talk show", there must be callers on the air?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Where is it written that to be a "talk show", there must be callers on the air?

I ponder that question from time to time. Audio Speech Content has tended to be a monologue, a lecture, a sermon. Audio Speech Content was delivered by a "commentator". For many of us, it became "Talk Radio" when it become a conversation.... maybe with an in-studio guest, maybe with phone calls accepted after the "host" had interviewed the guest and the listeners had an opportunity to offer 'questions from the masses'. Then came the trend to have a host and phone calls.... "we don't need no stinkin' guest!"

From a semantics and grammer point of view, "Talk Radio" does not have to have phone calls. From a "vernacular of the public" dictionary I suspect if you went out and interviewed a thousand people, the idea that "Talk Radio" involved phone calls would be at or near the top of the list.

It takes a highly skilled and talented personality to do "stand up" Talk Radio. Even a klutz and dufus like me can host or moderate a stream of incoming calls. (Just to demonstrate how smart and perceptive I am.... I DID phone-call Talk Radio in the late 60s and I thought then it was a dying art form so I didn't pursue the concept. Maybe if I had been a bit more attentive, I could be sitting behind the Golden Microphone today and Limbaugh could be seeling advertising for the game day brochures at the baseball park.

 

[Ravens]

Probably a good observation of current conditions.

However, if quality callers knew from experience that they would be cleared and put on the air by the screeners, would the "average quality of the talk radio caller" be much higher than what experience tells us it is today?

If quality callers felt they would be treated with dignity by the host once they got on the air, and treated with dignity by the host after the call was completed, would the "average quality of the talk radio caller" be much higher than what experience tells us it is today?

I would suggest that we are not shooting straight if we try to argue the point that "talk radio callers" are a pretty crappy bunch of human beings and "quality callers" cannot be found and encouraged. After all, "quality callers" might demonstrate that talk radio hosts tend to be a pretty crappy bunch of human beings.

I'm not even saying that the average caller is a bad person. I'm just saying that the average person is unable to make a point in a concise and interesting manner without saying "um" 200 times.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm not even saying that the average caller is a bad person. I'm just saying that the average person is unable to make a point in a concise and interesting manner without saying "um" 200 times.

Well, um.... I think um.... we could um... probably screen for um.... better-than-average callers.

I came across this article earlier today and anyone interested in THIS thread may find the link interesting:


http://www.insideradio.com/Article.asp?id=2848614&spid=32061#.VDfdTGeBGdE

In my lifetime I have sat through a gazillion meetings.... at the office, at seminars, at political gatherings, at houses of worship, at neighborhood associations, on juries, being a journalist in hokey little home towns sitting through city council meetings.

I am intimately aware of the speech patterns of the American Public. And we have a few "um'ers" in our midst but our people can be rather robust in their ability to speak. So what we are talking about here calls for us to get to the bottom of the dilemma: Are people who listen to talk radio as we know it a kind of being the has very high propensity to say "um" over and over and over again.... or do talk shows purposely hire and assign people to be call screeners who are told to only allow people on the air who demonstrate that they will say "um" over and over again so it will make the host of the show appear to be intelligent and articulate.... whether they are or not?

It will be interesting to see if the stations that adopt the methodology in the article I referenced are able to create a new "Talk Radio Version 4.0" that appeals to more people who are not knuckle draggers.

 

[Ravens]

It will be interesting to see if the stations that adopt the methodology in the article I referenced are able to create a new "Talk Radio Version 4.0" that appeals to more people who are not knuckle draggers

I don't even want to get in to that discussion. I don't think the people that listen to talk radio now are "knuckle draggers". They're just not people who talk for a living for the most part. So they seldom make good callers. Screeners don't seem to help much at the local level. The national shows tend to get better callers because they have a wider pool to choose from.

This isn't about "conservative talk listeners bad", it's about "callers aren't good at making points".

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't even want to get in to that discussion. I don't think the people that listen to talk radio now are "knuckle draggers". They're just not people who talk for a living for the most part. So they seldom make good callers. Screeners don't seem to help much at the local level. The national shows tend to get better callers because they have a wider pool to choose from.

This isn't about "conservative talk listeners bad", it's about "callers aren't good at making points".

Your "push back" is well reasoned. This is a broader phenomena than just Talk Radio which today is obviously more focused on 'conservative talk'. Here in Atlanta we have some locally based talk that takes on other genres. Walter Reeves is a former county agent who talks to lawn and garden affectionadoes on Saturday morning on how to shape up your turf, and what exotic plants you can hope to grow in this climate. Clark Howard (who is syndicated nationally) is well know locally for his economic and purchasing frugality and his fights against shabby business and rip-off artists. And we have a station or two who apparently do brokered time in some cases, and have those Talk Hosts who talk about real estate flipping and investment strategies.

Waxing and waning through the years, there are times when Talk Radio finds religion as a topic that shows up on the air.

My observations try to take the big wide picture into focus. And I have been observing (and at times participating) in this programming genre for 50 years now. My comments which do come across as a bit derogatory when it comes to Conservative Talk. At a time like this, when someone tugs on my leash and says: "We're not talking politics here, we're talking radio technique here!" I have to come back and say: "Yes, but even when I remove my personal ideology from the discussion, you just cannot overlook the observation that people who are callers to Conservative Talk Radio are second only to callers to Sports Talk when it comes to not being "prize winners" in conversational ability.

So here is the delicate but practical question to discuss: Is it poor programming choices on the part of Conservative Talk that causes this, or is it poor communication skills on the part of the listeners to Conservative Talk?

Or is it just pool listening skills on my part?

 

[Ravens]

Having dealt with and interviewed people of all ages in my work, I think there's an absolute lack of public speaking skills in younger people. I'm sure that makes me sound like an old fogey, but my callers and guests that are younger are in general much less articulate than older folks.

I'd be willing to bet this isn't even a problem that's limited to radio or radio callers. People just aren't as used to making a point in a short amount of time as they once were. Heck, I know someone who did music radio that can't get to the point fast enough when talking off the air. She was great on air, but just goes on and on (and on) when telling a story in person.

And as for the ideology stuff, having listened to quite a bit of Air America and similar programming, their callers weren't any better.