Huckabee's Mike-roscopic ratings

[raccoonradio]

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2012/06/huckabee-radio-talk-show-off-to.html

Admittedly he uses 6 plus numbers but says the 25-54 isn't doing all that hot either. And coming next from Cumulus: Geraldo!

 

[ProducerGuy]

I don't expect Geraldo to be a raging success, but at least he's a broadcaster. Huckabee is just another example of the powers that be not understanding that it takes a radio person to do good radio. Add the "non-confrontational lets-all-get-along" personality that Huckabee puts out, and this was destined to fail from the start.

 

[jas2525]

You know what is really frustrating? The fact that many low-level radio people knew this show was destined to fail for several reasons, but the BIG decision makers hadn't a clue. This kinda stuff NEVER ceases to amaze me.

 

[microbob]

Makes one wonder why the same mistakes are made again and again. Remember Bill O'reilly failed on the radio also. The inmates are running the Asylum.

 

[wadio]

Actually O'Reilly did a very respectable radio show, as does Geraldo. OTOH, Huckabee's radio show is FOX-TV News redux. How many times can Dick Morris be recycled?

 

[ProducerGuy]

I agree that this shouldn't be compared to O'Reilly. If anything, I'd compare it to Fred Thompson.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I read in the article above that Huckabee was supposed to be the civil answer to Rush.

My question- since when was Rush not civil?

If you don't like Rush's politics, that's one thing. But while I can see where his point of view would get under the left's skin, does he really resort to the lowball tactics of Maher, Olbermann, Morton Downey Jr. (who Limbaugh was originally hired to replace in Sacramento because the station wanted to tone it down a bit), etc.?

I remember when Rush took over in the early '90s. When he wasn't just the most listened to talk show host, but he was embraced to the point where Hooters and Pizza Hut asked him to be a spokesman for national advertising campaigns. Where he was cast as Markie Post's love interest on "Heart's Afire." Where he was the guest of Cotton Fitzsimmons at the NBA Finals, and the producers made damn well sure he was interviewed during the game.

What made him so popular?

I have always felt that the reason was before Rush's emergence, Larry King was the top dog in national talk radio. He would run through callers by the milisecond, hanging up on them, and never really trying to dig deep in a subject. He also would not screen callers, so he could easily dismiss crazies to make himselft look wiser.

Rush did his show in a dramatically different way. Of course there were no guests. But he also would have conversations with callers- warm ones- instead of King's in-and-out style.

I have always felt the reason for this initial success was Rush embraced his audience and callers (admittedly heavily screened) while King treated them as a disposable commodity. When Rush hit, King was out of the business and went CNN full time, away from the give and take with the audience unless a guest was on hand, and they often asked why he was hanging up on them so quickly.

And frankly, Rush's success begat the dominance of the right on talk radio. Those who disagree with his politics can attempt to demonize him, and they have had a measure of success in doing so.

But if you listen to him, is he uncivil? Does he try to be confrontational like Savage? Or go to "man on the street" segments designed to make the common man look dumb like Hannity and Beck have been known to?

No.

So maybe the reason why Huckabee is failing is simply that we don't need him. If you feel Rush is uncivil, you're probably not going to listen to a right-wing host in the first place.

 

[ProducerGuy]

My question- since when was Rush not civil?

When is the most popular guy saying things a portion of the population doesn't agree with. Any dissent is "uncivil". Watch Huckabee start pulling 5.0 in a few markets, and the attacks on him will start as well.

This forum isn't quite the same as the general public. There is a good portion of the population here that just hates conservative radio because of the message. But I'd think the majority has a grudge because they see the syndicated conservative shows as taking their jobs. That's why the cries for local radio are always paired with calls for "fair" radio. They want to throw these shows off the air as a jobs program for lesser hosts.

 

[jas2525]

I have always felt that the reason was before Rush's emergence, Larry King was the top dog in national talk radio. He would run through callers by the milisecond, hanging up on them, and never really trying to dig deep in a subject. He also would not screen callers, so he could easily dismiss crazies to make himselft look wiser.

Rush did his show in a dramatically different way. Of course there were no guests. But he also would have conversations with callers- warm ones- instead of King's in-and-out style.

It's important to understand that while Larry King, as you pointed out, DID NOT screen calls, the Rush Limbaugh show is probably THE most heavily screened and caller manipulated show on the air anywhere. You can afford to be nice and warm when all of your calls (supporters & patsies alike) are spoon fed to you. Did you ever hear a caller start to deviate the slightest bit from the topic-on-the-screen on Rush's show? If you did, you'd hear Rush summarily dismiss them. I always found that cowardly.

For this reason among others, I found King's nighttime show to be infinitely more interesting than Rush's show.

Is Rush uncivil? Not really. He's just a bore.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I always found that cowardly.

Are you honestly advocating a show with 600 affiliates taking calls unscreened? That's insane.

Add on top of that the host being deaf, and it's even more insane.

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. Some people can't have an honest discussion about certain hosts due to political biases. It's the same tired rant over and over.

And Rush still puts liberal callers to the front of the line. How could he do that if they weren't screened?

 

[jas2525]

I always found that cowardly.

Are you honestly advocating a show with 600 affiliates taking calls unscreened? That's insane.

Add on top of that the host being deaf, and it's even more insane.

Where did I suggest that Rush take calls unscreened?

All I said was that Rush is a coward because his show is about as heavily screened as I've ever seen. This shouldn't be a surprise, because Rush is horrible when facing confrontation. Typically it is the most insecure hosts who screen to such a degree.

This is what I was talking about in the other thread. Some people can't have an honest discussion about certain hosts due to political biases. It's the same tired rant over and over.

Watch that. I've made it clear that his politics aren't what bothers me about him. It's his habitual dishonesty.

And Rush still puts liberal callers to the front of the line. How could he do that if they weren't screened?

First of all, again, I never said his show should go unscreened. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely unscreened and 10 being, well, RUSH'S show: Larry King would've been about a 2 and Rush is a TEN. He's a coward. He cannot defend his points when confronted by someone who's not a patsy. Did you ever hear of a patsy? Not uncommon in talkradio. Rush has had plenty of Rita-from-Detroit's over the years.

 

[ProducerGuy]

I think you need to take a few classes on what value callers add to a show. Particularly a political advocacy show. The caller's reason for being to to make the show better. In a comedy show, that might be a funny call. On a political show, the caller's SOLE purpose for being is to help the host make the point he's trying to make. Either by reinforcing his words, or by presenting an opposing view that can be disputed or discussed. It's not the "Joe from Houston" or "Bob from Long Island" show.

Finally, what's with the name calling? I'f hardly call a deaf man that works in radio a "coward". He uses the calls to make his point.

If you want a back and forth with no end, call your neighbor and argue with him. Rush has three hours a day to make the points he wants to make. I don't know where this idea that callers had the absolute RIGHT to derail a show unhampered comes from, but it makes for horrible radio. No one wants to hear angry caller after angry caller ranting against his or her favorite host.

And lest this degenerate into any more Rush bashing, the points I make stand for any talk show. Callers are there to (as a pro wrestler would say) put the host over. There are many tools a host can use to get over, and callers are one of them. They're just a piece of the puzzle right along with show prep, having good actualities and having the board set up right other technical stuff.

 

[jas2525]

I think you need to take a few classes on what value callers add to a show. Particularly a political advocacy show. The caller's reason for being to to make the show better. In a comedy show, that might be a funny call. On a political show, the caller's SOLE purpose for being is to help the host make the point he's trying to make. Either by reinforcing his words, or by presenting an opposing view that can be disputed or discussed. It's not the "Joe from Houston" or "Bob from Long Island" show.

Finally, what's with the name calling? I'f hardly call a deaf man that works in radio a "coward". He uses the calls to make his point.

If you want a back and forth with no end, call your neighbor and argue with him. Rush has three hours a day to make the points he wants to make. I don't know where this idea that callers had the absolute RIGHT to derail a show unhampered comes from, but it makes for horrible radio. No one wants to hear angry caller after angry caller ranting against his or her favorite host.

And lest this degenerate into any more Rush bashing, the points I make stand for any talk show. Callers are there to (as a pro wrestler would say) put the host over. There are many tools a host can use to get over, and callers are one of them. They're just a piece of the puzzle right along with show prep, having good actualities and having the board set up right other technical stuff.

Ironically, the points you make about callers being a toool for the host and nothing more are EXACTLY the points I have made here in the past when some say things like "the callers are really the star". I've gotten in many arguments over that point.

Rush has been screening calls heavily for over 20 years, long before his hearing issues. Some hosts do well when confronted live with a sharp, well-informed caller who disagrees, some do not. A good host knows his strengths and weaknesses. Limbaugh DOES NOT handle people well who disagree with him---unless they're witless patsies that were carefully spoon fed to him.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Some hosts do well when confronted live with a sharp, well-informed caller who disagrees

That is a very endangered species no matter what the talk format. Try listening to a sports station and hearing the nonsense coming from some of the callers. Ridiculous trade speculation, getting stats wrong, etc.

When you get a guy with an ego like Rush, and make no mistake ego is NEEDED to get that far, it's impossible to pair callers up with him on an even level.

See? Your point can be made without calling someone a "coward" for conducting his show in the manner he wants. Especially when almost every single host on both sides of the aisle do the exact same thing. The ones that do take dissenting calls just end up yelling at the callers and name calling. Sort of like an internet message board thread, if you think about it.

 

[OC3]

Radio 101...The caller's purpose is to make the host look good.

 

[MC]

Rush Limbaugh was interviewed by Peter B Collins (another radio host) once and Limbaugh said: "I take callers that make me look good."

 

[ProducerGuy]

It sure is easy to pick out the people who have actually sat behind a mic and taken calls from those who haven't. Even in the short time I had a show before it was decided that I was much better behind the scenes, I knew that it was my show and not some anonymous schmoe on the other end of the Telos.

And I took my calls completely unscreened. So I guess that makes me Audie Murphy level brave.

 

[jas2525]

It sure is easy to pick out the people who have actually sat behind a mic and taken calls from those who haven't. Even in the short time I had a show before it was decided that I was much better behind the scenes, I knew that it was my show and not some anonymous schmoe on the other end of the Telos.

And I took my calls completely unscreened. So I guess that makes me Audie Murphy level brave.

Well, I hope you aren't including me in the "those-who-haven't" category, because I have taken a great many calls around the country over the years---prob more than 50,000 if you do the math. In the early years I actually worked a weekend show with NO screener at all. I found for myself personally, that the more heavily screened a call was, the less spontaneous the conversation was. Many times, depending on the screener, the caller gets on the air having already lost their steam by ranting to the screener. THAT is a major negative if you have any intent on having an interesting and less predictable show. Granted, many suck at thinking on their feet and desperately need calls heavily screened.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Many times, depending on the screener, the caller gets on the air having already lost their steam by ranting to the screener.

I've always found that those callers would have stunk up the joint with or without a screener. I got to the point where I would remember certain phone numbers and just dump the call if I saw that number on the caller ID.