I would prefer real discussions over a one sided show. But no host offers them.

[brian65]

Some things don't seem to change. The longer a host gives to even a semi-knowledgeable caller with an 'opposing' point of view...the less extreme each of their positions become and the more they tend to agree upon.

I honestly think the 'us vs them' talk show hosts are significantly to blame for this insane 'us vs them' Congress.

 

[KeithE4]

Some things don't seem to change. The longer a host gives to even a semi-knowledgeable caller with an 'opposing' point of view...the less extreme each of their positions become and the more they tend to agree upon.

I honestly think the 'us vs them' talk show hosts are significantly to blame for this insane 'us vs them' Congress.

1. "Us vs Them" in radio brings in the ratings. Ratings bring in revenue. 'Nuff said.

2. "Us vs Them" in politics is a fine American tradition going back to the Founding Fathers. So is having insane people elected to Congress. ;D

 

[brian65]

And that is the gripe that listeners have. We don't give a damn about ratings or revenues.

But when an option for a truly informative talk radio show EVER becomes available, we will be tuning the status quo out and listening to real talk radio and not 'Listen To Me' radio.

 

[Parttimer]

And that is the gripe that listeners have. We don't give a damn about ratings or revenues.

Higher ratings usually indicate that more people are listening, that's kinda why the stations care about them.

 

[brian65]

And that is the gripe that listeners have. We don't give a damn about ratings or revenues.

Higher ratings usually indicate that more people are listening, that's kinda why the stations care about them.

Are you assuming listeners have a choice between which talk show they listen to?

Because unless you live in a mega-city, you don't.

I thought the ratings were used to set advertising rates, not to determine what the public would prefer listening to.

 

[gr8oldies]

Brian, did someone appoint you spokesman for "the public"? If more people want to listen to C-Span or NPR type shows, they will get ratings and bring revenue, thus they will be there.

 

[louromshow]

My take on this issue has always kind of been -- "what's wrong with being No. 2?" You know what I mean. If you can produce a show you're proud of, one that actually educates while it entertains, then why would you sell out everything to make a few more bucks? We know why CC does this, but locals should be another story.

 

[gr8oldies]

Nothing wrong with being no. 2. Being number 62 is a big problem. If you're saying stations should drop successful lineups to put shows that you may like, but few others do, that's called financial suicide.

 

[brian65]

Brian, did someone appoint you spokesman for "the public"? If more people want to listen to C-Span or NPR type shows, they will get ratings and bring revenue, thus they will be there.

How can someone switch over and listen to another show that doesn't exist.

 

[Parttimer]

I thought the ratings were used to set advertising rates, not to determine what the public would prefer listening to.

Ratings reflect what the audience chooses to listen to. If the audience does not prefer a program, they don't listen to it.

In other words, you're not a conservative, so since everyone's like you, "the public" doesn't like conservative talk shows, but these stupid ratings make the stations keep them on.

 

[FreddyE1977]

to his credit, Michael Medved attempts to do this on his show, but more often than not the callers just turn hostile on him

 

[Leebo65]

The King of One-sided shows SEAN HANNITY .......LOL I swear he has NO interest in a good discussion.... Its Hammer Obama from the beginning till the end... Oh, and lets not forget the Obligatory "Your a Great American" ..... Great American nominations should be reserved for Congressional Medal of Honor recipients...

 

[brian65]

to his credit, Michael Medved attempts to do this on his show, but more often than not the callers just turn hostile on him

Medved not available here.....Don't know if he's good or not.

He must not be any good because he doesn't show up in my local city's ratings book.

 

[DocWashburn]

And that is the gripe that listeners have. We don't give a damn about ratings or revenues.

Higher ratings usually indicate that more people are listening, that's kinda why the stations care about them.

Are you assuming listeners have a choice between which talk show they listen to?

Because unless you live in a mega-city, you don't.

I thought the ratings were used to set advertising rates, not to determine what the public would prefer listening to.

In theory, a station can charge more for its ads if it has more listeners. This is one of the reasons that stations (music and talk) try to figure out how to attract more listeners.

 

[DocWashburn]

Brian, did someone appoint you spokesman for "the public"? If more people want to listen to C-Span or NPR type shows, they will get ratings and bring revenue, thus they will be there.

How can someone switch over and listen to another show that doesn't exist.

A lot of talk radio stations stream on the internet these days. Check it out:
http://streamingradioguide.com/stre...udeAM=on&includeFM=on&includeHD=&includeLPFM=

 

[DocWashburn]

to his credit, Michael Medved attempts to do this on his show, but more often than not the callers just turn hostile on him

Medved not available here.....Don't know if he's good or not.

He must not be any good because he doesn't show up in my local city's ratings book.

Medved is very intelligent and often has brilliant observations. I'm sure you can find his show streaming online. Interestingly enough, he was syndicated (3-6PM Eastern) several years before Hannity was and yet Sean blew him away in short order. IMHO, this is because (love him or hate him) Sean sticks with the format. He tends to talk about whatever is in the news today. On the other hand, Medved will do an hour on Revolutionary War battles if he feels like it. It really is fascinating radio. It just doesn't appeal to a wide audience. If I may make a musical analogy, I really enjoy Neil Young & Bob Dylan...but most stations are not going to play them. I hope this helps.

 

[cm454]

US vs. THEM is fine....and you can have that dynamic on ANY issue.

So WHY do stations have to have hosts who all basically have the same opinion? MOST people I know, including myself, find that to be absolutley BORING and PREDICTABLE. Real exciting. How empty-headed do you have to be to listen to the same talking points from Rush Linbaugh clones 'round the clock? This shouldn't be about one-sided ideology, it should be about mental stimulation that has the potential to attract new listeners. Mix it up. Have PERSONALITIES on the air.

You'll get your US vs. THEM, but does it always have to be the same US vs. the same THEM?

 

[Board Editor]

MOVED: TIO: I would prefer real discussions over a one sided show. But no host offers them.

Some posts in this topic have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=148632.0]http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=148632.0[/iurl]

 

[willcail]

Re: I would prefer real discussions over a one sided show. But no host offers th

To use an Fox News phrase heres goes. Some people already thinks that they do have an choice in Talk Radio. From the Center Right to the Far Right. (see Micheal Savage) Some people thinks that Localism is a bad thing in radio and they just want to hear cookie cutter syndicated talkers spewing out talking points that doesn't have one iota in the facts department.

 

[gr8oldies]

Localism in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but it takes more to get me to listen that just the very fact that someone's butt is sitting in a chair in Dayton, Ohio.