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

[ropertex]

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

Skinning kittens alive would probably get a lot of people listening...but broadcasters have a duty to the "public interest, convenience and necessity"

Yet it's amazing how that directive, which has been policy since 1934, is controversial on this board.

 

[Leebo65]

I believe if one were to dig into it. One would find that many Right-Wing Talk Shows receive funding from Special Interest Groups.. Now they are successfully mucking up the move to Health Care reform. I can guarantee that money from insurance companies is behind a lot of shows like Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck...etc. No room for debate on those shows. Someone calls into debate and POW. They are talked over and hung up on.

 

[gr8oldies]

Proof that these hosts are paid shills? Proof, for that matter, that anyone who disagrees with this government takeover is a paid shill?

 

[DocWashburn]

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

Skinning kittens alive would probably get a lot of people listening...but broadcasters have a duty to the "public interest, convenience and necessity"

Yet it's amazing how that directive, which has been policy since 1934, is controversial on this board.

No offense, but what kind of freak would want to listen to kittens being tortured? Are you positive that you're not projecting? btw, a case could be made that actually reading and talking about what is in the health care bill is very much serving "the public interest".

 

[DocWashburn]

I believe if one were to dig into it. One would find that many Right-Wing Talk Shows receive funding from Special Interest Groups.. Now they are successfully mucking up the move to Health Care reform. I can guarantee that money from insurance companies is behind a lot of shows like Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck...etc. No room for debate on those shows. Someone calls into debate and POW. They are talked over and hung up on.

Actually, its kind of neat how it works. The popular shows command enough of an audience to be able to charge high rates for commercials. On the other hand, Air America (which was unable to attract a wide enough audience to sell much advertising) relied on "funding from Special Interest Groups". Humorously enough, I found that out without even having to "dig into it".

 

[smedge2006]

Actually, its kind of neat how it works. The popular shows command enough of an audience to be able to charge high rates for commercials.

From listening to the advertisers on talk radio (gold hawkers, baldness "cures, etc.) it's hard to conclude that they're
able to garner high advertising rates. A lot of that stuff is "per inquiry." Better formulation: Syndication is cheap so it just needs to allow the station to generate enough revenue to pay the power bill and office expenses.

 

[DocWashburn]

Actually, its kind of neat how it works. The popular shows command enough of an audience to be able to charge high rates for commercials.

From listening to the advertisers on talk radio (gold hawkers, baldness "cures, etc.) it's hard to conclude that they're
able to garner high advertising rates. A lot of that stuff is "per inquiry." Better formulation: Syndication is cheap so it just needs to allow the station to generate enough revenue to pay the power bill and office expenses.

Some syndication is cheap. A lot of it is on a barter basis. Rush and Hannity actually charge...and Rush charges a lot.

 

[Leebo65]

Rush should charge a lot. Him and Jim Rome are about the best in the business...

 

[justareporter]

I'm sure I am not the only one who gets this, but hasn't anyone realized the obvious. Limbaugh syndicated over 600 stations means there are 600 less mid-day (or whatever daypart) individuals to explore local and regional issues for the benefit of their listeners. Hannity on 500 stations means the same thing in a different daypart. Same too with ______(fill in name and number of stations here.)

Radio was always supposed to be a public medium serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity." How the devil can a station serve the "public interest" with virtually no on-air staff, no news department and (in many cases) no facilities in their city of license?

You want real discussions? Bring back local radio. Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department and if they cry they can't make any money that way then have 'em give up the license.

Jus' sayin

 

[brian65]

I'm sure I am not the only one who gets this, but hasn't anyone realized the obvious. Limbaugh syndicated over 600 stations means there are 600 less mid-day (or whatever daypart) individuals to explore local and regional issues for the benefit of their listeners. Hannity on 500 stations means the same thing in a different daypart. Same too with ______(fill in name and number of stations here.)

Radio was always supposed to be a public medium serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity." How the devil can a station serve the "public interest" with virtually no on-air staff, no news department and (in many cases) no facilities in their city of license?

You want real discussions? Bring back local radio. Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department and if they cry they can't make any money that way then have 'em give up the license.

Jus' sayin

That is so true.

I remember listening to Rush out of Sacramento in the mid eighties. But back then he was just one of many choices of talk to listen to in the Central Valley area. The Bay Area offered many many choices for those of us who had to be on the road for several hours a day and who quickly tired of music.

Thankfully we still have WLW here in the Ohio Valley, although their listenable number of hosts seems to diminish every year.

 

[KeithE4]

I'm sure I am not the only one who gets this, but hasn't anyone realized the obvious. Limbaugh syndicated over 600 stations means there are 600 less mid-day (or whatever daypart) individuals to explore local and regional issues for the benefit of their listeners. Hannity on 500 stations means the same thing in a different daypart. Same too with ______(fill in name and number of stations here.)

Limbaugh, Hannity, & Rome will garner more listeners than Billy Bob Localguy droning on and on about the school board election next month. If that wasn't the case, Mr. Localguy would be #1 in the market. I'm sure there are a few local hosts that give Limbaugh, Hannity, & Rome a run for their money (especially on large-market sports stations or toaster-talkers like WGN), but they are relatively few and far between. The local hosts are OK for drive times, but beyond that (when there are fewer listeners to any kind of radio other than sports play-by-play), there's no reason for them.

Radio was always supposed to be a public medium serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity." How the devil can a station serve the "public interest" with virtually no on-air staff, no news department and (in many cases) no facilities in their city of license?

How does a radio station serve the public interest if the public isn't listening? If that station is running a local guy who only talks about (probably obscure) issues local only to the stations city of license, chances are he has few, if any listeners. This isn't 1945 or even 1985, and even back then, a commercial radio station's sole reason for existing is/was to make money for its owners. Period. Public interest, convenience & necessity is still being served by network/syndicated talk shows (How is it not? Please explain), and the station is making a profit at the same time. A win-win if you ask me.

People listened to the local news on radio until TV took over in the '60s. Now even TV news ratings are dropping as the audience dies off. In the future, if not already, most folks will get their news from the internet - a convergence of print and video. The site names may be the old ones , such as Washington Post, CNN, or WBBM-TV, but they will essentially be the same type of news website. In fact, they already are.

And who cares if a station's studio is in the city or a suburb 30 miles away if the entire market is being served? The concept of "City of License" was flawed from Day One and needs to go away.

You want real discussions? Bring back local radio. Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department and if they cry they can't make any money that way then have 'em give up the license.

You want real discussions? Watch the city-owned cable channel or listen to your local NPR station if they still have a local presence.

And every time somebody says "Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department," I think he's really saying "Hey, I'm an out of work DJ/news guy/dinosaur and I don't want to retire, sell real estate, or tend bar! I want things like they were in 1965." As much as I hate to see anyone out of work, the fact is that the stations can't afford full staffs (and it's just not in broadcasting either - it's happening everywhere), and the listeners apparently don't care.

Bottom line (and it is always about the bottom line): Limbaugh = ratings. Rome = ratings. Hannity = ratings. Ratings = $$$$. Local midday hosts = no ratings = no $$$$ (with only a few exceptions).

 

[DocWashburn]

I'm sure I am not the only one who gets this, but hasn't anyone realized the obvious. Limbaugh syndicated over 600 stations means there are 600 less mid-day (or whatever daypart) individuals to explore local and regional issues for the benefit of their listeners. Hannity on 500 stations means the same thing in a different daypart. Same too with ______(fill in name and number of stations here.)

Limbaugh, Hannity, & Rome will garner more listeners than Billy Bob Localguy droning on and on about the school board election next month. If that wasn't the case, Mr. Localguy would be #1 in the market. I'm sure there are a few local hosts that give Limbaugh, Hannity, & Rome a run for their money (especially on large-market sports stations or toaster-talkers like WGN), but they are relatively few and far between. The local hosts are OK for drive times, but beyond that (when there are fewer listeners to any kind of radio other than sports play-by-play), there's no reason for them.

Radio was always supposed to be a public medium serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity." How the devil can a station serve the "public interest" with virtually no on-air staff, no news department and (in many cases) no facilities in their city of license?

How does a radio station serve the public interest if the public isn't listening? If that station is running a local guy who only talks about (probably obscure) issues local only to the stations city of license, chances are he has few, if any listeners. This isn't 1945 or even 1985, and even back then, a commercial radio station's sole reason for existing is/was to make money for its owners. Period. Public interest, convenience & necessity is still being served by network/syndicated talk shows (How is it not? Please explain), and the station is making a profit at the same time. A win-win if you ask me.

People listened to the local news on radio until TV took over in the '60s. Now even TV news ratings are dropping as the audience dies off. In the future, if not already, most folks will get their news from the internet - a convergence of print and video. The site names may be the old ones , such as Washington Post, CNN, or WBBM-TV, but they will essentially be the same type of news website. In fact, they already are.

And who cares if a station's studio is in the city or a suburb 30 miles away if the entire market is being served? The concept of "City of License" was flawed from Day One and needs to go away.

You want real discussions? Bring back local radio. Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department and if they cry they can't make any money that way then have 'em give up the license.

You want real discussions? Watch the city-owned cable channel or listen to your local NPR station if they still have a local presence.

And every time somebody says "Require stations to have a local staff and a local news department," I think he's really saying "Hey, I'm an out of work DJ/news guy/dinosaur and I don't want to retire, sell real estate, or tend bar! I want things like they were in 1965." As much as I hate to see anyone out of work, the fact is that the stations can't afford full staffs (and it's just not in broadcasting either - it's happening everywhere), and the listeners apparently don't care.

Bottom line (and it is always about the bottom line): Limbaugh = ratings. Rome = ratings. Hannity = ratings. Ratings = $$$$. Local midday hosts = no ratings = no $$$$ (with only a few exceptions).

Not only that, Limbaugh actually created a lot of jobs. Outside the Top 50 markets, Am was mostly dead. Rush brought listeners back to AM radio, single-handedly creating the talk radio format where it had not existed before in hundreds of small markets. True enough though, when Hannity went into syndication, he put a lot of local guys out of work. But it is the nature of the beast. In markets wher the local guy is strong enough, Sean's show is actually recorded and played in a later daypart. Talent will eventually win out, even in this very competitive environment.