Ideological Bleed-Through on Specialty Shows

[smedge2006]

Listening to some of the weekend "specialty" shows on the Business Talk Radio network, some of them sound a lot like straight ahead conservative poltical talk shows that run during the week on bigger stations. It seems to me a couple of things are happening in the universe of specialty programming (Financial, Health, and Do-It-Yourself):

1. The weekend shows on conservative stations are starting to slip in little political bits aimed at the weekday audience (ACORN jokes on the gardening show) and starting to sound more like the weekday product.

2. Specialty shows that supposedly have nothing to do with politics on supposedly non-political stations (the ones in the so-called "business" format for instance) also begin echoing the memes heard on the rest of talk radio.

I'm not saying there is always a conscious ideological effort to make the shows that way. Maybe some of the time. What I think is happening is that the kinds of people who would consider doing a talk radio show are becoming so self-selecting that only right wingers want to try. Or the only people who want to broker shows are gardening experts or financial experts who love talk radio and want to be the next Limbaugh.

I don't think this bleed-through is a good idea. Basically it turns all of AM radio (other than sports talk, and I've even heard some of them go this way) into one format. The specialty shows have a chance to draw listeners and revenue from outside the core, and I don't think it's a good idea to pander to the existing audience if you decide to have one of these shows.

 

[gr8oldies]

You can't completely dislodge business from politics, when politicians are the ones regulating, or trying to regulate your business. Gardening is another matter, but are you saying you want the PD to put a muzzle on that particular host?

 

[Steven21]

Talkradio is really devolving into this total one-trick pony. VERY shortsighted.

As it is, many younger people think AM radio is just about politics. Now even older non-extremists are stereotyping the format as well. AM radio isn't now JUST politics---it's only CONSERVATIVE politics!

B-O-R-I-N-G.

Anyone who tells you it has to be this way is lazy and/or an ideologue.

 

[smedge2006]

Gardening is another matter, but are you saying you want the PD to put a muzzle on that particular host?

Do you think the PD would have something to say if the weekday political host suddenly started devoting large chunks of his/her show to gardening, auto repair or home improvement?

Dave "the cigar guy" - whose show is carried on a few other stations - has delved into politics from time to time.

Cigar Dave is a right wing ideologue who has sat in on weekday conservative shows in the past. Clearly an example of talk radio now only being attractive to right-wingers, even when it comes to "expert" shows or time brokering.

 

[gr8oldies]

It's not completely unheard of for a political host to delve into sports or another topic..obviously if it happens too much it could hurt the brand and the ratings. I'd have to hear the examples of the other hosts going off into politics. If they stop talking about gardening and go on for an hour about politics, that could be a problem (but if the guy is brokering out the time, not much the station is going to do short of removing the show and getting rid of that weekend revenue). If it's the occasional Obama joke, I don't see the problem. I'm sure Dr. Dean Edell has an opinion (probably in favor) of Obamacare, and if i;s business, financial, even computers (internet privacy, net neutrality?) yes, the politicisns have their grubby hands in the pie, so those aspects are fair game for discussion.

 

[Silkie]

They're paying the station for their air time, are they not?

 

[TheBigA]

As I said already, today's talkradio climate is VERY shortsighted.

While it's very safe to aim for the very large middle, it's also very boring radio. So the crazies on the extreme attract a very devoted and loyal fringe who are there every day, plus their comments attract lots of free PR. Glen Beck for example. Meanwhile the safe vanilla middle of the road folks might have the potential to attract more people, but that larger middle has less passion and loyalty than the extreme fringe. And those safer hosts don't benefit from the free publicity.

 

[Steven21]

As I said already, today's talkradio climate is VERY shortsighted.

While it's very safe to aim for the very large middle, it's also very boring radio. So the crazies on the extreme attract a very devoted and loyal fringe who are there every day, plus their comments attract lots of free PR. Glen Beck for example. Meanwhile the safe vanilla middle of the road folks might have the potential to attract more people, but that larger middle has less passion and loyalty than the extreme fringe. And those safer hosts don't benefit from the free publicity.

There it is: The oft misguided notion that moderate means neutral.

Nothing could be further fromt he truth. Your mistake is in assuming that being completely one sided = passion. Wrong. There are very passioante and opinionated hosts who base their hot-headed opinions on an issue by issue basis. THAT is how most Americans think and come to conclusions.

I'm so tired of the reinforcing of this specious idea that ideologues are the best hosts for the future.

 

[TheBigA]

There it is: The oft misguided notion that moderate means neutral.

Not neutral...just boring. You're allowing your politics to interfere with the show. I don't know if ideologues are the "best hosts for the future," but they tend to be the most entertaining, and attract the biggest audiences.

If that bothers you, there's always C-SPAN. No extreme talk hosts there. They just spent a fascinating weekend interviewing the judges of the Supreme Court. I was captivated.

My advice to you...if you don't like what's popular, just look around a little. You're bound to find exactly what you want somewhere.

 

[Steven21]

There it is: The oft misguided notion that moderate means neutral.

Not neutral...just boring. You're allowing your politics to interfere with the show. I don't know if ideologues are the "best hosts for the future," but they tend to be the most entertaining, and attract the biggest audiences.

If that bothers you, there's always C-SPAN. No extreme talk hosts there. They just spent a fascinating weekend interviewing the judges of the Supreme Court. I was captivated.

My advice to you...if you don't like what's popular, just look around a little. You're bound to find exactly what you want somewhere.

C-SPAN? By that statement alone, you demonstrate that you haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

You continue to equate moderate with neutral. That shows an abject lack of understanding of the nature of the talkradio beast. Don't feel alone though, many programmers are just as one sided and shallow in their thinking.

EVERY issue can be handled passionately, irrespective to what political agenda is served by the conclusion of the host.

ONE person can dramatically and emotionally--and entertainingly espouse support for the death penalty, the right to choose, support for gay marriage, supprot for gun rights, etc. etc. It depends on the PERSON.
A passionate host is interesting to listen to. If they also have a mix of conservative and liberal opinions, they are not only entertaining, but reflective of the majority of Americans, vs. the small percentage that thinks Sarah Palin is the answer to our troubles.

Talkradio has devolved into a monothematic cesspool.

And by the way, ever heard a BORING, C-SPAN-like conservative on the radio? There is a laundry list of them.

 

[TheBigA]

C-SPAN? By that statement alone, you demonstrate that you haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

OK...Give me a specific example of someone who is doing what you want, who is also entertaining, and can attract an audience.

 

[Steven21]

C-SPAN? By that statement alone, you demonstrate that you haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

OK...Give me a specific example of someone who is doing what you want, who is also entertaining, and can attract an audience.

I know you fancy yourself the "tellin' it like it is" guy on these boards, but....

Tom Leykis, before he went all T&A, was a perfect example of a passionate host with ideologically varied opinions AND he had outstanding numbers.

Michael Smirconish out of Phiily is another good example.

Even if I couldn't immediately provide any examples, that does not take away from the obvious point: All because a talkradio audience has been systematically built and catered to with hard right conservatives in the past 15-20 years DOES NOT mean they are the only people who will ever listen to a spoken word format. To insist that this is the case is incredibly short-sighted and mindless.

 

[TheBigA]

DOES NOT mean they are the only people who will ever listen to a spoken word format.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But the goal in mass media in the US isn't to simply offer radio shows for every point of view. But to attract the largest consistent audience. The political talk shows that appeal to the far right seem to do that better than other approaches. While Leykis had a local following with what he did early in his career, it was his more outrageous material that made him famous. Same with Stern. Howard isn't far right. But his act isn't political. Smirconish seems to be adjusting his show for syndication, and those who've enjoyed him in Philly don't like his new style. But he's made those changes in order to reach a broader audience. It's not that the moderate or other points of view haven't been tried. They have. When Larry King moved to afternoons in the mid-90s, he attempted to do that as an anti-Rush. It failed miserably, and the King of the Night left radio for TV. I'd say his successor, Jim Bohannon, isn't a raging conservative, but a well-read moderate who tries to play both sides. But he's never achieved the success of the lesser quality far rightists like Michael Reagan or Savage. Perhaps because he's on so late at night.

So once again, it's not that there isn't an audience who might find the moderate approach more to their liking. I'm sure there are. It's just that they tend not to be motivated to tune in every day, perhaps because they have other things that drive their attention.

 

[smedge2006]

No surprise, we're drifting off topic here. No surprise too, there are people who think that even the gardening show should be served with a hefty helping of right-wing memes ("Obama wants to take away your orchids!")

 

[TheBigA]

No surprise, we're drifting off topic here. No surprise too, there are people who think that even the gardening show should be served with a hefty helping of right-wing memes ("Obama wants to take away your orchids!")

Well maybe...my point is that a lot of the non-political shows discover they can crank up the volume by appealing to that audience. There's a reason why Rush and Hannity are popular. You can try and be the anti-Rush, but you're fighting a tough battle. If you want to stir things up beyond the bland, just add one of the hot-button topics or issues to the show, and watch the phones light up. The other way to do it is purposely go on the air as a left wing radical, telling folks they need free health care, government-sponsored abortion, and other federal programs, and become a radio pinata! Just make sure there's security in your building and you don't use your real name on the air.

 

[Steven21]

No surprise, we're drifting off topic here. No surprise too, there are people who think that even the gardening show should be served with a hefty helping of right-wing memes ("Obama wants to take away your orchids!")

Well maybe...my point is that a lot of the non-political shows discover they can crank up the volume by appealing to that audience. There's a reason why Rush and Hannity are popular. You can try and be the anti-Rush, but you're fighting a tough battle. If you want to stir things up beyond the bland, just add one of the hot-button topics or issues to the show, and watch the phones light up. The other way to do it is purposely go on the air as a left wing radical, telling folks they need free health care, government-sponsored abortion, and other federal programs, and become a radio pinata! Just make sure there's security in your building and you don't use your real name on the air.

The monopolizing of the public airwaves by an ideological MINORITY is inexcusable.

 

[TheBigA]

The monopolizing of the public airwaves by an ideological MINORITY is inexcusable.

They're not monopolizing it. There are lots of alternatives. They just happen to be the most popular. Not much you can do about the taste of the public.

 

[smedge2006]

As I recall, the purpose of these weekend specialty shows is to bring in revenue especially from advertisers who wouldn't touch the weekday programming -- home improvement chains and the like. How does it serve that interest to turn the weekends into a repeat of the politics of the week papered over with a "specialty" topic? Might as well go red-meat conservatism seven days a week if that's what you're after.

 

[Steven21]

When Larry King moved to afternoons in the mid-90s, he attempted to do that as an anti-Rush. It failed miserably, and the King of the Night left radio for TV.

Your Larry King comment is very misleading. The failure of that show had everything to do with style, scheduling and changing priorities, not
ideology.

He was basically done with radio at the point he moved to afternoons. He had been on CNN for about seven or so years by then and had most of his focus there. Also, the daytime version of the show didn't get a lot of clearances from his once many affiliates, due to (get this) a commitment to local programming during the hours Mutual offered the show.

Not to mention, and I remeber thinking this at the time, his radio style was great for late nights, but all wrong for mid afternoons. Too laid back.

 

[TheBigA]

Your Larry King comment is very misleading. The failure of that show had everything to do with style, scheduling and changing priorities, not ideology.

That's your spin on the story. He was the biggest name in radio, with a better track record than Rush, and stations had a lot of wiggle room with scheduling. If they cleared a right winger in mid-days, why wouldn't they follow him with a more moderate host with big name guests? These very same stations have now put Hannity in that exact same time slot. So much for their commitment to local programming. Larry's failure in daytime was a lesson to programmers for what works in daytime talk. So that approach to radio moved to NPR. Terry Gross is Larry's ideological successor.

As for "laid back," what do you want from a moderate? Leykis was more laid back before he started booking strippers. Maybe Larry needed some strippers on his show.