IF Telecom hadn't been enacted......

[smedge2006]

I guess you're unaware that there are actually markets where certain companies have bought all the players in a format (ie; talk) and manipulate the FORMERLY competing stations so they don't do much damage to each other. That's lose/lose for employees and listeners alike.

This is what happened in the formerly competitive, formerly multi-ideology, and formerly great Tampa talk radio market. For the full story, see pages 57-63 of Alexander Zaitchik's book, "Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance." Competition went away and so did differing opinions, contrary to what others assert has happened in talk radio.

As for New York, the problem is not competition. The problem is that each station has other internal factors that outweigh their competition with each other. For WABC and WNYM, it is the pressure to clear and flagship their own in-house syndication. For WOR it is financial pressure that keeps certain seemingly unappealing programming (Joan Hamburg, for example) on the air. WOR also has had until recently, a politically conservative owner who may not have been overt in his ideology but certainly didn't want to stack up with liberals. The moves to get rid of Beck and Steve Malzberg could be a sign of change at 710.

 

[TheBigA]

Competition went away and so did differing opinions, contrary to what others assert has happened in talk radio.

Depends on what you mean. Tampa was one of the markets where CC put Air America on one of its stations. Say what you will about the quality of Air America, but it did offer differing opinions.

Look, competition isn't playing nice. It's hardball. The goal isn't to play but to win. That could mean buying the competition. But it's not the only option. Had the 96 Act not made it possible for companies to own more stations, the same result could have been achieved with LMAs and syndication. It was already starting to take place in the early 90s. It certainly would have been easier and cheaper.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As you know, I've never done small market radio. Other than my community & public radio work, I've always worked for big companies. I find there's a mythology that before 1996, radio was all mom&pop, live&local. That was not my experience. There were far bigger companies owning radio before 1996 than now. Major insurance companies like Nationwide and National Life.

That is one of the difficulties we have in these types of discussions. We have people who have seen one phase, one genre of programming or ownership or market style/size and we have trouble connecting because we see the world from different angles. Even when I finally "went to the city" in radio, I was working for some bit-players, some specialty programming and while this "country bumpkin lad" was learning to love life in the city, I was still living in a broadcasting business world that was not part of the typical large company ownership that you worked with.

In each state where I worked radio (seven) I noticed that the officers of the state broadcaster association were almost always small market guys. The city broadcasting executives apparently were nose-to-the-grindstone types who were operating under the climate of the big companies you describe. Most of the people I worked for had ONE STATION and it was "big stuff" with the home town crowd. People took pride in what they would call "Our radio station".

One of the big changes to radio in my perspective when consolidation began was that viable markets that ringed metro areas were stripped of their FM stations which were all moved into or toward the cities. Often times these were the most viable small market stations in the non-metropolitan part of states. This wrecked the "farm system" of training.

I have more than one story of going into the city seeking to move up the food chain, up the "farm system"... and at the end of the interview the person would look at me, shake his head side to side and smile: "I have nothing to offer that you would want. But if you find something somewhere, let me know. I want the job you have now." This was working in county seat single station markets where the city population was under 10,000 people. When I drive back to the Ozarks for family visits I sometimes drive through some of these little towns and listen to the pitiful excuse for broadcasting where five of these stations from five distinct communities that have nothing in common have been "clustered" into one building under one ownership, and not a single one of these once proud communities can say: "Listen: this is OUR radio station."

In recent years I have come across several "under the radar" groups where someone who grew up in a radio family and still lives in some little Mayberry has gathered up two dozen small town stations and turned them into a power-house little radio empire where multi-talented people can get the job running one to three of those station and make a fantastic living for a person living in Mayberry Junior. What is depressing to me though is the large number of these small market stations that did not get gathered up into a group that are depressingly pathetic.

Nothing in my radio career ever prepared me to work for a Clear Channel or a Cumulus or a Cox and know what to do with a station worth $40 to $100 million in todays market That is another whole business to me. And part of the confusion and stress is that rules are written for radio. You are under the same basic rules whether you operate WGN in Chicago or KDYN in Ozark, AR. (Great little station the last time I stopped in to pick their brain.)

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I was there before 1996. I was involved with many of the best-known talk shows in this business. I see nothing in the 96 Act that hurt competition in talk. As I said, there are way more talk stations and talk shows than before deregulation.

There was a small flurry of talk radio programs (normally a block program rather than a talk stration) in the 1960s. 1967-68-69 I did talk in Indianapolis on a "minor league station" and watched as everyone else abandoned talk. I was the last-man-standing.

You speak of talk radio prior to 1996. When did talk radio take root? I was absent-with-out-leave and was not looking over my shoulder at the time wondering how I could return. (That came later. ;D )

 

[TheBigA]

You speak of talk radio prior to 1996. When did talk radio take root?

When radio owners were looking for something to put on their AM stations after the FM boom. The late 70s in some place. Mid 80s in others. It was aided by the growing deregulation of radio that no longer required all sides of a controversial issue to be given. Originally, talk radio was mainly advice shows. Car advice, legal advice, pet advice, financial advice, relationships (Dr. Ruth), and the like. But the game changer was Rush Limbaugh. He started in 1988, and on 650 stations by 1990. And he did it the old fashioned way: without a major syndicator.

 

[smedge2006]

Competition went away and so did differing opinions, contrary to what others assert has happened in talk radio.

Depends on what you mean. Tampa was one of the markets where CC put Air America on one of its stations. Say what you will about the quality of Air America, but it did offer differing opinions.

WRONG! Air America never had a full time or even much of a part time affiliate in Tampa. The only clearance it ever got was on a small brokered station that ran Lionel, and ONLY Lionel, very late in the network's existence, and then only when there were no brokered shows running. That station was NOT owned by Clear Channel. No CC station in Tampa ever cleared Air America programming.

"Air America" and liberal talk seems to inspire a great deal of misinformation, which serves the "liberal talk is and always will be a failure" meme well. Awhile back, several people were insisting on the North Florida board that Air America was cleared (and of course, to complete the urban legend, "failed") on a station in Orlando. Never was. One station had considered it before signing on, but chose to go with an oldies format instead.

 

[jas2525]

Instead of two or three competing newsrooms, now you may have ONE (understaffed, no less) because they are the ONLY game in town.

Other than shareholders, WHO does that benefit? Do tell.

Before Telecom, this was never the case. You instead had newsrooms staffed and TRYING to outdo each other. Public wins. Radio pros win. The company however, didn't make as much. Of course corporate influence ($$$) achieves Telecom and now the company wins! And the public and radio pros can pound salt.

I truly do not understand how some are so ignorant of how this is playing out around the industry. Maybe that's a big part of the problem.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I truly do not understand how some are so ignorant of how this is playing out around the industry. Maybe that's a big part of the problem.

Careful now. Simply declaring that everyone who does not see things your way to be ignorant is not how meaningful discussion takes place.

I'm on your side of significant parts of this debate, but let me suggest that you are reaching out and anointing certain observations as fact when they are indeed debateable.

There was a time when I wanted to take my broadcasting career and drive it into the world of journalism. It was going to be a hard task because I had not obtained a college degree in journalism and that would be something I would have to overcome everytime I went for a career move. My observation was that while most stations claimed to do news, claimed to have a news department, in far too many cases it was a sham. I was being interviewed for jobs to do news where the person conducting the interview (and managing the station in most cases) didn't know what journalism was.

I though my lack of educational foundation was going to be the problem. The real impediment was the lack of actual, real, legtimate opportunities to do real journalism... at least in the parts of the country where I was operating.

Some of what we lost in the TCA1996 was a lot of "Hollywood style movie set fake store front" excuses for journalism.

I interviewed for a News Director position in Tulsa, OK one time. The station owner conducted the interview He explained that he was an early riser. He came to the station early, took the daily newspaper and a black marker pen, and as he read the paper he would draw a big black box around the news stories I was to re-write for use on the radio. The station had no news wire. There was no discussion of the possibility that I might get outside the four walls of the station and track down any news that was not in the daily paper. We really lost something precious when TCA1996 put the pressure on guys like him.

P.S. I didn't take the job.

 

[TheBigA]

Instead of two or three competing newsrooms, now you may have ONE (understaffed, no less) because they are the ONLY game in town.

Most stations eliminated news when the FCC eliminated the news requirement in the 80s . The FCC also eliminated community ascertainment and the requirement that studios needed a third class operator's license. All before the 96 Act. Most of this was done because the government cut the FCC's budget, and they no longer had the staff to handle all the rules. By the time 1996 came along, most radio stations had no news at all. In fact, when the Gulf War happened in 1991, most radio stations had to run CNN audio to cover the war. They had no news staff. Please get your facts straight.

Still none of this has anything to do with your original post about talk radio. And the fact is that there are more talk shows and more talk stations now that before 1996. That is a documented fact.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course corporate influence ($$$) achieves Telecom and now the company wins!

This is another myth. The 96 Act was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. It's partly how Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 election. Had nothing to do with corporate influence. The public voted, and that's how it happened. And it was a very popular bill in Congress. In the Senate, it passed by 81-19. In the House, it was even more overwhelming: 414 in favor, and only 16 opposed.

 

[jas2525]

This is another myth. The 96 Act was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. It's partly how Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 election. Had nothing to do with corporate influence. The public voted, and that's how it happened. And it was a very popular bill in Congress. In the Senate, it passed by 81-19. In the House, it was even more overwhelming: 414 in favor, and only 16 opposed.

In reality, the radio ownership portion of the Telecom Act was a minor part of the legislation. Corporate lobbyists had EVERYTHING to do with it being in there.
The public didn't "vote" on that. The public, as well as MANY within the industry itself, never even gave it a thought.

Talk about rewriting history.

 

[TheBigA]

The public didn't "vote" on that. The public, as well as MANY within the industry itself, never even gave it a thought.

The public voted in the Republicans who ran on fewer government regulations. Just like they are now. And it was a Republican landslide. And all 236 House Republicans voted for the bill.

If the public and the industry didn't do their research, they have only themselves to blame. No rewriting of history. The facts are all there.

 

[TheBigA]

WRONG! Air America never had a full time or even much of a part time affiliate in Tampa. The only clearance it ever got was on a small brokered station that ran Lionel, and ONLY Lionel,

You're speaking of WTAN. I was speaking of WSRQ. You're correct that they had no Orlando station. The closest was Daytona.

 

[jas2525]

The public didn't "vote" on that. The public, as well as MANY within the industry itself, never even gave it a thought.

The public voted in the Republicans who ran on fewer government regulations. Just like they are now. And it was a Republican landslide. And all 236 House Republicans voted for the bill.

Ahhh, a bit convoluted, given you're initial assertion that the majority were on board with the small RADIO portion of the Act. The relaxation of ownership rules in radio was NOT given careful consideration by most, up to and including the President who signed it (Clinton even admits this now). Business interests of those bent on market manipulation reigned supreme. I mean c'mon, this happens in many other areas in Washington too, this is hardly unique!

If the public and the industry didn't do their research, they have only themselves to blame. No rewriting of history. The facts are all there.

There it is. They didn't pay attention to what was brewing, so screw them. Nice.

Actually to a degree, I agree with you on that. In 1992 when I heard there was an LMA forming between two Buffalo, NY radio stations, I was stunned. And as that type arrangement became more and more common across the country, and rumors started to swirl about severe relaxation of ownership rules, I would tell anyone who would listen that this will be awful for the industry as far as quality and competition.

Most couldn't have cared less. Due to a poorly organized army of radio pros and an incredible lack of knowledge and concern by the public and broadcasting employees in general, the radio portion of Telecom was very much under most radars.

 

[TheBigA]

Ahhh, a bit convaluted, given you're initial assertion that the majority were on board with the small RADIO portion of the Act.

Let's clarify: I never said anyone was "on board with the small radio portion of the Act." I very clearly said the majority voted for the act, and the numbers don't lie. 81-19 in the Senate and 414-16 in the House is an overwhelming majority. If Clinton wanted to veto it, he could have, but it would have been overridden.

I find it interesting that you've ignored my earlier point that local news was eliminated when the FCC eliminated the news requirement in the 80s. I guess you forgot about that. There was nothing in the 96 Act about news because the FCC had already addressed that more than ten years earlier.

 

[jas2525]

I find it interesting that you've ignored my earlier point that local news was eliminated when the FCC eliminated the news requirement in the 80s. I guess you forgot about that. There was nothing in the 96 Act about news because the FCC had already addressed that more than ten years earlier.

I ignored your "point" because it was irrelevant to what I was talking about.

I am not talking about what is required by government dictum, I am talking about what is required in order to compete in a marketplace. When one company has all the marbles on a band that is the home of all spoken-word radio, yes, it has a chilling effect on the quality of the format, because there is no longer any head to head competition between former rivals for audience. THAT has a direct effect on quality. Nobody is trying to outdo anybody else going forward, primarily because there's nobody left to outdo. This is not my theory, this is my repeated experience.

On top of that, it's just common sense.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not talking about what is required by government dictum, I am talking about what is required in order to compete in a marketplace.

But the point is that those stations had dropped news BEFORE 1996. So your claim that stations had fully staffed newsrooms in 1996 is false.

There is no one company that owns ALL of the radio stations in any one market. The current ownership laws prevent that. Plus there are lots of non-commercial radio stations that have come on the air in the last 15 years, providing news in markets where the commercial stations stopped. So your view that there's no competition is simply wrong. You can't force the public to listen to something they don't want. Just owning a bunch of radio stations doesn't guarantee anyone will listen.

You seem to be speaking in generalities in a way that completely ignores the facts. And every time I bring up a fact, you say it's irrelevant. So I guess for you, facts are irrelevant.

 

[smedge2006]

WRONG! Air America never had a full time or even much of a part time affiliate in Tampa. The only clearance it ever got was on a small brokered station that ran Lionel, and ONLY Lionel,

You're speaking of WTAN. I was speaking of WSRQ. You're correct that they had no Orlando station. The closest was Daytona.

WSRQ, at that time the calls on 1450 AM, now WSDV, was and is a Sarasota station, not a factor in the Tampa- St. Pete market. It carried ONLY one program, Jerry Springer, mixed in with Rush and Hannity, comparable to what WTAM was trying in Cleveland. The only reason it did so was that Springer wintered in Sarasota and it appears someone leaned on someone to get it cleared.
WSRQ was irrevelant and didn't succeed with either conservative or liberal talk, because most people in that market preferred to get their syndication fix from the Tampa station, 970. When you're not really local, when you're just a stick radiating a satellite signal, what does it matter whether you're next door or 50 miles away? (Another station has since taken the WSRQ calls.)

 

[jas2525]

I am not talking about what is required by government dictum, I am talking about what is required in order to compete in a marketplace.

But the point is that those stations had dropped news BEFORE 1996. So your claim that stations had fully staffed newsrooms in 1996 is false.

There is no one company that owns ALL of the radio stations in any one market. The current ownership laws prevent that. Plus there are lots of non-commercial radio stations that have come on the air in the last 15 years, providing news in markets where the commercial stations stopped. So your view that there's no competition is simply wrong. You can't force the public to listen to something they don't want. Just owning a bunch of radio stations doesn't guarantee anyone will listen.

You seem to be speaking in generalities in a way that completely ignores the facts. And every time I bring up a fact, you say it's irrelevant. So I guess for you, facts are irrelevant.

Let's keep this simple:

I NEVER claimed stations all had fully staffed newsrooms in 1996---whatever the hell THAT means.
All I am saying, is that after ownership consolidation, I saw companies I worked for in several different large markets, manipulate all the major AMs they managed to pick up in such a way that none were competing directly head to head any longer. This resulted in many newspeople losing their jobs and the competition simply vanishing. This allowed the remaining, unchallenged station to be a lot less aggressive in newsgathering and a lot less likely to pay decent people. Why? Because they no longer had to.

You have this theory, unfortunately, you're apparently limited breadth of experience has prevented you from seeing the whole picutre resulting from Telecom.

 

[TheBigA]

You have this theory, unfortunately, you're apparently limited breadth of experience has prevented you from seeing the whole picutre resulting from Telecom.

You don't know what my experience is. Calling my experience "limited" because I don't agree with you is a pompous and arrogant thing to say. I've made very clear and factual posts, and you've ignored them. I've asked you to respond to specific facts, and you've ignored them. And then you attack my knowledge and experience. That leads me to believe you simply don't want to admit or believe that there is a different point of view on this issue.