Is Progressive Talk In Trouble in Cincinnati

[fred flintstone]

Cincinnati has a long history of censorship and supression of free speech. Now, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports, a group of conservative activists is attempting to pressure local advertisers to cancel their ads in Ed Schultz' radio show with threats of organized boycotts.Meanwhile, Clear Channel's Cincinnati Ops Manager says the company is not happy with progressive talk's ratings performance in the market and hits a flip is possible. Clear Channel operates three talkers in town: (1) All local-live WLW dominates the market and is consistently number one by wide margins. (2) Conservative and mostly syndicated WKRC, which has experienced declining ratings in recent books and fallen out of the top ten but remains the number one AM station. (3) Progressive talker WKRC with no local programming (unless you count TV trash talker and former Cincinnati mayor Jerry Springer's syndicated show which the station originates part time). CC also owns an AM sports talk outlet, which also out draws the progressive talk station.What's holding progressive talk back in the Queen City. For starters, no local show in morning drive. And Jerry may be dragging the station down, too. The better performing progressive talkers take Steph in late morning. And being a hometown boy doing a syndicated show can be a liability (Big Ed got dropped by his Fargo flagship). If Jerry is serious about progressive talk radio, he should drop the trash TV show (and assorted baggage) and pull a Hartmann - do local morning drive in Cincinnati and WCKY takes Steph in late morning. Somehow, I doubt Jerry is serious so WCKY should just pull the plug on Jerry, pick up Steph and develop their own local morning show.

Liberal radio host seeks helpBY JOHN KIESEWETTER | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITERNationally syndicated talk host Ed Schultz is asking Hamilton County Democrats to help keep his show on progressive-talk WCKY-AM (1530)."Republicans and conservatives ... are trying to get WCKY-AM in Cincinnati to take us off the air," Shultz writes in a letter e-mailed to party members last week."Sources inform us right-wingers have even gone so far as to call local advertisers and tell them they will not do business with them because they buy advertising during 'The Ed Schultz Show' (3-6 p.m.)," Schultz says.Schultz, by phone from his Fargo, N.D., studio, says he learned about the campaign while visiting the Clear Channel station in February. He was surprised to hear about the e-mail because he wrote the letter months ago to party officials.Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party chairman, confirms the letter was received "a while ago." It was sent out because Democrats believe in having liberal-progressive voices on the airwaves dominated by conservatives Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh. ...Tony Bender, WCKY program director, says he had not heard of any Schultz advertisers being pressured to drop the show. Schultz says his show was dropped in Salt Lake City after a campaign by conservatives."Any time I get any inkling of these things, I'm going to ask for help from progressive listeners," Schultz says, noting that Ohio voters will again play a pivotal role in the 2006 and 2008 elections.Liberal talk has not been a hit here since WCKY launched the format 18 months ago with Springer's national talk show. WCKY ranks No. 18... Schultz's show ... outperforms the station average. More people listened to oldies on the station in 2004 before the format switched.Clear Channel could drop the liberal talk format if the WCKY audience doesn't grow, says Darryl Parks, Clear Channel's AM operations director here."We're not happy with the (ratings) results. We're always looking for a way to improve our product (stations)," Parks says. "This isn't about any political ideology. This is all about ratings and revenues."FULL ARTICLEhttp://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060612/ENT/606120313/-1/rss

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Cincinnati has a long history of censorship and supression of free speech.

What? Explain this one, this is intriguing.Also, I fail to see how conservatives organizing to persuade folks not to buy stuff is "censorship" or "suppressing free speech". Isn't it actually just the opposite?The thing is, let's say they can lib talk. What the hell would Clear Channel put on 1530? They've tried everything imaginable but sports.

 

[FightingIrish]

Cincinnati got some bad publicity in years past when they were a battleground for First Amendment skirmishes involving local boy Larry Flynt and later when they were ground zero during the whole Mapplethorpe thing.As far as WCKY goes, I'd be surprised if CC flipped it. They own talk radio in this town, and WCKY seems to fit their strategy as an ideological counterpart to WKRC. Granted, the oldies format may have done better overall (though not much better), but I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns. Plus, I'm sure they make more money than oldies did. I can't see it not being profitable. The station's fully automated (I listen occasionally and hear a lot of malfunctioning), no jocks to pay (unlike the oldies format), and they rake in the religious money on overnights. Perhaps they should look at the paid programming, and see if that's chasing away listeners. Granted, overnights aren't rated, but the right-wing brimstone stuff is a real stark contrast to the rest of the day's programming.Besides, what else are they gonna put on 1530? They're already doing sports on another signal. And oldies won't work.I say give it time. Talk is in a slump anyways (WKRC looks to be hemmhoraging listeners). I'd hate to see it go. WCKY's signal is pretty powerful, and I can pick it up after dark here in Wisconsin.

 

[smedge2006]

They could flip to all-brokered like their stations in West Palm Beach and Tampa.Guaranteed revenue and the ratings wouldn't be THAT much lower.

 

[kaufcom]

Clear Channel could drop the liberal talk format if the WCKY audience doesn't grow, says Darryl Parks, Clear Channel's AM operations director here."We're not happy with the (ratings) results. We're always looking for a way to improve our product (stations)," Parks says. "This isn't about any political ideology. This is all about ratings and revenues."

This would be the first time that a Clear Channel station would drop liberal talk. I wonder if Parks is going out on a limb or whether he has the home offices blessings on this one.

 

[fred flintstone]

This would be the first time that a Clear Channel station would drop liberal talk. I wonder if Parks is going out on a limb or whether he has the home offices blessings on this one.

That would be a shame - and local management's own damn fault.It should be clear to Clear Channel that stations with Mark/Liz in morning drive and Jerry in late morning don't do well. They effectively kill audience and revenue for the rest of the day. It's too bad Democracy Radio shut down. I'm not sure why it happened. Maybe the backers pulled out, or decided to put all their chips on AAR. DR developed two national shows which are strong performers. They should have continued and developed local shows (which they had said they were going to do). Without strong local morning shows, progressive talk won't take off.

 

[gr8oldies]

Either it will get ratings or it won't..and I never believed radio for the sake of promoting an ideology ever had a snowball's chance in heck of winning. That's always been the flaw of libtalk. Liberals apparently aren't that interested..and there's no shortage of liberalism elsewhere (comedy, movies..you name it).Anybody wanty to predict a Spanish flip (seems about the only direction left). Maybe Brother Stair has a Spanish version of his fire 'n' brimstone show.I do find it interesting that this February memo just made news in June.

 

[ajhenderson]

Well, first of all, WKRC isn't the #1 AM... WLW is, as the poster pointed out. And its not making nearly as much as its big brother either. Also, the calls for 1530 are WCKY."And being a hometown boy doing a syndicated show can be a liability"No, it's just that nobody cares where you're from. Most people aren't from Cape Girardeau, MO, but they still listen to Rush. WSRQ/Sarasota added Jerry because he lives there part time. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And the results bear that out."it would be the first time Clear Channel dropped liberal talk"The entire format, yes. Individual shows, no.

 

[keys2]

Cincinnati has a long history of censorship and supression of free speech.

What? Explain this one, this is intriguing.Also, I fail to see how conservatives organizing to persuade folks not to buy stuff is "censorship" or "suppressing free speech". Isn't it actually just the opposite?

Good points, Johnny. And notice how there has been no explanation to your inquiries. But you have to understand the liberal perspective…..when liberals boycott and legislate against speech with which they disagree, it is a worthy and noble gesture because they are correct in their ideology. When conservatives do the exact same thing they are guilty of censorship and suppression. As the original poster has reminded us in his past posts, liberals intentions are always good, conservatives intentions are always bad. Reality -- If conservatives in Cincinnati or any other city choose to not do business with those who advertise on a libtalk station, that is their social and economic right. Liberals do the same thing. In neither case is this "censorship." Gr8oldies post in this thread is right on the money. Libtalk radio struggles because it is ideology-driven and not business-driven. Moreover, liberals already have their points-of-view affirmed from so many other mainstream sources that there is little need to listen to liberal talk radio.

 

[SaltyDog]

Cincinnati has a long history of censorship and supression of free speech. Now, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports, a group of conservative activists is attempting to pressure local advertisers to cancel their ads in Ed Schultz' radio show with threats of organized boycotts.

You mean censorship and suppression of free speech like when liberals, um excuse me, "progressives", pressured Doctor Laura's advertisers (successfully) to dump her TV show?Get real. Boycotts, whether against Schlessinger or Schultz, are a perfectly legitimate way for the consumers of radio and TV programming to voice their opinions. This whole First Amendment thing is for everybody, not just those of a particular ideological bent.

 

[fred flintstone]

Once again, the right wing zealots cry like a bunch of five year olds, "Well, (so and so) did it, too?"And, kiddies, if you friends jump off a cliff, would you do it, also?People who turn off their own radios are exercising the rights of free speech.People who try to tell others what to listen to are obnoxious.People who organize to force or pressure others to not listen to something, to force or pressure advertisers not to advertise and who seek to make content of which they disapprove unavailable to others are facists.It's not legitimate to try to dictate what others may listen to.If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[SaltyDog]

Once again, the right wing zealots cry like a bunch of five year olds, "Well, (so and so) did it, too?"And, kiddies, if you friends jump off a cliff, would you do it, also?

Well, you have the name-calling and invective part down. Otherwise, it was a decent response to something I never said. ""Well, (so and so) did it, too?""I stand by my remark: Boycotts are a perfectly legitimate tool of free speech advocates.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

It doesn't fit. Not even with your acid-tongued shoehorn.You've been around here for a long time "Fred", under a variety of pseudonyms. By now you should realize that unlike you, I'm employed in radio. Radio-info has the potential to return to its roots as a place radio pros hang out. For you, this is apparently just a place for you to vent your political frustrations.

 

[fred flintstone]

I don't believe you know me, Salty Dog, or anything about me. And your earlier response was:

You mean censorship and suppression of free speech like when liberals, um excuse me, "progressives", pressured Doctor Laura's advertisers (successfully) to dump her TV show?

That amounts to the (often-used) they-did-it-too arguement, which very popular with kids.Where either of us works is irrelevant to this particular issue. We are not talking about programming, technology or the business of radio. I say it's free speech if someone says "Rush is an ___hole." Or Franken is an ___hole."It is not within the bounds free speech to conspire to threaten others with economic harm or reprisals, or to act in concert to remove certain viewpoints from the airwaves (only because those doing so disagree with them).Free speech exists to promote a diversity of opinion, not stifle it.The clear intent of these boycotts is to thwart and limit freedom of expression.They can say what they want to about Big Ed but when they try to keep Big Ed from saying what he wants - or to keep others from hearing what Big Ed says - they have crossed the line.And that applies whether those who engage in such practices call themselves liberals or conservatives or concerned parents interested in family values or patriots or people supporting the troops or whatever other excuse they care to invent.

 

[ajhenderson]

"People who try to tell others what to listen to are obnoxious."No... you can have a 100 share, but if you're too (fill in the blank) to get advertisers, no station will have you. Nobody is telling anyone what to listen to. Schultz is a talent but is more importantly an advertising vehicle. If he wants to have telethons and donation drives, that is the truly democratic way for people to determine what they want to hear. Until then, listeners don't really matter other than to pique the interest of those that really do matter... advertisers.

 

[SaltyDog]

I don't believe you know me, Salty Dog, or anything about me.

Oh, but I do. How can you say that as long as you've been posting here? You do NOT work in radio.

Where either of us works is irrelevant to this particular issue. We are not talking about programming, technology or the business of radio.

No. I said that because when your heated over-the-top political rants really kick in, it becomes apparent what your real interests are, and they don't appear to be radio, but politics. I used to post political commentary in "Off The Air" but gave it up when I realized that the posters there, on both sides, might be juveniles.

I say it's free speech if someone says "Rush is an ___hole." Or Franken is an ___hole."It is not within the bounds free speech to conspire to threaten others with economic harm or reprisals, or to act in concert to remove certain viewpoints from the airwaves (only because those doing so disagree with them). Free speech exists to promote a diversity of opinion, not stifle it.

You may want to re-read the ol' First Amendment. If you think someone is violating it, there is a whole army of under-employed attorneys who will, for a fee, sue on your behalf.

The clear intent of these boycotts is to thwart and limit freedom of expression.

Doctor Laura's boycotters (and Ed's), like any other boycotters, have as their intention to make sure they aren't supporting speech that offends them. It's not like they are trying to enlist government force.

They can say what they want to about Big Ed but when they try to keep Big Ed from saying what he wants - or to keep others from hearing what Big Ed says - they have crossed the line.

What about the rights of the dissenters to express their opinions through economic means. Ed has a right to speak his mind. He does not have the right of advertising dollars to support his megaphone. Just because it bugs you doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

We are not talking about programming, technology or the business of radio.

That's EXACTLY what we're talking about. Programming and business. Why shouldn't I be heard on my own talk show on station WXXX? Reason: because no one wants to hire me (and I haven't sought a position, but let's ignore that fact for the moment). Aren't the station owners keeping me from saying what I want? If the answer is no, you've just evicerated your own argument and the remainder of this thread is academic.

They can say what they want to about Big Ed but when they try to keep Big Ed from saying what he wants - or to keep others from hearing what Big Ed says - they have crossed the line.

They're not keeping Big Ed from saying what he wants--they're keeping Big Ed from saying it on station WXXX or whatever. You may have freedom of speech, but you don't have the freedom to be heard on a certain outlet.In fact, there's NO freedom of speech to be heard on broadcast radio.

It is not within the bounds free speech to conspire to threaten others with economic harm or reprisals, or to act in concert to remove certain viewpoints from the airwaves (only because those doing so disagree with them).

Wrong--it sure IS within the bounds. It's called freedom of speech, and the marketplace of ideas. O.W. Holmes loved it--the best ideas would survive. Speech Darwinism, esesentially. Whoever had the strongest idea and strongest argument would survive. If Side A has more power to boycott and cause Side B to silence, that's what happens.Freedom of speech (as a generally accepted social convention, not as the right in the First Amendment) doesn't mean the freedom of your idea/side to always survive and be heard. That's where you falter in your argument: there is nothing in society that says I have to accept another side's argument or presentation thereof. A boycott is nothing more than the co-equal free expression of the opposing side.

 

[almaniac27]

Sheesh, calm down people, we're all adults here...oh wait I'm 16. Oh well, close enough. Let's try to get this thread back on track. I don't know what CC would flip WCKY to. I've heard rumors that they might switch WSAI (1360, the CC Cincinnati sports outlet) and WCKY. Most of the good stuff on WSAI is local and during the day from 6am-6pm, minus the 12pm-3pm slot which is Jim Rome. Let them keep the God Squad on overnights and rerun Al Franken and Randi Rhodes in the middle of the night on 1360 (which I'd enjoy if I didn't have an XM). Spanish wouldn't work here because 1320 WCVG is supposed to flip to Spanish soon.

 

[keys2]

Once again, the right wing zealots cry like a bunch of five year olds, "Well, (so and so) did it, too?"

Notice how fred reverts to namecalling rather than addressing the issues. While both sides are guilty of this, it has been my experience more so with those of his ideological bent. He seems so blinded by his own political zealousness, caught up in his emotion and hatred for those who think differently than he, that he's unable to see his own hypocrisy. The double standard is painfully obvious.So, one more time fred....how is it that the left-wing boycott of Dr. Laura's show IS NOT censorship while conservatives boycotting of Ed Schultz IS? Simple question. Can you please answer it?

 

[SonoSational18]

The reason that Progressive talk is in trouble in Cincinnati is simple... the hosts are booooring. You can talk all about Springer's baggge, credibility, etc. Bottom line, it's gawdaful radio that nobody wants to listen to. Any station that hangs its hat on being either "liberal" or "conservative" is doomed to a 2-share or less. Stations that find talented hosts, whatever their politics will win.

 

[talkjim]

CC has in fact dropped the progressive talk format in several markets--Columbia, South Carolina, San Antonio, and most notably at WHJJ in Providence, Rhode Island, where it was launched on a half-hearted basis, following the departure of conservative host John DePetro to WRKO/Boston. DePetro was not replaced by another local host, so the flip to progressive talk was widely seen as a budget cut, rather than an aggressively launched switch in a new direction.