• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Is Progressive Talk In Trouble in Cincinnati

keys2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you read my posts, you will see that is exactly what I am saying. Nowhere did I approve of a boycott aimed at Laura Schlesinger for the same reasons I do not approve of a boycott aimed at Big Ed (or anyone else). And, face it, these boycotts are not aimed at either personalities but the viewpoints they represent to those organizing boycotts - viewpoints they don't want you to hear.A marketplace of ideas requires that all ideas be heard and that NONE be silenced. Oliver Wendell Holmes advocated throwing people in jail merely for dissent, for any criticism of the government or for any opposition to US involvement in World War I. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in?I'm not interested in splitting legal hairs here. I was and am talking about principle and ethics. I am talking about the Golden Rule more than the First Amendment, about respecting other's opinions (whether or not you agree) as you would want you own respected. (How would some of you have reacted if boycotts did take Dr Laura or some other conservative host off the air? Do you really want to return to McCarthyism?) I'm saying I consider it ethically wrong for some to decide what others can or should read, listen to, watch, or believe. That is the Platonic-Jeffersonian ideal. Some of you seem to prefer a system in which "truth" is defined and enforced by some authority.I'm curious where some of you draw the line? Small groups that drove Howard Stern off terrestrial radio? Small groups that want to stamp out any adult content? Small groups that want to put their own spin on news coverage? Small groups that want to squelch the theory of evolution? Small groups that harass abortion providers? Small groups that boycott business owned by people who are not born-again Christians? Small groups that boycott business owned by Jews? Or Muslims? You'd be surprised how little it takes a determined group to silence what it doesn't want you to hear._________________________________________________We have gotten somewhat off track and I am as guilty for that as anyone. I would not mind seeing this thread moved to Off The Air.
 
"Small groups that drove Howard Stern off terrestrial radio? "The only group that drove Howard off terrestrial radio was a large group of American Greenbacks.... about 20 million of them for the next five yers!
 
SonoSational18 said:
"Small groups that drove Howard Stern off terrestrial radio? "The only group that drove Howard off terrestrial radio was a large group of American Greenbacks.... about 20 million of them for the next five yers!
Click to expand...
Or the constant stream of harassment from a few activists and lawyers filing complaints with the FCC, the resulting fines and restrictions on his work.These people say they don't like Howard's show, so they spend several hours a day listening, recording and transcribing it and then more time and money writing letters and filing complaints. Now listening to Howard does not corrupt them but they are so worried he will corrupt the rest of us that they make the sacrifice.
 
A marketplace of ideas requires that all ideas be heard and that NONE be silenced. Oliver Wendell Holmes advocated throwing people in jail merely for dissent, for any criticism of the government or for any opposition to US involvement in World War I. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in?
Click to expand...
The marketplace of ideas requires that all ideas be given a opportunity to be heard, not that they must be heard. There is absolutely no requirement that "none be silenced". If an idea is unpopular and not advantageous to the market, it won't last long--much like products in the marketplace of goods (the market where the Darwinian idea originated). Unpopular ideas are to the marketplace as the steam car is to the marketplace.Your Holmes anecdote shows that you are confusing--fatally--the idea of marketplace and government restriction. Holmes was wrong (and hypocritical) to advocate a marketplace of ideas while supporting sedition laws under the Wilson administration. But, remember, Holmes was a Darwinian--he advocated survival of the fittest, even if the government had to decide what would survive (see, e.g., Buck v. Bell, where he advocated eugenics with the infamous quote, "three generations of imbeciles is enough.").There is NOTHING AT ALL improper with a side or a party pressing others to reject another argument. That's what happens. If the losing side was popular enough, it would be able to survive such boycotts, radio silence, etc. The fact that one side strives to rid an opposing side isn't bad--it's natural. And it is to be expected in the marketplace. Monopoly is what comes naturally to the laissez-faire market; monopoly also comes naturally to the marketplace of ideas. It's only when interference from government exists that the marketplace is forced to handle goods, competition, or ideas that it otherwise would take care of on its own.Remember, the fact that a boycott removes an idea for a period of time does not remove it totally from being presented--only for that period of time. As attitudes change, the boycotted idea may very well be en vogue and gain a popular acceptance.Any reference to Howard Stern will be inapposite because as we all know, Stern was affected by regulatory process. There are rules and regulations, as well as laws (18 USC 1464) that govern the broadcast of indecent content. The Commission is mandated to investigate any report of indecent or obscene content--whether from a roving gang of letter writers, or from a single innocent source. But that should not be confused with the marketplace. The market was willing to accept Stern, but the regulatory system operates independently of the market--alas.
 
JM, you raise some valid points.However, the article I cited in the original post says the future of the progressive talk format in Cincinnati may be in question due to poor ratings. But rather than be content to let the "marketplace" work as intended, some seek to drive out competing ideas. Besides, apparently Holmes believed monopoly only "comes naturally" to major league baseball. ::)In the Howard Stern case, the current regulatory process reflects pressure from obsenity activists. Howard Stern did the the same show on terrestrial rradio for 25 years. Amost all of that time he was aired in the Washington, DC market where the FCC people could listen every day. The FCC has considerable discretion and its actions against Howard in latter years were clearly political, instigated by those who did not want others to listen to him.Are you really calling for a "marketplace" based on intolerance of anything with which one disagrees or of which one disapproves? Now, let's talk about how stupid these boycotters are:
  • 1520 AM's ratings are not good and now the boycott gives them lots of attention and even rallies people who might be sympathetic to the idea of progressive talk (although not especially interested in listening for various reasons, including the obvious defects in the on-air product). Rather than letting progressive talk die a natural death in Cincinnati, they may give it new life.
  • These activists want to boycott Big Ed's advertisers but: (1) Most local radio spots are sold ROS (run of schedule). Most advertisers buy time on the station, not in Big Ed. Apparently, these boycotters think Big Ed has "sponsors," a practice that ended 50 years ago. (2) Most local spots aired on the station are part of a package sale for Clear Channel's Cincinnati cluster of stations. A lot of the same spots than run in Big Ed, run in El Rushbo. So they are boycotting him, too. In effect, the boycotters are encouraging advertisers to avoid talk radio and associated controversy (which many do any way). (3) As already pointed out, people across the political spectrum play the boycott game. So, in retaliation, you have the chance of boycotts left and right (pun intended). All political talk is already showing signs of audience fatigue and undesirable demographics. Maybe advertisers would decide talk radio and associated controversy are not worth it. Maybe station operators would decide political talk and controversy aren't worth it either. This accelerates the shift to lifestyle and advice talk, or to a more inoffensive "fairness doctrine" style of current issues talk. This pretty much ends the style of talk radio started by Joe Pyne, popularized by Rush and imitated by most everybody else currently working.
 
Johnny Morgan said:
Cincinnati has a long history of censorship and supression of free speech.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Please! Until now, progressive talk in Cincinnati has been radio shows that don't openly advocate the KKK.
 
fred flintstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
As Ann Coulter has proved, no press is bad press. Organizing a boycott around Ed Schultz hands him publicity. A lot of the more liberal AAR audience despises Ed Schultz because they consider him a reformed Republican, not a true Democrat. Randi Rhodes hates him, although that may have tempered a bit since she has done CNN with him and they seemed to mesh okay.It seems bizarre "activists" would waste their time with Schultz and ignore Franken or Rhodes. I haven't seen much buzz about this on a national level. Has anyone actually seen the names of these activists and do they have street cred? I don't put anything past station publicity stunts.In the end, this will help Schultz, not hurt him. It gives the station the attention it doesn't get from Clear Channel's promotional budget. How often has anyone seen AAR cross promoted on other Clear Channel stations or bus cards, billboards, or media buys? He's no Dr. Laura, where it is easier to fall from grace when you are a big target as opposed to a much lesser known personality that could use all the free publicity he can get.
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.
Click to expand...
I always find it remarkable when company officials go public with their dissatisfaction with a format. Most of the time, you get denials that anything is wrong, right up until the day the format is changed.
Clear Channel operates three talkers in town: (1) All local-live WLW dominates the market and is consistently number one by wide margins.
Click to expand...
That's because WLW invests in actual local hosts and talent and serves the community instead of running a 24/7 satellite talk operation. They deserve the ratings they get.
(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.
Click to expand...
And I think that is the way libtalk is going to be until it proves itself as an established format. When stations realize the format is viable, then you will eventually see some investment into local talent which can make a difference. The real question will be whether the stations will stick with it long enough to make it happen.
And Jerry may be dragging the station down, too. The better performing progressive talkers take Steph in late morning.
Click to expand...
Yes, Springer's show is not exciting. His humor bits are TERRIBLE and although the intellectual debates with the hostile callers may make him magnanimous, it's not compelling. Stephanie's show is far superior because it is one of few libtalk shows that never takes itself too seriously. Can you imagine Stephanie Miller telling her audience that she has talent on loan from God or because of her, the liberal movement was reignited? :)
 
Yes, Cincinnati is well known for this sort of censorship activity. Mass protests and book burnings because a
DJ played John Lennon's "Imagine" and then said "booger" on the air, or something.
 
Don't confuse TV with real world radio.

Imagine and booger both refer to episodes of "WKRP in Cincinnati." Dr. Johnny Fever was fired from a Los Angeles station for saying "booger" on the air. He was allowed to say it on WKRP. A minister crusading against "obsenity" on the radio, who bore a strong resemblence to Jerry Falwell (the same actor later played Falwell in the move "The People vs Larry Flynt), called the lyrics to Imagine unacceptable in another episode and tried to ban the song from air play.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom