The government can also streamline the regulatory process, which it is starting to do in the area of low-income housing. There's probably some of that that could trickle down into the housing industry in general.
-
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
KFI Major Schedule Change Starting Tomorrow
- Thread starter Ray D. Owe
- Start date
To the contrary, a great deal of the housing price increase in the desirable places of CA has to do with legislation and regulation. Obligatory solar, adding about $25,000 to a new home price. Extremely expensive environmental regulations for new homes. Expensive permits and years to get a parcel fully permitted. Very expensive labor.
So, if new homes are so expensive, then older ones come up as high in price as they can, since buyers have no options.
But it is still significantly due to government rules, fees, taxes and regulations that CA housing is so expensive.
It's also tax deductible and you'll save on utilities. Home prices are high everywhere, not just California. I'm looking for a vacation home in several states, and there are no good deals anywhere. Including Arizona. I'm hoping high interest rates will drive down prices at some point.
Housing prices are also tied to market manipulation perpetrated by real estate investment firms who own tens of thousands, if not millions of units across the county who use forced non-occupancy and market forecasting algorithms to charge as much as they can for units. Housing prices are a multifaceted issue. It’s not just tied to regulation and permitting.
Well, certainly so! Still, I don't care to hear about it every day.
That's why Jay Leno's kindhearted swipe was so funny! It's true.
Not to get too far off topic, but there is no "free" market for houses.
In California, most of the value of a house (especially on the lower end) is the local city's permission to occupy a building for residential use. And they set sooooooooooo many rules:
- Minimum lot size
- Maximum buildings per lot
- Maximum building coverage area per lot
- Minimum distance from the street and sides
- Minimum off-street parking spaces
- Mandatory impact fees for new construction
But in cities where new lots are no longer available, the local government (residents, acting through the local government) act as a cartel. They weaponize these minimum/maximum requirements to deny their legal blessing for new housing units to enter the market.
A "free market" would let someone build and sell a second house behind their house. Or demolish a dilapidated house and put four skinny houses on the lot and sell those. These market-based solutions are illegal in nearly every city in the United States.
Increasing demand with stagnant supply equals skyrocketing prices. Houses don't appreciate -- they sit out in the rain and rot away. Scarcity of houses causes them to increase in price.
Fare enough. Leno was my favorite of all the late nights. If he was political he was fare and insulting both sides. I believe years ago he subbed on Kfi for one of the hosts.
It was not "kindhearted," it was very bad manners at best. You don't take a swipe at someone when you're a guest in their home.
Two years ago today, Perry Michael Simon at AllAccess, who for years has been publishing a weekly talk radio newsletter through the site, wrote this about what talk radio had wrought---two days after the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
This may give people not in the business or at least not in that format an idea of where talk radio might need to go to survive.
Perry knows his stuff as a former talk PD (including KLSX), and he's writing it directly to his audience, the GMs, PDs and hosts who decided to "super serve" the audience they had (aging conservative white people) without regard for where serving as an echo chamber rather than as a voice of reason might lead.
==========================================
Where next?
Everything I wrote about in recent years has come to pass. Talk radio's lack of discipline and supervision, its pandering to a narrow sliver of "true believers," its turn from entertainment to political tool, its lack of creativity and imagination, all of it led to this, with talk radio perceived as a primary instigator. The image is of a guy in a "Camp Auschwitz" hoodie marauding with his pals through the Capitol in an effort to overturn the results of an election which his hero lost. Talk radio may not be the proximate cause of that guy, but it's perceived as one of the causes, and with some of the biggest names in talk radio continuing to parrot the conspiracy theories and falsehoods even today, the identification of the medium with that message is solidifying. Sedition: It's yours. You own it. Congratulations. Do you think advertisers are going to want to reach the people they all saw storming the seat of the nation's government? Okay, you'll still get MyPillow, gold hucksters, and male enhancement drugs (er, make that "food supplements not subject to FDA regulation"), but anyone else?
Now what? Where does talk radio go? Herewith, a few scenarios:
Scenario 1: Owners and management crack down on programming. This is normally a bad thing, because, let's face it, CEOs and GMs are generally not attuned to what makes good radio in 2021. Management interference, especially from people who came up through sales and don't understand the creative process, can be stifling. But management indifference towards -- or insistence on -- the same old political talking-point radio, with cookie-cutter hosts and obeisance towards the aging, shrinking core audience got us here. And it is not censorship for management, as I understand happened recently at one of the major radio groups and syndicators, insisting that hosts not lie. It's several years too late, but it's understandable. If you think lack of management oversight is just a talk radio problem or a conservative problem, I'll direct you towards the New York Times' little "Caliphate" incident, a podcast centering on reporting that turned out to be based on a questionable source which nobody at the Times questioned until it was way, way too late. Someone has to be in charge and responsible; perhaps these incidents will scare broadcasters and podcasters into action.
Scenario 2: A broadcast station owner realizes that one of the few advantages broadcast talk radio can exploit is being local and hires local hosts to talk about local things. That was a winning formula for years until someone looked at the financials and decided that "talent" was one line item that needed trimming. Spending more money on local hosts is exactly the opposite of what WILL happen, of course, because that debt ain't gonna pay itself and most of the big broadcasters aren't interested in ratings and local service so much as survival. But if someone WERE to try amping up local service, talking about and covering pressing local issues... well, do you think you could reach people if you were the only reliable local source talking about how the pandemic is hitting your own local market, covering where listeners can get tests and vaccines, why the shots are hard to find in your own market, and local debates over reopening, mask mandates, and other issues? You could, you should, you probably won't because nobody wants to pay for it.
Scenario 3: More talk that isn't strictly political. This might not be as unlikely as it was in recent years, when radio largely gave up on the idea. We know it can work; there are stations and shows that succeed with a mix of pop culture/lifestyle and political talk, and some that are totally apolitical. Some are aimed at audiences underserved by talk radio, like women (how are there NOT more stations like myTALK 107.1 in the Twin Cities?). Some are a mix of news, lifestyle, and political. There are few of these, but there's an opportunity for that, locally and nationally. Thousands of podcasts are staking out this territory, but radio's ability to do it live with interactivity makes it an option more stations should consider. And management will be happy not to deal with angry calls and do-not-buy lists for once. Just do it on FM and streaming. AM is (deep exhale)....
Scenario 4: So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye to AM. Not all AM stations, of course. There will be some survivors, big signals in major markets, and there will be niches -- brokered, multicultural, specialty -- that AM will continue to serve. But I would not be surprised to see more companies decide that selling AM transmitter sites and selling off or donating the licenses, or turning them in and writing them off, makes more sense than persisting with actual radio broadcasting.
Scenario 5: Most of it goes to podcasting. That's not a bad thing. Look, it's true, the revenue has yet to approach anything close to what broadcast radio has enjoyed. It may never get there. The number of podcasts that get the kind of audience critical mass necessary to make their producers/hosts/staffers wealthy will always be minuscule. But it will provide an outlet for spoken word programming, it's free of regulation and rules, and a great idea or talent can do a lot with what amounts to the audio equivalent of a blank sheet of paper. Someone will take that medium into uncharted territory and make it work. It might be one of you. I HOPE it's one of you.
Scenario 6: I don't know. YOU come up with scenarios. I want to hear what you have to say. It's a new year. Think about where you're headed yourself and what you, and the business, need to do to make things better. Maybe 2021 has gotten off to a 2020-like start, but there's plenty of time and room for improvement.
Perry Michael Simon
Vice President/Editor, News-Talk-Sports and Podcast
AllAccess.com
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/pmsimon
Twitter @pmsimon
Instagram @pmsimon
Interesting observations, but the question is, if the modern breed of talk hosts (conservatives who tend to use most of the same talking points and tend to be loose with the 'facts' they pass along to their listeners, along with genuine or feigned outrage at even the smallest misstep on the part of the "libs" or "socialists", all in an effort to energize their listening audience) is getting them ratings and/or making them money and paying the bills, and they're not being held directly accountable for much of anything, then why change course? Granted, there have been instances like the one a few years ago where the guy was caught in the act preparing to carry out acts of violence against Dem politicians and his van was filled with far right propaganda and he was known for listening to right-wing talk ad nauseam, but the actual planned violence was chalked up to his having a mental issue. During one of the republican presidential primary debates, nearly all the candidates railed on about abortion, each anti-abortion speech becoming more impassioned than the one before it. Two days later, an abortion clinic was bombed and people there were killed. The media went to each candidate, asking if they believed their remarks at that debate incited this violence and triggered this act of murder. All were silent. Same with the talk hosts each time an act of violence is carried out, including January 6. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that some doubled down on their comments and 'schtick" after January 6.
This author isn't wrong, but again, if ratings and/or advertising dollars are there, the listeners are tuning in and there's no accountability or any particular hosts or group of hosts being called out when their comments potentially incite violence or serve as a call to action to some, where's the incentive to change course? The primary incentive, I'd think, has nothing to do with the above. It's more the fact that their base is getting older, they're no longer a key demographic, let's face it they're dying off, and advertisements for Medicare suppliments, walk-in bathtubs and MyPillow may not be financially viable forever.
Which, Mikey, is why you saw much of talk radio double down.
Here’s the thing, though. In principle, at least, the airwaves belong to the people. In the abstract, if there were another format showing an apparent triggering effect on mentally challenged people who then committed acts of violence, you know there’d be outcry and hearings.
Well, and Perry essentially makes that point. If you want to tread water as long as your audience is still alive on MyPillow, gold traders and male enhancement supplements, you can. But it’s not the best possible business case.
Which is why KFI and several others try to stay away from that approach, and why KFI is trying a variety show hosted by a black man in its evenings instead of another old white guy talking. It's a big risk that no one else can really take. I'm rooting for them.
From an outside observer who probably listens to far too much terrestrial radio, what turns me off a lot of hosts is when I hear them parroting the same political talking points. It’s why I switch to sports so much now. I don’t need outrage 24/7. Life is shitty enough as it is at times — I don’t need my entertainment medium to exacerbate that shitty feeling.
And yeah, I get a bit tired of hearing rich 50-70-year-old white men complaining about everything and not recognizing that demographics are changing. I hear a lot of coded language in most conservative broadcasts that would lead listeners to believe that everyone in their city/state/country would be better if certain people would just stop existing, whether they be LGBT+ or from another country. The problem, as I see it, is that the audience for that type of material is rabid in both their listenership and their willingness to vocalize their approval or disapproval on every issue under the sun. It leads to increased engagement, which I’m sure the management likes.
To me, it all just reeks of rabid commercialism. I don’t for a minute believe these hosts believe everything they say on the radio. They’re playing to their audience, and it comes off as incredibly inauthentic, especially to someone who’s been listening for years and has heard/seen the change.
And yeah, I get a bit tired of hearing rich 50-70-year-old white men complaining about everything and not recognizing that demographics are changing. I hear a lot of coded language in most conservative broadcasts that would lead listeners to believe that everyone in their city/state/country would be better if certain people would just stop existing, whether they be LGBT+ or from another country. The problem, as I see it, is that the audience for that type of material is rabid in both their listenership and their willingness to vocalize their approval or disapproval on every issue under the sun. It leads to increased engagement, which I’m sure the management likes.
To me, it all just reeks of rabid commercialism. I don’t for a minute believe these hosts believe everything they say on the radio. They’re playing to their audience, and it comes off as incredibly inauthentic, especially to someone who’s been listening for years and has heard/seen the change.
I betcha rush believed wholeheartedly in everything he said. There are people much younger then 50 that are conservative talk show host. Clay Travis buck sexton just to name 2. Buck is 40 ish clay is a few years older. Jesse Kelly to name another along with Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk is well under 50 and conservative. All under fifty and conservative and I bet believe everything they say.
I will tell you my favorite radio show in la was the Mr Kabc show on 790 Kabc some twenty years ago ish Best radio show ever. He just took callers with no call screeners. Now that was fun talk radio to listen to back in the day. And lastly I do wish Mo Kelley well with his new show and much success. For everyone of me that doesn't care for it there will be people that cancel me out and love it.
I will tell you my favorite radio show in la was the Mr Kabc show on 790 Kabc some twenty years ago ish Best radio show ever. He just took callers with no call screeners. Now that was fun talk radio to listen to back in the day. And lastly I do wish Mo Kelley well with his new show and much success. For everyone of me that doesn't care for it there will be people that cancel me out and love it.
I think Charlie Kirk was the only one of that list who was on the air when the column Michael Hagerty shared was written. Kirk had been on Salem for only a few months at that time. Rush was still alive on that date, so none of his replacements were doing conservative talk shows.
BTW, I don't believe anyone who is partisan 24/7 is telling it how they actually see it.
I'm sure there's a conservative talk host somewhere who thinks the federal minimum wage should be raised from the $7.25 it was set to 17 years ago - but if that host has expressed that thought on his/her show I haven't heard about it.
There are probably conservative talk hosts who think certain firearms should be restricted or banned - but if a host has said that, I haven't heard about it.
Here's the thing though, moderates aren't entertaining. They have to push everything they "believe" to 11 in order to stay relevant. If they don't, someone else will come along and say the things they aren't and take a piece of their audience. These people are partisan to the point of absurdity. That's why I don't think they believe everything they're saying. No rational person is partisan all the time. No rational person spews outrage nonsense all the time.
That's why KFI is looking for talk that isn't strictly about politics.
Exactly, and they're smart to do so. Especially if they want to build younger listenership.
I remember listening to a national talk host several years back - He was moderate to slightly left at that point, and he used to give his listeners insight at times into how certain things were done in that business. For instance, if phones were dead, one gimmick he'd use was to reference a certain famous saying or movie and pretend he forgot the name of the lead actor or who the quote was attributed to. Wait a few minutes and voila! The phones would light up with people who knew the answer and would also expound, kick starting the conversation. He used to be a talk host on conservative stations and explained some of the stuff he'd do and say to generate buzz/ratings/ad revenue there, and in his opinion how simple it was to do. It was his strong opinion that the likes of Rush Limbaugh did not believe much of what he spewed on the air. Rather, he thought Rush would get to the office in the morning and ask himself what the most off the wall, radical thing was that he could say, or which somewhat far-fetched claim he could make that would whip his listeners into a frenzy and also get (and keep) his name in the headlines. If I'm not mistaken this is back when Rush was in the news a fair amount, as were others like Ann Coulter who again would make headlines fairly often, mainly for the over the top, at times borderline insane comments and claims she'd make on Fox News back then.
Last edited:
- Status