KFI News Format Change?

[davideduardo]

All smaller countries with much different laws and customs. Not comparable.

Some of the nations are fairly large with full national stations. The fact is that local agencies don't have to buy each market individually but, instead, get every market, every rural area, every corner of the country with one buy.

In fact, part of the reason for the creation of RDS was to allow national station on many, many frequencies to be automatically "found" based on the best signal at any location. So, if Cherie is on 250 transmitters all over France at lots of different dial positions, if you drive from Paris to Calais or to Bordeaux your car radio always seeks the best Cherie signal and locks it in while checking to see if there is a better alternative as you drive.

No TV company has that ownership either. Does TV have this kind of problem?

Agencies buy OTA TV through networks. And they don't buy individual stations, they buy CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox. One buy, one invoice, one spot.

Local TV stations get all their local revenue with news and syndicated shows. The model is different for the station owner, but for national agencies with national accounts, they buy national shows.

 

[davideduardo]

I just used monopoly as one example. I'm not aware that there is any kind of scrutiny being done of K-Love. On any basis. They get a full pass.

Because they have, at best, 2 stations out of 30 or 40 in each market. Not because they are not commercial..

 

[TheBigA]

Because they have, at best, 2 stations out of 30 or 40 in each market. Not because they are not commercial..

If Soros funded a national network like K-Love, it would not get approved.

 

[davideduardo]

If Soros funded a national network like K-Love, it would not get approved.

A network does not have to be approved. If a Soros company spins some stations and buys others to complete national coverage, I doubt it would cause issues.

 

[TheBigA]

A network does not have to be approved. If a Soros company spins some stations and buys others to complete national coverage, I doubt it would cause issues.

We'll see.

 

[Loverofradio]

This is being done for corporate reasons, not for the listeners.

This sentence is everything. This is why media is in the shape it’s in. Companies forgot what’s it’s really about. More advertisers left radio when they saw the constant cheapening of a product causing listeners to flee in droves for other options. It’s happening in TV now. Yes, now we’re in a situation where other devices have taken over. But it wouldn’t have gotten this way if the product hadn’t suffered. Now radio/TV are giving people reasons to choose other options.

 

[davideduardo]

This sentence is everything. This is why media is in the shape it’s in. Companies forgot what’s it’s really about. More advertisers left radio when they saw the constant cheapening of a product causing listeners to flee in droves for other options.

Advertisers "left radio" when new media offered an alternative. Advertisers did not evaluate programming; they look at the delivery of ears, not quality.

Stations "cheapened" the product when advertisers diverted money to new media, reducing the amount of potential revenue. In other words, radio reduced expenses when revenue declined.

It’s happening in TV now. Yes, now we’re in a situation where other devices have taken over. But it wouldn’t have gotten this way if the product hadn’t suffered. Now radio/TV are giving people reasons to choose other options.

The money spent on the product has been reduced because advertisers have taken some or all of their budget to new media. One of the main reasons why over the air radio and TV as well as most cable channels have suffered is that they are ad supported. Those with an adequate household budget have moved to ad-free entertainment.

I listen to SiriusXM and Alexa. I view Netflix, Prime and several other paid and ad free video sources such as Paramount+. I seldom listen to over the air radio or watch cable TV add supported channels.

 

[TheBigA]

This sentence is everything. This is why media is in the shape it’s in. Companies forgot what’s it’s really about.

You're taking what I said out of context.

But it wouldn’t have gotten this way if the product hadn’t suffered. Now radio/TV are giving people reasons to choose other options.

So you're saying that people would throw away their phones and stop using the internet if only KFI hired back more local staff? Really?

How much local staff do those other options have?

 

[ChannelFlipper]

"How dare you run that Communism!".

It's not so much the communism (that can be obtained with any number of outlets). It is the lying and character defamation.

ABC had to pay $15 million just a few months ago to settle a defamation suit wherein they falsely labeled a prominent politician a "rapist".

That is the kind of thing that can sulley a news organization's credibility.

 

[TheBigA]

That is the kind of thing that can sulley a news organization's credibility.

Keep in mind the company didn't cause the defamation. Just one on-air talent, whose politics are well documented.

You're "sullying" the reputation of an entire news organization by the mistake made by one person.

In the meantime, numerous Fox News talents made lots of false statements about Dominion, and they paid much more money.

Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims

Fox and Dominion Voting Systems have reached a $787 million settlement in the voting machine company’s defamation lawsuit. The agreement averts a trial in a case that exposed how the top-rated network chased viewers by promoting lies about the 2020 presidential election. Dominion lawyer Justin...

apnews.com

How has that affected their credibility?

 

[gr8oldies]

Stone cold crazy, right? Who ARE these people?

It's not so much the communism (that can be obtained with any number of outlets). It is the lying and character defamation.

ABC had to pay $15 million just a few months ago to settle a defamation suit wherein they falsely labeled a prominent politician a "rapist".

That is the kind of thing that can sulley a news organization's credibility.

Yes, Donald Trump is pure and holy like Jesus, but yes, the technical definition between "adjudicated" and convicted.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Keep in mind the company didn't cause the defamation. Just one on-air talent, whose politics are well documented.

You're "sullying" the reputation of an entire news organization by the mistake made by one person.

In the meantime, numerous Fox News talents made lots of false statements about Dominion, and they paid much more money.

Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims

Fox and Dominion Voting Systems have reached a $787 million settlement in the voting machine company’s defamation lawsuit. The agreement averts a trial in a case that exposed how the top-rated network chased viewers by promoting lies about the 2020 presidential election. Dominion lawyer Justin...

apnews.com

How has that affected their credibility?

Why is ABC letting a person who has "known politics" in their news division? Obviously they tacitly approve of his politics.

After he went rogue, was he terminated or otherwise removed from his position? No?
Then the company tacitly approves of the specific action.

ABC is obviously OK with defaming people, so long as they are the "right" people. That definitely sullies their reputation in many people's minds, starting with mine.

 

[TheBigA]

Why is ABC letting a person who has "known politics" in their news division? Obviously they tacitly approve of his politics.

It's a very common thing to hire former politicians as talent in news organizations. Pat Buchanan, John Kasich, Joe Scarborough come to mind.

It's not a matter of approving one's politics, but recognizing the person is an insider with experience and knowledge. Unfortunately in this case he made a mistake.

After he went rogue, was he terminated or otherwise removed from his position? No?

He isn't allowed to do those kinds of interviews anymore.

ABC is obviously OK with defaming people, so long as they are the "right" people. That definitely sullies their reputation in many people's minds, starting with mine.

Fox News is obviously OK with defaming profit making companies, and has never really apologized for what they did. That has in fact endeared them to their fans, who love the fact that they lied in order to win favor with their audience. However, it does nothing for credibility.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

It's a very common thing to hire former politicians as talent in news organizations. Pat Buchanan, John Kasich, Joe Scarborough come to mind.

It's not a matter of approving one's politics, but recognizing the person is an insider with experience and knowledge. Unfortunately in this case he made a mistake.

Seems to me ABC also hired Larry Elder. They must approve of his politics.



Fox News is obviously OK with defaming profit making companies, and has never really apologized for what they did. That has in fact endeared them to their fans, who love the fact that they lied in order to win favor with their audience. However, it does nothing for credibility.

Now you are just being obtuse. Putting Pat Buchanan on an opinion roundtable or Larry Elder as an opinion radio host is not the same as putting those people in the host chair of your premiere Sunday morning news program. Only Democrats need apply for that ABC "straight news" show and you know it.

With regard to your Fox News example, you have circled right back to my original point when I AGREED with the poster that the Fox News brand might turn off some of the KFI listening audience. I just helpfully pointed put that using ABC News instead would also alienate some of the audience, just not the same people. I still don't understand what is so controversial about an obviously self evident point.

 

[TheBigA]

Now you are just being obtuse.

Hello Mr Pot?

Now you are just being obtuse. Putting Pat Buchanan on an opinion roundtable or Larry Elder as an opinion radio host is not the same as putting those people in the host chair of your premiere Sunday morning news program.

You obviously haven't watched lately. Martha Raddatz is the main host. They keep George around because he's popular. That Sunday morning news show with his name on it is still #1. Same with GMA. If it wasn't, he'd be gone. They did the same thing with Brinkley. ABC cares about one thing: The bottom line. Just like Fox. Blame the people who watch. Fox is the #1 cable channel even though they lie. That's not a Fox problem. That's a viewer problem.

I still don't understand what is so controversial about an obviously self evident point.

It's not "controversial." It's irrelevant for the reason I stated. Fox News is syndicated by iHeart. ABC is not. That's why you hear it on KFI.

 

[BLA]

... You obviously haven't watched lately. Martha Raddatz is the main host. They keep George around because he's popular. That Sunday morning news show with his name on it is still #1. Same with GMA. If it wasn't, he'd be gone. They did the same thing with Brinkley. ABC cares about one thing: The bottom line. Just like Fox. Blame the people who watch. Fox is the #1 cable channel even though they lie. That's not a Fox problem. That's a viewer problem.

You Got It !! Also remember this, there's one born every minute and one to take'em.

 

[gr8oldies]

Now you are just being obtuse. Putting Pat Buchanan on an opinion roundtable or Larry Elder as an opinion radio host is not the same as putting those people in the host chair of your premiere Sunday morning news program. Only Democrats need apply for that ABC "straight news" show and you know it.

With regard to your Fox News example, you have circled right back to my original point when I AGREED with the poster that the Fox News brand might turn off some of the KFI listening audience. I just helpfully pointed put that using ABC News instead would also alienate some of the audience, just not the same people. I still don't understand what is so controversial about an obviously self evident point.

Yes, there is an audience that demands praise and worship of Donald Trump at all times. I don't know if that's KFI's.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know if that's KFI's.

In all fairness, KFI made a decision a long time ago to stick with local talk, and shift the praise and worship to KEIB.

The Patriot KEIB AM 1150 - Broadcasting True American Values to Los Angeles

The Patriot KEIB AM-1150 is the center of conservative resistance in liberal Los Angeles and Orange County broadcasting "True American Values." Listen live to the Fox News Rundown, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Clark Howard, Joe Escalante, The Jesus Christ Show, and more.

patriotla.iheart.com

 

[Loverofradio]

So you're saying that people would throw away their phones and stop using the internet if only KFI hired back more local staff? Really?

How much local staff do those other options have?

People wouldn’t solely rely on social media and wouldn’t be driven there at the rate they are now. Currently I’m an anchor in my market who’s on for 8 hours a day. Should I just not go into work tomorrow because “Well, TV is dying. No one is watching. They’re all going to get their news from social media.” It’s funny the number one answer I my market for why ratings are down across the board? “I just get my news from social media now because the news is so unwatchable now.” We don’t give people a chance to stay because we’re worsening the product by hiring cheap, inexperienced persons from college and now this has become their first market. Hell Scripps eliminated main anchors at their tv stations and look and see how much their stock dropped. When you eliminate and cut, you drive people away. I fully respect and understand what you’re staying. But, what company has ever cut their way to prosperity?

 

[Loverofradio]

Advertisers "left radio" when new media offered an alternative. Advertisers did not evaluate programming; they look at the delivery of ears, not quality.

Stations "cheapened" the product when advertisers diverted money to new media, reducing the amount of potential revenue. In other words, radio reduced expenses when revenue declined.

The money spent on the product has been reduced because advertisers have taken some or all of their budget to new media. One of the main reasons why over the air radio and TV as well as most cable channels have suffered is that they are ad supported. Those with an adequate household budget have moved to ad-free entertainment.

I listen to SiriusXM and Alexa. I view Netflix, Prime and several other paid and ad free video sources such as Paramount+. I seldom listen to over the air radio or watch cable TV add supported channels.

I see what you’re saying! And definitely not arguing a lot of your points. I just feel we’re now sending them there at a faster rate than ever