Local talk radio- the so-called pros here have never heard local hosts?

[Don62]

Regarding this rather uninformed post from a Radio [EDIT]...
[quote ]
don't listen to local talk show hosts in cities where I don't live, as I don't much care about the local issues affecting the people who live in places where I don't live. A discussion of a bond issue in West Smallville, Idaho just doesn't excite me very much. And, my radio doesn't pick up stations from far away very well.
[/quote]

Are the rest of you posters here of the same opinion?

You really don't know what local talk radio is?

Let me clairfy things. I'm not talking about some local host doing a "tradio" show or reading obituaries or interviewing the mayor or focusing on rather narrow issues.

I'm talking about real local talk radio hosts who make radio interesting by talking about national, world, state and local issues in such great talk markets like Denver, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, NY, etc., such as Jay Marvin ( who used to be on KHOW-Denver as well as WLS), Alan Berg and Ken Hamblin (both formerly of KOA-Denver), David Gold of KLIF-Dallas, Kevin McCarthy of KLIF- called one of the consumate hosts, among others.

I want to make sure you guys aren't misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

Like when I was in Miami the day after Hurricane Wilma. The CC stations had local hosts discussing real things. Radio was almost magical compared to the constant tripe that normally come out of the speakers on the regular schedule from Limbo, Beck, etc.


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[Al Johnson]

Out in the real world, real people listen to talk radio because of the content. Only radio people listen to study or critque a host's style, manner, presentation or delivery. I don't care much about bond issues that don't affect me, either. Do you.

I don't agree with those who assume local hosts are necessarily "minor league." Yes, there are some excellent local hosts who find a home in a community and stay put. I am less impressed, overall, with those who keep moving around looking for their big break.

You are the one who doesn't understand what people are saying. Local-live talk radio is an expensive format. That's why there were so few all talk stations before automation, satellites and fiber optic long distance made syndicated talk economically feasible. Another reason why there were/are not many local-live talk shows is there are very few hosts of the caliber you mention. Most people would rather listen to a good national show than a mediocre local show. And it takes a very good local hosts to make bond issues the basis for an interesting show (and there are not many around).

Hurricanes more for "more stimulating" talk radio than do bond issues. Fortunately or unfortunately, you can't count on hot local topics every day.

You seem really fixed on this and I'm not sure there's any way to have a real discussion with you about it. You wish there were more local-live talk. So do I. I also wish guys in local radio got as much action as ballplayers and rock stars.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Out in the real world, real people listen to talk radio because of the content. Only radio people listen to study or critque a host's style, manner, presentation or delivery. I don't care much about bond issues that don't affect me, either.

You've hit the nail on the head. To truly evaluate a local talk show host, one would need to be informed enough about the local issues in his market to determine how well or badly he handled those issues. Did he do adequate chow prep? Is he attuned to the listeners in the local market? Does he know which local issues truly resonate with the local audience?

Anyone can listen to a sample of a host's show, but that isn't enough to truly evaluate that host's capabilities. Just because someone has good pipes and impresses a disinterested listener who doesn't know the local market, that doesn't mean that the host is all that good a host.

Whether one drives around the country sampling local talk show hosts while driving through their signal area, or samples a few minutes of internet webcasts, those small samples are useless in forming a truly informed opinion about how good or bad a host is. Even a host's ratings success or failure could have more to do with local competition and his station's advertising and promotion budget than his talent.

I want to make sure you guys aren't misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

If you want people to understand what you're talking about, then you need to learn to articulate it by some means other than posting a laundry list of local hosts you've heard. You've been asked many, many times to express what you mean by "local", and yet you persist in simply rattling off lists of names.

As I said earlier, merely catching one day worth of someone's show, especially without detailed knowledge of the local area that he's broadcasting from, doesn't prove that a host is good, bad, or indifferent. Maybe the "real things" that the local hosts on the CC station in Miami talked about sounded very good to a visiting tourist. That doesn't prove or disprove that those "real things" were interesting to the local residents of Miami.

 

[Don62]

If you want people to understand what you're talking about, then you need to learn to articulate it by some means other than posting a laundry list of local hosts you've heard. You've been asked many, many times to express what you mean by "local", and yet you persist in simply rattling off lists of names.

And I suggest you have no idea what you're talking about.

You apparently know nothing of what real local talk radio is.

I don't have to define local talk radio the way you want to nit pick it.

So someone in front of a microphone isn't local? Baloney.

As I said earlier, merely catching one day worth of someone's show, especially without detailed knowledge of the local area that he's broadcasting from, doesn't prove that a host is good, bad, or indifferent. Maybe the "real things" that the local hosts on the CC station in Miami talked about sounded very good to a visiting tourist. That doesn't prove or disprove that those "real things" were interesting to the local residents of Miami.

And that preposperous statement doesn't necessarily mean a listener can't judge a host by one day's listening either.
You're no expert here obviously.

It sounds like you haven't listened to much talk radio outside of Rush or Hannity, so you're not the authority either.

A local host has nothing interesting to talk about? Stupidity at work there.

Most people - you and most of the radio losers who crowd this board - excluded - know what a local talk show is.

It isn't abouit some school board issue or tradio, as you said that's what you thought it was.

It's a dynamic medium that can be very compelling when it isn't stifled by the penny pinchers.

 

[Al Johnson]

No, Don. Somebody in front of a microphone isn't necessarily local. Stop being so !@#$ dogmatic and think about what you're saying. You started with a valid point but keeping digging yourself into a deeper hole.

RR, touches on something really important (if you can open your mind enough to see it).

Local is a state of mind.

I've driven cross-country and I heard some local hosts who I thought were terrible, from my perspective first as a radio geek and then as someone in, out of and back in the biz. But some of these people were legends in their communities and had been for decades. Radio people often have no idea how things sound to real world listeners because we are so focused on ourselves, on each other and on minuscule details of production and presentation.

Maybe a lot of corporate managers drop local hosts because local hosts don't sound as good to their "professional" and outsider ears as syndicated hosts (and also cost more). Most local managers and PDs aren't local either. Last year they were in Grand Forks. Next year they hope to be in Phoenix.

A guy in front of the microphone who is trying to sound like a syndicated host and make the jump to the big time is not local either. The best local hosts often did not start out to be career radio types. Their career is their community. They just happen to be on the radio. They aren't abrasive like syndicated hosts often are. They can't afford to be. People have to like them and they know they are likely to meet the people who listen. That's part of their appeal, too. They show up at every town event and a big part of the audience has met them at one time or another. They aren't on the air as spokesmen for a political party or philosophy. Some are skeptical; most are open to anything anybody has to say. But their primary frame of reference is the community. The ones I've heard, the good ones, don't talk much about bond issues and the arcane details of local government (although the hacks pretending to be "local" tend to dwell on that). The real local hosts talk about people and what people in town are doing (church carnival, school car wash).

Not all local hosts are (or were) in small markets. Major market examples include Wally Phillips, J.P. McCarthy and Jack Bogut.

Don, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we don't understand. But it would help your case if you stated, specifically, what you think makes the hosts you mentioned good (and what the names on your list have in common).

Here's the part you don't seem to understand: I am familiar with some of the names you've mentioned. There are not many like that around and those that are around don't come cheap. You don't pull good hosts out of hats.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You apparently know nothing of what real local talk radio is.

Actually, I do have an excellent idea of what local talk radio is. As a kid, I often listened to Ed and Wendy King's Party Line. I listened to Al Julius and Mike Levine. I was listening to local talk radio when John Kennedy was President.

And that preposperous statement doesn't necessarily mean a listener can't judge a host by one day's listening either.

Actually, that "preposterous statement" does mean that a listener cannot judge a host by one day's listening. You may disagree with the statement, but it says what it says. And it means what it means. Words have meaning.

It sounds like you haven't listened to much talk radio outside of Rush or Hannity, so you're not the authority either.

The truth is, I have never listened to more than five minutes of Hannity at a stretch. I find him very boring, and the first hour of his show is opposite Terry Gross's Fresh Aire. That is one outstanding talk show. Lately, I've been listening more and more to Scott Paulsen on The Zone in Pittsburgh, a former FM rock station that went to talk, though not to news/talk. I also almost never listen to Rush, as he's too much of a pompous windbag, even though I tend to agree with him about everything except for his opinion of himself.

I used to listen to Lynn Cullen. Even though she's only on locally in Pittsburgh on a battery powered AM station, she attempts to do a "national" sounding show. She used to be tolerable. She's a flaming liberal, but she used to be fun to disagree with. Now she has become incredibly boring.

My favorite news/talk host is Jim Quinn, who only recently landed a syndication deal. He was doing an AM Drive news/talk show for years on a local FM classic rock station, then was hired by Clear Channel to move to Newstalk 104.7. His morning drive show is syndicated on a small but growing list of stations, and XM. He's another one who did a pseudo national show, even though he was only on one local FM station for a long time.

I also used to enjoy Mike Pintek's truly local talk show on KDKA in the late mornings. But he was fired recently as part of KDKA's plans to see how quickly they can turn a heritage position as #1 into a pile of #2.

Other local talk show hosts I've heard include Doug Hoerth, Fred Honsberger, and several outstanding sports talk hosts like Myron Cope.

A local host has nothing interesting to talk about?

That depends on whether he has done his homework and show prep or not. And, to some extent, how interesting the locality he is broadcasting in is.

It's a dynamic medium that can be very compelling when it isn't stifled by the penny pinchers.

Actually, it's an aspect of the radio medium with a potential to be compelling if the host is has talent, preps well, has a good producer/call screener, and lives in an area where there are things happening worth talking about. Whether or not station management pinches pennies or not is irrelevant.

 

[gr8oldies]

WHIO in Dayton, OH had a very successful run with Kent Voss in afternoon drive (who, by the way, was not a Dayton native). He moved on to an FM talker in Philadelphia, and WHIO tried other hosts. One guy lasted three months, another a few months before they moved his show to 5-8pm, and then they used a local newspaper columnist for a while. They never could match the success they had with Voss no matter who they brought in. Now with hannity in the afternoon, a strong morning news show, news, weather and traffic throughout the day and the most popular syndicated hosts, they're doing better than ever. No one is demanding that Jay Leno be replaced by some local TV variety show, I don't know why its such a stretch to believe that listeners like their favorite hosts, and aren't going to turn them off just because someone else is doing a show from a studio downtown. I have heard plenty of local hosts, WLW has had a local lineup for decades (with two shows that originate from there in syndication), but to replicate that, it would probably take a decade for a new lineup to go against the established syndicated shows.

 

[littlelarry]

We've got a local guy doing mornings in New Orleans. He talks Iraq, Global Warming, Immigration, National issues plus all the local issues we have since Katrina. Thats what I consider a local talent. No one here has heard of him but i listen plus do many many of my friends.