Losing out, trading Lake for Beach

[GeorgeKramer]

Wondering what people thought about Jeff Simon's commentary in The Buffalo News last month.

This is dated, but there was a lot to think about and obviously there have been various discussions on the flipping of 107.7 FM.

My favorite phrase was "including those barons of bombast Beach and Bauerle"

Is Simon right on with his analysis or is he way off the mark?

- - - - - - - -


Updated: April 19, 2011, 7:54 AM

The Lake isn’t entirely gone. You can find something online called “The Lake” that plays uninterrupted “classic adult album alternative” music, as Wikipedia rather nicely described that radio format in its clunky, compound way.

You can find the same thing on HD radio. But on 107.7 on the FM dial, they’ve been simulcasting Entercom’s AM sister station WBEN — including those barons of bombast Beach and Bauerle—since early this month.

So I threw it open to Facebook friends as laconically and noncommittally as I could: “Buffalo radio listeners: am gathering sentiments for a piece on the elimination of music on The Lake, in favor of ‘double-casting’ WBEN, including Beach and Bauerle. Please, as briefly as possible, state where you stand, pro or con.”

Any poll analyst of even mediocre brainpower would point out the obvious: “eliminate” is a bit of a loaded word. It’s not exactly neutral. And those on any Facebook page of mine wouldn’t be likely consumers of AM radio bloviation (though there are quite a few radio people among my Facebook friends— and conservatives, too).

[Citation exceeds permissible amount under Fair Use]

http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/columns/jeff-simon/article396265.ece

[Link provided as a courtesy of Radio-Info]

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hallwalls Executive Director Ed Cardoni even went so far as to write “Apart from our local NPR affiliates (WBFO, WNED) and Loraine O’Donnell on WECK in the early morning, Buffalo already had the worst radio outside the Bible Belt…We the people should take our airwaves back from the few corporations that abuse in this way the privilege of using them.”

Heh. Cardoni obviously hasn't driven the Thruway with his radio turned on during a trip back to his native Boston. Even that city has its issues with "quality" radio. He cites "Loraine O’Donnell" as an example of good radio? Wow.

I like Jeff Simon. I liked the Lake. I like NPR. But this is simply elitist pap. Commercial radio is about MAKING MONEY. Now, I'm not here to defend the corporate consolidation that's taken place in the industry, but Mr. Cardoni, Mr. Simon, and anybody else are welcome to put their money up and buy anything from a little piece of programming to an entire radio station. I'll bet that Dick Greene - and others - would be willing to sell them anything from airtime to an entire radio station. The can lead the charge toward "taking the airwaves back". We'll see how much their efforts are appreciated.

 

[Savage]

There we go with the cliches again. Why is right-wing radio tiresomely characterized as "bullying" by those who disagree? Our station might easily be stereotyped as "right-wing" by those of opposite political conviction, when I think a fairer description is really "conservative." (Notwithstanding hourly newscasts from ABC/Citadel.) I can assure anyone, including Messrs. Simon and Cardoni, there isn't any "bullying" on WYSL, for one example. Conservative opinion? Check. Sometimes some acerbic humor? Absolutely. Bullying? Never.

It's more than elitist pap, Rox. It's tiresome and trite. And obvious.

Can't the left be satisfied with all three TV networks, NPR, the vast majority of daily newspapers, approximately 98% of university professors, the US Senate, endlessly swelling bureaucracies, the personal-injury bar and public education to advance their ideologies? Must we have the constant whining about evil FOX News Channel and "bullying" "right-wing" talk radio?

Wait. The answer is coming across the AP wire right now......it's........

Yes.

 

[Element9]

Perception is reality. I don't hear NPR News as a liberal torch. Nor do I hear Fox Radio News as being a mouthpiece for the GOP. ABC Radio News slanted left? Doug Limerick doesn't sound particularly progressive to these ears. Fox Cable News and MSNBC? Altogether different stories. Now then... there's Rush, Hannity, Weiner-Savage, Beck and a few other cons, a few of which are owned and distributed by Premier-Clear Channel, summarily having more station clearances than any twenty lib talkers like Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes. So much for the liberal media, especially when one considers the anemic ratings of Buffalo's progressive talker, WWKB. Maybe Simon & Cardoni could pool their resources and buy time on KB... or open a window and speak loudly. I give this thread four more posts until it's tossed on the dung heap, aka TIO.

 

[Savage]

"Dung heap??" How can THAT be? ??? After all, Holland Cooke hangs out there....

 

[Bob1370]

Seems to me the big problem a lot of talk has these days is, it's too damned predictable. It wasn't so long ago that a strong talker would have a lineup like a good baseball team, with a starting rotation that alternated between lefties and righties who had one thing n common--that they all had wicked power pitches, and would throw you nasty curves you couldn't anticipate. No party line for them, they were their own people, and proud of it. That's how talk radio got started with KABC in the 60s and spread east to WMCA and WABC in the 70s and 80s, before taking over the AM band.

These days talk programmers seem to seek a uniform message as the cornerstone of their branding, and IMHO it's been wearing thin for the better part of a decade, causing the format's core to age. Why not build a lineup like the pioneers once again, with hosts who'd mix it up with the audience, guests and each other every day? That approach put the format on the map. It was electric to listen to. Try it now and it'd be a movelty in this day of monochrome talkers seeking a brand identity through a party identity.

Why don't stations build brand identity, not by party labels, but by energy and personality?

 

[jas2525]

Seems to me the big problem a lot of talk has these days is, it's too damned predictable. It wasn't so long ago that a strong talker would have a lineup like a good baseball team, with a starting rotation that alternated between lefties and righties who had one thing n common--that they all had wicked power pitches, and would throw you nasty curves you couldn't anticipate. No party line for them, they were their own people, and proud of it. That's how talk radio got started with KABC in the 60s and spread east to WMCA and WABC in the 70s and 80s, before taking over the AM band.

These days talk programmers seem to seek a uniform message as the cornerstone of their branding, and IMHO it's been wearing thin for the better part of a decade, causing the format's core to age. Why not build a lineup like the pioneers once again, with hosts who'd mix it up with the audience, guests and each other every day? That approach put the format on the map. It was electric to listen to. Try it now and it'd be a movelty in this day of monochrome talkers seeking a brand identity through a party identity.

Why don't stations build brand identity, not by party labels, but by energy and personality?

Excellent points. Excellent.

I first started listening to talk many years ago BECAUSE of the personalities, not the poltiical slants. I liked conservatives AND liberals AND evrything in between...as long as the host was interesting and entertaining.

Unfortunately, uncreative and short-sighted programmers decided that because Rush Limbaugh was a big success, they'd hire a bunch of Rush clones...and that's exactly what they did, for 2 decades now. Problem is, they have perhaps irreversably branded talk as a haven for nothing but right wingers, so the image younger people have is a devastating double whammy: 1) It's all politics, and 2) it's all right wing politics.

The damage has been done. The image has been cemented. Good luck turning that around this late in the game. Sad.

I persoanlly don't listen to much talk anymore. Why would I turn on a show when I know what the host is going to say about something before he opens his mouth? They almost ALL dwell on politics, defend one side over the other to a fault, and say much the same thing everywhere.
B-O-R-I-N-G.

Talkradio has generally sucked since the late 90s.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

I was watching this week's episode of HBO's "Treme." The closing credits ran under the Clarence "Frogman" Henry song that used to run when Rush Limbaugh did his homeless updates two decades ago. It got me to thinking about how much I used to enjoy the Rush's show when it first began airing 23 years ago. I tuned in almost every day. His homeless updates (and the many others he used to run) might have been a bit "politically incorrect." But even if I disagreed, I don't remember being angry enough to turn off the radio. Today, I can't stand to listen to five minutes of the guy. Did I change? Or did Rush change? I think it's more the latter than the former. Granted, I don't listen very much now. Does he still even do his updates? Or has the show evolved into just three hours of bashing Obama all the time (though I did read rather than hear that he praised Obama for the bin Laden killing)?

So, I agree wholeheartedly with several people who posted here that talk radio has become very predictable and boring. It's the same old thing. And it's not just the right wing talkers. I can only take so much of Ed Schultz because I soon tire of his patronizing attitude toward the right. I want intelligent discussion, not brow beating of the other side and name calling.

That's why I thank the heavens for NPR. Without rehashing the self-inflicted wounds the network is recovering from, NPR was just outstanding Monday with its non-stop coverage of the Osama bin Laden story. Its news magazines had the very latest information updated throughout the morning and afternoon drives. Neal Conan's expanded "Talk of the Nation" during the 1:00 hour alone had coversations with Colin Powell and Bob Woodward. There was a comprehensive wrap up at 7pm. Then, Tom Brokaw joined Tom Ashbrook for "On Point" at 8pm, after which I finally turned off the radio for the night. And the callers to NPR's talk shows always seem to add to the discussion rather than detract from it.

Now, I'm not saying local is unimportant in these matters. But in the immediate aftermath of such a significant story, I'd much rather hear from the people making the news in Washington rather than what Ralph in Cheektowaga has to say. Again, I'm not disparaging the efforts of local hosts who led discussions on this story. But when I finally tuned away from NPR this afternoon to Shredd and Ragan on the Edge, I heard a very creative segment on the training Navy Seals undergo. These guys know how to do radio. They're unpredictable and represent the best of what local talk radio is 2011. And they're attracting younger ears!