LYNN CULLEN IS RETURNING TO THE AIRWAVES

[DesiArnez6]

*sigh...Partisanship...

Lynn Cullen is very talented. Im glad to see that she's back.

That aside, just wondering Parttimer, if youre willing to admit that many many progressive stations have been changed to formats that did even worse afterwards, and that there are many conservative stations out there that oversaturate liberal markets (Example: Who listens to the Apple 970AM in New York?) Perhaps you are right, maybe the inner cities of America are masochists that would rather "damage" their ears, than listen to some facts.

Lets make a deal then, a truce, you can have the radio dial, and we progressives will just continue our lead in the senate, house, and executive where it matters more (you know, because apparently while liberals dont listen to radio, apparently conservatives don't vote )

Maybe facts are just boring. Maybe if Lynn Cullen would just make up stuff like Rush, shed be more entertaining and get those conservative ratings.

 

[Parttimer]

"Did even worse" is subjective. Ratings don't tell the whole story, and that's not limited to politically oriented talk formats.

Smooth Jazz was #1 12+ in Tallahassee a few years back and they changed formats because they couldn't sell it. You have to believe that the stations that dumped Lib Talk mostly did so because the ratings didn't convert to revenue. Some people find that "inexplicable", it's just business. Most of the stations that have taken a shot a this format were economically challenged to begin with and were hoping that this would bring them to a different level business wise. It had to work within some defined time frame or they would be out of business. When it didn't they went back to what they could sell, whether it had ratings or not.


Don't you think that if Randi Rhodes had been making money for WLIB when she beat Hannity that one of two things would have happened? 1) They would have kept it or, 2) a bigger operator would have seen all that potential and picked up the show? But stations know who's doing business and who isn't. Really not too hard to figure out... just listen to the spots.

I could give a hoot about the politics, I just think a lot of it is bad radio that can't do any business. It's a show, it's got to be entertaining. Just being "right" isn't all that interesting sometimes.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I have lots of theories- beginning with a belief that a conservative view will win out the longer it is discussed- but hear me out on this.

Right now we are hearing a lot of criticism from the left on salaries. Recently a former Green Party Gubernatorial candidate confronted Jim Calhoun, the head basketball coach of the Connecticut Huskies, on making $1.6 million a year, for instance.

If I am a businessman, do I want to sponsor a political philsophy that will lead to criticism of my business making money?

Of course not.

Hence, left-wing radio THRIVES on NPR, where ads don't have to be sold, but on commercial radio we want a talk show with a political philosophy that is conducive to making money.

Thoughts, boys?

 

[talkjim]

"Right now we are hearing a lot of criticism from the left on salaries. Recently a former Green Party Gubernatorial candidate confronted Jim Calhoun, the head basketball coach of the Connecticut Huskies, on making $1.6 million a year, for instance."

You are hearing criticism on salaries from EVERYONE, Pratte--it's by no means limited to "the left"--whatever that is, and there are numerous definitions. The outrage about excessive pay for idiots in monkey suits who lost billions of dollars is quite widespread and bi-partisan. But don't take my word for it--pick up any major newspaper, or for that matter, turn on a talk show.

"If I am a businessman, do I want to sponsor a political philsophy that will lead to criticism of my business making money?"

This is an oversimplification, Pratte. There are many small businesspeople utterly disgusted by the giveaway of money to hacks on Wall Street. I work for a large corporation, and I also hear outrage about it where I work. You are very mistaken to believe that the debate about executive compensation breaks down to some sort of left-right dispute. By the way, increasingly, the traditional left-right dichotomy in political discussion is breaking down on all sorts of issues--the fundamentals of the debate are more complex than that.

"Hence, left-wing radio THRIVES on NPR, where ads don't have to be sold, but on commercial radio we want a talk show with a political philosophy that is conducive to making money."

Say what? Since when did left-wing radio start thriving on NPR? Can you name even one left-wing show on NPR? I've worked in public radio, Pratte, and I was not allowed to express my left-wing points of view (I did try to get it in every once in awhile, hee-hee). There is very little opinion on NPR at all, and even less in the way of passionate opinion--the main opinion content I can think of is a weekly segment in which E.J. Dionne, a moderately liberal columnist for the Washington Post chats it up with David Brooks, a moderately conservative columnist for the New York Times. The two major programs on NPR are Morning Edition and All Things Considered, which win awards from all over the spectrum and get high-ratings because of their reputation for high-quality, accurate, bias-free news content.

The commercial progressive talk format arose in large part because people weren't hearing any progressive opinion on NPR or anywhere else, and wanted it. From demand arises supply, as economists like to say.

It's interesting that modern radio is so overwhelmed with right-wing opinion that anything not right-wing is labeled "left-wing". Incredible. It's like George Orwell's 1984 twenty five years after the fact.

Oh, and "ads" are sold everyday on public radio--often to large conservative corporations. They may not call them ads, and their content may be more restricted than on commercial radio, but money--often large amounts of it--changes hands in exchange for increasingly long endorsements on the radio. During my tenure at a large public station, I heard the phrase "selling time" used more than once in the manager's office.

 

[Parttimer]

If I am a businessman, do I want to sponsor a political philsophy that will lead to criticism of my business making money?

Of course not.

I think you're on the right track. Since a lot of these stations don't have the numbers agencies are looking for, the stations have to hit the streets and knock on the doors of local businesses. A higher percentage of entrepreneurial types tend to be conservative, where the liberal power base is in ethnic blocks and driven by unions.

 

[DesiArnez6]

I have lots of theories- beginning with a belief that a conservative view will win out the longer it is discussed- but hear me out on this.

Right now we are hearing a lot of criticism from the left on salaries. Recently a former Green Party Gubernatorial candidate confronted Jim Calhoun, the head basketball coach of the Connecticut Huskies, on making $1.6 million a year, for instance.

If I am a businessman, do I want to sponsor a political philsophy that will lead to criticism of my business making money?

Of course not.

Hence, left-wing radio THRIVES on NPR, where ads don't have to be sold, but on commercial radio we want a talk show with a political philosophy that is conducive to making money.

Thoughts, boys?

Interesting. I also think your on the right track. I was actually thinking about this before I saw your post. I wonder If Lynn Cullen had the same personality, and talent, but was conservative, If shed be doing better. It seems that many conservative sponsors may gravitate towards the conservative ideology. (Ironically it seems that considering the current financial crisis, it wasn't in their best interest to be conservative)

I wouldnt classify NPR as "left wing" Its actually nonpartisan, but I admit, it does cover stories that cater more to progressives, social justice, environmentalism, etc. Pacifica would be a better comparison probably. I personally am drawn to NPR because it is fact based and neutral. This naturally appeals to the academic class, which tend to be more progressive (but certainly not always )

I actually wish I could find a more fact based conservative to listen to. Someone who doesnt distort the truth and deceive. Rather someone who is honest, and conservative. Like instead of telling us that American Health care is the "best in the world" which I did hear recently Rather telling us, how exeactly to use the private sector through subsidies to change our current abysmal system, or I dont know , faith based medical charities?

Is there a conservative version of Lynn Cullen out there? Someone whos not afraid to criticise Bush, someone whos not afraid to admit our healthcare is not the best in the world, and someone who can crticise America where its wrong, and someone with ideas to really tackle poverty using conservative ideas, instead of just screaming "lower my taxes" I used to be a conservative. But I want to hear honest individuals. Like Lynn, or Randi Rhodes, but on the Right. Hannity and Rush are just deceptive, and Alan Colmes is the talking head equilavent on the left. The closest thing I came to honesty on the right was maybe...Michael Savage?!? (who i dont really like, but he seems to believe what he says) or Glenn Beck? (Maybe?!?)

I need a Ron Paul version o Conservative Talk, so that I am not just limited to Lynn Cullen and NPR

 

[talkjim]

"The closest thing I came to honesty on the right was maybe...Michael Savage?!? (who i dont really like, but he seems to believe what he says) or Glenn Beck? (Maybe?!?)"

Honesty on the right? Wait a minute Desi, are you seriously suggesting that Michael Savage is even sane? The man who with no evidence whatsoever suggested that Hilary Clinton was behind the death of JFK Junior in 1999? And no, I'm not "taking him out of context"--the right wing's default excuse for all their lies and excesses--he made a very clear association. The man who called autistic children "brats" and said that autism is "nothing more than a fraud?" And the list goes on and on. And on.

Sorry, your logic escapes me--actually, it doesn't escape me at all. It's non-existent. And you excuse all this BS by saying "he seems to believe what he says."

OK, I have an idea--let's head out to the streets and round up a bunch of psychotic mental paitents "who believe what they say." I'm sure there are some potentially very entertaining talk show hosts out there.

There's actually a precedent for this. In the 60s...the great Frank Zappa found a guy somewhat out of touch with reality who was known to roam the streets of Los Angeles--he was known as "Wild Man Fischer"--Wild Man, who I believe is still alive today, was committed to a mental institution at the age of 16 for attacking his mother with a knife and later diagnosed as a severe paranoid schizophrenic. Thanks to Frank, he became something of a favorite of the L-A underground and went on to record three albums for Rhino.

We've got the modern-day talkradio equivalent with Michael Savage. But maybe we can find a few more of these "honest" guys and make some big bucks.

And no, right wing, I'm not suggesting the return of the Fairness Doctrine or any "government action" that would take your beloved Michael away. What I am suggesting is a sense of responsibility on the part of broadcasters who carry this garbage. Some, to their credit, have dropped it--the autism remark got Savage excused from one of the nation's most conservative stations in Mississippi.

And all of this points up one of the dangers of radio consolidation. In the era of independent broadcasting, the people who owned stations were more likely to live in, or at least be close to, the communities in which their stations were located--they might actually see and interact with the people who listened to their stations. I wonder how many owners of Savage affiliates would enjoy being confronted by the parents of autistic children.

And Desi, I got a big idea for you to think about. Maybe, just maybe, the reason you are having trouble finding "honest" conservatives is because the modern-day version of conservatism isn't honest to begin with. The Republican party was once led by serious people with real ideas--many of which I disagreed with. But it's hard to say that people like Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater and even Reagan weren't serious--at least much of the time. Now, look at the leading Republican heroes of the new millenium--Limbaugh, Palin, Joe the Plumber, and apparently, Michael Savage.

Good luck with that.

 

[Parttimer]

Imus has been labeled a "shock jock" by the press for years and Savage says stuff that would have gotten Imus fired a hundred times over, and gets away with it. Maybe he's "under the radar" relative to Imus's notoriety, but personally I can't believe the guy is even on the air.

 

[argentarius]

Someone asked about how Randi Rhodes could beat Hannity. The answer is very very simple and has nothing to do with either's politics.....Randi is entertaining and has talent, Hannity is dull, boring and repeats the same tired lines continuously. Right, wrong or something in between, he is one of the worst broadcasters in memory. Almost as bad as Laura Ingraham. And that is why Randi is a survivor and will be back sooner rather than later. She is an entertainer. She sells the soap. It doesn't matter if you agree with her or not. She's worth the coin.

 

[talkjim]

You really get it, Argentarius--in truckloads. I hope to see you post here more often.

I'll give Sean the fact that he has been successful in both radio and TV, but I don't get it, and I would also say his success tends to be somewhat overhyped. We saw in the NYC winter book in 2006 what happens when he gets some real competititon--Randi Rhodes--he gets whipped--and not just in the totals--but in the target demo for talk--men 25-54. He also gets routinely pummeled in L.A. In Chicago, he is delayed until evening. In Philly, he's the only talk show on a major signal in his daypart, and it's my understanding that his syndicator is paying WPHT big bucks to carry the show (since I'm a stickler for facts, I will note that I haven't nailed that one down in terms of confirmation, but I've heard it from a number of reliable sources). I would note that it's always easier to win when there's no in-format competitition. I would also suspect that Hannity is helped immensely by following Limbaugh in many markets--in fact, I'm pretty sure he'd acknowledge that if someone asked him.

 

[Parttimer]

His show also runs live in PM drive in the East, which is not a big syndication daypart compared to 9A-3P, so of course he's delayed in some big markets. He does very well here in the Burgh. Orlando as well. I'm sure there are more.

In Tampa Clear Channel pulled a power to play to take him from upstart WWBA and put him on WFLA. He runs delayed now , but they took him away so their local PM drive show Todd Schnitt wouldn't have to compete against him.

And he doesn't follow Limbaugh in Orlando, he follows Boortz and Clark Howard.

I love it when people can't see past their politics. Their opinion is "facts" and "the truth", others are uninformed and defy logic. Broadcasters they agree with are talented and successful, those they disagree with are awful and overhyped. If Sean Hannity was a liberal you'd be calling for him to be given the Marconi award every year for the rest of his life.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Jim- You asked me to name one show on NPR that is liberal.

You acknowledged on another thread that Democracy Now had a liberal slant.

As for Savage, I would hardly call him a leader of the Republican Party.

Limbaugh? Yes. The National Review even discussed this back in 1993.

Palin? Perhaps. I personally think she'll be Quayled, if she hasn't already.

Joe the Plumber? To say the common man is the voice of the Republican Party is NOT something a Democrat wants to promote.

Savage? Absolutely not. This is like saying Howard Stern is the voice of the Democrats.

Savage is the shock jock of the right- nothing more, nothing less. He has an entertaining show because it's entertaining to listen to someone rant and rave. He could be ranting and raving about Democrats as he does-CLINTON KILLED JFK JR.!- he could be ranting and raving about recipes- USING TOO MUCH APPLE SPICE WILL CAUSE IMMEDIATE DEATH AND ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR YOUR FAMILY!

Savage has been routinely criticized by Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Many of my Republican friends have even said they feel he is a closet liberal ("He went to Berkley, Pratte4Life! You're telling me he's a conservative! Please!") who says these things because it is sure to create an audience and sure to come off worse on conservatives than liberals.

Bottom line- people listen to his show for the same reason they listen to Metallica.

But he's hardly a leader of the Republican Party.

 

[talkjim]

"I love it when people can't see past their politics. Their opinion is "facts" and "the truth", others are uninformed and defy logic. Broadcasters they agree with are talented and successful, those they disagree with are awful and overhyped. If Sean Hannity was a liberal you'd be calling for him to be given the Marconi award every year for the rest of his life. "

You're doing what you do best, Parttimer-misrepresenting what I said. And I hardly need a lecture from you on facts versus opinion, when you, earlier in this thread made the following memorable statement:

"This is an internet message board. I'm not really journalistically obligated to do fact-checking."

Anyone who wishes to do so can go back up and look at my post. I credited Hannity for success in both radio and TV, also said that his success tends to be over-hyped, and I said precisely why. I know you insist on trying to explain it away, but the fact remains that he was beaten by Randi in New York in 2006 (men, 25-54), and there's no particular reason to think that that wouldn't have happened again, had WLIB not dumped Air America--a move that has only resulted in lower ratings for the station. I also said that he routinely gets his butt handed to him in Los Angeles--amd he does--another inconvenient fact there, Parttimer. In Chicago, he's delayed until evenings on WLS--fact, not opinion. And in Philly, numerous reliable sources tell me that his syndicators pay a large amount of money to place his show on WPHT, in a market where his is the only talk show on a major signal. That's his track record in the nation's top 4 markets--you picked some selected smaller markets to talk about.

And don't tell me who I'd give the Marconi award to--I've never brought it up. Go to your room, Parttimer.

 

[talkjim]

"Jim- You asked me to name one show on NPR that is liberal."

Yes, I did, Pratte. So when are you going to do it? --you haven't done so yet. You mentioned Amy Goodman, who I do agree is progressive, and doesn't exactly hide her opinion. But she's not on NPR, and her focus is primarily on news reporting--not so much on opinion.

And I ask you to take another look at my post, Pratte. If you do, you'll find that I never said that Savage, or for that matter, Joe the Plumber, is a leader of the Republican party. I said they were "heroes" of Republicans, and certain credible polls have indicated just exactly that. The praise I hear for Savage does not come from progressives, and last I checked, he is not on ANY progressive stations.

He's a potty-mouthed, lying, gay-bashing bigot, and the sooner you own up to that inconvenient fact, the better off we'll all be. And by the way, aside from the character deficiencies I just mentioned, I'm sure he's a hell of a great guy.

 

[Parttimer]

. I know you insist on trying to explain it away, but the fact remains that he was beaten by Randi in New York in 2006 (men, 25-54),

One demo, one book, 3 years ago.

and there's no particular reason to think that that wouldn't have happened again, had WLIB not dumped Air America--a move that has only resulted in lower ratings for the station. I also said that he routinely gets his butt handed to him in Los Angeles--amd he does--another inconvenient fact there, Parttimer. In Chicago, he's delayed until evenings on WLS--fact, not opinion.

Hannity's affiliate, KABC is the second highest-rated AM talk station in LA, where he follows a delayed broadcast of Imus, hardly a compelling lead-in.

Rush is on KFI.

Sean's 2-6ET time slot is an awkward fit for the central time zone. You'd either end up taking maybe just the first two hours or having to start another show a 5, so they are local 2-7PM. WLS is the #2 station in Chicago 12+, so he's not exactly a boat anchor there.

You classified Chicago's WCPT as a success with a 0.2.

And in Philly, numerous reliable sources tell me that his syndicators pay a large amount of money to place his show on WPHT, in a market where his is the only talk show on a major signal. That's his track record in the nation's top 4 markets--you picked some selected smaller markets to talk about.

And don't tell me who I'd give the Marconi award to--I've never brought it up. Go to your room, Parttimer.

Syndication rarely plays in drive times in big markets (Stern of course being the exception). There aren't enough avails to generate the income a local show would garner, because you have to give up inventory for the network spots.

So the WHPT deal is a win-win... the station recoups the income from the lost inventory, and the show is live on 2 signals (WABC and WHPT) that cover, what, 15-18 million people up and down the east coast? That's just good business.

 

[talkjim]

Once again, Parttimer, you make numerous explanations and excuses for Hannity's failure to perform well in certain situations, but you fail to refute even one of my factual assertions. Have a nice day.

 

[Parttimer]

You really don't get the business part of this, do you?

 

[talkjim]

"You really don't get the business part of this, do you?"

Funny you should bring that up, Parttimer, because I was about to ask you the same question. But rather than simply pose the question, I'll do something that you never do, which is to substantiate my point. You suggested that it's good business for Hannity to pay up to 400 grand (the figure that I hear from reliable sources) to get his show on WPHT. I agree with you that it's good business--great business actually--for WPHT. Not so good for Hannity, especially when you consider that WPHT is paying Limbaugh, and there is some indication that the airing of Beck (which like Limbaugh comes from Premier), is part of the Limbaugh deal.

And anytime you want to give me some money, Parttimer, I'll be happy to thank you and think of it as good business.

 

[Parttimer]

Clearing the network spots in a market that size makes that a break-even deal or a small expense at worst. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Beck's not in a drive-time slot.

 

[talkjim]

"Clearing the network spots in a market that size makes that a break-even deal or a small expense at worst. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money."

Or lose money. I'm not familiar with the details of Hannity's deal with WPHT, nor are you Parttimer. But I've been around this business, and I programmed a Top 50 market station that originated a talk show that found its way into limited national syndication. I know something about the economic dynamics of syndicated talk, and I've never heard of a show that found success buying its way on anywhere. A time buy for a talk show is almost always an act of desperation on some level. Westwood One bought O'Reilly onto some major market stations in hopes of lighting a fire under the show, and we all know what happened there.

My guess is Hannity's people want him cleared in Philly so they don't have a very obvious gap in the Top 10. Too bad they can't do the same in Boston, which has THREE major talkers--and guess what? No Sean.

If it's a well-produced, entertaining conservative talk show it should get cleared without a buy in today's conservative-leaning talkradio environment. If it's hosted by a boring ideologue, it may not get cleared. And if it's a well-produced, entertaining progressive show like the ones hosted by Stephanie Miller or Randi Rhodes, it may not get cleared for a host of other reasons, even if those shows beat the one hosted by the boring ideologue.