Mo Kelly show out at KFI

[Intheairnevada]

Koblyt is out this week, with the guy from the sports station filling in, coincidence? Kelly and Merrill are about the same in terms of my attraction to their shows. They both spend to much time with “the good old days” I was there, it’s boring now. Radio could go the way of printed newspapers.

 

[Ray D. Owe]

Guy from the sports station?
It’s Lou Penrose from KOGO, iHeart’s talk station in San Diego.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Radio could go the way of printed newspapers.

It already has, if you compare the business now to what it was a couple of decades ago.

There are even parallels ... where newspapers used to be a primary source of news, now it's online sources (and do not get me started on how people now tend to seek out sources that agree with their own preconceived opinions, even when they are getting "fake news" as a result).

Music radio has lost a significant part of its past audience to streaming and downloads. Talk radio is losing to podcasts.

So this isn't really a revelation to those of us who have been here more than a couple of days.

 

[henry]

Those things happened as a result of the audience already leaving. If you had the data, you would know it. But you don't have data. If all it took to retain audience was live & local talent, that's what you'd have. The hiring of Mo Kelly at KFI was an attempt to do something different, but at the same time keep it local. The listeners of KFI rebelled because they didn't want something different.

I'm not here to defend/criticize Mo's situation.

I'm looking up at 30,000 feet — having to defend my 20-year (now over) radio career to my peers who all thought radio was stupid. The same peers who seemed to love the product in the 1990s, yet somehow by 2005 all hated it. And I doubt folders of burned CDs are 100% to blame.

In literally every other business (restaurants, hotels, freaking aerospace), the business leaders don't look at the customers (or in the case of radio, the commodity) walking out the door, shrug, and say, "Guess we'll just make a lot of cuts."

There has been ZERO serious creativity in 25 years to try to rejuvenate/re-excite the radio audience.

There has been ZERO serious creativity in 25 years to try to discover new sources of revenue from the radio audience.

Voicetracking is NOT creative. It's not innovative. Lazy in 2005 and lazy twenty years later.

Syndication is NOT creative. It's cheap. It just exploited radio's version of the "TV network affiliate" model. Can't fault 'em for doing something that makes money. But it also makes the station easily replaceable. (Like a beloved local sandwich shop becoming a Blimpie's franchise.)

VT and Syndication. Those are the only TWO arrows the business could muster to pull out of its quiver? In 25 years???

The thing that killed radio was choice.

What I hear: Radio was never competitive. It can only exist within a government monopoly.

And once you step away, it's obvious to look back at a distance and see why: Radio has always been given a guaranteed audience. The FCC bestowed a small monopoly on a station owner. And they were given a share of all the bored drivers. Radio strategy was about winning over listeners from a competitor, not about the existential question about "why would a listener want to listen to us at all." Sheer boredom and monopoly guaranteed they'd come back eventually.

Real businesses need to survive the headwinds of competition. They get no government license. They either make money or die. And they get pretty darn creative and innovative and survival. And that's why there are some great businesses out there.

What you're saying is that radio gets a big government shield from competition. And it's a bit breezy because listeners now have choice = radio is dead.

Stop a minute and consider that. It kinda makes my point. Radio owners need to get off their outdated asses and start being innovative like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.

--

Fast forward to '96. A bunch of Wall Street jackasses started running up huge debt. All the revenue went into paying debt service instead of programming. And they spent the next 30 years cutting their way to failure, rather than using the revenue to be innovative (like they were when the '50s gave way to the '60s, the '60s into the '70s, the '70s into the '80s...).

Nope. Radio today is basically the same watered-down absolutely uninteresting garbage pile it was in 2005 when my friends all stopped listening to FM. (Which I might add was 5+ years BEFORE the smartphone). It's being programmed like it's still 1996, except without a 1996 staff.

Radio. Killed. Itself.

Period. And without its FCC audience monopoly, it would've died a whole lot sooner.

I commend Robin Bertolucci for saying "NO" for all those years to terrible ideas that would have killed off KFI sooner. Realizing that Limbaugh was toxic to anyone under (at the time) age 40. Spotting Conway and eventually grooming him to take over afternoon drive. Leaning into general talk, rather than partisan talk. If she'd had access to an FM, I think it would've done even better.

The only thing I wish IHM had aggressively let her and KFI do was put the audio (and maybe even studio video) onto all the streaming platforms. Twitch TV. YouTube Live. Instagram Live. Have the station rolling 24/7 and monetize the audience in every place. Evolve KFI from a radio station into the go-to southern California 24/7 live stream. (By the way, most live-streamers generate revenue from direct viewer payments. Something KFI could do if it wasn't strangled by IHM's 1970s vision! One of countless revenue ideas new-school programmers could try, if radio were actually creative like it was before 1996.)

Instead, I get to see Wall Street (or in IHM's case, private equity) jackasses cut their way to failure. Trash a perfectly good business.

(Radio companies blame listeners for not tuning in. I'm sorry, but the entire business world outside radio sees that as entitled childishness.)

 

[henry]

And what @henry fails to take into account is that when iHeart moved Rush to 1150 in 2014 because the progressive/liberal talk format there was a failure, that strategy also worked. KEIB had him as a foundation to beuild listening on, and almost 12 years later, it's still viable in terms of commercial revenue (albeit a little weaker in the aftermath of Limbaugh's passing). But I suppose our naysayer would have thought "it's all syndicated, it'll never work" (and would likely find more anecdotal "evidence" of that).

Air America was a disaster. Not defending that hot mess.

But KFI would be D.O.A. right now if it had done the whole "run Rush in the morning and Hannity in the afternoon" that most AM talkers did in the '10s.

KEIB is a "success" in that it took an otherwise worthless AM stick and helped it keep generating revenue. Agreed. Smart plan. But the KFI stick should be (and is) worth a whole lot more. And if KFI billed like KEIB, it would be a disaster.

 

[ted chittenden]

I'm not here to defend/criticize Mo's situation.

I'm looking up at 30,000 feet — having to defend my 20-year (now over) radio career to my peers who all thought radio was stupid. The same peers who seemed to love the product in the 1990s, yet somehow by 2005 all hated it. And I doubt folders of burned CDs are 100% to blame.

In literally every other business (restaurants, hotels, freaking aerospace), the business leaders don't look at the customers (or in the case of radio, the commodity) walking out the door, shrug, and say, "Guess we'll just make a lot of cuts."

There has been ZERO serious creativity in 25 years to try to rejuvenate/re-excite the radio audience.

There has been ZERO serious creativity in 25 years to try to discover new sources of revenue from the radio audience.

Voicetracking is NOT creative. It's not innovative. Lazy in 2005 and lazy twenty years later.

Syndication is NOT creative. It's cheap. It just exploited radio's version of the "TV network affiliate" model. Can't fault 'em for doing something that makes money. But it also makes the station easily replaceable. (Like a beloved local sandwich shop becoming a Blimpie's franchise.)

VT and Syndication. Those are the only TWO arrows the business could muster to pull out of its quiver? In 25 years???


What I hear: Radio was never competitive. It can only exist within a government monopoly.

And once you step away, it's obvious to look back at a distance and see why: Radio has always been given a guaranteed audience. The FCC bestowed a small monopoly on a station owner. And they were given a share of all the bored drivers. Radio strategy was about winning over listeners from a competitor, not about the existential question about "why would a listener want to listen to us at all." Sheer boredom and monopoly guaranteed they'd come back eventually.

Real businesses need to survive the headwinds of competition. They get no government license. They either make money or die. And they get pretty darn creative and innovative and survival. And that's why there are some great businesses out there.

What you're saying is that radio gets a big government shield from competition. And it's a bit breezy because listeners now have choice = radio is dead.

Stop a minute and consider that. It kinda makes my point. Radio owners need to get off their outdated asses and start being innovative like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.

--

Fast forward to '96. A bunch of Wall Street jackasses started running up huge debt. All the revenue went into paying debt service instead of programming. And they spent the next 30 years cutting their way to failure, rather than using the revenue to be innovative (like they were when the '50s gave way to the '60s, the '60s into the '70s, the '70s into the '80s...).

Nope. Radio today is basically the same watered-down absolutely uninteresting garbage pile it was in 2005 when my friends all stopped listening to FM. (Which I might add was 5+ years BEFORE the smartphone). It's being programmed like it's still 1996, except without a 1996 staff.

Radio. Killed. Itself.

Period. And without its FCC audience monopoly, it would've died a whole lot sooner.

I commend Robin Bertolucci for saying "NO" for all those years to terrible ideas that would have killed off KFI sooner. Realizing that Limbaugh was toxic to anyone under (at the time) age 40. Spotting Conway and eventually grooming him to take over afternoon drive. Leaning into general talk, rather than partisan talk. If she'd had access to an FM, I think it would've done even better.

The only thing I wish IHM had aggressively let her and KFI do was put the audio (and maybe even studio video) onto all the streaming platforms. Twitch TV. YouTube Live. Instagram Live. Have the station rolling 24/7 and monetize the audience in every place. Evolve KFI from a radio station into the go-to southern California 24/7 live stream. (By the way, most live-streamers generate revenue from direct viewer payments. Something KFI could do if it wasn't strangled by IHM's 1970s vision! One of countless revenue ideas new-school programmers could try, if radio were actually creative like it was before 1996.)

Instead, I get to see Wall Street (or in IHM's case, private equity) jackasses cut their way to failure. Trash a perfectly good business.

(Radio companies blame listeners for not tuning in. I'm sorry, but the entire business world outside radio sees that as entitled childishness.)

I really can't decide which you know less about: radio broadcasting or businesses outside of radio broadcasting. The reason there are legal limitations on radio broadcasters is because of the Limited frequencies available for broadcasting. The FCC didn't create this as much as 1) U.S. negotiations with other countries and 2) the spectrum itself did. The Internet doesn't have that limitation (though there are certain limitations due to copyright royalty rates that limit new entrants to those who have enough bucks to pay the licensing fees).

But other industries have limitations, too. I worked in the hotel industry for ten years and that business was limited by not only the number of people traveling but also by the amount and price of land on which to build new hotels. I trained for the Randolph-Sheppart Vending Program (a government setup traced to the New Deal that gives blind and visually impaired people first cracks at operating cafeteeria and vending facilities on Federal and [sometimes] state-owned properties) and there are limitations on that program, too.

The whole truth is that all businesses have limitations, even the computer industry. When you see a promotion for "something new" from any industry, including the computer industry, keep in mind that the "something new" is being created from the resources on this planet and those resources have limits as well.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not here to defend/criticize Mo's situation.

You didn't respond at all to what I said about your example of KALL in Salt Lake City. People stopped listening to the station long before it was sold. The station was still all local, and people stopped listening. Why? Explain that to me. They stopped listening, the revenues went down, and they had to cut costs. That's what happens in every business. Not just radio. Why can't you understand that? You can't pay people when the money goes away.

There has been ZERO serious creativity in 25 years to try to discover new sources of revenue from the radio audience.

Actually there HAS: They've created podcasts, online content, even streaming services. In fact the digital sources of revenue are growing while broadcasting continues to fall. In some companies, digital now makes more money than broadcasting. Once again, that's why radio companies are diverting resources away from the business losing money to where it's making money. That's how business works.

Broadcasting has no other source of revenue. Radio stations can't add more commercials. They're at the limit, and they know people hate commercials. They can't send people a monthly bill. They can't ask their listeners for their credit card numbers. They can't put their air signal behind a pay wall. But they can online.

And once you step away, it's obvious to look back at a distance and see why: Radio has always been given a guaranteed audience.

Really? What happens when people stop buying radios? What happens when electronics manufacturers stop coming up with fun, exciting radios that make people want to own them, the way they did with the Sony Walkman. That was the last creative radio device that was made. Now people buy phones. Radio companies tried to get the phone manufacturers to activate the FM chip that exists in phones, and they refused. So radio was forced to go online. The FCC didn't step in and require phone makers to activate the FM chip. The FCC didn't mandate HD radio. The FCC forces radio companies to do lots of things the audience doesn't want. Meanwhile digital broadcasting has absolutely no regulation. They can have as many stations as they want. They can broadcast obscenity. They can charge people anything they want. No regulations. And they're thriving, while radio is declining.

Radio owners need to get off their outdated asses and start being innovative like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY.

They are. They're using NEW MEDIA instead of outdated platforms like AM Radio. You say they're outdated, and you want them to continue spending money on outdated technology. Even NPR is online, where they can say and do what they want and not have to worry about the government shutting them down.

By the way, most live-streamers generate revenue from direct viewer payments. Something KFI could do if it wasn't strangled by IHM's 1970s vision!

Maybe you don't know this but iHeartRadio owns a streaming platform. It's very popular. As far as I know, the company has no rules that stations can't use video. Most iHeart stations have video in their control rooms. Lots of other companies do the same. As I said, digital revenue is growing while broadcast is declining. At some point, they'll be able to shut down the transmitters and just go online.

 

[KilowattKat]

Andy Reesmeirin was the 7-10 pm host last night. Didn't mention, or I didn't hear if just for the week or permanent.

 

[K.M. Richards]

For the record: After @henry's diatribe and @TheBigA's well written response, I refuse to be drawn further into an argument that has been made by many people -- usually motivated by either their personal experiences in the past or by misguided finger pointing as to who is to blame -- other than to make this statement which I feel I have made over a thousand times now:

Radio has had to change, to adapt to the changes in technology which have ultimately given listeners more choices and created a different playing field than the one we all grew up on.

I have been in this business for 52 years as of this past July. I have been in programming, to one degree or another, since my first PD gig in 1978. Some of my programming instincts are still valid and still work. Others have been forcibly retired. I consider it a minor miracle that I am still doing this as I am less than a year from turning 70. But I am still here. I still believe there's something left for me to be a part of.

Diatribes like the one posted here (and this certainly isn't the first time on this board) strike me as sour grapes. "If radio can't be like the way it was when I was still in the business, it's not worth anything." Whether someone says that in so many words or not, that is the underlying message I get.

I politely offer the suggestion to those who feel that way: The business isn't going to change and maybe those posts are now a total waste of your time. And I hate to see anyone -- whether I agree with them or not -- wasting their time on a Don Quixote-like quest to bring back the past.

There. Feel free to rip into me, but you will not provoke a reply.

 

[sjs1959]

I am not in the radio business, just a longtime listener, but we are frequently reminded in my line of work that "what got us here won't KEEP us here!". If you have been at this 52 years, you understand that very well and you are on point. It's not 1973 any more and never will be again.

 

[henry]

You didn't respond at all to what I said about your example of KALL in Salt Lake City. People stopped listening to the station long before it was sold. The station was still all local, and people stopped listening. Why? Explain that to me. They stopped listening, the revenues went down, and they had to cut costs. That's what happens in every business. Not just radio. Why can't you understand that? You can't pay people when the money goes away.

It was very interesting. Thank you for sharing. The demise of KALL is a sad one and knowing the story behind the billing is interesting. I knew about the sale in 1994ish, but not the one in 1990.

So, the owner is just supposed to shrug and say, "Well, the audience is gone. Guess we give up." Sometimes it's worth the effort to really double down, and bet the farm to keep your station relevant. It's super risky. It can also pay off. And radio is just so damn risk averse.

KALL was struggling. But it was a VERY relevant brand well into the mid-1990s. After they syndicated the crap out of it, the perceived value of KALL started to fade away. 910 was just a conduit for Limbaugh. Limbaugh was a good get. He made KALL money. But KALL was a ghost town outside Limbaugh. (The station aired freaking G. Gordon Liddy in the afternoons, for pete's sake!) So once Limbaugh moved to 570, KALL was left with nothing except Tom Barberi (the morning host). And eventually, both KALL and Barberi died.

KALL is an example of leaning into a revenue death spiral.

But let's not pretend that all 1990s/2000s cuts were driven by declining revenue...

Example: An alternate universe where, say, KSL decides to go full greedy and dump all their local hosts of syndicated crap. And in this alternate universe, KSL is a dead brand and a dead station. Instead, the Mormon church decided to let the revenue keep go back into the programming. And today, despite its challenges, KSL is a rock-solid brand.

When listeners leave, you have two choices

• Find ways to bring new listeners in, and old listeners back. Go to where the listeners are. They won't be tuning into AM 640. But they will be listening to your programming and spots! Put yourself in their shoes. Want people under the age of 30? Put your local talk station on Twitch. Do remote broadcasts from places like LA Comic Con. Cover talk subjects the Gen Zers (or heck, even us ancient Millenials) would want to hear. Use the professional resources of KFI to get guests and information no other live streamer can get.
• Death spiral. "Well, everyone left. We tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas. Let's air Clark Howard."

Maybe you don't know this but iHeartRadio owns a streaming platform.

(sigh....) They didn't go where the audience is. Once again, they said, "Come to our proprietary house."

You are absolutely right about podcasting. And that's a great direction talk stations have been going in. Being able to monetize podcasts is a great tool and is actually credit I do owe IHM. That they are doing very much right. You are right to cite NPR. They are kind of the leaders at that.

I'm sorry for my ignorance which clearly shows in the very important day-to-day specifics of the industry. But I am mad as hell at radio pros, who get so caught up in the details and tell someone like me 9,000 "can't do" reasons. And then sit there whining about how "radio can't be saved." Dude, it absolutely can. Audacy, IHM, etc. just don't want to try (as much as I believe they can). And it's pissing me off.

 

[henry]

Radio has had to change, to adapt to the changes in technology which have ultimately given listeners more choices and created a different playing field than the one we all grew up on.

That's the challenge, K.M. Radio has NOT changed. It's still acting like it's 1996, but without the 1996 staffing.

Radio has NOT adapted to competition. It's only adaptation was to shrink. Which makes the product even less adaptive.

Today's radio is just a cheap copy of a very outdated product from the '90s. I don't want a fully-staffed KFI from 1996. I don't want a fully-staffed KFI from 1973. Young listeners don't want a KFI from 1996. They need a 2026 product. And zero radio stations provide a 2026 product. (A ton of live streamers do!) And KFI absolutely could build the best live stream leaning on their years of talk expertise.

Programming decisions got set in amber 25 years ago and there has been no innovation since. (It would be like in 1990, KFI losing audience because it refuses to adjust it's Full Service format. They just automate more and more of it, but it's still Full Service. And when someone like me complains that it's refused to evolve and adapt, and they yell at me, telling me as a listener that I know nothing, and keep playing Full Service.)

I'm not trying to rip you, or anyone else on this board. I just see such wasted potential. Where are the enthusiastic 27 year-old PDs who are throwing spaghetti at the wall? Radio used to have 'em. And they succeeded, too.

 

[TheBigA]

So, the owner is just supposed to shrug and say, "Well, the audience is gone. Guess we give up." Sometimes it's worth the effort to really double down, and bet the farm to keep your station relevant. It's super risky. It can also pay off. And radio is just so damn risk averse.

You make it sound like it just happened. This has been a very long process. It started with the audience abandoning AM radio in the 80s. Those stations were still fully staffed as the audience started to move to FM. The AM owners tried as hard as they could to keep those listeners, but they were no match for the audio quality and programming choices on FM. Some AM station owners tried to program their stations like FM, but the audience wasn't fooled by that.

With the FM situation, it's really very simple: The public is transitioning to the internet the way it transitioned from AM to FM. It's a long process that's taken 30 years and is still taking place. There are still a number of people who use broadcast radio. But there are advantages to online that can't be recreated on broadcast. So that's why broadcasting companies are also transitioning their operations online. There have been a lot of stages along the way with new formats, the introduction of HD, and the use of social media and other outreach methods.

Find ways to bring new listeners in, and old listeners back. Go to where the listeners are.

The old listeners went online for a reason. Just as AM listeners went to FM for a reason. They're not coming back. But yes, you go to where the listeners are, which is on social media and the internet. That's what radio stations are doing. It's a transition process, and we're in the early stages of it. It will be going on for a while. During that time, there will be duplication on radio and online, just as there has been between AM & FM.

And then sit there whining about how "radio can't be saved." Dude, it absolutely can. Audacy, IHM, etc. just don't want to try (as much as I believe they can). And it's pissing me off.

It depends on what you consider radio. To me, it's everything. It's on air, it's social media, it's podcasting, streaming, satellite, and everything else. Radio is not one thing. The minute people understand that is when we will get somewhere.

 

[ILOVERADIO]

I don't have data. But I have on-the-ground anecdotes:

KALL 910 (Salt Lake City) ran local hosts. Commanded top dollar. Local owners sold it in '94 and it went 100% syndicated except mornings. Then they lost Limbaugh by '98. Station was "RADIO DISNEY" by 2002.

KFI **removed** syndication (Limbaugh, Dr. Laura) and bought themselves another FIFTEEN YEARS of relevance. Had they hung on, they'd be billing like KEIB.

Another anecdote:

I guest spoke at UCLA's engineering school in 2022. I casually mentioned KFI in passing. And six students shouted back "DING DONG." Talk radio is absolute death to anyone under the age of 50 (thanks to syndication of right-wing political talk). And here are some 20-somethings showing that they actually would flip on Conway (who was 7-10p back then).

Local matters. There are thousands of places to get national coverage. Cable TV. News feeds. Social media. But having a local place to hang out makes KFI and KNX the sort of "living room" and "kitchen" for southern California. And I think radio programmers are so out-to-lunch with consultant data and pretending that 1970s metrics matter, that they never stopped to realize what business radio is actually in. And they keep making DUMB decisions that make a few bucks now, but push the product deeper into irrelevance among non-Boomer audiences.

Radio killed itself. Full stop. Every voice tracked jock. Every listener call gone unanswered. Every syndicated show. It was like chopping off a finger. How many can you chop off before you no longer have working hands?

Ending live/local on KFI after 7 is like KIIS playing a slightly-off-format syndicated music show after 7. KFI is like KIIS, except they play LOCAL talk instead of pop music.

KOGO in San Diego is live and local weekdays from 3-8 PM in addition to their weekday morning news block. I’m surprised they have 2 hosts from 6-8 PM with Mark Larson and Leland Conway. So I’m guessing KFI will have someone local in the evening, but I’m often wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Air America was a disaster. Not defending that hot mess.

It was an economic disaster, but the programming was a good sampling of progressive opinion and it was fairly well executed. The problem was not "signals" as many declared (it was on some very big signal Clear Channel stations). It was, in the view of many experienced talk programmers, the fact that liberals tend to be divided into separate groups with different and sometimes conflicting agendas.

But KFI would be D.O.A. right now if it had done the whole "run Rush in the morning and Hannity in the afternoon" that most AM talkers did in the '10s.

They were billing enough to go without Rush. And they had a good signal for the Rush line-up. And Rush did not run in mornings, anyway.

KEIB is a "success" in that it took an otherwise worthless AM stick

50 kw on 1150 is worthless? It is not KFI, but it is one of the better secondary signals.

and helped it keep generating revenue. Agreed. Smart plan. But the KFI stick should be (and is) worth a whole lot more. And if KFI billed like KEIB, it would be a disaster.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

 

[HerbNero]

The only reason KFI was able to carry on after their departure was the creation of two very talented local shows, Handel and John and Ken, that were originally built around the syndicated shows. Take either one of those shows away and the live and local talk format falls on its face.

It should be noted that one of the recent departures was Clay Roe, who was responsible for the boardwork and creative elements on the John & Ken show for most of the past two decades. It was the reason no doubt he was elevated to the station's Imaging Director position. Sadly, very few stations have dedicated Imaging Directors anymore, contributing to the homogenous sound of generic talk radio these days. KFI was an outlier in that aspect for a long time.

 

[TheBigA]

Sadly, very few stations have dedicated Imaging Directors anymore,

Operating budgets are cut to the bone. Revenues are not improving. They want to retain live & local talent as long as they can. So the supporting cast walks the plank. A lot of co-hosts are part of this current wave. Also a lot of high seniority people. All to keep enough in the budget to pay live & local talent.

 

[Intheairnevada]

Tuwala Sharp ..Mo producer.. said he lost use of his house in Alta Dena fire, (utilities out), whether he is back in it I don’t know?. But living in a house in a burned out area, then losing a job? That is a drag.

Professor lectures? That is a good point. Mo did seem to talk down to folks on occasion, Conway, Handel, Kobylt have a “I’m in the trenches trying to make sense of it just like you” branding.

I wonder if Roger Stone has chimed in to give Mo a kick when he is down?. I think he has a talk show/pcast Sundays.

He claimed the Mo controversy was an “altered tape”

Also, doesn’t it make sense to have a replacement show lined up, or is a series of “on air auditions” the way to go??

 

[RayydioLA]

Tuwala Sharp ..Mo producer.. said he lost use of his house in Alta Dena fire, (utilities out), whether he is back in it I don’t know?. But living in a house in a burned out area, then losing a job? That is a drag.

Professor lectures? That is a good point. Mo did seem to talk down to folks on occasion, Conway, Handel, Kobylt have a “I’m in the trenches trying to make sense of it just like you” branding.

I wonder if Roger Stone has chimed in to give Mo a kick when he is down?. I think he has a talk show/pcast Sundays.

He claimed the Mo controversy was an “altered tape”

Also, doesn’t it make sense to have a replacement show lined up, or is a series of “on air auditions” the way to go??

Kobylt has a "I'm in the trenches trying to make sense of it" attitude? All he does is rail on Newsom. Very elitist (ironically, since he talks s#1t about Newsom as if Newsom's more elitist than anyone else (er, than Republicans. Look around, look at Congress--not anymore, dude). Like, we get it, the station leans Republican, but find a new shtick. It's so one-note and annoying to stick with for more than a few minutes. Come back an hour later, he's railing on Newsom and making fun of his hair again, but blaming him for some other issue, that hour. Like--can you quit complaining and be more problem-solving, once in a while? That would be "in the trenches trying to make sense of things." There are so many other issues going on in LA and the state of California that start at the local or regional levels and therefore, arguably have more to do with any and all issues in the state, starting way before, and going way beyond, the governor. He's not perfect, but literally not everything is the governor's fault. Conway and Handel at least have guests on to not just join in the complaining, but offer productive thoughts and solutions that listeners either might find confirming of their own ideas, or learn and consider something new.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Kobylt has a "I'm in the trenches trying to make sense of it" attitude? All he does is rail on Newsom. Very elitist (ironically, since he talks s#1t about Newsom as if Newsom's more elitist than anyone else (er, than Republicans. Look around, look at Congress--not anymore, dude). Like, we get it, the station leans Republican, but find a new shtick. It's so one-note and annoying to stick with for more than a few minutes. Come back an hour later, he's railing on Newsom and making fun of his hair again, but blaming him for some other issue, that hour. Like--can you quit complaining and be more problem-solving, once in a while? That would be "in the trenches trying to make sense of things." There are so many other issues going on in LA and the state of California that start at the local or regional levels and therefore, arguably have more to do with any and all issues in the state, starting way before, and going way beyond, the governor. He's not perfect, but literally not everything is the governor's fault. Conway and Handel at least have guests on to not just join in the complaining, but offer productive thoughts and solutions that listeners either might find confirming of their own ideas, or learn and consider something new.

Even in LA there are other shows on the dial that air different opinions while he is on. Feel free to explore the content on the other stations.