Morning News Block on KGO

[Drummerman]

I think the AM news block with Baxter and Jones is too rushed. They seem preoccupied with "Traffic on the 8's" more than interviews and or news.

Also: IMHO ED is too silly...

 

[DavidKaye]

I think the AM news block with Baxter and Jones is too rushed. They seem preoccupied with "Traffic on the 8's" more than interviews and or news.

I've always been of the opinion that traffic reports are worthless for the most part. However, stations love them because they're the cheapest "live and local" kind of news a station can put on the air. Listeners love them because they feel they're getting "news" that is somehow important.

I'm not negating the useful reports such as traffic diversions that are necessary during a major fire or refinery evacuation, but these seldom happen. The rest is window dressing.

Even the non-comms such as KALW run traffic. They put them on because they had no news department at the time and they wanted to add some local-sounding content during morning drive besides Joe Burke's jokes.

 

[woody1394]

Hard to disagree with the morning news seeming 'rushed', but as for the importance of the traffic reports, I have a different view.

If you're not commuting, then traffic reports are certainly useless. But in my commute in the mornings and afternoons, I rely on these reports and I can't tell you how many times they've helped me. As you know, there are a ton of super-commuters here in the bay area, and these reports can be VERY valuable depending on where one is going and how far. It is, in fact, one of the things that hooked me on to KGO in the first place (and KCBS to a lesser extent).

And yes, Ed Baxter is a bit silly but at least it gives the news some personality. For a comparison, for the longest time KCBS news was VERRRRRY dry and monotone; the info was good but they were putting me to sleep. KGO at least had some life to their broadcasts.

 

[flakunkel]

I think the AM news block with Baxter and Jones is too rushed. They seem preoccupied with "Traffic on the 8's" more than interviews and or news.

I've always been of the opinion that traffic reports are worthless for the most part. However, stations love them because they're the cheapest "live and local" kind of news a station can put on the air. Listeners love them because they feel they're getting "news" that is somehow important.

I'm not negating the useful reports such as traffic diversions that are necessary during a major fire or refinery evacuation, but these seldom happen. The rest is window dressing.

Even the non-comms such as KALW run traffic. They put them on because they had no news department at the time and they wanted to add some local-sounding content during morning drive besides Joe Burke's jokes.

When you talk to actual listeners, you find that traffic reports are the one type of news/information content they want more than anything else. In fact, they mostly don't give a s**t about ANYTHING else.

 

[DeadAudicy]

I personally find Baxter's sense of humor forced, dull, terribly thin...the antithesis of personality. However, these boards are rife with misplaced (and ultimately useless) subjectivity in describing the state of radio, so I'll concede that his attempts at humor have been consistent when and since he was on evenings, and have apparently served the station well.

Traffic and, to a certain extent, weather, far more than the intrinsic service rendered, contribute as the only really fluid news stories of the day. That in itself is a large and constant draw, as the bigger stories are simply repeated throughout the cast. Then there is the vital element. This stuff is happening now, as reported...again, powerful in an immediacy bigger stories don't have, unless breaking.

Compared to (pre Baxter) Dunbar and Wygant, the morning news is snail paced. D&W would rush through stories terribly fast in order to fit in their own obnoxious and endless banter. So if Baxter et al are too rushed for you... listen faster, I guess, and count your blessings.

 

[LKellerIII]

After a long period of listening to KQED/NPR, I can no longer stand the KGO news blocks, or KCBS for that matter, for more than a few minutes. Compared to NPR, they all seem rushed, the stories seem short and shallow, and the commercial load is unbearable. I know that's unfair - they're commercial stations, and selling commercial time is how they make money.

Nevertheless, it's too much audio clutter for me to take. At least with commercial music stations, you have 7 to 10 minutes of music in a row, followed by a block of commercials, so you can tune them out.

As for Ed Baxter...don't get me started.

And as the previous post pointed out, non-comms have Traffic Reports, too. KQED uses Joe McConnell, the same guy as KGO's Joe Vincent, without those live airborne reports.

 

[woody1394]

Joe McConnell and Joe Vincent are the same person, or did I just misunderstand?

As for Ed Baxter...don't get me started.

Don't want to get you started, but I kinda like Ed Baxter. He definitely has his annoying moments, but I think since he went to mornings a while back he's a bit better. He seemed to be the odd ball in the afternoons when it was Ed and Rosie. My favorite is when he and Willie Brown got into it on live radio (remember "The hell with ME, Willie!"?). Sometimes its the little things that make the broadcast interesting. ;D

BTW, I don't hear too much in this forum about the afternoon news on KGO. I like Greg and Rosie, and Kevin the Rat is a good replacement for Starkey (although I still miss Starkey's sports reports).

 

[DavidKaye]

And as the previous post pointed out, non-comms have Traffic Reports, too. KQED uses Joe McConnell, the same guy as KGO's Joe Vincent, without those live airborne reports.

Have you noticed that Joe McConnell sounds way more relaxed and his voice sounds deeper on KQED than on KGO? If not for the fact that his voice is recognizable he could be mistaken for another person. In both cases he sounds like he's been there all along listening to the programs, part of the news team, etc. That is skill!

 

[DavidKaye]

If you're not commuting, then traffic reports are certainly useless. But in my commute in the mornings and afternoons, I rely on these reports and I can't tell you how many times they've helped me. As you know, there are a ton of super-commuters here in the bay area, and these reports can be VERY valuable depending on where one is going and how far.

These past few years I've been driving a lot since one of my careers is emergency computer tech support. I can travel between El Sobrante and SSF and then back to SF and maybe Oakland in a single day. I've found that there are freeways and surface streets. The freeways are spaced far enough apart that it is useless to move to another freeway to go around a problem. It just takes too long. Those of us who drive enough know which surface streets work and which don't. This doesn't change. For instance, the Eastshore is always jam packed each afternoon with cars between the Bay Bridge and Gilman Streets. One knows to take San Pablo or the frontage road instead.

And then there is the timeliness of the traffic reports. By the time the reporter talks about a sofa in lane 1 of the freeway it's been moved off to the side and is no longer backing up traffic. This happened a couple weeks ago on the Nimitz.

Meanwhile a 2-car crash has just happened and it's blocking 3 lanes of the Bayshore near Tunnel Road (as happened Tuesday afternoon near Brisbane). There was nothing on KCBS about it. Those of us who chose to look several car lengths ahead of our noses saw a problem and took the Candlestick exit and drove the surface streets around the stoppage.

Again, I really can't see how anything in a traffic report short of a disaster is significant enough to aid a commuter.

 

[sloux]

As for Ed Baxter...don't get me started.

Don't want to get you started, but I kinda like Ed Baxter. He definitely has his annoying moments, but I think since he went to mornings a while back he's a bit better. He seemed to be the odd ball in the afternoons when it was Ed and Rosie. My favorite is when he and Willie Brown got into it on live radio (remember "The hell with ME, Willie!"?). Sometimes its the little things that make the broadcast interesting. ;D

Okay, you got me started.
The biggest gripe I have with Ed, other than his awkward radio presence...uh, okay, um, uh...is his unprofessional tactics on breaking news stories. As a newsman he should know better, but every time he is at the microphone I hear him speculating inappropriately regarding the mostly unknown elements of a story that just breaks.

Does anyone else think he engages in a love-fest when interviewing then-mayor now-Attorney General Jerry Brown? It's a stretch for the listener to believe he's being objective or asking the difficult questions.

Finally, his Editorializing comments are really not appreciated. He will often slip in some editorialization and then say something like, "...uh, did I say that? Yeah, I guess we're really not supposed to editorialize." Yes Ed, but I suspect you were one of those kids who enjoyed watching others cringe when you dragged your nails across the chalkboard in 5th grade.

 

[mred]

other technology might make radio traffic reports worthless, but they go so fast you can't hear what they say half the time.

 

[DavidKaye]

other technology might make radio traffic reports worthless, but they go so fast you can't hear what they say half the time.

There's also the problem of not mentioning the city where a traffic problem is happening. It's not enough to say "the Jackson Street onramp to I-880" -- is that the one in Oakland or the one in Hayward? Or how about a traffic problem involving "Embarcadero" (Martinez, SF, or Mountain View?) or "Potrero" (SF or Richmond?) Also, when they do mention specific locations they tend to do say them first rather than last, so that the casual listener is not going to know where the problem is.