• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

New method for clearing libtalk?

A

ajhenderson

I was in Flagstaff recently, where I have discussed a Part 15 station there that clears Fox Sports Radio straight off the bird. They're selling spots, marketing themselves, etc. Their engineer who set it up, with two Rangemasters IIRC, is a very smart guy in demand in Phoenix.

Lead me to thinking... why doesn't Air America, or local democratic groups using either bird-to-air feeds or a variety of AAR/Jones/WOR shows, assemble a network of Part 15 AM transmitters in smaller markets where a couple Rangemasters at 4-5 miles each would blanket a good area? Even if they didn't go so far as to make it a fully commercial operation, they could still broadcast from an ideological perspective for a very small investment.

Possible?
 
> I was in Flagstaff recently, where I have discussed a Part
> 15 station there that clears Fox Sports Radio straight off
> the bird. They're selling spots, marketing themselves, etc.
> Their engineer who set it up, with two Rangemasters IIRC, is
> a very smart guy in demand in Phoenix.
>
> Lead me to thinking... why doesn't Air America, or local
> democratic groups using either bird-to-air feeds or a
> variety of AAR/Jones/WOR shows, assemble a network of Part
> 15 AM transmitters in smaller markets where a couple
> Rangemasters at 4-5 miles each would blanket a good area?
> Even if they didn't go so far as to make it a fully
> commercial operation, they could still broadcast from an
> ideological perspective for a very small investment.
>
> Possible?
>

Kids, just say 'no' to drugs.

<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
Old method for marginal formats

AAR's problem is that it is/was driven to operate from an "ideological perspective." Progressive talk will not ever be more than a niche format until someone starts to doing progressive talk to appeal to an audience, get an audience, sell an audience to advertisers and make money with it.

This approach puts AAR in the same category as student radio, foreign language stations, religion and infomercials - not in the same category as Rush, Hannity, et al. Progressive talk needs time to grow. Same thing happened with conservative talk. National networks were tried first. Then some local hosts, when the networks did not do all that well. Then some of those hosts got syndicated. They they found some guy in Sacremento, moved him to New York, and put him on 20 stations. Even then, some were low power. Some delayed the show and ran it at night. Some only did best of's on the weekends. He demonstrated he could get an audience and that audience could be sold to advertisers. He added stations. He upgraded stations. He improved his time slots. Other hosts jumped in (most did not make it, a few did). His name was Rush Limbaugh and now you know the rest of the story.

If you want a result, find somebody who has gotten that result and do what they did. - Tony Robbins

PS: Talk radio (traditional or progressive) does not influence elections. Political talk radio preaches to the choir; it does not get people into the pews.






> I was in Flagstaff recently, where I have discussed a Part
> 15 station there that clears Fox Sports Radio straight off
> the bird. They're selling spots, marketing themselves, etc.
> Their engineer who set it up, with two Rangemasters IIRC, is
> a very smart guy in demand in Phoenix.
>
> Lead me to thinking... why doesn't Air America, or local
> democratic groups using either bird-to-air feeds or a
> variety of AAR/Jones/WOR shows, assemble a network of Part
> 15 AM transmitters in smaller markets where a couple
> Rangemasters at 4-5 miles each would blanket a good area?
> Even if they didn't go so far as to make it a fully
> commercial operation, they could still broadcast from an
> ideological perspective for a very small investment.
>
> Possible?
>
 
Those tired old talking points

> AAR's problem is that it is/was driven to operate from an
> "ideological perspective." Progressive talk will not ever
> be more than a niche format until someone starts to doing
> progressive talk to appeal to an audience, get an audience,
> sell an audience to advertisers and make money with it.

(No) thanks for repeating the same old, tired anti-AAR talking points that we've heard a thousand times before. Thankfully, you had to omit the prediction that AAR would fold immediately after the '04 election because its mission had failed. And, of course, you didn't address the spectacular success the format has had in Portland, although in case you haven't gotten the word, the talking point is that Portland is full of wacky, far-lefties. Of course that ignores the fact that the Portland market as a whole is no more liberal than the San Francisco, Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C. markets (among others) -- the difference being that in Portland, lib-talk is on a strong low-frequency signal and in those other markets it is not.
 
Re: Old method for marginal formats

Agree partially..but the history isn't quite right when it comes to conservative talk. ABC Talkradio was not a "conservative talk network", neither was NBC's Talknet. A problem with ABC Talkradio was that affiliates had to clear all of the daytime schedule. Rush got started when Owen Spann's departure left a hole in the schedule,and Ed McLaughlin (NOT a political operative) launched Rush's national show in its place. Before mcLaughlin came into the picture, Rush t=urned down an offer to syndicate him from an ideological group. It still works like this: get an audience, then a bigger audience, beat established shows and you get on bigger stations. There's no shortcut.
 
Re: Those tired old talking points

Yes, you do repeating the same old talking points.

KPOJ in Portland does well because they have a strong signal and because the station is well-programmed (with a very strong local show in morning drive) and Ed Schultz at midday. If you really want progressive talk radio to succeed, you need to look past your alliegance to one program provider (AAR).

Progressive talk radio needs to be good radio.
Progressive talk radio like any other format rises and falls at the local level.
Top performing talk stations (progressive or traditional)all have a strong local presence, with local hosts and local news.
Top performing talk stations are well programmed with solid imaging and promotion. Stations pick the combination of hosts that will work well in a given format in a given market; they don't just plug into one network feed.
Ideology alone (left or right) may get people listening, but it won't keep people listening.

What the progressive talk format needs to grow and thrive is a choice syndicators (including AAR, DR and others) offering a selection of hosts and program styles from which local stations can choose. The fittest will survive and the appeal of progressive talk radio will improve.

In most markets, progressive talk has not been competitive. Neither has Salem. It's not about ideology. Salem is a weak entry because it is on stations with poorer signals and operating with a low-cost, turn-key format. Salem does poorly despite the fact that some Salem hosts (Medved, Praeger) put on better shows than some of the better known conservative hosts (Hannity). The same principle applies to sports talk stations which just plug into ESPN, Fox or Sporting News. Stations which just take the AAR feed risk resigning themselves to being marginal operations.






>
>
> (No) thanks for repeating the same old, tired anti-AAR
> talking points that we've heard a thousand times before.
> Thankfully, you had to omit the prediction that AAR would
> fold immediately after the '04 election because its mission
> had failed. And, of course, you didn't address the
> spectacular success the format has had in Portland, although
> in case you haven't gotten the word, the talking point is
> that Portland is full of wacky, far-lefties. Of course that
> ignores the fact that the Portland market as a whole is no
> more liberal than the San Francisco, Boston, New York, or
> Washington, D.C. markets (among others) -- the difference
> being that in Portland, lib-talk is on a strong
> low-frequency signal and in those other markets it is not.
>
 
Re: Those tired old talking points

>
> KPOJ in Portland does well because they have a strong signal
> and because the station is well-programmed (with a very
> strong local show in morning drive) and Ed Schultz at
> midday. If you really want progressive talk radio to
> succeed, you need to look past your alliegance to one
> program provider (AAR).

KPOJ was doing very well BEFORE it added a local show, with an all-Air America lineup plus Ed Schultz. How do you explain that? The talking point before the "strong local show" talking point was that Portland was full of leftie wackos. I'm glad to see that you've abandoned that one.
 
Re: Those tired old talking points

Excuse me. I never said "Portland was full of leftie wackos." I don't think so. And I don't consider lefties to be wackos necessarily (you get wackos all over the political spectrum). If you would allow for the possibility that maybe you guessed wrong about PW and me, maybe we could get somewhere.

AS far as I can see, about the only places we differ are:
You have a higher opinion of AAR's on-air product than I.
I don't equate AAR with the progressive talk format.
I think AAR's listener fund-raising effort was unseemly and ill-advised.
I think, in one way or another, we both want progessive talk to be a permanent and viable part of radio.



> The talking point before the "strong local
> show" talking point was that Portland was full of leftie
> wackos. I'm glad to see that you've abandoned that one.
>
 
Liberal Talk "Evolution"

> Excuse me. I never said "Portland was full of leftie
> wackos." I don't think so. And I don't consider lefties to
> be wackos necessarily (you get wackos all over the political
> spectrum). If you would allow for the possibility that
> maybe you guessed wrong about PW and me, maybe we could get
> somewhere.

I think Scribbler's buttons got pushed a little early here, frankly.

I don't know you, or what your political persuasion is, but you make a lot of strong RADIO points.

It's quite apparent that despite their early high profile and head start, progressive talk is not necessarily "Air America" anymore. Much of the lineup has been fairly weak, including, IMHO, Mr. Franken himself. He's not *awful*, but if his name were Al Smith, he wouldn't be there. He's only there because he's a Big Name (same with Mr. Springer). His show is often too dry, and it relies WAY too much on telephone and in-studio guests from various left wing think tanks and from print publications.

While many may appreciate that, it turns Franken into kind of a commercial alternative to NPR. Which, in that audience, isn't bad in and of itself... but as always, the best hosts in the world of liberal talk are *commercial radio* people.

Here, I'll name them. AAR's own Randi Rhodes, with 10-plus years of talk radio experience and more than that in other formats. Jones' Stephanie Miller, a funny, talented long-time Los Angeles radio type (KABC, KTZN, etc.). Jones' Ed Schultz, even though most of his radio experience is in the very small market of Fargo, at least knows his way around a microphone without help.

Meanwhile, AAR programming like Morning Sedition and Janeane Garofolo's Majority Report hasn't caught on nearly as much as any of the above, and they're preempted in most markets. The rest of AAR is like Fox Sports Radio or Sporting News Radio, mostly filler to fill out the schedule. (Late nighter Mike Malloy is a talented radio pro [WSB, WLS], but seems to have gone off the deep end in his current stint with AAR.)

No, no talking points from me, here....remember, I listen to talk radio from all perspectives. It's just the natural evolution of the format.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Re: Those tired old talking points

> Excuse me. I never said "Portland was full of leftie
> wackos." I don't think so. And I don't consider lefties to
> be wackos necessarily (you get wackos all over the political
> spectrum). If you would allow for the possibility that
> maybe you guessed wrong about PW and me, maybe we could get
> somewhere.

My point was that when KPOJ was a resounding success with an all-AAR lineup, plus Schultz, those of you who seemed obsessed with trashing AAR, explained its good ratings on Portland being full of liberals. Now, you're focusing on the "local show" angle, even though KPOJ was doing quite well before it added Hartmann. I agree that good local shows help, but it's not Air America's fault if its affiliates don't want to spend the money to hire local hosts. AAR is providing a full lineup of programs from which stations can pick and choose. What's wrong with that?

As for "PW," now I'm convinced: after PW was banned for going too far with his anti-AAR campaign, it was just coincidence that you suddenly appeared, using the same syntax, but with a toned-down anti-AAR approach. I also regret ever doubting my parents when they told me about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
>
> AS far as I can see, about the only places we differ are:
> You have a higher opinion of AAR's on-air product than I.
> I don't equate AAR with the progressive talk format.
> I think AAR's listener fund-raising effort was unseemly and
> ill-advised.

Of course, you may be a little confused about that fund-raising effort, since you posted with apparent glee the false New York Post report that Air America "announcers" were "begging" for donations. In fact, no AAR host (or "announcer") has done any such thing. The only "fund-raising effort" has been in a single e-mail message to people who had signed up for an AAR mailing list and in a small box on the AAR web site.
 
> I was in Flagstaff recently, where I have discussed a Part
> 15 station there that clears Fox Sports Radio straight off
> the bird. They're selling spots, marketing themselves, etc.
> Their engineer who set it up, with two Rangemasters IIRC, is
> a very smart guy in demand in Phoenix.
>
> Lead me to thinking... why doesn't Air America, or local
> democratic groups using either bird-to-air feeds or a
> variety of AAR/Jones/WOR shows, assemble a network of Part
> 15 AM transmitters in smaller markets where a couple
> Rangemasters at 4-5 miles each would blanket a good area?
> Even if they didn't go so far as to make it a fully
> commercial operation, they could still broadcast from an
> ideological perspective for a very small investment.
>
> Possible?

AAR now has 70 affiliates which gives them coverate in about 60% of US radio users. The next 70 affiliates will probably give them 20% more coverage. That process is already well underway. Look at the most recent additions

Sta & Band DMA Short Rank
KTXX-FM San Antonio 30
KOKE-AM Austin 42
WSMB-AM New Orleans 46
WWTQ-AM Memphis 48
WYNK-AM Baton Rouge 83
WSSP-AM Charleston, SC 89
WOIC-AM Columbia, SC 90
KJFK-AM Reno 127
WKBF-AM Quad Cities 142
WYOS-AM Binghamton 178
WNYY-AM Ithaca 274

I don't think that AAR will have trouble getting coverage from small market AM stations.
 
Re: Liberal Talk "Evolution"

>(Late
> nighter Mike Malloy is a talented radio pro [WSB, WLS], but
> seems to have gone off the deep end in his current stint
> with AAR.)
>
> No, no talking points from me, here....remember, I listen to
> talk radio from all perspectives. It's just the natural
> evolution of the format.

Maybe you have "no talking points" and "listen to talk radio from all perspectives" but you do have a personal bias, like everyone else on this board (including me). Would you prefer Mike Malloy sound like the wimpish Alan Colmes? IMO, Mike has never sounded better.
 
Are you referring to Licensed or Unlicensed operations?

Are you referring to licensed or unlicensed operations? Unlicensed FM transmitters - i.e. that you might find at a mega-electronics store or purchase on-line, would not have enough power to reach more than a few blocks. The field strength at 100' to 200' away is so low that most people would need sensitive and selective receivers to receive the signal. Most made radios today have terrible selectivity (i.e. the 'ubiquitous and ugly' $30 blue, red, or grey CD/MW/FM boom boxes sold 'everywhere').

However, if you are talking about *licensed* low power FM, that IS a viable idea for talk, and is already being done nationwide for a variety of formats including talk.

However, isn't Air America trying to go on the AM dial on regular commercial stations? Would Air America allow a low power FM station to program Air America programs?

Democracy Now with Amy Goodman runs on some low power FM stations, but I'm not sure about Air America. If AAR does, would such affiliates be included in their web site affiliate count (now 70)?

What is this Flagstaff station? Do you have more details? Interesting...


> I was in Flagstaff recently, where I have discussed a Part
> 15 station there that clears Fox Sports Radio straight off
> the bird. They're selling spots, marketing themselves, etc.
> Their engineer who set it up, with two Rangemasters IIRC, is
> a very smart guy in demand in Phoenix.
>
> Lead me to thinking... why doesn't Air America, or local
> democratic groups using either bird-to-air feeds or a
> variety of AAR/Jones/WOR shows, assemble a network of Part
> 15 AM transmitters in smaller markets where a couple
> Rangemasters at 4-5 miles each would blanket a good area?
> Even if they didn't go so far as to make it a fully
> commercial operation, they could still broadcast from an
> ideological perspective for a very small investment.
>
> Possible?
> <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by this Tom: on 10/03/05 08:31 PM.</FONT></P>
 
It's been done - at the other end of the spectrum

I haven't heard any lately, but I recall a few years back hearing a few unlicensed FMs in my travels that were relaying satellite talk from the other fringe of the ideological spectrum.

The programming - very heavy on the "buy gold and guns now, because the world will end tomorrow" stuff - came from an outfit called Genesis Communications Network, and I recall hearing it in Binghamton and a couple of towns in rural Pennsylvania.

Turns out that a check of their website - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.infowars.com/Genesis/affiliates.htm>http://www.infowars.com/Genesis/affiliates.htm</a> - shows that they're still around, apparently, with more than a few unlicensed affiliates listed.

(OTOH, that affiliate list is significantly outdated, so take it with a grain of salt and a big tinfoil helmet so the guvmint's thought rays don't getcha. They're watching you from your TV, you know...)<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
Re: It's been done - at the other end of the spectrum

> I haven't heard any lately, but I recall a few years back
> hearing a few unlicensed FMs in my travels that were
> relaying satellite talk from the other fringe of the
> ideological spectrum.
>
> The programming - very heavy on the "buy gold and guns now,
> because the world will end tomorrow" stuff - came from an
> outfit called Genesis Communications Network, and I recall
> hearing it in Binghamton and a couple of towns in rural
> Pennsylvania.
>
> Turns out that a check of their website -
> http://www.infowars.com/Genesis/affiliates.htm - shows that
> they're still around, apparently, with more than a few
> unlicensed affiliates listed.
>
> (OTOH, that affiliate list is significantly outdated, so
> take it with a grain of salt and a big tinfoil helmet so the
> guvmint's thought rays don't getcha. They're watching you
> from your TV, you know...)

The Alabama affiliates are way off.

WIQR is now SNR, WAVD is now WWTM and also sports, WYDH is now WNSI and mostly sports except for CBS news and Dave Ramsey, WBCA is gospel, and WBCF is still talk, but doesn't list any Genesis programs on their site.

Unless the Dothan pirate is still around, they're no longer on in AL.

<a href = "http://www.nationalassociationofmicrobroadcasters.com/"> The National Association of Microbroadcasters </a> is another group of unlicensed stations running militia-type stuff. I've heard one of their member stations in south Georgia and another in Oregon (which may be gone now).

And it's not like there aren't a bunch of "Radio Free Somewhere"s out there running Pacifica and other hard left stuff, but they're mostly all in major cities. I'm curious. Are there any stats that show how commercial legal libtalk does in cities that already have an established left-wing pirate?


>
 
Re: Liberal Talk "Evolution"

> Maybe you have "no talking points" and "listen to talk radio
> from all perspectives" but you do have a personal bias, like
> everyone else on this board (including me). Would you prefer
> Mike Malloy sound like the wimpish Alan Colmes? IMO, Mike
> has never sounded better.

My "personal bias" is towards entertaining, informative talk radio. Particularly the entertainment part, which explains why Jones' Stephanie Miller is my favorite out of the current crop of liberal talk hosts.

As far as Mike Malloy, I've no doubt he aims well at the "red meat" folks in the liberal talk listenership. The problem is...I'm not one. I'm pretty much a moderate who listens to everything, if it's entertaining and interesting. (That's why I hardly ever even try to listen to Jerry Springer, for example, even though I can get him here in my small appliances via blowtorch WTAM/1100.)

And I don't listen to Alan Colmes, and he's very obviously a bad fit for liberal talkers...as many liberal listeners think he's Sean Hannity's TV lapdog.

-OA <P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
>Look at the most recent additions

OK, a small handful of clarifications, correction or updates...

> Sta & Band DMA Short Rank
> KTXX-FM San Antonio 30

As noted by many, KTXX is a pretty bad San Antonio rimshot, coming out of the southeast by some distance...it's licensed to Karnes City, TX. It misses even more of the SA market than Clear Channel's libtalker, KRPT/92.5 Devine TX.

> WSMB-AM New Orleans 46

Due to the unfortunate situation in that part of the world, WSMB is currently simulcasting post-Katrina information with the "United Radio" Entercom/CC joint effort there. I'm curious if liberal talk comes back to that frequency, but that's more a general thought regarding the future of all commercial radio in that market...which will most assuredly drop out of the top 50 when they start counting population after things settle down.

> WSSP-AM Charleston, SC 89

This station, which also ran Jones' Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, just dropped liberal talk to run standards music. The former occupant of the frequency, WSCC, is staying on FM.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Re: It's been done - at the other end of the spectrum

> The Alabama affiliates are way off.
>
> WIQR is now SNR, WAVD is now WWTM and also sports, WYDH is
> now WNSI and mostly sports except for CBS news and Dave
> Ramsey, WBCA is gospel, and WBCF is still talk, but doesn't
> list any Genesis programs on their site.
>
> Unless the Dothan pirate is still around, they're no longer
> on in AL.
>
> The National Association of Microbroadcasters is another
> group of unlicensed stations running militia-type stuff.
> I've heard one of their member stations in south Georgia and
> another in Oregon (which may be gone now).
>
> And it's not like there aren't a bunch of "Radio Free
> Somewhere"s out there running Pacifica and other hard left
> stuff, but they're mostly all in major cities. I'm curious.
> Are there any stats that show how commercial legal libtalk
> does in cities that already have an established left-wing
> pirate?
>


There are a few LPFM's out there that run "Democracy Now" and "Free Speech Radio News" and the like. I've been seeking them out to link to on my site.

Radio Free Santa Cruz was a notorious pirate that ran "Democracy Now" and other such shows (and lots of music shows, of course).Last I heard, they were finally knocked off the air for good in a highly publicized bust. Still might be a few pirates around (I heard of one in the Minneapolis area that was actually running AAR right off an XM receiver). But pirates usually aren't too much a factor, since they're pretty low powered, on and off the air infrequently and change frequencies from time to time. Community LPFM's, though, have become somewhat of a player, and mostly in smaller markets, since these are the ones more likely to have LPFM frequencies available.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
Re: Alan Colmes

> And I don't listen to Alan Colmes, and he's very obviously a
> bad fit for liberal talkers...as many liberal listeners
> think he's Sean Hannity's TV lapdog.

This reply is to posts on Colmes in general, not specifically to Old Akronite...

I guess I seem to disagree with many posters on this forum about Alan Colmes, but that's OK...

I think Colmes is ideal for an evening show with his humor, stimulating debates between callers and guests, and interviews with some of the most highly credentialed newsmakers out there. Colmes can get interviews that few others can since he is with FOX. You will not find Bill CLinton on that many talk radio shows, for example. In addition, the radio show includes excerpts from the TV show guets. I do not have Cable TV, so I appreciate hearing portions of the TV interviews.

I've suggested this before to liberals...If you would like liberal radio to succeed, then why start designating selected liberal talk hosts as "unacceptable" for progressive talk stations. There are only a few syndicated liberal hosts struggling to make it, some of them without a salary, on low power class B, C, and D. Anyway...

If anyone in progressive talk radio programming/sales/syndication/internet streaming/webmasters etc. agrees, please reply. There's got to be at least one other person reading this who agrees! :)

POST DEDICATION:

This is post number 1480, which OF COURSE is dedicated to 1180 KLAY, with station owner Clay Huntington, news/talk 1180 KLAY Lakewood/Tacoma/Seattle.

Clay was the first to pioneer DAYNET in the Puget Sound area, with Dr. Joy Browne, ***Alan Colmes,*** and Barry Farber.

1180 even featured a replay of the first hour of Colmes at 5pm, entitled "Live at Five for your Evening Drive." The station also carried the debate program "Left to Right" with Colmes and Barry Farber.

Why have I designated post number *1480* for *1180?* 1480 was the original frequency of the station, which signed on to 1180 in the early 1990's. The station increased power to 5kW/day several years ago.

KLAY programming features syndicated and local programming from both political perspectives, including popular local hosts Frank Blair, Audrey Chase, Barbara Lord Nelson, and Lee Giles.

For 1490 we might be heading to New Mexico...we'll see...
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by this Tom: on 10/04/05 06:17 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom