News directors / "That's our opinion. We'd welcome yours" Editorials

[fortt3]

Back in the '70's --- : yes this is going to be an old timers' post --- when almost all radio stations provided something called "news", many of those that did had someone on staff named as the "news director". That person's job would be to put together the collection of wire reports and/or local reporting if the station did any, for the on-air staff to read. Sometimes the local reporting would consist of condensing articles from the local paper. Sometimes there would be three versions of the same story -- long, for the maybe noon/6/11 PM news programs; medium, for the standard top of the hour programs; and short, one-sentence blurbs, for the bottom of the hour news headlines.

One of the activities of the news director at some stations would be to write and record an editorial, similar to newspapers', about a topic of local interest -- a school bond referendum, a city council vote, the actions of a elected official -- to be played during the course of a broadcast day. Unlike the disclaimers you hear today, such editorials DID reflect the opinion of station management. Sometimes the editorial would be written and recorded by the station owner or manager. They usually had a special sounder to open - Columbus WDAK's Ed Wilson's deep voice opened theirs with "A W-D-A-K SPECIAL (half-pause) EDITORIAL"-- and were closed with something to the effect of "that's our opinion. We'd welcome yours."

Do Atlanta non-news/talk stations still have news directors? I'm sure the responsibilities would be vastly different - with no top or half-hour news anymore.

Does anyone in Atlanta still do editorials? When was the last time you heard one on Atlanta radio?

 

[TheBigA]

I think what you're talking about was a function of the FCC rules at the time. When those rules changed in the 80s, the editorials, for the most part, went away. Some companies like Sinclair Broadcasting, still do editorials on TV.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Thanks for the nostalgia trip.... BOTH of you!

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the industry apparently wiggled out from under the thumb of "Big Government" and gives the public (or should that read doesn't give the public) what it

• [ ]wants
• [ ]needs
• [ ]no longer wants
• [ ]no longer needs

I guess that is part of the difference between the big city and the wide-open country.

I spent the years fortt3 describes primarily in small rural markets. It was news and those hokey editorials that caused the Great Unwashed Masses (and the advertising buying merchants!) to realize we were actually a media... just like the newspaper.

In small town America back then, everyone was born knowing the on the eighth day, God created newspapers. Sometime about 1960 a vicious rumor spread across the nation that maybe, just maybe, that in small towns... radio was divinely inspired.

 

[JVR]

Do Atlanta non-news/talk stations still have news directors? I'm sure the responsibilities would be vastly different - with no top or half-hour news anymore.

Yes, Rob Stadler comes to mind very quickly for his top/half of the hour Info2Go updates on Star94.

Others-- Veronica Waters on both B98.5 and Kiss104, Tim Bryant on WNGC 106.1 and 103.7 Chuck FM in Gainesville.

 

[fortt3]

I think that ownership consolidation was the kiss of death of the editorials. You can't say you are stating the views of station owners/management. That owner/manager is in another state and has no interest in local affairs.

 

[TheBigA]

I think that ownership consolidation was the kiss of death of the editorials. You can't say you are stating the views of station owners/management. That owner/manager is in another state and has no interest in local affairs.

Really editorials were gone when the FCC news requirement was gone in the 80s. Consolidation has nothing to do with it.

Believe me, big owners would LOVE to use their radio stations to editorialize, but they don't. The way Sinclair did it was with national editorials by one guy (Mark Hyman) on all of their stations.

 

[stevensonair]

One could argue the companies do "editorialize" by their selection of programming.

Look at the lineup on most of the major corporation's talkers and even the ones they clear on the weaker signals, and tell me their position isn't perfectly clear.

 

[TheBigA]

One could argue the companies do "editorialize" by their selection of programming.

Look at the lineup on most of the major corporation's talkers and even the ones they clear on the weaker signals, and tell me their position isn't perfectly clear.

Their "position" is based strictly on money, not agenda. Just like their music choices.

 

[stevensonair]

I used to think so, until I noticed ads for talk show hosts weren't simply asking for the best, most entertaining.. they were asking for specifically "conservative" hosts.

Now, why wouldn't a profit based enterprise strictly be asking for the most entertaining hosts, period?

I think there is a bias on the part of many programmers against hiring equally entertaining personalities from a political perspective outside of what supports the company's policy interests.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

I used to think so, until I noticed ads for talk show hosts weren't simply asking for the best, most entertaining.. they were asking for specifically "conservative" hosts.

Now, why wouldn't a profit based enterprise strictly be asking for the most entertaining hosts, period?

I think there is a bias on the part of many programmers against hiring equally entertaining personalities from a political perspective outside of what supports the company's policy interests.

TheBigA is correct. Stations choose programming they think will get them the biggest ratings and make them the most money. Having liberal and conservative talkers on the same station would be the same as playing Hip Hop and Country.

That's my opinion. I welcome yours.

 

[TheBigA]

Now, why wouldn't a profit based enterprise strictly be asking for the most entertaining hosts, period?

Because the only talk show hosts who've attracted ratings and revenue are the conservative ones. Simply being entertaining doesn't guarantee big numbers. But I know of no company that has any political agenda other than cash. And it's against the law to hire people strictly based on politics.

 

[stevensonair]

I completely disagree, Roddy.

The format is news and talk.

The stations with the greatest heritage in this format for years mixed conservatives, moderates, and liberals in the lineup.

I spent a lot of time with WLS in Chicago. There was Don Wade (conservative) and his wife Roma (more liberal), Rush Limbaugh, Catherine Johns, Jay Marvin (more liberal) and so on.

WSB had a lineup with Boortz (libertarian), Mike Malloy (Liberal), Clark Howard (consumer talk), etc.

The emphasis was on an entertaining lineup of personalities - not ideologies.

At some point, that changed, and it became "expected" that talk radio was conservative.

It's nothing like mixing separate genres. Talk IS the genre.

 

[TheBigA]

It's nothing like mixing separate genres. Talk IS the genre.

Not any more. That may have worked a long time ago, but not now.

 

[stevensonair]

Then the current state of the talk format is like formatting a country station that only plays ballads, or a hip-hop station that exclusively plays "crunk" anthems.

Which leads to listener fatigue and increased irrelevance.

Which ultimately, leads to a shrinking audience and the loss of viability as a format.

 

[TheBigA]

Which leads to listener fatigue and increased irrelevance.

The problem is the lack of audience tolerance. You see the discussion in Congress. One side refuses to sit through the other. So changing politics on a station immediately alienates half of your audience. The goal of radio programming is to keep people and increase numbers, not turn them off.

Same with music. A contemporary country station risks losing a big chunk of audience by throwing in an oldie.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

I'm not sure how Clark Howard fits into this. I've never heard him talk about politics. And you can see what happened to Mike Malloy.

Liberal talk for the most part has never been successful on radio. KGO is possibly an exception. WABC used to mix in liberal talk with hosts such as Jay Diamond and Lynn Samuels but then went the all-conservative route. I will say that a lot of the problem with Air America was the terrible signals it was on for the most part.

I'm sure in the 60s when top-40 became the rage, a lot of station owners hated the music but tolerated it in the name of making money. (WMCA with R. Peter Strauss was an example.)

With virtually all political talk radio being conservative, the idea that's based on ideology and not money would have to be proven to me.

 

[stevensonair]

The Clark Howard reference was simply to point out that the lineup of the major news talkers when the format started becoming huge was not strictly conservative (or strictly liberal.) It seemed much more personality driven.

For a long time, major market successful talk stations were not defined by their politics, but by their personality.

Now that employment ads specify the politics of the hosts that are wanted, I'm beginning to believe there's more to it than simply profit.

Now, I could accept that perhaps due to audience and advertiser behavior, that even a PD wanting to hire a liberal show simply because it's entertaining, may face an uphill battle.

But I believe it is also that a company like Clear Channel would not, for instance, be as eager to hire a host who would be vocal against media consolidation. Or supportive of higher corporate tax rates.

 

[TheBigA]

But I believe it is also that a company like Clear Channel would not, for instance, be as eager to hire a host who would be vocal against media consolidation. Or supportive of higher corporate tax rates.

I can't imagine any talk show host finding a lot of audience discussing those two issues. I thought you said "entertaining?" Those are two of the dullest issues anyone could discuss in any forum.

The fact is that audience habits have changed. The audience wants media that they agree with, not that challenges them or gives them opposing views. You'll find that the few radio stations that attempt to give both sides are often seen as being liberal.

Dennis Miller is an example of a guy who changed his politics in order to gain an audience. His talk show was not doing well until his opinions became more conservative. Now his radio show is a hit, and he gets TV time with O'Reilly.

You can "believe" whatever you want. I can tell you in the real world of radio programming, you go with what works, and the only thing that works is conservative. And the personal politics of the owner, programmer, or station staff is irrelevant to the goal of making money. Keep them to yourself or practice them on your own time. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[fortt3]

Y'all got way off my OP - editorials on subjects of local interests, on a local Atlanta station.
Or was it that editorials were replaced by talk shows discussing local and national interests, which were replaced by national-only talkers, leaving no room for local subjects.
Don't ya'll think Elmo Ellis would have had something to say about the Atlanta School Test Cheating scandal?

 

[stevensonair]

Actually, that topic was addressed frequently by conservative talkers (the tax topic) in relation to the idea that taxing the "job creators" (major corporations) was keeping unemployment high. I heard it every day on conservative talk programs right up to Election Day.

If the politics are irrelevant to the management, why are their ads specifying an ideology to even accept demos? I thought it was about profit, not ideology. Which means finding the absolute most talented hosts. Period.

I was a fan of talk as a format when it had interesting people, often local, discussing their own viewpoints. Not simply a 24/7 echo chamber of the same general talking points the host before them used.

And it's that echo chamber that has become increasingly dull, and made this format less relevant to anyone under 55. I make these points not because I hate talk radio, but because if this format is to survive, it's got to evolve. And becoming more narrow in its topics and audience is not a business strategy.