Newspapers and talk radio

[mred]

I heard a national talk show host cite the NY Times and the San Jose Mercury News (lib drive-bys?)to make a point that the AIG bonus information was already known.

If you monitor talk radio, most of the topics come from newspapers. When someone like Gertz at Newsmax etc. does do some original reporting, it seems that the Big talk show hosts don't give much or any credit. I hardly hear Limbaugh, etc. mention any website except his own.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

If we see widespread newspaper failure in this country local talk radio will lose it's source for a lot of information.

 

[listener-in]

I heard a national talk show host cite the NY Times and the San Jose Mercury News (lib drive-bys?)to make a point that the AIG bonus information was already known.

If you monitor talk radio, most of the topics come from newspapers. When someone like Gertz at Newsmax etc. does do some original reporting, it seems that the Big talk show hosts don't give much or any credit. I hardly hear Limbaugh, etc. mention any website except his own.

The reason's quite simple, really. Limbaugh et al rarely give credit to outside sources because they make up most of the information and then quote themselves.

 

[KevinFodor]

If we see widespread newspaper failure in this country local talk radio will lose it's source for a lot of information.

You, sir are dead wrong. Most in talk radio get their info from the internet (I guess that's why Limbaugh has that big 20 inch monitor to his immediate right in his studios). I'm sure some hosts read the paper as a passing fantasy. (In my town, the amount of "news" in the paper is less than I can find on the paper's website.)

 

[The Beave]

If we see widespread newspaper failure in this country local talk radio will lose it's source for a lot of information.

You, sir are dead wrong. Most in talk radio get their info from the internet (I guess that's why Limbaugh has that big 20 inch monitor to his immediate right in his studios). I'm sure some hosts read the paper as a passing fantasy. (In my town, the amount of "news" in the paper is less than I can find on the paper's website.)

What Kevin said is true. I co-produce 2 shows 98% of what we air comes usually from the internet, blogs, and submitted sources. 2% of the newspaper
material is more as a back up.

Hosts and producers used to read something like 5-9 newspapers a day. Today we can cover 3 states worth of Dailies and Majors like WSJ, NY post, LA Times and many others in only a few hours.

Newspaper is dying at a substantial rate. Our local paper went from 18 pages of classifieds to 4 in a span of 3 months.

 

[cm454]

You guys are speaking of newspapers and the interent as if they are mutually exclusive of each other.

Most people I know READ the newspapers info ONLINE.

To gather your info from blogs is irresponsible and leads to the incredible dissinformation that has become commonplace on talkradio.

Newspapers are staffed with actual professional journalists---most of whom make a concerted effort to research and report stories as objectively as possible. There are exceptions, but generally this is true.

Limbaugh uses the phrase "drive-by" when referring to many established meadia outlets, which connotes a lack of accountability. How ironic, considering newspapers and TV networks ARE held accountable when they get something wrong. There are many within these organizations who are VERY conflicted and consciencious when it comes to journalistic ethics. If you don't know that, then you don't know any real journalists.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, makes no attempt to be objective, honest or fair. He just throws bricks from the shadows, having no accountability whatsoever. What's more "drive-by" than that?

If we start to rely more on internet and talkradio spinmeisters than on actual journalists, we're in very big trouble.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I never cease to be amazed at the hostility and "low regard" people have for the newspaper industry as a whole. Up against all the complaints we can make about newspapers today, they have been through the years the stability, the mass, the standards-keepers of journalistic standards and quality.

In years gone by the value of radio stations was chicken-feed, pocket change, compared to the value of a daily newspaper in a major city. Thus, the owners tended to protect their investment by insisting on quality journalism. Truth be known, there was a force that weighed heavily on the decision making of newspaper owners when they had to balance profits vs. high integrity: a successful newspaper needed quality journalists and if you ran a newspaper with shoddy journalistic standards, you could not acquire and/or keep quality journalists. I understand. I'm guilding the lily just a little bit. It was never quite that "peaches and cream" perfect, but those were the forces behind the scenes.

With big city daily newspapers falling by the wayside, and with the old line honored news magazines in no better shape, just where is the Internet going to get all this news that talk radio people gobble up for free every day?

What forces are at work to police the integrity of the material you find when you Google? Take up the task of genealogy sometime and try to put together your family history. Get with a family member who was doing genealogy 30 years ago, and ask them how much faster and effective it is today using the Internet. Watch their eyes roll as their face molds to a look or horror.

I have a couple of other interests where I like to do research. The Internet can be a devious mistress and one hell of an unreliable source. It is a super cheap way for partisan groups to dress up their dogma as valid news. If radio News-Talk fails, the autopsy will show the cause of death as "Internet Poisoning".

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

If we see widespread newspaper failure in this country local talk radio will lose it's source for a lot of information.

You, sir are dead wrong. Most in talk radio get their info from the internet (I guess that's why Limbaugh has that big 20 inch monitor to his immediate right in his studios). I'm sure some hosts read the paper as a passing fantasy. (In my town, the amount of "news" in the paper is less than I can find on the paper's website.)

Yes and if the newspaper goes the newspapers site goes as well.

Blogs? Blogs that comment on newspaper/newspaper sites stories. The newspaper industry is still the news leader their sites are an extension. The print version may go bye bye, but if they do the content will as well.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

You guys are speaking of newspapers and the interent as if they are mutually exclusive of each other.

Most people I know READ the newspapers info ONLINE.

To gather your info from blogs is irresponsible and leads to the incredible dissinformation that has become commonplace on talkradio.

Newspapers are staffed with actual professional journalists---most of whom make a concerted effort to research and report stories as objectively as possible. There are exceptions, but generally this is true.

Limbaugh uses the phrase "drive-by" when referring to many established meadia outlets, which connotes a lack of accountability. How ironic, considering newspapers and TV networks ARE held accountable when they get something wrong. There are many within these organizations who are VERY conflicted and consciencious when it comes to journalistic ethics. If you don't know that, then you don't know any real journalists.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, makes no attempt to be objective, honest or fair. He just throws bricks from the shadows, having no accountability whatsoever. What's more "drive-by" than that?

If we start to rely more on internet and talkradio spinmeisters than on actual journalists, we're in very big trouble.

Talk radio is opinion, not news. Accept it and get over it.

 

[ctkatz]

If radio News-Talk fails, the autopsy will show the cause of death as "Internet Poisoning".

pardon me if i call bs on that statement.

news talk radio is failing because the talkers that are widely available are completely out of touch with their listeners. limbaugh has over 500 stations. he's also a multimillionare. you think that he REALLY gives a damn about the lives of his core audience? and i don't think you can rightly blame local news talk stations for this because very quickly, there aren't any more of them left. and what is left is a comedic shell in some cases. most of these radio stations are essentially becoming a terrestrialized satellite radio with relevant spots, news, weather, and traffic inserted in the appropriate places. radio stations in two different parts of the country are quickly becoming the same station in every way other than the local spots when they used to offer different content. a partial example of this is the spread of ryan seacrest's show. its nothing that the old morning guys did except that running syndicated seacrest saves money. for these people, it's all about the money.

and despite what many people are telling you there are some people who don't want to listen to this garbage anymore. if news talk radio fails, the autopsy will read "death by greed and self exfixiation". people are flocking to the internet to find their preferences. i don't think that its any surprise that podcast listenership and internet listenership is exploding.

 

[cm454]

Talk radio is opinion, not news. Accept it and get over it.

Get over it? It is EXACTLY my point!

What you obviously don't get, is that many listeners don't make the distinction between fact and opinion. They think talk hosts ARE journalists! THAT is the problem!

You must not work in the format, otherwise you would know this just from talking to audience members.

 

[mred]

Does Drudge write those articles? or does he get them from newspapers or magazines? He hasn't had a big original story since the blue dress, unfortunately. CNN broke the story on Sen. Dodd being caught in a lie?, this will be a big part of today's Rush show. So once again, the talk radio topics will
from the mainstrem drive by media.

 

[mred]

Drudge has a Reuters story about the AG easing anti-trust laws to allow newspapers to survive. (Maybe they need a talk radio tax and use the proceeds to fund newspapers?)

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Drudge has a Reuters story about the AG easing anti-trust laws to allow newspapers to survive. (Maybe they need a talk radio tax and use the proceeds to fund newspapers?)

Your post gives us a good opportunity to explore an issue that hangs over the head of people who want to develop content for distribution via the Internet, and people who want to use Internet content to flesh out their on-air broadcasting. I don't follow Drudge regularly. Maybe he has explained answers to the question I am about to ask.

If Drudge had an Internet site that was streaming music, the music people would come after him for copyright royalties, and now compensation for the performers and the record companies. When Drudge quotes from Reuters, does he have their permission to do that; does he pay them a royalty for using their copyright news material; is Reuters just being passive for now in hopes his quote will send people to Reuters for additional reading and information?

It is my opinion that just as the music people want a slice of the pie from Internet distribution, "news sources" are eventually going to want a slice of the pie from Internet distribution also.

I am assuming that for now talk show people who gather program prep from the Internet are getting "a free ride" from the various news sources. If I get entrepreneurial and create a great blog or great audio content on the Internet that draws a large enough audience for me to "monetize" it through either advertising or subscriptions, could my enterprise crumble when the people I plagiarized from have their lawyers start sending me "cease and desist" letters, followed by offers to SELL me the right to use their copyrighted material?

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

Drudge has a Reuters story about the AG easing anti-trust laws to allow newspapers to survive. (Maybe they need a talk radio tax and use the proceeds to fund newspapers?)

Your post gives us a good opportunity to explore an issue that hangs over the head of people who want to develop content for distribution via the Internet, and people who want to use Internet content to flesh out their on-air broadcasting. I don't follow Drudge regularly. Maybe he has explained answers to the question I am about to ask.

If Drudge had an Internet site that was streaming music, the music people would come after him for copyright royalties, and now compensation for the performers and the record companies. When Drudge quotes from Reuters, does he have their permission to do that; does he pay them a royalty for using their copyright news material; is Reuters just being passive for now in hopes his quote will send people to Reuters for additional reading and information?

It is my opinion that just as the music people want a slice of the pie from Internet distribution, "news sources" are eventually going to want a slice of the pie from Internet distribution also.

I am assuming that for now talk show people who gather program prep from the Internet are getting "a free ride" from the various news sources. If I get entrepreneurial and create a great blog or great audio content on the Internet that draws a large enough audience for me to "monetize" it through either advertising or subscriptions, could my enterprise crumble when the people I plagiarized from have their lawyers start sending me "cease and desist" letters, followed by offers to SELL me the right to use their copyrighted material?

Generally they just link to the articles with a little blurb and the readers have to click to go to the article. (much like is done on radio-info)

The music/news connection is weak.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

Talk radio is opinion, not news. Accept it and get over it.

Get over it? It is EXACTLY my point!

What you obviously don't get, is that many listeners don't make the distinction between fact and opinion. They think talk hosts ARE journalists! THAT is the problem!

You must not work in the format, otherwise you would know this just from talking to audience members.

Lets not play this "you don't work in the format game," you have no idea.

The fact that SOME think Rush is a journalist does not change the fact that he is a talking head, much like O'Reilly and Olberman.

What do you want done here?

A disclaimer?

A gag?

A fairness doctrine?

Oh wait, the last two are the same thing.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Generally they just link to the articles with a little blurb and the readers have to click to go to the article. (much like is done on radio-info)

Drudge can do that.... en his website. When owners of copyrighted (news) information come to realize they want to clamp down on "poaching"... Rush can't do a broadcast where he "links" to the original source. He can on his website, but link-listing-verbiage is not likely to catch on as audience compelling content for a radio broadcast.

The music/news connection is weak.

Music is copyrighted and the owner has a right to collect royalties when music is used.

News content of newspapers, magazines and websites is copyrighted. The owner has a right to collect royalties when news is used by someone else to flesh out the content of a book or a radio broadcast.

What is so weak about that connection?

Sit down and talk with an "Intellectual Property Attorney" sometime and then maybe we can have an "intellectual" conversation on the subject.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

Generally they just link to the articles with a little blurb and the readers have to click to go to the article. (much like is done on radio-info)

Drudge can do that.... en his website. When owners of copyrighted (news) information come to realize they want to clamp down on "poaching"... Rush can't do a broadcast where he "links" to the original source. He can on his website, but link-listing-verbiage is not likely to catch on as audience compelling content for a radio broadcast.

The music/news connection is weak.

Music is copyrighted and the owner has a right to collect royalties when music is used.

News content of newspapers, magazines and websites is copyrighted. The owner has a right to collect royalties when news is used by someone else to flesh out the content of a book or a radio broadcast.

What is so weak about that connection?

Sit down and talk with an "Intellectual Property Attorney" sometime and then maybe we can have an "intellectual" conversation on the subject.

All that's great, if only copyright attorney were as smart as GOat Radio Cowboy. I guess they just want that goldmine of copyright infringement happening on blogs and talk radio to go untapped.

Hurry GRC get on the phone with the local newspaper, they need the revenue maybe you can get a cut.

Practical effect of fair use defense

The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses.

Thanks for playing.

Whoops I forgot the ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense[/url]

 

[kinetic]

Talk radio is opinion, not news. Accept it and get over it.

Get over it? It is EXACTLY my point!

What you obviously don't get, is that many listeners don't make the distinction between fact and opinion. They think talk hosts ARE journalists! THAT is the problem!

You must not work in the format, otherwise you would know this just from talking to audience members.

At the risk of Godwinning this discussion, I dare say that Hitler is a perfect example of someone with a microphone, the gift of gab and a boatload of rhetoric who engaged more in opinionated ad hominem than verifiable fact.

It's not hard to gin up a crowd. How many times did we hear people on the campaign trail refer to Obama as a terrorist, an Arab, a Muslim, a socialist --to the point of "kill him!" Where do these ideas come from? Today we have people picketing the homes of AIG bonus recipients, pitchfork in hand.

I don't support the return of the Fairness Doctrine; in fact, bringing it up as a point of argument is just plain stupid. There has never been enough support anywhere at a legislative level to bring it back, and conservative broadcasters knew it. It was just another ridiculous canard used to gin up the pitchfork crowd.

Opinion should be driven by fact; my sense is that too many talk show hosts start with an opinion and then find facts to support them while ignoring facts that don't. I don't suppose this is a revelation, even for those who cavalierly say "Talk radio is opinion, not news," and that we should get over it, but I do think this modus operandi is irresponsible. Sadly, it plays into a distinct human character flaw: We tend to seek affirmation, not information. Listening to opinions with which they already agree may provide some level of comfort for many but I don't see it being nearly as productive as listening to the ideas of those with who one might disagree --provided they are well-thought out and based in fact, not ad hominem.

It's sad that talk radio plays into this distinct human character flaw, but even sadder is the possibility that many a talk show host is well aware of this flaw and knows well how to exploit it for their own personal gain. Do I want to prohibit that? No, but I'm reminded of a line in the movie "Aliens": "I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them f***ing each other over for a God-damned percentage."

On another note that may be more germane to another thurst of this thread, it appears that major media outlets --like newspapers-- want Google to change the way they tabulate search results. They argue that professional sources should be given greater standing than blogs and opinionators, and perhaps the professional "linkers" out there. No doubt, the pressure is increasing as newspaper ad revenues decrease. As on executive put it: "You should not have a system where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately."

Does he have a point?

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=135433

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As on executive put it: "You should not have a system where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately."

Does he have a point?

He presents a thought worthy of some discussion. Some of us grew up in a generation when access to communications was definitely limited with the focus on the "haves". Slogans like: "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own a press." I paid $50 for a used HP LaserJet a few years back. Today I am a "printing fool" the likes of which my father could never achieve.

Then the world changed. 15 or 20 years ago I read a paperback titled "Fire in the Valley". The story of the birth of the micro computer and the people who made it popular and accessible. I tried to discuss the book with my cousin who has spent a lifetime living and working in Silicon Valley. I told him what I read in the book and he said I was nuts. But here goes: Why is Silicon Valley where it happened? Why not Boston? Why not Research Triangle Park in N.C.?

It was because Silicon Valley is next to Berkley which in that era was the gathering place of people with interesting traits including being rebellious and non-conformist. When these anti-war, anti-lots-of-things geeks found out they were no longer subservient to the High Priest behind the dutch-door into the room that housed the Holy Main Frame, and that with a very small device on their desk they were free to calculate, write and publish... what ever they pleased, and they could do it any hour of the day or night they were sufficiently sober or sufficiently high to get the job done.

Fast forward to today. Blogs. Internet discussion boards. Streaming. No longer are people with opinions confined to standing on a soapbox in the village green. No longer is the ability to reach large, make that VERY LARGE audiences restricted to the people whose families sent them to the finest Ivy League Universities and then turned over an inheritance of Big Printing Presses backed up by offices full of properly groomed editorial writers.

The next Hitler. The next Mother Teresa. The next Newt Gingrich. The next Billy Graham. The next Malcolm X. The next Ronald Reagan. They can apply themselves and get to the top of the Google search when everything they own could be put in that soap-box their daddy would have stood on in the village green.

It's a new world and we have to talk about how we are going to deal with forest fires when they break out.