Not a Talk Show Host

[FPB]

>"The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of >controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media. Since the rule was repealed, >conservative talk radio has exploded --
>
Interesting. So when the ground rules stipulate fairness and honesty, liberal views flourish. When these ground rules are abandoned, allowing lies, deception, fear-mongering, hate speech and slander, conservative views prosper.

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

Fairness Doctrine

... is a moot point. The landscape is totally different now.
There are many additional sources for information/news/opinions
that were not present in the Red Lion days. What has changed are
the audiences. The public does not want civility. They want talk
show hosts who share their point of view, and their frustrations.
The talk show hosts that are successful thrive on controversy. It is
like a car wreck on the highway - the worse the accident is, the
more one just has to take a look... Go to a political rally or speech -
the audience there is not there to hear both sides and make up
their minds - they are there to hear someone with whom they
already agree... Again, the best of intentions, but a bad law...

 

[FPB]

>My point: the "Fairness Doctrine" - NOBODY WINS. It was a bad law, albeit with the best of intentions...
>The Fairness Doctrine is superfluous in this age of 24-hour news, theinternet, and a gazillion bloggers out there - >every one of whom has an opinion. All viewpoints are out there, somewhere - no matter how crackpot
>or unpopular they may be...
>
There is a difference between an unpopular idea and a crackpot idea. A crackpot idea never has legitamacy while an unpopular idea often does. Without the fairness doctrine unpopular ideas are too easily dismissed as "crackpot" and crackpot ideas are given legitamacy if they suit peoples' agendas.

And, the fact that a gazillion bloggers are out there expressing their opinions without concern for fact or accuracy shouldn't give Radio a reason to follow suit. In fact, I'm sure that if Radio kept it's original higher standard the bloggers would be more responsible with their own writing. Nobody likes to look like a jerk. Unfortunately when public dialog is reduced to name-calling nobody LOOKS like a jerk because everyone IS one!

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

Fairness Doctrine

Without the Fairness Doctrine, you still have both sides of an
issue/question out there - they are just not both in the same space/time/program.
(example - Air America, Left - Fox News, Right) By definition, you already
recognize the bias of either side, and process the information available from that
side, accordingly. Unpopular vs. crackpot -- this is semantics. Who is to say? Depends on
who you ask... Name calling, bigotry, etc. - means nothing, if you
happen to agree with that point of view (whichever side you may be on)

 

[Don Juan]

Re: Fairness Doctrine

By definition, you already
recognize the bias of either side, and process the information available from that
side, accordingly.

Do you think the public knows the bias of every media organization?

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to get a fair view from a broadcast outlet?

Without the Fairness Doctrine, you still have both sides of an
issue/question out there - they are just not both in the same space/time/program.

Yet who will stand up for the least of us when they are attacked unfairly? Who will speak up against the use of words like "towelheads"?

The Red Lion case that forced the Fairness Doctrine into existence, did so because the aggrieved (and unpopular?) person had no vehicle for recourse.

Has the world become so relative that we fear the use of the word "fair"?

Again, it's not a case of Left or Right. (They have already staked out their positions on this issue.)

 

[FPB]

>What has changed are the audiences. The public does not want civility. They want talk show hosts who share their >point of view, and their frustrations. The talk show hosts that are successful thrive on controversy. It is like a car >wreck on the highway - the worse the accident is, the more one just has to take a look... Go to a political rally or >speech - the audience there is not there to hear both sides and make up their minds - they are there to hear someone >with whom they already agree... Again, the best of intentions, but a bad law...
>
Sounds to me like a very good law given up for the WORST intentions. Just my opinion.

Political rallies were never designed to be a venue where people could make up their minds. People used the media to gather up information which they could use to make up their minds. After that, they would attend the rallies that support their viewpoint.

You, as an owner, say the public doesn't want civility. But these days, the public is telling you they don't want radio. Ya think there's any connection? I do. If you're feeding the public incivility, you're serving a very small percentage of them.

 

[SonicOverload]

actually, one host on the left who does engage callers and guests with opposing points of view is Thom Hartmann. And the discourse is almost always civil.

 

[Don Juan]

actually, one host on the left who does engage callers and guests with opposing points of view is Thom Hartmann. And the discourse is almost always civil.

On the other side is Michael Medved, an avowed Conservative, but always respectful, civil and engaging with callers that disagree.

 

[lmf67]

Well Santos is none of these....He's Terrible, Unoriginal, Plain and Amazingly Boring on top of being one sided. He and his planted callers need to get on the same page as the rest of us Democrats. To the 4 people who listen to his show he makes the rest of us look bad.

Its no wonder why right wing radio rules in this town when the left wingers we sent up to the plate take to the air and sound like Uneducated Hacks!

 

[DanStrassberg]

Well Santos is none of these....He's Terrible, Unoriginal, Plain and Amazingly Boring on top of being one sided. He and his planted callers need to get on the same page as the rest of us Democrats. To the 4 people who listen to his show he makes the rest of us look bad.

Its no wonder why right wing radio rules in this town when the left wingers we sent up to the plate take to the air and sound like Uneducated Hacks!

I pretty much agree about Santos's (lack of) ability as a talk-host BUT he IS the guy who coaxed the $$$ out of the local Dems (and most likely out of Dial-Global) to lease the time on WWZN. So, no matter how bad his show is, as long has he can keep his backers and the station owners happy, we've got him and not anybody else. Pulling off this deal was hard work and Santos deserves credit for it. I'm convinced that his only motivation for working so hard was self-aggrandizement. I seriously question whether he has any real commitment to Liberal ideals. That same egotism and lack of idealism are, of course, the principal reasons I find his personality so repugnant. But I defy anyone else to pull off what he has--so far--pulled off. So, as I said here months ago, "we've gotta hunker down and take the bitter with the better."

 

[FPB]

>He and his planted callers
>
Tell us how you KNOW FOR SURE about these "planted callers".

It's very interesting how some people complain about the lack of callers, and you suddenly know all about "planted callers". If Santos is "planting callers" why are there not more of them?

 

[FPB]

>He's Terrible, Unoriginal, Plain and Amazingly Boring on top of being one sided.
>
There's nothing wrong with being one-sided. Thom Hartman and Michael Medved are both one-sided. They have their positions and they stick to them. Santos does the same.

>He and his planted callers need to get on the same page as the rest of us Democrats.
>
Ok. He's on the same page regarding healthcare. He's on the same page regarding the stimulus package. He doesn't like the surge in Afghanistan, which puts him on the same page as me, if not Democrats in general. He's annoyed with Congressional Democrats who want to be bi-partisan on important issues, which, again, puts him on the same page as me. How is he not on the same page as YOU, if you actually ARE a Democrat (which I doubt).

>Its no wonder why right wing radio rules in this town when the left wingers we sent up to the plate take to the air and >sound like Uneducated Hacks!
>
Right wing radio rules because radio is owned by right wing people.

Speaking for myself, as a progressive, I am really not a fan of Santos. What really annoys me is the guy doesn't know how to ask questions in an interveiw. He doesn't understand how important it is to be brief and to the point. In that respect, you could say he sounds like a hack. But uneducated, no. His saving grace is that he does get very good guests and he manages to have decent conversations despite his foot, which seems to taste so good to him.

If I had the choice of an other local progressive talker, I would not listen to Santos. But I would NEVER listen to a conservative iinstead. I'll take music or NPR any time before that!

 

[Don Juan]

Right wing radio rules because radio is owned by right wing people.

Radio is owned by investors. Investors don't care about the programming, they care about the profit.

Did the owners of CBS or XM hire Stern because they all agree with him, and all secretly enjoy talking about lesbians?

The quickest way to lose in radio is to program to your own ideology.

(Say, maybe that's why Left-wing radio has failed more times than I'd like to count.)

 

[FPB]

>Radio is owned by investors. Investors don't care about the programming, they care about the profit.
>
I used to believe that too. And perhaps many investors adhere to that rhetoric.

>The quickest way to lose in radio is to program to your own ideology.
>
One would think that the quickest way to WIN in radio is to program to the ideology of the public being served. What's the percentage of Democratic voters in Massachusetts? 65% or more? And is most of the talk reflective of this, or more reflective of an ideology which is to the opposite? So, are talk stations programming to the public they're serving, or is something else going on?

>(Say, maybe that's why Left-wing radio has failed more times than I'd like to count.)
>
Well, Air America "failed" on 1430 because they got almost no money for marketing and promotions. Many say that Clear Channel was never serious about making it a success. Who knows why! Maybe because the ideology runs against that of the investors??

And by the way, right-wing stations, including ones in and around Boston and within this year and the past couple of years have also failed.

 

[Don Juan]

>Radio is owned by investors. Investors don't care about the programming, they care about the profit.
I used to believe that too. And perhaps many investors adhere to that rhetoric.

Most of the people that own radio stations today are, just that...investors. The days of an individual owning a station are behind us.

Serious investors want to make money...period.

>The quickest way to lose in radio is to program to your own ideology.
>One would think that the quickest way to WIN in radio is to program to the ideology of the public being served. What's the percentage of Democratic voters in Massachusetts? 65% or more?

But as journalist would say: "Dog biting man is not news, man biting dog IS news". Paul Harvey said "news is noise, and noise is news". People crave conflict. If all the stations were simply people agreeing with each other...then no one would listen.

So, are talk stations programming to the public they're serving, or is something else going on?

The other half of this is that the biggies on the Right Limbaugh, Hannity, Howie...have all proven they can be entertaining on the radio. Like I said with Stern....(when he was on terrestrial radio)....did everyone who listened do so because they agree with everything he was saying...or because he was entertaining? It doesn't rely on ideology...or people agreeing. People tune in Stern, Howie, etc...with the attitude: "I wonder what they are going to say today!"


>(Say, maybe that's why Left-wing radio has failed more times than I'd like to count.)
>
> Well, Air America "failed" on 1430 because they got almost no money for marketing and promotions.

Air America didn't simply fail on 1430....they failed EVERYWHERE!

Why? Because they forgot all about broadcasting, entertainment and business and thought they only need "ideology" to succeed. No one (except Rhandi Rhodes) ever had any experience in radio. Why do we need experience? We have ideology!

They were on all sorts of crappy signals. Who needs signals? We have ideology!

They never had a program director at AA headquarters organizing the whole thing (something I still find it hard to believe!!) Every successful talk outlet in the country has a PD....why do we need a PD? We have ideology!

A failed business plan where they would purchase time on others stations...with funds they could not afford to spend. who needs a business plan, we have ideology!

I fear the same outcome at 1510. While I like having the additional choices that 1510 brings to the market, whenever I hear Santo do "transportation talk" and Mike Dukakis...I realize that they are following an ideology...and not a broadcasting plan.

Maybe because the ideology runs against that of the investors??

Ah, conspiracy theories abound! If that was the case, they never would have put them on in the first place.

And by the way, right-wing stations, including ones in and around Boston and within this year and the past couple of years have also failed.

That's because success doesn't rely on ideology...

 

[FPB]

> The other half of this is that the biggies on the Right Limbaugh, Hannity, Howie...have all proven they can be >entertaining on the radio.
>
Sorry, but I don't find any of them "entertaining". Annoying, infuriating, dispicable, disgusting (in the case of Carr). I find my entertainment elsewhere and thus never listen to them if i could help it.

But I'll take your point about the "biggies" because, afterall Stephanie Miller is, to my mind, entertaining and she is a big name.

Well, Miller is a progressive talker, who is big and thus, by your arguement, entertaining and so worthy of being widely heard on the radio. But she is only heard on 60 stations while Limbaugh is heard on 600. Is Limbaugh 10-times more entertaining than Miller, or is it that stations have a bias toward conservative talk?

So much for all the "big names". How about all the B-list conservative talkers? Are they more entertaining than Miller, Shultz, Thom Hartman etc etc etc? They certainly are on more stations. How come? Are they better talkers or simply more preferred by those who make the decisions?

>But as journalist would say: "Dog biting man is not news, man biting dog IS news". Paul Harvey said "news is noise, >and noise is news". People crave conflict. If all the stations were simply people agreeing with each other...then no one >would listen.
>
Which is increasingly the problem; nobody listening. Liberrals who have tried to call in to Limbaugh and hannity have found themselves screened out and denied the chance to give their listeners that "conflict"which you say listeners crave. Don't you find that strange, given your arguement that people want conflict?

> Like I said with Stern....(when he was on terrestrial radio)....did everyone who listened do so because they agree with everything he was saying...or because he was entertaining? It doesn't rely on ideology...or people agreeing. People tune in Stern, Howie, etc...with the attitude: "I wonder what they are going to say today!"
>
Stern's style of talk is non-ideological. Programming him is like programming music - people of any politcal persuasion can be atrracted to him.

Air America had many organizational faults, and they certainly were doomed from the start becasue of it. But to characterize all of their decisions on their ideology is just too simplistic - and a little too self-satisfying on your part.

>That's because success doesn't rely on ideology...
>
That's true. Success needs more than ideology. However, humans rarely persue success without their particular ideology as a motivator.

 

[Don Juan]

> The other half of this is that the biggies on the Right Limbaugh, Hannity, Howie...have all proven they can be >entertaining on the radio.
>
Sorry, but I don't find any of them "entertaining".Annoying, infuriating, dispicable, disgusting (in the case of Carr). I find my entertainment elsewhere and thus never listen to them if i could help it.

First rule of thumb in programming is to realize that not everyone is like yourself. Second, the ratings tell a different story of what people find entertaining.

Well, Miller is a progressive talker, who is big and thus, by your arguement, entertaining and so worthy of being widely heard on the radio.

She is only "worthy" of being widely heard if she can point to an overwhelming success story and track record. Can she? Is her show a ratings bonanza anywhere that would interest/convince more stations to carry it?

But she is only heard on 60 stations while Limbaugh is heard on 600. Is Limbaugh 10-times more entertaining than Miller, or is it that stations have a bias toward conservative talk?

Limbaugh has a track record...and while I'll be the first to agree that he has certainly "peaked"....he was clearly the next big thing when stations were looking for programming...and at that time was very entertaining and had some ratings to prove it. Lately he is boring, rants and his ratings have proven it. Don't underestimate Rush as a good businessman.

How about all the B-list conservative talkers? Are they more entertaining than Miller, Shultz, Thom Hartman etc etc etc?

You mean like the slew that Salem has? Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett or others? They are all boring and have the same problems that many progressives have. They have ideology and very little else.

They certainly are on more stations. How come? Are they better talkers or simply more preferred by those who make the decisions?

What second tier ones are you referring to? The ones that are on have/had track records. They make money. People listen.

>But as journalist would say: "Dog biting man is not news, man biting dog IS news". Paul Harvey said "news is noise, >and noise is news". People crave conflict. If all the stations were simply people agreeing with each other...then no one >would listen.
>
Which is increasingly the problem; nobody listening. Liberrals who have tried to call in to Limbaugh and hannity have found themselves screened out and denied the chance to give their listeners that "conflict"which you say listeners crave. Don't you find that strange, given your arguement that people want conflict?

That's anecdotal. Conservatives are screened out too. Sit in a control room of a major talk host/show and you'll see how they pick callers.

Hannity even has a day when he just features people who disagree with him.

> Like I said with Stern....(when he was on terrestrial radio)....did everyone who listened do so because they agree with everything he was saying...or because he was entertaining? It doesn't rely on ideology...or people agreeing. People tune in Stern, Howie, etc...with the attitude: "I wonder what they are going to say today!"
>
Stern's style of talk is non-ideological. Programming him is like programming music - people of any politcal persuasion can be atrracted to him.

Stern is definitely ideological. Conservatives/Christians are not generally attracted to him.

Talk shows are like programming music. Instead of going song-to-song with DJ patter....talk hosts go call-to-call with host patter.

Air America had many organizational faults, and they certainly were doomed from the start becasue of it. But to characterize all of their decisions on their ideology is just too simplistic - and a little too self-satisfying on your part.

Seeing any broadcaster fail is not "satisfying" to me at all!

Like I said, they didn't fail because of ideology....but because they thought that's all they needed.

>That's because success doesn't rely on ideology...
>
That's true. Success needs more than ideology. However, humans rarely persue success without their particular ideology as a motivator.

The ideology is to make money. Success is gauged by making money.

 

[FPB]

>First rule of thumb in programming is to realize that not everyone is like yourself.
>
That’s not my point. My point is that it’s wrong to characterize certain talk hosts as objectively entertaining.

>Second, the ratings tell a different story of what people find entertaining.
>
Stats show that hosts like Ed Shultz either beat or are very competitive with Limbaugh and other big name conservatives in areas where they get the opportunity to compete.
And they’ve done that with outlets that are not of heritage quality; stations with crummy signals – the ones you like to believe are used because the owners only care about ideology. (Limbaugh and Co. got to the heritage stations first, which continues to be a huge advantage. When progressives manage to get hold of a small station, they’re frustrated, but still happy to get what they can.)


>She is only "worthy" of being widely heard if she can point to an overwhelming success >story and track record. Can she? Is her show a ratings bonanza anywhere that would >interest/convince more stations to carry it?
>
Yup. Too bad you don’t know that, but you know so much about how progressive talkers are not entertaining.

>Limbaugh has a track record...and while I'll be the first to agree that he has certainly >"peaked"....he was clearly the next big thing when stations were looking for >programming...and at that time was very entertaining and had some ratings to prove >it. Lately he is boring, rants and his ratings have proven it. Don't underestimate >Rush as a good businessman.
>
On this point I agree with you. When he was new he was hot. And that says a lot for why programmers have a prejudice toward conservative over progressive talkers. But if you’re a programmer and a conservative, it’ll take A LOT of talking to convince you to try progressive talk, because you have that bias (and because you don’t want to listen to progressives on your station). That’s my point.

>You mean like the slew that Salem has? Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett or others? >They are all boring and have the same problems that many progressives have.
>
But they DON’T have the problem of being HEARD!

>What second tier ones are you referring to? The ones that are on have/had track >records. They make money. People listen.
>
How about WCRN? They thought they would be taking Boston by a storm by now. They hardly have a presence in Worcester. WTTT in Boston has flipped to Spanish. WNSH thought conservative talk would be their saving grace. No go.

>That's anecdotal. Conservatives are screened out too. Sit in a control room of a major >talk host/show and you'll see how they pick callers.
>
So you’re saying Conservatives are screened on progressive shows? And you invite me to sit in the control room of a major host. But I thought you were saying that progressive talk is a losing proposition. Where can I find a control room of a major talk host who is progressive if, as you seem to be saying, they don’t exist?

>Hannity even has a day when he just features people who disagree with him.
>
How nice of him. Thom Hartman has a policy of putting conservatives, as he says, “at the front of the line” regularly. Ya see; it’s an ideological thing; progressives believe in engaging people from all sides.

>Stern is definitely ideological. Conservatives/Christians are not generally attracted to >him.
>
Frankly, neither am I. And I am neither conservative nor Christian. I didn’t give Stern two minutes of my time when he was free.

>Talk shows are like programming music. Instead of going song-to-song with DJ >patter....talk hosts go call-to-call with host patter.
>
That’s not what I mean. Your politics has nothing to do with whether you like a certain band or kind of music. Your politics definitely has to do with how long you could stand listening to Michael Savage.

>Seeing any broadcaster fail is not "satisfying" to me at all!
>
All that I meant was that there was much more at play than ideology which kept AAR from getting off the ground. Franken saw that from the start, and he was very doubtful about the whole thing.

>Like I said, they didn't fail because of ideology....but because they thought that's all >they needed.
That is SO not true. Look into it.

 

[Don Juan]

>First rule of thumb in programming is to realize that not everyone is like yourself.
>
That’s not my point. My point is that it’s wrong to characterize certain talk hosts as objectively entertaining.

Why is it wrong? It's what we do in radio everyday. Ratings tell us who is entertaining, and who is not.


>Second, the ratings tell a different story of what people find entertaining.
>
Stats show that hosts like Ed Shultz either beat or are very competitive with Limbaugh and other big name conservatives in areas where they get the opportunity to compete.

Please cite the cases in point. Where is Ed Shultz beating Limbaugh? Is this one or two markets or everywhere that Shultz is up against Limbaugh?

Keep in mind that Limbaugh is the established show...and everyone else is a contender.

stations with crummy signals – the ones you like to believe are used because the owners only care about ideology.

I said...the only ideology people owners care about is money.


>She is only "worthy" of being widely heard if she can point to an overwhelming success >story and track record. Can she? Is her show a ratings bonanza anywhere that would >interest/convince more stations to carry it?
>
Yup. Too bad you don’t know that, but you know so much about how progressive talkers are not entertaining.

Please cite where her show is a ratings bonanza. ??????

She is very entertaining..but she is also not a TSL leader.....and best taken in short doese...which does not spell success for radio.

But if you’re a programmer and a conservative, it’ll take A LOT of talking to convince you to try progressive talk, because you have that bias (and because you don’t want to listen to progressives on your station). That’s my point.

the point is that most programmers have no bioas except making money. Most programmers I know have no ideology, and would program the all-fart-format if it brought ratings. (It won't.) I would be hard pressed to tell you the political ideoplogy of the best talk programmers in the country. Their sucess and income is not based on ideology.....even though it seems to comfort you to think there is a big conspiracy.

>You mean like the slew that Salem has? Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett or others? >They are all boring and have the same problems that many progressives have.
>
But they DON’T have the problem of being HEARD!

Well, I can't hear them. Most of America can't hear them. The only reason they are heard anywhere is because Salem bought the stations to run their programs. (Bad move to own stations to run programming that wouldn't be cleared otherwise.)

>What second tier ones are you referring to? The ones that are on have/had track >records. They make money. People listen.
>
How about WCRN? They thought they would be taking Boston by a storm by now. They hardly have a presence in Worcester. WTTT in Boston has flipped to Spanish. WNSH thought conservative talk would be their saving grace. No go.

Well that proves my point that ideology doesn't matter.

>That's anecdotal. Conservatives are screened out too. Sit in a control room of a major >talk host/show and you'll see how they pick callers.
>
So you’re saying Conservatives are screened on progressive shows?

No, I said conservative callers are screened on conservative shows too. Boring callers are screened out on all successful shows.

And you invite me to sit in the control room of a major host. But I thought you were saying that progressive talk is a losing proposition.

I never said progressive talk is a losing proposition. What I said over and over again (and that you cant seem to grasp) is that ideology does not matter.


>Hannity even has a day when he just features people who disagree with him.
>
How nice of him. Thom Hartman has a policy of putting conservatives, as he says, “at the front of the line” regularly. Ya see; it’s an ideological thing; progressives believe in engaging people from all sides.

Think like a programmer...and not like an idealogue.

I just showed you that Hannity devotes 20% of his broadcasts to people who disagree with him. Are you awake? You seem a little dense as you spout the same conspiracy theories over and over.

Conspiracy theories take root when people feel helpless. You can't seem to understand why the market forces have brout some conservative talkers to the top of the field. HAving conspiracy theories appears to give you comfort. You keep stating as fact, things you would like to believe.


>Seeing any broadcaster fail is not "satisfying" to me at all!
>
All that I meant was that there was much more at play than ideology which kept AAR from getting off the ground. Franken saw that from the start, and he was very doubtful about the whole thing.

But the reason they didn't do virtually anything according to common practice is because they thought their ideology was all they needed. How else do you explain hiring 20 hours/day of talk host who had virtually no experience in radio?

>Like I said, they didn't fail because of ideology....but because they thought that's all >they needed.
That is SO not true. Look into it.

It is true. Reminded me of conservative Christians who believe their ideology blesses them to do dumb things.

I don't have to look into it...I know more about their beginnings than you can imagine.

 

[FPB]

I could see this is getting personal, so I'll just quit this now.

I don't appreciate personal attacks.