please shed some light

[Radio_Realist]

Yeah, it did.

No, it didn't. You resented no sort of evidence or supporting proof that Fox News Channel's content was 73% opinion. Had you said "Fox News Channel' content is more opinion than fact", most people would let that slide as being your own personal observation. But you quoted an exact percentage. You didn't say it was 74%. You didn't say it was 72%. You said it was 73%. You were then asked to provide a source for the fact that it was exactly 73%. And you have not done so yet.

Not that I think it matters whether you pulled that number from some blog somewhere (and we all know how useless blogs are as sources of accurate information) or simply pulled it from an orifice of your body. Most newspapers include a lot of opinion. Most publications that call themselves "news" magazines are highly opinionated. All of the other self-styled "news" networks are largely full of opinion.

I'd be curious to know the methodology that was used to come up with the number 73%. Is that based simply on comparing the number of minutes spent speaking facts compared to the number of minutes spent speaking opinions? How did those doing the calculations factor in bias, slanting, and opinion shaping done through selective omission of stories? For example, if a news editor decides that the final two minutes of a newscast can either contain a story about Paris Hilton's latest escapades or the opening of a new school in Iraq built by US Military personnel, and he picks the Paris Hilton story, is that slanting the news by suppressing a positive story from Iraq? Or is it a judgement based on ratings and the fact that the viewers that they don't want to have change the channel think Paris Hilton is really hot?

 

[Don62]

Hannity is not a news guy, like Dan Rather, he is an opinion oriented talk show host. Learn the difference.

He sure presents himself that way on Fox NEWS Channel.

That's new to me.

Doesn't the dope always open his long-winded show by saying, "This is the best hour of news and information you will find anywhere..."

It's slantheaded news and commentary - not striahgt news. He's disingenous.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So you're saying conservative listeners can't take or tolerate dissent?

No, I'm saying that given a choice between listening to what they want to hear and listening to something that they don't want to hear, they will choose to listen to what they want to hear.

Ratings would plummet while their blood boils?

No, ratings would drop while they changed their radios to a different station.

I guess they ain't much of an audience if they can't take debate.

Well, they might not impress you much, but then you don't strike me as someone who controls the spending of a multi-million dollar advertising budget, are you? I try not to insult the people I'm trying to sell products to. It's bad for business.

If you want to go chasing after a better, more high class audience, go buy yourself your own radio station and program it however you want. When you go broke in a few years (or less), someone else will buy it for a few cents on the dollar, and make big bucks off of it by programming whatever the audience wants to hear.

It's slantheaded news and commentary - not striahgt news.

And it draws big ratings and bills big bucks. The intellectual elites don't like it, but ordinary regular people do.

 

[Don62]

Ratings would plummet while their blood boils?

No, ratings would drop while they changed their radios to a different station.

And listen to what?

Bozo Limbaugh, who is more often than not on the same cheap crappy do-nothing but automated "talk" station?

Or is the chicken-sh-- syndicated station so afeard of a local show ( oh... my. People actually listen to local radio? What on earth does a local host talk about? The weather? Local hosts have zero intelligece. ) that they fear they would never listen to Hannity again?

Kind of crushes your argument that national hosts are always better. Yeah. Tell us another one.

I'll agree with you on this point: national hosts like boob Sean are better in the arrogance and stupidity section.


They also require little if any real work to broadcast. Just plug in the satellite and your job as PD is done. To hell with fairness, the other side, or interesting programming.

After all, your station is to be only a repeater of WABC.

 

[Radio_Realist]

And listen to what?

Music.

 

[OldiesCat]

Ratings would plummet while their blood boils?

No, ratings would drop while they changed their radios to a different station.

And listen to what?

Bozo Limbaugh, who is more often than not on the same cheap crappy do-nothing but automated "talk" station?

Or is the chicken-sh-- syndicated station so afeard of a local show ( oh... my. People actually listen to local radio? What on earth does a local host talk about? The weather? Local hosts have zero intelligece. ) that they fear they would never listen to Hannity again?

Kind of crushes your argument that national hosts are always better. Yeah. Tell us another one.

I'll agree with you on this point: national hosts like boob Sean are better in the arrogance and stupidity section.


They also require little if any real work to broadcast. Just plug in the satellite and your job as PD is done. To hell with fairness, the other side, or interesting programming.

After all, your station is to be only a repeater of WABC.

All I can say is: a-m-e-n.

;D

 

[Don62]

And listen to what?

Music.

So station owners are trembling in their boots that someone who dares hear another side or a legitimate host will forever abandon the station and listen to rap or country?

Boy, radio owners know little about their listeners.

There isn't much music appealing to older listeners - the ones who constitute talk radio's biggest audience.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Hannity is not a news guy, like Dan Rather, he is an opinion oriented talk show host. Learn the difference.

He sure presents himself that way on Fox NEWS Channel.

That's new to me.

Doesn't the dope always open his long-winded show by saying, "This is the best hour of news and information you will find anywhere..."

It's slantheaded news and commentary - not striahgt news. He's disingenous.

Ok he is disingenous. No one on this board including you sees Sean Hannity as news.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So station owners are trembling in their boots that someone who dares hear another side or a legitimate host will forever abandon the station and listen to rap or country?

No, staion owners know that in the long run, they'll do better by providing what the "money" demographics want to hear. They aren't afraid of airing something different. They're just smart enough to not bother with it.

There isn't much music appealing to older listeners - the ones who constitute talk radio's biggest audience.

No, there isn't. There doesn't need to be. As long as there is one alternate station for talk listeners to switch to if they don't like what they're hearing on the talk station, that's enough. And, for a talk radio listener who doesn't like what he's hearing on talk radio, there are other options. They can turn their radios off and watch TV. They can turn their radios off and read a book. They can turn their radios off and talk to someone on the telephone. The bottom line is that if someone doesn't like what's on the radio, they might just not listen to the radio at all.

 

[hammondo]

Someone who can't count said...
"There isn't much music appealing to older listeners - the ones who constitute talk radio's biggest audience.

WHAT?
If you count "beautiful music" there are more than 4 thousand songs in the old fm100 library (just 1 syndicator. There were many more).

If you want "oldies" there are roughly 3000 top 10 hits 1954-1985.

If you want 1940-1985 there are around 4000 songs.

I own all this music NOW. It's great.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If you count "beautiful music" there are more than 4 thousand songs in the old fm100 library (just 1 syndicator. There were many more).

To give the devil his due, even though you are totally correct that there is no shortage of music available that would appeal to older listeners who wanted to hear the music that was popular when they were young, there are relatively few stations out there taking full advantage of that availabile resource. Sadly, there are far too many stations that claim to play "oldies" or "the music of your life" who only include a tiny fraction of the available songs on their playlists. It's no different than the classic rock stations that cater to my demographic by over-playing a very short list of songs from when we Baby Boomers were young.

Still, I've come to accept that both talk format programmers and music format programmers are working out of the same playbook. That is to research what the majority of a target audience wants to hear, then give it to them.

 

[Radio_Realist]

It seems radio's owners don't care either, since they in no way want to program even one of the multiple stations they own in most markets that appeals to Baby Boomer listeners - the real Baby Boomers - the ones of the late 50s and early to mid 60s.

There are very good economic reasons for that, but I'm hesitant to post any of them. Whenever anyone posts any general marketing information that speaks of large-scale trends and general attitudes, some yahoo will always point out some isolated exception that "proves" that the general statements aren't true.

Marketing research has shown that when a consumer reaches that age, his buying habits for many of the products that are most commonly or traditionally advertised on the radio are less influenced by advertising. It's not that People in their mid-50's and above don't spend money on products and services -- they actually spend a great deal of money. But by that point in a consumer's life, most consumers tend to have settled on their favorite brands of products, and radio commercials aren't going to get them to change their minds.

The Baby Boomer consumer is also more likely to be more proactive in seeking out information about where he might make a major purchase, such as an automobile. A car dealer can get a 20-something to simply stop by the showroom through a radio ad and once there, a good salesman can sell the prospect a new car. A car dealer is more likely to reach a Baby Boomer through a targeted mailing or a referral phone call. A Baby Boomer grocery buyer has usually decided what her (or his) favorite store is, and radio commercials won't get them to change shopping habits they way they might for a 20-something consumer.

There are products that have special appeal to Baby Boomers, especially those looking for investments. That's why you'll hear ads for companies that sell gold as an investment targeted at Boomers with money to invest for retirement. You'll hear ads for companies that build commercial buildings targeted at Boomers who might be in a position to be responsible for a major construction project. And you'll hear ads for products intended to solve the medical problems unique to an aging population. A basic rule of advertising is that you sell acne creams to teenagers, and hemorrhoid creams to middle-aged and older people. It shouldn't take massive research or a long list of links to convince anyone of that obvious truth.

Most of my listening (around 8 hours daily in my car at work and at home) is i-pod and when I want information it comes from the internet. Radio has mostly lost me.

Radio is losing many listeners from all demographics. Part of it comes from the programming trends that I have described that do result in positive gains in total time spent listening. Tight playlists for music stations and uniform round-the-clock programming for talk stations results in keeping the die-hard radio fan tuned in to one station for longer periods of time, but it also chases the casual listener away. Since advertisers have learned that repetition is critical to effectiveness, advertisers prefer reaching a smaller but more focused market with their message often as opposed to reaching more people with only a few contacts.

The thing is, if the radio industry wants to turn things around and once again become a major media player, they won't do it by force-feeding the public what those in this thread insist that they must do out of some sort of social obligation. Force-feeding a diet of "balanced" news and opinion because it's good for the public turns spoken-word programming into some sort of "nasty medicine" that's good for you, but no one wants to take voluntarily. I recognize that maybe some of those in this forum who keep whining about wanting more local programming or more "balance" are pushing that sort of programming the same way that the lunch ladies in the school cafeteria pushed over-cooked, mushy broccoli that was "good for you". The thing is, radio programming that's forced on the public because it's "good for them" doesn't get listened to, and does about as much good as the uneaten broccoli that went down the garbage disposals.

 

[OldiesCat]

Someone who can't count said...
"There isn't much music appealing to older listeners - the ones who constitute talk radio's biggest audience.

WHAT?
If you count "beautiful music" there are more than 4 thousand songs in the old fm100 library (just 1 syndicator. There were many more).
If you want "oldies" there are roughly 3000 top 10 hits 1954-1985.
If you want 1940-1985 there are around 4000 songs.
I own all this music NOW. It's great.

I think the reference was to music radio stations, not music per se.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

It seems radio's owners don't care either, since they in no way want to program even one of the multiple stations they own in most markets that appeals to Baby Boomer listeners - the real Baby Boomers - the ones of the late 50s and early to mid 60s.

There are very good economic reasons for that, but I'm hesitant to post any of them. Whenever anyone posts any general marketing information that speaks of large-scale trends and general attitudes, some yahoo will always point out some isolated exception that "proves" that the general statements aren't true.

The thing is, if the radio industry wants to turn things around and once again become a major media player, they won't do it by force-feeding the public what those in this thread insist that they must do out of some sort of social obligation. Force-feeding a diet of "balanced" news and opinion because it's good for the public turns spoken-word programming into some sort of "nasty medicine" that's good for you, but no one wants to take voluntarily. I recognize that maybe some of those in this forum who keep whining about wanting more local programming or more "balance" are pushing that sort of programming the same way that the lunch ladies in the school cafeteria pushed over-cooked, mushy broccoli that was "good for you". The thing is, radio programming that's forced on the public because it's "good for them" doesn't get listened to, and does about as much good as the uneaten broccoli that went down the garbage disposals.

This yahoo will cite part of the recently released report from the Center for American Progress concerning talk radio:

(One) argument put forth to explain
the gap between conservative and
progressive talk is that station owners are
merely providing the programming that
the market forces demand. From this
perspective, talk radio audiences are just
more conservative and are more likely to
listen to conservative hosts.
This argument is misleading on numerous
fronts. Although talk radio audiences
tend to be more male, middle-aged, and
conservative, research by Pew indicates
that this audience is not monolithic—
43 percent of regular talk radio listeners
identify as conservative, while 23 percent
identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate.
The ideological breakdown of
the country as a whole during this same
period was very similar—36 percent conservative,
21 percent liberal, and 35 percent
moderate. It is difficult to argue that
the existing audience for talk radio is only
interested in hearing one side of public
debates given the diversity of the existing
and potential audience.

----------

The results so far since progressive talk went off the airwaves in Ohio:

Columbus--WYTS now in last place and back to its ratings before going progressive talk in 2004.
Cincinnati--WSAI has switched formats again after six months.
Akron--WARF registered no ratings in the last book--zip, zilch, nada--with its sports format redux.

----------

 

[Radio_Realist]

This yahoo will cite part of the recently released report from the Center for American Progress concerning talk radio:

Given that the report cited refers to "progressive" radio instead of "liberal" radio, one can surmise that the use of the current liberal euphamism for "liberal" indicates that the Center for American Progress is an organization with a liberal slant.

Also telling is the use of weasel words like "43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." Interestingly, when any random group of people are surveyed to determine what political alignment label they apply to themselves, the split is almost always close to that 43/43/30 split. However, if an objective alignement test is administered to gauge where the peoples' actual alignment lies, it turns out that most of those who think of themselves as "liberal" or "moderate" are actually quite conservative in their outlook.

I've seen other surveys that indicate that the majority of people believe that they are moderate centerists regardless of what their actual alignment it. This supports the observation that most people believe that they are the center about which the rest of the world revolves.

I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for links for the above report right now. I read them in a paper magazine, I don't know if they are available on-line or not. If someone demands them, tough. Google them yourself if it matters to you.

The results so far since progressive talk went off the airwaves in Ohio:

Who cares? Do you have any results for situations where liberal news/talk was replaced by conservative news talk.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

This yahoo will cite part of the recently released report from the Center for American Progress concerning talk radio:

Given that the report cited refers to "progressive" radio instead of "liberal" radio, one can surmise that the use of the current liberal euphamism for "liberal" indicates that the Center for American Progress is an organization with a liberal slant.

Also telling is the use of weasel words like "43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." Interestingly, when any random group of people are surveyed to determine what political alignment label they apply to themselves, the split is almost always close to that 43/43/30 split. However, if an objective alignement test is administered to gauge where the peoples' actual alignment lies, it turns out that most of those who think of themselves as "liberal" or "moderate" are actually quite conservative in their outlook.

I've seen other surveys that indicate that the majority of people believe that they are moderate centerists regardless of what their actual alignment it. This supports the observation that most people believe that they are the center about which the rest of the world revolves.

I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for links for the above report right now. I read them in a paper magazine, I don't know if they are available on-line or not. If someone demands them, tough. Google them yourself if it matters to you.

The results so far since progressive talk went off the airwaves in Ohio:

Who cares? Do you have any results for situations where liberal news/talk was replaced by conservative news talk.

The survey was conducted by the Pew research firm, which cannot be labeled as either liberal or conservative.

As for the stations in Ohio, both the Columbus and Cincinnati stations flipped to conservative talk. The Cincinnati station has since flipped again to sports.

In this case, Realist, I cited specific results. You didn't.

 

[rockroll0617]

This yahoo will cite part of the recently released report from the Center for American Progress concerning talk radio:

Given that the report cited refers to "progressive" radio instead of "liberal" radio, one can surmise that the use of the current liberal euphamism for "liberal" indicates that the Center for American Progress is an organization with a liberal slant.

Also telling is the use of weasel words like "43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." Interestingly, when any random group of people are surveyed to determine what political alignment label they apply to themselves, the split is almost always close to that 43/43/30 split. However, if an objective alignement test is administered to gauge where the peoples' actual alignment lies, it turns out that most of those who think of themselves as "liberal" or "moderate" are actually quite conservative in their outlook.

I've seen other surveys that indicate that the majority of people believe that they are moderate centerists regardless of what their actual alignment it. This supports the observation that most people believe that they are the center about which the rest of the world revolves.

I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for links for the above report right now. I read them in a paper magazine, I don't know if they are available on-line or not. If someone demands them, tough. Google them yourself if it matters to you.

The results so far since progressive talk went off the airwaves in Ohio:

Who cares? Do you have any results for situations where liberal news/talk was replaced by conservative news talk.

The survey was conducted by the Pew research firm, which cannot be labeled as either liberal or conservative.

As for the stations in Ohio, both the Columbus and Cincinnati stations flipped to conservative talk. The Cincinnati station has since flipped again to sports.

In this case, Realist, I cited specific results. You didn't.

Doesn't matter how specific you are. Truth is not something easily accepted
by "some" on these boards.

 

[KevinFodor]

This yahoo will cite part of the recently released report from the Center for American Progress concerning talk radio:

Given that the report cited refers to "progressive" radio instead of "liberal" radio, one can surmise that the use of the current liberal euphamism for "liberal" indicates that the Center for American Progress is an organization with a liberal slant.

Also telling is the use of weasel words like "43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." Interestingly, when any random group of people are surveyed to determine what political alignment label they apply to themselves, the split is almost always close to that 43/43/30 split. However, if an objective alignement test is administered to gauge where the peoples' actual alignment lies, it turns out that most of those who think of themselves as "liberal" or "moderate" are actually quite conservative in their outlook.

I've seen other surveys that indicate that the majority of people believe that they are moderate centerists regardless of what their actual alignment it. This supports the observation that most people believe that they are the center about which the rest of the world revolves.

I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for links for the above report right now. I read them in a paper magazine, I don't know if they are available on-line or not. If someone demands them, tough. Google them yourself if it matters to you.

The results so far since progressive talk went off the airwaves in Ohio:

Who cares? Do you have any results for situations where liberal news/talk was replaced by conservative news talk.

The survey was conducted by the Pew research firm, which cannot be labeled as either liberal or conservative.

As for the stations in Ohio, both the Columbus and Cincinnati stations flipped to conservative talk. The Cincinnati station has since flipped again to sports.

In this case, Realist, I cited specific results. You didn't.

Sean:

Most of the programming carried by these stations is "B" grade talk at best. No really heavy hitters...and, in the case of Columbus...one of the worst sticks in the city. When we had conservative talk on that stick in the 90's, it pulled a 3 share 12 plus. (Of course, we had Limbaugh then.) Did progressive talk do that?

 

[smedge2006]

Sean:

Most of the programming carried by these stations is "B" grade talk at best. No really heavy hitters...and, in the case of Columbus...one of the worst sticks in the city. When we had conservative talk on that stick in the 90's, it pulled a 3 share 12 plus. (Of course, we had Limbaugh then.) Did progressive talk do that?

So liberal talk is at least as good a draw as "B" and "C" grade conservative talk -- therefore it should be on as many stations as are now running "B" and "C" conservatalkers, right?

 

[rockroll0617]

Perhaps the reason conservative talk has more available programming is
because the flock needs to be led around by the nose more. That whole
inability to think on one's own.