• 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

Polarized talk radio

raccoonradio

raccoonradio

A piece by Perry Michael Simon of All Access. Should there be stations which have a mix of conservative and liberal talkers? (Maybe but would they get good ratings?)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1677149/posts

>>cowered in fear of the dreaded Fairness Doctrine

Justified. It's the un-Fairness Doctrine,and if it comes back, Rush will be replaced by gardening shows.

>>the raging liberal John Sterling (yes, THAT John Sterling, the "Yankees win! Yankees win! Thuh-uh-uh-uh Yankees win!" John Sterling)

Liberal. Why am I not surprised! (am a Red Sox fan of course). What would have happened if Kerry won and he was still doing a talk show? Democrats win! Theeeeeeeeeee Democrats Win! (gag me)

>>what I remember is less their political stances than their styles, the entertainment value.

Conservative hosts have entertainment value. Libs don't. Al Franken? C'mon. (Maybe Steph Miller
a lil' bit, but other than that..? Of course if you're on the left side of the aisle you prob disagree!)

>>I kinda miss the days when there were hosts you loved and hosts you loved to hate, all on one station.

Translation: Bad ratings. "That was Sean Hannity. Stay tuned for Randi Rhodes". Bleccccccch!

Recently I was sent some snippets of old radio, including the famed promo for Jerry Williams on WMEX. (Jingle: "Do you disagree?--I think he's terrible--Or do you agree--Yes he's wonderful. Well whatever you think, be sure to let us know. Just call us...WMEX...the Jerry Williams Show!") It was kinda before my time, but I guess Jerry would come on and talk politics and stuff on the same station that played top 40 rock...He was considered a liberal in the old days but later re-labeled himself a populist, talking about the likes of Dukakis and fees, fines, taxes, hacks, and cronies. As the Democrats moved even further to the left, what was once considered liberal would be called conservative today.

>>listeners mostly liked him, even when they disagreed with him

Some conservative hosts (Rush, Hannity, Carr) find they do have liberal callers/listeners. They may not agree but they must still find the show entertaining. (I can't say I'd
want to hear Franken, though!) And it's fun to hear them
argue with the host. (John DePetro of WRKO had some real
moonbat conspiracy theorists re: 9/11 this morning...)

"I hate you, but I tune in every day" :)
 
Please don't quote from a known racist/anti-American website such a FreeRepublic.com. Thank you.
 
"Should there be stations which have a mix of conservative and liberal talkers? (Maybe but would they get good ratings?)"

I can never understand why it would matter all that much if a station has one sort of program on the air during AM drive, and a different sort of program on in the evening after PM drive. What difference does it really make? It's not like all the same people even have the radio turned on during those time periods.

And whether a talk host is liberal, conservative, "progressive", or non-political, what really matters when it comes to pulling ratings is whether the host is entertaining to listen to or not. A boring host won't pull listeners, regardless of his political alignment. An entertaining host will pull listeners, regardless of his alignment (assuming potential listeners even know he's on the air).

Where I live, there is a local liberal talk hostess, and she is boring. She used to be entertaining, but as she gets older, she seems to be getting slower and slower. She sounds like she's perpetually tired. I used to listen to her often, even though I disagreed with everything she said because it was fun to disagree with her, and fun to call her up and disagree. She was very good about putting up with respectful disagreement from callers.

I used to prefer listening to her to listening to Rush Limbaugh, who she was on opposite. But I cannot listen to her anymore, because she has gotten so tired sounding and boring. Yet she is no more or less liberal now than she ever was.

I think I'm pretty typical of talk show listeners in that my choice of who to listen to is based more on how entertaining the host is than it is on whether I agree with their politics or not.
 
Translation: Bad ratings. "That was Sean Hannity. Stay tuned for Randi Rhodes". Bleccccccch!

Randi Rhodes follows Rush Limbaugh on WJNO in West Palm Beach. The station, which is the number one AM in the market, also features conservative Glenn Beck and liberal Ed Schultz. In the Spring ratings, WJNO has nearly DOUBLE the share of the number two AM station in 12+.
 
Scribbler said:
Randi Rhodes follows Rush Limbaugh on WJNO in West Palm Beach. The station, which is the number one AM in the market, also features conservative Glenn Beck and liberal Ed Schultz. In the Spring ratings, WJNO has nearly DOUBLE the share of the number two AM station in 12+.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget KGO the perennial number 1 station in San Francisco. KGO features two of the most liberal talkers -- Bernie Ward and Ray Taliaferro. They also have conservatives like Pete Wilson and Dr. Bill Wattenburg.
 
Many of you don't get it. It ain't about politics - it's about entertainment. At lease Randi is entertaining - although the few times I get to listen she pisses me off! Oh, yeah, that's her job!
 
>>racist/anti-American website such a FreeRepublic.com.

LOL! The piece was from allaccess.com but came as an email newsletter. I then posted it on FR. But it was originally AA.

Racist? We are prohibited from making racist comments (and would get ZOTted if we did). Anti-American?
C'mon!!! Go back to that wonderful Huffington blog...the one that has the pic of Joe Lieberman in blackface.
Or Steve Gilliard's news blog, which said this about black Maryland candidate Michael Steele:
"I's Simple Sambo and I's running
for the Big House" (accompanied by minstrel show picture, later taken down. Disclaimer: Gilliard is
black himself.).

Some of the biggest racism comes from the Democrats (Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, Howard Dean's
comments about black hotel workers, Robert "Grand Kleagle of the KKK" Byrd...)

As for whether a mix of conservative and liberal hosts would get great ratings, maybe it would--the example(s)
given above might be the exception that proves the rule, though, and such an idea might not work everywhere.

>>San Francisco

Well, if Boston were to try such a station (similar idealogy) who knows? So far conservative hosts seem to be the ones who click (perhaps a good counterweight to local TV, Boston Globe, etc.)
 
raccoonradio said:
>>racist/anti-American website such a FreeRepublic.com.

LOL! The piece was from allaccess.com but came as an email newsletter. I then posted it on FR. But it was originally AA.

Racist? We are prohibited from making racist comments (and would get ZOTted if we did). Anti-American?
C'mon!!! Go back to that wonderful Huffington blog...the one that has the pic of Joe Lieberman in blackface.
Or Steve Gilliard's news blog, which said this about black Maryland candidate Michael Steele:
"I's Simple Sambo and I's running
for the Big House" (accompanied by minstrel show picture, later taken down. Disclaimer: Gilliard is
black himself.).

Some of the biggest racism comes from the Democrats (Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, Howard Dean's
comments about black hotel workers, Robert "Grand Kleagle of the KKK" Byrd...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'cuz everyone knows 'cons and freepers aren't racist:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607220001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140016
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606200012
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250015
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605180005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605170012
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605170012
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512150007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601180010
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511180009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512140011
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510080001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170001

Pot. Kettle. Ehhh, you know the rest.
 
This is exactly why broadcasters can not be taken seriously.

They would broadcast a public execution if it meant listenership.

For all we know Rush a really a progressive but knows a good gig when he sees one. (The best way to know what the liberal or conservative is thinking is to be one.)

Radio stations owners would put a Nazi or a facist on the air if it meant good numbers.

It goes on and on. We soak it up, thinking that these guys have any true philosophical perspective or moral compass but when its done and said, its about the money. That's all.
 
You have truly missed the point.

I am not suggeting Rush and other don't believe in their causes - just that they recognize that pure political speech is pretty dull - and in order to build a strong listener base - the political message must be presented in an entertaining and appealing way!

Liberal radio hosts for the most part haven't figured that out!
 
"Liberal radio hosts for the most part haven't figured that out!"

Yet they figure that changing their name to "progressive" will fool listeners into thinking that they aren't really liberals.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom