Politics as a talkradio crutch

[cm454]

Not everybody can relate to "all politics, all the time", but most people, political junkies included, WILL listen to conversation and sustantive debate that IS NOT all filtered through a political prism.

This absurd idea that content always has to relate to politics is shortsighted and clear evidence of a lack of understanding of what led this format to the state it is in now.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Preaching to the choir, m'man. Unfortunately, I don't see things changing any time soon. As Phil Hendrie said, most radio mananement types wouldn't know real talent if it kissed them full on the lips... ;D

 

[ponderosaAZ]

Preaching to the choir, m'man. Unfortunately, I don't see things changing any time soon. As Phil Hendrie said, most radio mananement types wouldn't know real talent if it kissed them full on the lips... ;D

it depends on the market LIFESTYLE talk doesn't sell at all in some markets like seattle where it was tried on KIRO under Entercom in about 2005 before they sold to bonneville

Tom Clendening (ex-PD WBAL 1090) hired Allan Prell for 9A-NOON on KIRO and it didn't work. Prell did great in Baltimore, over 17 years, receiving an award.

http://allanprell.com/

most Seattlites really have no sense of humor at all, because of the awful dark gloomy weather lowering dopamine, histamine, and norepinephrine levels (the "feel good" neurotransmitters activated by sunshine, so I'm not surprised they couldn't appreciate Allan's incredible talents and humor. they also didn't like the humorous Ernie Brown on KOMO who was fired not once but twice, Ernie is back in Texas. I've heard both prell and brown and think they're great but seattlites don't think so, they want issue-oriented talk.

LT also didn't make it a few years earlier in seattle under Fisher at KOMO in about 2002 before they went to 24/7 all news

it also didn't maket it in high tech albuquerque nm on 106.3 which is now country music "the range" (AGM)

the highly educated high tech markets like political talk

same is true for the news/talk format of NPR, look at this map and you'll see that the NPR N/T format gets its highest ratings in the West, Upper Midwest, and N.E.:

scroll to page 14:

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Public Radio Today. How America Listens to Public Radio. 2007 Edition ... Welcome to Public Radio Today 2007 Edition—an in-depth look at the listening ...

www.arbitron.com/downloads/PublicRadioToday07.pdf

 

[brian65]

I'm afraid the hosts who are politics 24/7 won't be able to change to anything else now. Its too late.

What might make their shows more interesting would be by including Bob Barr (L) in the conversations.

No chance of that happening though because that would only lead to a discussion of real topics and not the idiotic 'talking points' which somehow are considered news.

 

[cm454]

LIFESTYLES talk is NOT what I'm referring to as an alternate to all-politics-all-the-time.

ISSUES talk is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, but issues talk that isn't executed by some agenda-driven Rush clone.

It is possible to be VERY opinionated while NOT being a shill for either party.

As usual, radio people are waaaaay too close to the situation to see clearly.

Look around you: All kinds of people talk about all kinds of things, serious issues ranking high among them. MOST people, however, are infinitely more flexible in their thinking and reasoning than most agenda-driven talk hosts.

When you talk to the average person, they may have some deep rooted LIBERAL opinions as well as some deep rooted CONSERVATIVE opinions. With the exception of the dittoheads, most people, on average, gravitate toward the middle.

How about talking to entertain THEM, especially since there are MORE of THEM than there are dittoheads?

Then again, the lazy nitwits who make the big decisions have their niche. They've used the biggest, most legendary signals to carve out their piece of the pie. The public at large be damnned. Yeah, just forget that the right-wing rep of talk radio will discourage many from ever even considering listening to talk, or God forbid venturing onto the AM band.

 

[FTL_Ian]

We do caller-based issues talk six nights per week and over 40 stations have come onboard so far, so there is hope!

8)

 

[jimwalsh2001]

LIFESTYLES talk is NOT what I'm referring to as an alternate to all-politics-all-the-time.

ISSUES talk is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, but issues talk that isn't executed by some agenda-driven Rush clone.

It is possible to be VERY opinionated while NOT being a shill for either party.

As usual, radio people are waaaaay too close to the situation to see clearly.

Yeah...we do have a definition problem here. I like your take on the "issues" question. And yes - there are indeed some talented folks out there who are doing it right (I said most GMs were clueless, but not all by any means). ;D

Here's my short list of the good type: Jay Marvin, Bob Grant, Phil Hendrie, Sly, Rush (pre-1992), Ed Tyll, John & Ken (except when they go overboard on the immigration stuff; it's a dead issue, guys - move on!), Domenski & Doyle, the Jersey Guys, Leykis, Stern, the Jims Phillips and Bohannon, and Howie Carr.

Figure out what they have in common and you've busted the code. And dat's the name of dat tune... 8)

 

[The Beave]

Preaching to the choir, m'man. Unfortunately, I don't see things changing any time soon. As Phil Hendrie said, most radio mananement types wouldn't know real talent if it kissed them full on the lips... ;D

Or on the butt...

 

[ponderosaAZ]

We do caller-based issues talk six nights per week and over 40 stations have come onboard so far, so there is hope!

8)

Ian,
I've only heard your show once, but I'm glad a Genesis Host posted here, because your network has some really good investigative journalist, issues-oriented programming i.e. Jeff Rense and The Power Hour with Dave Von Kleist and Joyce Ryley. Jeff, Dave, and Joyce cover topics that the big conglomerates (AIR AMERICA, NOVA-M, TRN) spend very little time on, like Oil and Energy policy.

It's incredibly ironic that AIR AMERICA and NOVA-M are so provincial in their topic selection compared to Jeff Rense, just look at http://rense.com to see what I mean. It seems that Air America and NOVA-M have only one agenda, get a member of the Democrat party into the White House this fall. That's REALLY boring radio to me, I'd rather here Charles Goyette, Jeff Rense, Lou Dobbs, or someone else go after problems with both of the candidates. I'm not voting for an R or D anyway for prez, the parties are too corrupt.

Even CITADEL devotes at least a dozen hours of programming per week on Alternative Energy and Oil with Bob Brinker, Bill Wattenburg (KGO), Karel (KGO), and the Midnight Truckers Network with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara. I prefer Bob, Bill, Eric, and Gary on 50kW stations when I can get them. Brinker has interviewed Dr. Bill and many other energy analysts several times, it's very informative, and issues-oriented, as CM454 and Jim Walsh wrote.

Genesis Shows:

http://www.gcnlive.com/Program_Directory.html

 

[FTL_Ian]

Jeff Rense is a conspiracy kook. I wouldn't want anyone to think I have anything to do with him beyond happening to appear prior to his program on GCN.

 

[The Beave]

That's REALLY boring radio to me, I'd rather here Charles Goyette, Jeff Rense, Lou Dobbs, or someone else go after problems with both of the candidates. I'm not voting for an R or D anyway for prez, the parties are too corrupt.

Even CITADEL devotes at least a dozen hours of programming per week on Alternative Energy and Oil with Bob Brinker, Bill Wattenburg (KGO), Karel (KGO), and the Midnight Truckers Network with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara. I prefer Bob, Bill, Eric, and Gary on 50kW stations when I can get them. Brinker has interviewed Dr. Bill and many other energy analysts several times, it's very informative, and issues-oriented, as CM454 and Jim Walsh wrote.

Genesis Shows:

http://www.gcnlive.com/Program_Directory.html

Ponderosa,

The only thing is Goyette, the good guy he is... is on the beach, with his thumb out in the wind and is available. So he got a raw deal in Phoenix. I would hope soon that Nova (Dallas) or Air America wakes up soon to that fact.

It would be a good "in your face" move and a wake up call to the Phoenix clusters.

 

[WTUX]

WDEL does well with issues oriented talk. The local hosts tackle topics like openness in the state government, local tax issues, land use, legislators who block legislation, etc.

The issues can have a liberal/conservative point of view if you want it that way, but really they are of more general interest and avoid an agenda.

We are so use to confrontational, agenda-driven talk that we often forget there is another way to do it. Just take the point of view of the regular person, the so-called "little guy" and go with it.

And then, of course, there is "Coast-To-Coast AM".

 

[cm454]

Good talkradio CAN be confrontational and issue-oriented and highly opinionated.....and it CAN be all that WITHOUT the all-conservative or all-liberal agenda being lazily relied on.

Yes, there are those weak-minded individuals who obsess over niche radio, but now more than ever before, it seems talkradio, with it's overwhelming emphasis on conservative politics, is pandering to the WRONG crowd.

Personally, I would like to present content that most people can relate to, not just a niche. I could see if there were 50 other talk stations, than a niche would make sense, but when conservative political talk monopolizes the major signals in the biggest markets, it's not about niche, it's about short-sightedness and laziness on the part of programmers/operators.

As one very prominent programmer occasionally points out on this board, and I'm paraphrasing:

"I make money for my company with the agenda driven drivel, so F-you."

How again does the public at large benefit from this thinking?

 

[WTUX]

Talk went national and political because of few callers and thus few ad dollars.

WWDB in Philadelphia was forced to go the Rush route and then switch to a music format simply because there were so few callers for issues oriented talk without a rabid conservative or liberal bent. Hosts would often sit for 20 or more minutes between callers. And this was on a major market, heritage, FM talker.

General issue talk radio was popular back in the 60's, but by the time we reached the 90's, it died due to lack of interest by the listeners. Talk radio in general was vital to the survival of AM radio. But even major markets like Philadelphia found they could not sustain live/local because the audience did not participate. I hosted talk shows, listened to many others, and heard the decline. Some days I could get 20 callers an hour. But not day in, day out. The audience simply was not there to participate and every live/local issues oriented show I heard showed the same decline. Thus Rush, Hannity, Beck and national syndication came to be. It was how talk and AM radio survived.

Talk radio used to host plenty of lifestyle, issues, financial, etc. shows. They died out on a day-to-day basis due to lack of interst by the listeners.

Is it time to bring it back? Its working somewhat well In Wilmington, Delaware (how well we'll see in the Spring Arbitron's). But currently, the 5kw live/local is trailing the 1kw Rush/Hannity affiliate.

Is political talk in the best interest of the public? At least now they are listening and participating. If no one's listening, how is that in the public interest?

 

[cm454]

Talk went national and political because of few callers and thus few ad dollars.

WWDB in Philadelphia was forced to go the Rush route and then switch to a music format simply because there were so few callers for issues oriented talk without a rabid conservative or liberal bent. Hosts would often sit for 20 or more minutes between callers. And this was on a major market, heritage, FM talker.

General issue talk radio was popular back in the 60's, but by the time we reached the 90's, it died due to lack of interest by the listeners. Talk radio in general was vital to the survival of AM radio. But even major markets like Philadelphia found they could not sustain live/local because the audience did not participate. I hosted talk shows, listened to many others, and heard the decline. Some days I could get 20 callers an hour. But not day in, day out. The audience simply was not there to participate and every live/local issues oriented show I heard showed the same decline. Thus Rush, Hannity, Beck and national syndication came to be. It was how talk and AM radio survived.

Talk radio used to host plenty of lifestyle, issues, financial, etc. shows. They died out on a day-to-day basis due to lack of interst by the listeners.

Is it time to bring it back? Its working somewhat well In Wilmington, Delaware (how well we'll see in the Spring Arbitron's). But currently, the 5kw live/local is trailing the 1kw Rush/Hannity affiliate.

Is political talk in the best interest of the public? At least now they are listening and participating. If no one's listening, how is that in the public interest?

First of all, WWDB in Philly had a lot of serious issues regarding sales vs. programming---and THAT from what I hear, was just the tip of the iceberg as to why they went to music. They also had owners who weren't knowledgeable about the format, which is not a good sign.

Secondly, engaging an audience is a host's job. That DOES NOT necessarily mean prompting calls. Talkradio can be great even without calls, if you've got the right host. This reliance on calls is part of the problem. Hosts play too much to the phones, and the active callers tend to gravitate toward certain issues.

As a host, you should DO YOUR JOB. That means entertain an audience, whether they're calling you or not. Holland Cooke has some video up of Dave Barber who drones on about "the caller is king". This is the biggest bunch of nonsense and I would NEVER hire a host with that attitude. The caller is a tool (sometimes literally) that should just be used to accent the show, not dominate it.

 

[smedge2006]

First of all, WWDB in Philly had a lot of serious issues regarding sales vs. programming---and THAT from what I hear, was just the tip of the iceberg as to why they went to music. They also had owners who weren't knowledgeable about the format, which is not a good sign.

I think WWDB's issues began in the 80's, when the station studiously avoided trying to bring listeners under 40 into the format. The operations manager at the time, Jack Ellery, famously bragged to a trade magazine that they didn't to anything to target younger demos even though they were on FM. Perhaps he was trying too hard to convince the industry that despite being on the "wrong" band, 'DB was still a "traditional" talker. This as many AM's were employing the "hot talk" approach to bring in the baby boom generation. Thus 'DB's audience aged in place and the station never tried to do much to bring down its demos till the late 90's -- and then it was done through a series of chaotic, ill-thought moves that coincided with the bizarre shift toward more infomercials, because they weren't bringing in the younger demos quickly enough.

The audience simply was not there to participate (in the early 90's) and every live/local issues oriented show I heard showed the same decline.

I can't buy this as being the explanation when talk radio was going through a huge growth phase in the early 90's in terms of audience. I do think one negative in this period was increased call screening which anonymized the calling masses and prevented "chronic callers" from making their personal marks as they did in earlier times. I realize this runs counter to traditional industry thinking, but I think chronics are a great bookmark for talk radio -- just as familiar hit records are to a music station. Think how many chronic callers became hosts. Think how many didn't -- what station would pass up on all that free personality?

 

[smedge2006]

First of all, WWDB in Philly had a lot of serious issues regarding sales vs. programming---and THAT from what I hear, was just the tip of the iceberg as to why they went to music. They also had owners who weren't knowledgeable about the format, which is not a good sign.

I think WWDB's issues began in the 80's, when the station studiously avoided trying to bring listeners under 40 into the format. The operations manager at the time, Jack Ellery, famously bragged to a trade magazine that they didn't do anything to target younger demos even though they were on FM. Perhaps he was trying too hard to convince the industry that despite being on the "wrong" band, 'DB was still a "traditional" talker. This as many AM's were employing the "hot talk" approach to bring in the baby boom generation. Thus 'DB's audience aged in place and the station never tried to do much to bring down its demos till the late 90's -- and then it was done through a series of chaotic, ill-thought moves that coincided with the bizarre shift toward more infomercials, because they weren't bringing in the younger demos quickly enough.

The audience simply was not there to participate (in the early 90's) and every live/local issues oriented show I heard showed the same decline.

I can't buy this as being the explanation when talk radio was going through a huge growth phase in the early 90's in terms of audience. I do think one negative in this period was increased call screening which anonymized the calling masses and prevented "chronic callers" from making their personal marks as they did in earlier times. I realize this runs counter to traditional industry thinking, but I think chronics are a great bookmark for talk radio -- just as familiar hit records are to a music station. Think how many chronic callers became hosts. Think how many didn't -- what station would pass up on all that free personality?

[/quote]