Progressive Talk Report Card

[Parttimer]

Just a few notes from the winter book....

KTLK/LA... flat at a 0.6, cume up slightly

KKGN/SF.... down 0.8 to 0.7, cume down big-time, 163K to 128K

Chicago multicast..... WCPT-AM flat at 0.2, cume down from 110K to 94K..... WCPQ-FM went 0.3 to 0.2, cume down 107K to 89K.... WCPT-FM went from 0.2 and 78K cume to a no-show....

There's got to be some good news somewhere... let's look at KPOJ Portland, maybe the most successful station in the format.... 4.3 to 2.1 in one book? Ouch!!

You'd think that this would be a peak time for the format, instead it appears to be rapidly losing steam. Comments?

 

[raccoonradio]

hi--first, not sure we're supposed to quote ratings? not sure. anyway today's Boston Globe has an interview with Michael Harrison of TALKERS who says he thinks prog talk is doing great--as long as you include
NPR and liberal FM "shock jocks" as libtalkers! As for progressive talk hosts otherwise...

>>instead it appears to be rapidly losing steam

It has certainly lost some stations, with the likes of WINK in Miami switching to sports. Today they do pick up
a Boston affiliate (WWZN 1510: local guy Santos, Steph Miller, Schultz, Hartmann). The previous incarnation
of progtalk in Boston (WXKS-WKOX, 4/04 to 12/06) didn't do too well. This time they have a stronger signal
and a daily local host. We'll have to see how ratings do. One thing's for sure: unlike the previous format
of Snoring News, er, Sporting News Radio, they didn't even show up in the 12 plus. They may show up now
though (but how well....? better than weak-powered ethnic AMs?)

Some may argue conservative talk will now benefit, given who's in the White House plus the new
filibuster proof majority in Senate (provided Franken is seated)--wouldn't there be more of a chance
for the "opposition" to pick up listeners/interest, that is, conservative talk?

 

[Parttimer]

My understanding is that since all of the numbers I quoted are open to the public and available on this site, that's it's not a problem. Other demos which are provided to subscribers only are another story. But hopefully I'm correct on that....

 

[cm454]

I just want to hear a station with interesting and opinionated people, not those who have some agenda to push.

I'm just tired of talking points radio. Put on a station that has hosts whose only agenda is to be reasonable, intelligent and entertaining.

 

[Parttimer]

I ask this in all sincerity, would that get ratings?

 

[kinetic]

I ask this in all sincerity, would that get ratings?

If given the time and a level playing field, why not? KKGN/SF is not a fair barometer; it hasn't the signal strength, the heritage or the talent of the local station (KGO). But some people might use it as a metric and say, see, the format doesn't work. KKGN wouldn't be missed if they turned it off; in fact, the owners (Clear Channel) are trying to figure out what to do with it to make it more viable.

It might be a more legitimate test to see if the better progressive talkers --I guess that's Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz-- were broadcasting on WGN instead of WCPT and let the chips fall. That's not going to happen, of course, nor is it realistic to think it should. But as long as the left wing talkers are, for the most part, on the more marginal stations, there's not going to be any reliable way to tell. Perhaps FM will change that landscape.

That said, I'm with cm454: I'd rather hear people having intelligent dialogue with listeners over provocative questions rather than listen to a fathead tell me his or her Swiss cheese agenda.

 

[talkjim]

Just a few often-overlooked points, here. While trends in cume are of some note--especially when they fluctuate notably, 12 plus numbers are largely irrelevant, and entirely irrelevant to the advertising community. I don't know what KPOJ has done lately in 25-54, but historically their 25-54 has notably out-performed their 12 plus. In one recent book, they were the only one of Portland's numerous spoken-word stations to show in the Top 10, 25-54. Progressive talk on average draws a median age that's about ten years younger than conservative stations. Same demograpic challenge that the Republican party is now confronting.

As I've pointed out in other posts, there are very few markets in this nation where progressive talk gets anything close to a fair test. God himself could step down from heaven and take over morning drive on KTLK in Los Angeles, and the show would not come close in 12 plus or in demo to a station like KFI for a whole slew of reasons including KFI's advantages in heritage, dial position, promotion, well-established local hosts, a strong local news department and other services.

Although much is made of the ratings shortcomings of progressive talk, it's also true that there have been numerous under-promoted successes, such as the win by Randi Rhodes over Sean Hannity in New York in Winter, 2006 (25-54 men).

I would also argue that the performance of progressive talk has been nothing short of outstanding given all the disadvantages the format has had to put up with--weak signals, no promotion, no local news. In many cases around the nation, the local progressive station is nothing more than a solitary computer, which is often not even monitored very often. It's a wonder these stations show up in ARB at all, but they almost always do.

And one other interesting fact--the last time I did an intensive check about a year ago--no station that had switched from progressive talk--not one--had done any better 12 plus with any other format, and often fell back.

 

[cm454]

As I've pointed out in other posts, there are very few markets in this nation where progressive talk gets anything close to a fair test. God himself could step down from heaven and take over morning drive on KTLK in Los Angeles, and the show would not come close in 12 plus or in demo to a station like KFI for a whole slew of reasons including KFI's advantages in heritage, dial position, promotion, well-established local hosts, a strong local news department and other services.

Although much is made of the ratings shortcomings of progressive talk, it's also true that there have been numerous under-promoted successes, such as the win by Randi Rhodes over Sean Hannity in New York in Winter, 2006 (25-54 men).

I would also argue that the performance of progressive talk has been nothing short of outstanding given all the disadvantages the format has had to put up with--weak signals, no promotion, no local news. In many cases around the nation, the local progressive station is nothing more than a solitary computer, which is often not even monitored very often. It's a wonder these stations show up in ARB at all, but they almost always do.

And one other interesting fact--the last time I did an intensive check about a year ago--no station that had switched from progressive talk--not one--had done any better 12 plus with any other format, and often fell back.

GREAT points. I've at times made them all myself.

Problem is, many are Monday morning quarterbacks and have decided that only conservative listeners enjoy hearing interesting conversation. It's absurd on it's face--unless you have an innate bias, in which case you're more than eager to believe this nonsense.

Keep in mind: I am not advocating a "progressive" format. I think any agenda driven format is short-sighted and limits potential growth.

 

[Parttimer]

I asked this in an earlier thread, do you think that Premiere will place Randi Rhodes on some stations outside of the Prog-talk stable? Obviously their first clients are KTLK, KKGN and KPOJ. But her old home base of WJNO in West Palm Beach carries Rush and Hannity now, will they play her back-to-back with El Rushbo?

With Clear Channel going through their major consolidation of programming at the moment, I think she might just wind up on a bunch of stations we wouldn't have expected... then we can see if it makes a difference.

 

[b344077]

Let's not forget that many of these stations are being run on a shoe string with little funds available for promotion, etc. Often with weak signals and poor facilities.

It's like the age old question: if a man is alone in the forest, is he still wrong?

 

[Slant]

progressive talk radio has the most listened to spoken word products in the country, NPR. I think commercial progressive talk radio is trying to fill an imaginery hole.

 

[talkjim]

"progressive talk radio has the most listened to spoken word products in the country, NPR. I think commercial progressive talk radio is trying to fill an imaginery hole. "

Nope. Nope. Nope. I don't know what your politics are, but you are essentially mouthing the right-wing line. We've had this discussion before, and in spite of constant charges of supposed liberal bias on the part of NPR, no one has ever been able to come up with anything in the way of substantiation. I won't say there is never any bias on NPR, but the fact is that NPR is much more comparable to newsradio than talkradio--Morning Edition and All Things Considered are long-form, very straightforward newscasts--they are in no way outlets for opinion and especially not for any kind of passionate opinion.

Air America was FOUNDED because there was a vacuum when it comes to the advocacy of anything progressive on either commercial or non-commercial radio.

NPR has one notable bias--but it's not a political bias--it's a smart bias. They don't dumb down the content, and they go in-depth in their exploration of things. There is also a stated mission dating back to the founding of NPR to explore and cover stories that the commercial media ignores--my own opinion is that this is an idea with merit, but sometimes it spins out of control and they wind up with a seven-minute piece on an obscure topic that might have been been more strategically handled in three or four minutes--longer doesn't always mean better.

If you mean to say that loyalty and satisfaction with NPR has kept progressive-oriented listeners from sampling commercial progressive talk, than you have a point. But NPR and commercial progressive talk are two different animals, and it usually takes no more than about 30 seconds of listening for this to become crystal clear.

 

[kinetic]

"progressive talk radio has the most listened to spoken word products in the country, NPR. I think commercial progressive talk radio is trying to fill an imaginery hole. "

Nope. Nope. Nope. I don't know what your politics are, but you are essentially mouthing the right-wing line. We've had this discussion before, and in spite of constant charges of supposed liberal bias on the part of NPR, no one has ever been able to come up with anything in the way of substantiation. I won't say there is never any bias on NPR, but the fact is that NPR is much more comparable to newsradio than talkradio--Morning Edition and All Things Considered are long-form, very straightforward newscasts--they are in no way outlets for opinion and especially not for any kind of passionate opinion.

Air America was FOUNDED because there was a vacuum when it comes to the advocacy of anything progressive on either commercial or non-commercial radio.

NPR has one notable bias--but it's not a political bias--it's a smart bias. They don't dumb down the content, and they go in-depth in their exploration of things. There is also a stated mission dating back to the founding of NPR to explore and cover stories that the commercial media ignores--my own opinion is that this is an idea with merit, but sometimes it spins out of control and they wind up with a seven-minute piece on an obscure topic that might have been been more strategically handled in three or four minutes--longer doesn't always mean better.

If you mean to say that loyalty and satisfaction with NPR has kept progressive-oriented listeners from sampling commercial progressive talk, than you have a point. But NPR and commercial progressive talk are two different animals, and it usually takes no more than about 30 seconds of listening for this to become crystal clear.

Another canard: It's funded by taxpayers.

Not true. That amounts for not even 10 percent of funding. The rest is listener support and endowments, which is public radio speak for advertisers.

Another canard: Only liberals listen. In truth, it's evenly divided among those who identify as liberal, conservative or neither. But they absolutely target a specific listener: Educated. No offense in case you don't listen to it and have a PhD in molecular biology. In fact, its diverse audience should dispel the notion that the only people who are smart/educated/thoughtful or whatever are liberals. Does this mean the uneducated listen to talk radio to get their daily dose of what they believe in because its conversants communicate in bumper sticker language? That could turn into a rancorous debate, probably a defensive one, but I wonder if it isn't just a common human frailty to seek affirmation more often than information, particularly information that might be contrary to one's beliefs. Personally, I don't know why you'd listen to someone to a talk show host you already agree with since you already know what they're going to say on any given topic, but that's just me.

NPR's great advantage is time. It has time to explain things, rather than figure out how to fit it all into, say, a 4-minute newscast. Network news writes in short-speak. Cable news disseminates in hyperbole. Talk shows? Lots of agendizing. And yes, sometimes a piece can fall prey to wandering. This has been an ongoing issue at NPR for many years but one that's still more of a strength than a weakness --at least, that's their view. I think they're correct.

Does a talk show host have to be agendized to be successful? Or is that just what programmers and syndicators believe? As cm wrote earlier in this thread (and elsewhere): Opinions over agenda is his preference, and contrary to a Holland Cooke post, host-driven rather than listener dominated. I don't see why you can't present an issue and have a discussion with listeners. They can offer very different and insightful viewpoints if given a forum for it and if they're not dismissed as "Well, you've drunken the liberal/neo-con Kool-Aid" or whatever. You do hear respectful dialogue on NPR's Talk of the Nation, but why isn't there more of that on commercial talk radio? Can it succeed there, or do programmers and syndicators believe it can't, so they don't air it?

 

[talkjim]

"I don't see why you can't present an issue and have a discussion with listeners. They can offer very different and insightful viewpoints if given a forum for it and if they're not dismissed"

I won't say that listener/caller-driven shows never work, but it's a very dicey proposition. The nature of a talk format, whether it's commmercial or non-comm, puts the host front and center. It's the host's JOB--not the listeners'--to make the show work. There are various ways in which a host can become compelling to listeners--sometimes it's a compelling personality, sometimes it's compelling content, and the most successful hosts tend to do both.

But it's not realistic to expect listeners/callers to "carry" the show, and in my experience, the best and most compelling callers tend to come in response to a compelling host, who cultivates interesting callers over a period of time, in which this same host, usually with the help of a smart producer, learns what callers to rely on for interesting content, and also learns what callers to keep off the airwaves.

Oh and sorry for using the word "compelling" so many times in this post, but it is a compelling word.

 

[kinetic]

"I don't see why you can't present an issue and have a discussion with listeners. They can offer very different and insightful viewpoints if given a forum for it and if they're not dismissed"

I won't say that listener/caller-driven shows never work, but it's a very dicey proposition. The nature of a talk format, whether it's commmercial or non-comm, puts the host front and center. It's the host's JOB--not the listeners'--to make the show work. There are various ways in which a host can become compelling to listeners--sometimes it's a compelling personality, sometimes it's compelling content, and the most successful hosts tend to do both.

But it's not realistic to expect listeners/callers to "carry" the show, and in my experience, the best and most compelling callers tend to come in response to a compelling host, who cultivates interesting callers over a period of time, in which this same host, usually with the help of a smart producer, learns what callers to rely on for interesting content, and also learns what callers to keep off the airwaves.

Oh and sorry for using the word "compelling" so many times in this post, but it is a compelling word.

I wouldn't even think of suggesting that shows be listener driven. I do think hosts --compelling hosts-- are the ones who ask provocative questions instead of preach about how bad one side or the other is. I don't care for Randi Rhodes any more than I do Sean Hannity, for example. They spend their time bashing according to their politics. Supportive calls sound like cheerleaders; callers who disagree (when they call) sound like incoherent plants designed to make the host look good. I find it disengenuous. People can disagree without being disagreeable and just because the host has an opinion doesn't mean he's right. Too much of what I hear from talk show hosts is that they always think their side is better --jeez I heard one syndicated host the other day constantly refer to Obama as a baby killer, apparently because of that legislation in Illinois, which was far more complicated than simply dismissing it with an ad hominem about some politician the host didn't like. That's just not useful. Premiere can't find something better to offer in their second and third tier talkers?

Sorry... rambling and cooking at the same time... Would "gripping" do when too many "compellings" won't?

 

[ctkatz]

although in randi's case sometimes callers that disagree with her actually have a coherent point and she shouts over them. what's even worse is that when those callers are proven RIGHT she glosses over whatever argument she had and makes herself look boorish.

while i'm glad that randi is back on the air because she's another progressive talker on the airwaves, i'll never listen to her because of that fact. she comes across as being worse than rush because she always uses the excuse that "you can't talk to me that way, i'm a girl" when she gets backed into a corner.

she is a very polarizing figure and i think that when given the chance on one of the big stick stations, she would do very well. that she hasn't been given a shot while being just as brash as limbaugh and as loud as hannity on those same stations is both surprising and not surprising at the same time.

 

[kinetic]

although in randi's case sometimes callers that disagree with her actually have a coherent point and she shouts over them. what's even worse is that when those callers are proven RIGHT she glosses over whatever argument she had and makes herself look boorish.

while i'm glad that randi is back on the air because she's another progressive talker on the airwaves, i'll never listen to her because of that fact. she comes across as being worse than rush because she always uses the excuse that "you can't talk to me that way, i'm a girl" when she gets backed into a corner.

she is a very polarizing figure and i think that when given the chance on one of the big stick stations, she would do very well. that she hasn't been given a shot while being just as brash as limbaugh and as loud as hannity on those same stations is both surprising and not surprising at the same time.

I can't listen to her anymore than I can listen to anyone who does that right or left, and it seems the conservative hosts do it more, but that might be because there are more of them. That goes to my rhetorical question about how to drive a talk show. Some say "listener driven" (Holland Cooke) and others (like on here) want it host driven. I prefer a host that drives but isn't afraid to pull over, metaphorically speaking, when the listener has a point to make --more specifically, makes a more pursuasive argument. Your description of Rhodes (or maybe someone else's of, say, Hannity), is that of a host that lacks the humility to admit their position is wrong. There's no shame in being wrong; it's only shameful when you can't admit it. Where is that host? Or do programmers/consultants/syndicators think, "no, we need polarizing hosts because conflict generates ratings!" Considering the quality of some of the polarizing c-listers in the syndication dugout, I don't see why someone isn't offering something else. All Premiere did by signing Rhodes to their stable was add another agendized, polarizing broadcaster.

 

[talkjim]

With all due respect, Kinetic, I'm not sure you are really very talkradio-oriented--you sound as though you might prefer other kinds of info-based programming, and there's no shame in that.

Like yourself, I like some honesty in the presentation of opinions. But it really isn't the job of talk show hosts to crow about it when they are wrong, although sometimes I'm amazed that even their loyal fans don't pressure them a little more to do so.

I do think you sell Randi short--she's quite smart, knowledgable, and quite hilarious at times. She always sounds like she's done some show prep, and the criticisms and shots she takes at politicians are fact-based (even if you don't happen to agree with her opinions). She also occasionally offers some perspective that you might not expect from a progressive host--I remember her last fall talking about John McCain's performance at certain rallies, where he had to cool down some of his tin-foil-hatted supporters, who were mouthing all kinds of ridiculous conpiracy theories about Obama. Rani said that although she disagreed on almost everything with McCain, one thing he is not is a racist.

Think Limbaugh or Hannity would ever throw a bone like that to Obama? I highly doubt it.

 

[kinetic]

With all due respect, Kinetic, I'm not sure you are really very talkradio-oriented--you sound as though you might prefer other kinds of info-based programming, and there's no shame in that.

Like yourself, I like some honesty in the presentation of opinions. But it really isn't the job of talk show hosts to crow about it when they are wrong, although sometimes I'm amazed that even their loyal fans don't pressure them a little more to do so.

I do think you sell Randi short--she's quite smart, knowledgable, and quite hilarious at times. She always sounds like she's done some show prep, and the criticisms and shots she takes at politicians are fact-based (even if you don't happen to agree with her opinions). She also occasionally offers some perspective that you might not expect from a progressive host--I remember her last fall talking about John McCain's performance at certain rallies, where he had to cool down some of his tin-foil-hatted supporters, who were mouthing all kinds of ridiculous conpiracy theories about Obama. Rani said that although she disagreed on almost everything with McCain, one thing he is not is a racist.

Think Limbaugh or Hannity would ever throw a bone like that to Obama? I highly doubt it.

Point taken on Rhodes --these are also matters of personal taste, as you know. But as to whether my idea of a talk show host isn't "talkradio-oriented," it's not that a talk show host should crow about it when they're wrong, but when they're caught head on against an able and articulate caller, the host that goes into the denial mode can come off as a pompous ass. They become defensive and start protecting turf. Is that an ego thing, or an insecurity? I don't know. Maybe it's in the nature of the beast. Talk radio in its current form is almost always black and white (or red and blue, if you prefer), us against them. Right wing fringe lunatics over here, Nancy Pelosi liberals over there. Oy! How many of those guys do we need on the air?

It's possible to argue that they're on the air because there's a demand for it, and maybe that says something about us more than it does the talk show hosts themselves. But it may also be a chicken or egg question, which is sort of an underelying current in this thread about liberal talkers being able to succeed as conservative ones before them. Given the current parameters --heritage, signal, promotion and so on --things you've mentioned before-- we just don't know. Given that, and more specifically in regard to this post, no issue on the table is that simple, but that's how most hosts present it. It leaves little room for discussion. Instead of exchanging ideas, someone always has to win an argument. I prefer when the complexities of issues are taken into consideration, and every issue has lots of them. A host, through his opinion, can provide various shades of an issue, but listeners can provide some of their own and I've found that when given the chance, they can and do, and it broadens the scope of the conversation. Maybe that's anathema to the old school power brokers who decide who gets syndicated, but I can't imagine there aren't a lot of people who might prefer something where callers are treated more respectfully, where they're given the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of joining the conversation and adding to it, and even if two people disagree, they don't have to be disagreeable. If that's not "talk radio oriented," well, then I'll take that as a compliment.