READING FACEBOOK, TWITTER COMMENTS

[EdTheEngineer]

This is something that I feel is done MUCH too often in this market.

I don't mind it so much on the FM stations, since often times the DJs are asking listeners what they may think about a particular artist or album or song ("It sucks!" "I love it!" "It's just OK.")

But on the AM dial, I think we're seeing newscasters and talk show hosts rely on both of those social media outlets far too often.

The way Brad Riter and Nick Mendola read Twitter and Facebook comments makes it feel to some that phone callers are NOT welcomed. I don't care how many times you read off the phone number (Brad hardly ever does but Nick seems to say it often), if you constantly rely on Twitter and Facebook comments, you are going to discourage listeners from attempting to chime in by picking up the phone.

WBEN has been doing it more often on certain programs, particularly Sandy Beach when he has Tony Caliguri read Facebook comments on the topic of the day. That show gets plenty of calls so I don't see the need to use that as a crutch. I don't mind hearing an online comment or two maybe once an hour, but Sandy appears to do it coming into each segment.

I'm sure some people disagree with my thoughts, but I think the idea of "two-way talk in a one newspaper town" (Pastrick!) means an effort to generate phone calls and have an actual CONVERSATION as opposed to hearing the host or a producer or whoeve else is hanging out in the studio to read online comments.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[Paul_Warren]

If the Twitter and Facebook comments are in response to an inquiry from the host or station, they are as much a part of a conversation as any phone call. Possibly more so. Callers are screened to make sure they don't take the conversation anywhere the host doesn't want it to go. Social media posts can be kept off the air, but will at least be seen by other network participants.

The only thing lost is a little bit of production value on-air.

There's also the issue of who's available to call vs Tweet or post on FB. Who has time to spend an indeterminate time on hold during the workday? Exactly. If you want opinions from listeners who have lives and jobs, an input path through social networks makes sense.

 

[Nick Mendola]

To be honest, I appreciate phone calls, but improving Twitter and Facebook followers is pretty much the goal of nearly every business and in every "media guide" these days. As I said in the other posts, callers tend to be more of the older variety, and I appreciate that. Additionally, a lot of my friends tell me are the type that wish hosts didn't take calls at all. I guess it's taste.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Twitter & Facebook are what phones used to be in the past. The difference is that you can have your say on Twitter & Facebook NOW, without a call screener, or waiting interminably for somebody to answer the damn phone.

People post because they have something to say, not necessarily because they expect to hear it on air.

 

[jfc40ts]

Twitter & Facebook are what phones used to be in the past. The difference is that you can have your say on Twitter & Facebook NOW, without a call screener...

In other words, the process has been speeded up a bit because now, the host or producer can just pick and choose what tweets to use on air. The downside to it is that the tweeter can't respond as quickly as they'd like to if they don't agree with the reply. It does tend to change the "yin and yang" of the show somewhat...

 

[jas2525]

Well, first of all...

I tune in to hear conversation. Hearing the host read a tweet, or a facebook entry...or for that matter, a letter from an audience member, doesn't do much for me. It's like hearing one actor read all the parts in a play. It really takes away a dimension of the show.

I also think the PRIMARY method of contact should be the phone. The more you read tweets etc, the less you will get calls. Sorry, I just find that boring.

Also, one of the things I really enjoy is when the host is thrown a curve ball he didn't expect. Any chance of that being read in a tweet? So, this growing reliance on the "social media" for audience intereaction is going to also lead to less unpredictability as well.

It is definitely becoming quite a crutch for hosts who just don't know what else to say.

I just think the negatives far outweight any positives.
As usual, broadcasters take their eye off the ball. Whether it's about the website, or the social media or the HD station, too much energy is diverted from where it should be: Making the over-the-air station sound as good as it can.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I'm afraid that you'll have to change the behavior of listeners, not hosts. Most listeners simply aren't going to keep hitting "redial", just so they can use up cell phone minutes hanging on hold. We are now in the world of instant gratification. Phone calls to radio stations are anything but instant.

 

[jas2525]

I'm afraid that you'll have to change the behavior of listeners, not hosts. Most listeners simply aren't going to keep hitting "redial", just so they can use up cell phone minutes hanging on hold. We are now in the world of instant gratification. Phone calls to radio stations are anything but instant.

We're talking about two different thiings.

You're talking about making life easier for the tiny fraction of people who participate in a show.

I'm talking about making sure the show is entertaining to the majority of people who are LISTENING, and never call in or tweet or write a letter.

Giving an option other than calling in, undermines the entertainment value of a broadcast. Lost in texts and tweets are the unpredictability and emotion that make interactions great.

And if reading listener's text's out loud (because nobody wants to call anymore) is the wave of the future for talk show hosts, then I suggest stations hire more talk show hosts who are better at monologuing. If I wanna hear one person speaking both sides of a conversation, I'll go visit a psych ward.

All because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's a great thing.

 

[EdTheEngineer]

I listen to talk radio to hear conversations. I want to hear discussions, not the host reading a tweet or Facebook post.

That's why I started this discussion thread. The ongoing growing reliance on Internet social media tools to engage the audience is troubling to me. Phone calls should be encouraged and promoted, not discouraged and frowned upon like what is being done by two of WECK's talk show hosts.

Reading tweets and Facebook posts can bring something to the discussion but shouldn't be the central point of on-air conversations. It appears to me as a crutch for certain hosts who at times just don't know what else to say.

I understand the use of Twitter and Facebook but I think there has to be a perfect medium and some type of fine balance when it comes to using them here and there in between phone calls.

 

[Nick Mendola]

Besides Brad, who is the other that discourages phone calls? Certainly not me. I just don't believe they are the preferred method of communication amongst our listeners.

 

[jas2525]

Besides Brad, who is the other that discourages phone calls? Certainly not me. I just don't believe they are the preferred method of communication amongst our listeners.

It's going to be quite an uphill battle to attract and keep any audience when one voice on a show is both expressing listener opinions AND responding to listener opinions.

Remember, your "listeners" would probably like to hear callers. The people bothering to give their opinion, apparently aren't motivated enough to pick up the phone.
That's where YOU come in.

 

[Bob1370]

There's a place for listener messages by twitter or e-mail, you just put them in their place (a subordinate place) and push the phone calls instead. Been taking in-studio e-mails and reading one or two an hour on the air for about 15 years now--it's a useful adjunct.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

I spent a large part of Monday while working around the house and driving to the Niagara Frontier Radio Reading Service listening to coverage of the bin Laden operation on NPR, WBFO-FM and WNED-AM. I also checked WBEN and WECK but most of my listening went to the non-coms.

Listening and learning: The military, CIA, politics, foreign policy and special operations, foreign relations, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sunni and Shiite Islam, about what people in Buffalo-Western New York thought and what Americans and citizens of other countries thought. I didn't bother to pick up a phone to "contribute" because I derived greater benefit by listening. During this entire process I learned and re-learned a few things about talk radio. I know I should have checked, but Monday was not a music radio listening day. I intended to hear Shredd & Ragan just to find out if they were playing it straight or viewing it from a different perspective, but didn't.

Here's what I re-learned and re-learned about radio:

> Not everybody calls in. Yes, I knew this from years in the trenches, but during this intense listening period, I re-learned it. Now, not everybody Tweets, but they can. And listeners can use Facebook too, but the use of Twitter and Facebook has to be carefully sifted and weighed. I hear commercial and NPR talk hosts use these non-aural assets and NPR seems to use them more discretely. I once held the opinion that reading from non-aural contributions (like faxes, BITD and txts-tweets-Facebook today) should be augmented with a phoner EQ effect or read by a producer or even non-air staffer. That would be the "production guy" in me and I'm not sure of its benefit.

> The value of callers is diminished when the callers go off the reservation. I heard an informative, opinionated, positive segment on one of Buffalo's commercial news-talk stations that went into lunar orbit when a caller attempted to hi-jack the show. The host had to re-assert control. Maybe I noticed this because I was listening with "radio ears" but it seemed pretty obvious, even to those having "listener ears."

> Rarely if ever do I hear serial callers on NPR/APR programs. I used to tell (our) talk show hosts "you're the star of the show," by which I meant they had center stage and should never allow themselves to lose control or be upstaged by callers, especially serial callers. In Buffalo, we all know who the serial callers are, and although some are entertaining, they are not as good as the hosts and they're not on the payroll.

> In a global event like the bin Laden mission, knowledgeable, expert, experienced guests (with gravitas) can make the host sound better if the host knows how to manage the asset. NPR had a litany of experts, former Secretaries of State, CIA deputies, authors such as Tom Ricks and historians on the air throughout the day. It was news-talk radio at it's informative and entertaining best.

 

[leelee]

For sports talk, I prefer hearing as few callers as possible. When it's strictly moderated, you basically have monologues being read on air that can't add much to the conversation, there's no chance of those "curve balls". That's boring. Loosely moderated, then you have people saying stupid, awkward things 90% of the time as the average radio listener with time on their hands aren't the brightest folk. There's also the barrier of callers being nervous and lacking necessary public speaking skills. It also doesn't help that there's more Colin Cowherd, Mike Schopp types today that use callers to build their jerk characters. Why anyone calls WGR is beyond me.

There's also the reality that young people in their 20s, my age, are capable on the Internet and it's much MUCH easier to tweet/message online in 10 seconds than call a station, go through a intern boy, ensure your comment is acceptable, wait for the host, etc...

 

[VoiceGuyJack]

Is verbal communication dead? Will we interact with each other in the future only using texting.

Without the verbal back and forth, talk radio will become "My" opinion radio. Editing text messages disallows the listeners to contribute to the discussion.

Why is it..that someone is always trying to re-invent the wheel...in this case a format.

 

[SirRoxalot]

How much "interaction" do most talk hosts allow callers to have anyway? The minute they aren't preaching the company line, they get dropped anyway. Whether somebody calls in and asks a question, then "hangs up and listens", or text/FB/Twitters it in, what's the difference?

 

[Radio_bored-Op]

it all comes down to the host:
how the host can buy/sell and utilize the
2k-social mediums... meaning if they
sound like a tool and say, hey i have a facebook
(http) duba duba duba dot... ok not that bad, but
u get it-
-If you have a Talent is defines the word talend and
if the 'tweets'/enchance programming
while encouraging more feedback ( any means)
then its a win win -
- u have a great host, doing what he does best
with all that is available to him -
-in this market, the only time its annoying is when
u are a regular listener and its a "read"
(hit me up, text ####_facebook me ____
and dont forget to follow me on twitter, " . . .
and its the same read every time, its effective but
gets old/fast..