Renda Broadcasting unplugs....

[MsMusicRadio]

I need to correct myself. John Tesh is probably a good fit for the format like at night. Somehow any syndicated show in PM drive just seems wrong.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with your first sentence two posts ago, Ms. Bogut and Cardille are on the air because they are popular and bring in advertising. The rest of the staff didn't fit that bill.

The thing about liberal talk is it generally doesn't work.

Somebody pointed out to me that "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" were two of the most popular shows on national radio today.

Which is all well and good, but then please explain to me why-

A- These shows have more than 100 more affiliates than Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

B- These shows are all broadcast on FM frequencies that are strong. Furthermore- everyone knows where they are. I can be in Chicago and know that if I put my radio dial somewhere around 92 or less on FM I will be able to hear "Morning Edition" in the morning.

C- Morning Edition is on in the morning- radio's drive time.

D- AND THEY STILL CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO APPROACH LIMBAUGH'S AUDIENCE!!!!!

They have all the advantages- but they still lose big.

Why is that?

Here are my unsolicited beliefs- unscientific, of course-

A- Limbaugh, Hannity, even- GOSH- Neil Boortz have better shows not so much because they are conservative and NPR is liberal but rather that these right-wing shows are more lively and confrontational. They also tend to stay more current with the news than NPR.

B- NPR- and I'm using them simply because they are the most successful liberal radio programming out there- really is dull. They really are.

They also tend to be more biased than the standard conservative host. That's my opinion- of course- but have you ever heard Democracy Now? Do you realize how absurd it is to discuss a Christmas riot at Wal-Mart with a union leader and a guy who thinks the free enterprise system should be done away with?

At least Hannity has on far-left guests to debate them.

C- Let's explore that political philosophy that would put on a guest who wants to do away with the free enterprise system.

That's an extreme view- If I own a store- do I really want to sponsor that guest spot?

If I sponsor Joe Conservative- I don't have to worry about that.

D- Here's the other reason why liberal talk doesn't work. I'm convinced that when an issue is TALKED OUT- not a column in the paper with no rebutal until the letters to the editor come out the next week (which is hardly equal billing)- not the Larry King style (who once was the biggest radio talk show host out there and was very liberal) where differing points were cut off- but when it is TALKED OUT- the conservative way usually wins out.

You can say that reflects my political bias. But I would submit to you that if we were discussing an issue for an hour- any issue- but to fill up an hour of a viewpoint that is critical and wishes change (let's face it- the basis of liberalism is change and the basis of conservativism is if it's not broke don't fix it)- the average listener won't agree with all the points made.

Hence, the host loses credibility with the listener. The listener might have been with the host on points one through three- but when the host went on to points five and six to fill up the hour- he lost the listener.

Thus ends the Pratte4Life lecture on "why liberal talk radio doesn't work (for the most part)." Feel free to respond.

 

[Boss Radio]

There's no streaming of Pirates broadcasts on 104.7. MLB sold its radio rights to XM and protects that.

 

[garnet]

Why are all our hosts rich white republican guys?...Thats the question I asked at our cluster. Each talk station is the same when it comes to "hosts", so its not clear which cluster I am talking about. On purpose. I was told point blank that people enjoy listening to someone they disagree with. Sure, Pittsburgh is a Democratic town, but the rightwing callers get everyone listening either angry or cheering. Regardless, they are listening. As for the "liberal", "conservative" argument, I was told that its been proven time and time again, that liberal listeners will listen to a conservative host, but conservative listeners will not listen to a liberal host. Pretty sad all around, really.

 

[MsMusicRadio]

I have to admit that you are right. Conservative talk radio is just old time TOP 40 AM radio without music. Rush does the world events or whatever like he screamed and hollared like he was Jeff Christie on WIXZ. He even sounds like he has a built in echo chamber in his gullet. He is a human generator and I concede that NPR is dull next to Rush and his pallies. I certainly expect "noise" on this next statement as I got it before, but liberals love MSNBC because they are generating the type of excitement on TV that liberal talk never did on radio. I'd put Keith head to head with Rush anytime . Other than MSNBC and Jon Stewart , liberals can be preachy and dull. Never-the-less-----I am still proud to have been one for my whole life. Sting really is a lot duller interview that Ted Nugent. George Wallace was a funny guy. That's the way it is. Too bad .There must be a parallel universe where liberals top the charts. maybe in Great Britain?

 

[Parttimer]

P4L, you KNOW we've been around this topic a hundred times already.

In my mind it's really simple. When a liberal host comes along who is ENTERTAINING and TALENTED like Rush, Beck, Boortz and Hannity, they will get ratings. Name me one liberal talk host who is.

Idealogy does not equal entertainment. And if you happen to be someone who can't stand listening to conservatives, so be it. Many enjoy it.

But the bottom line is, it's a show. Sometimes it's even an act. On day one Rush's show was conceived as a parody of conservatives.

Entertainment, people. Entertainment.

 

[MsMusicRadio]

I've often wondered if Rush started as an "act"? He still sounds like he did back in Jeff christie days, I'd put Keith Olbermann in his league as a showman . If you count Stern as "liberal" which might be a stretch--------I guess he is a made man too.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Garnet- I'm a conservative who just gave you the ins and outs of NPR.

Evidently I listen to liberal radio (what there is) from time to time.

Also, by "our" hosts, are you speaking of Pittsburgh hosts or national hosts? Alan Keyes is an example of a black conservative host who has become nationally known, and Armstrong Williams, though more on the Michael Reagan than Rush Limbaugh level, is another black conservative host.

Are you using "guys" as something other than a gender-neutral term? I would submit to you the Lauras- Ingram and Dr. (I will not attempt to spell her last name) have done well- and I used to listen to Monica Crowley solely because I swear- her beauty actually could be seen on the radio.

This is actually somewhat impressive to me since the demographics of the two political parties, sadly, often do come down to the Republicans are a bunch of whites and the Democrats are everybody else. That's an overstatement, but there is a bit of truth to it that should be unnerving to both sides of the political spectrum.

Rich would come from being a success on the air.

Part- Sure we've been around the topic 100 times.

So 101 isn't going to kill us, right?

But I do agree with you on the talent of the broadcaster and that liberals have never been able to match it. I know Mario Cuomo had a show in the '90s that was heavily syndicated but he didn't have the charisma of Limbaugh or even G. Gordon Liddy, who at that time was probably the second-most popular national radio host.

Hence, the show failed.

Are you familiar at all with Jim Hightower, Part? I didn't hear him much in the early '90s, but what I heard was pretty good and he was on enough stations nationwide to make an impact. Lots of folksy charm.

I wonder why he didn't fare better. Could his Texas accent have turned off listeners in the north?

But if that's the case, how did Barry Farber make it for so long in New York City?

Other random thoughts-

1- I might argue that liberal radio actually is alive and well, but it is not advanced in the "hard political talk" mode.

Rather, it is advanced through things such as the local Morning Zoo doing jokes about legalizing pot or the cultural and political stances ESPN often takes as they relate to sports.

And that actually might be more effective because these shows don't attract listeners from just one side of the political spectrum.

2- If they really want a liberal talk radio station in Pittsburgh, why wouldn't the local party underwrite such an endeavor?

The Republican candidate for mayor of Pittsburgh in 2007 now hosts a money show from time to time on a former liberal talk station that brokers time.

It would seem to me that the local Democrats, who have more fund-raising sources than local Republicans, could take over a station like 1550 or whatever and air- and promote- viewpoints coming from the left.

3- Doesn't Pittsburgh have a liberal talk radio station that fares rather well in WAMO-AM? Isn't Bev Smith one of Talkers' Top 100 hosts?

 

[MsMusicRadio]

Where do you put Garrison Keilor in this? And Howard Stern?

 

[garnet]

Pratt: The fact that you are on this board means whatever you listen to is irrelevent. I was also just retelling what I was told. Most people with an interest in talk radio don't want to constantly hear what they agree with, unless, apparently, you are a conservative. Sure the shows are entertaining and get callers crazy, thats what they are there for. As to why liberals wouldn't pay to get their side out, why would they? They already run everything, and they did that with virtually no talk radio.

 

[argentarius]

With all due respect to posters above, we do not know how progressive talk would do in Pittsburgh because it has never been tried. Cullen and Hartmann bookended by 5 hours of Laura Ingraham and Clark Howard, with 6 hours of Mike Gallagher on the weekends does not constitute a progressive talk station. I agree that the local Democratic party should fund an experiment and try a true progressive lineup on an FM: Stephanie Miller, Schultz, Randi, Lionel, Mike Malloy and Hartmann. I truly believe that lineup could be sold in Pittsburgh and would do well enough to be sustained. Is Shultz gonna beat Limbaugh - probably not; Is Randi gonna beat Hannity- again probably not. But they would bring in ad dollars and that's what it is all about, all the while giving the region at least some sort of balance in talk radio. I listen to Honzberger if I'm in the car during lunch, otherwise I can't tolerate anything on KDKA or 104.7, or 73 for that matter, except maybe small doses of Dr. Laura. If someone actually tries a progressive lineup, and if it fails as so many of you all predict, then I will admit defeat - Unless and until that happens, it is just OPINION, WITHOUT BASIS IN ANY FACT WHATSOEVER THAT PROGRESSIVE RADIO COULDN'T FIND AN AUDIENCE IN PGH.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I have always disagreed with the idea that WPTT was not a progressive station because on the weekends they had Mike Gallagher or they would replay Laura Ingram at 7 a.m.

It is akin to saying that 104.7 is not a conservative station because of their sports contracts.

The bulk of WPTT's drive time was liberal. The identifiable local talent was liberal.

Even at night they carried Alan Colmes, who was an old college chum of the program director.

I'm repeating myself, but I think one of the reasons for the demise of WPTT and the liberal hosts on there is because the Cullen fans unwittingly killed her show.

Renda was not going to promote their No. 3 local entity with anything but the bare bones. However, when Neil Boortz came on their airwaves- he bought billboards and gave WPTT more promotion than ever.

However, the audience of WPTT- which was totally the Lynn Cullen crowd- protested. They felt Boortz was too rude- which I agree with.

Hence, in just a few months Boortz was gone.

Now, there's a lesson to be learned here. And it is that just because your audience might be protesting- that might not be the worst thing in the world.

It shows there is feedback. There is passion.

And if this guy is generating feedback and passion AND is buying his own billboards, well . . . .

Bottom line- if Neil Boortz is your promotional budget- you keep Neil Boortz. No Cullen listener is going to stop listening to Cullen during her time slot because Boortz is on another.

So in a weird way, Boortz was actually helping keep left wing views on the airwaves for awhile. And when WPTT dumped him, it was akin to cutting off the station's nose to spite their face.

But you have to understand the culture there. It WAS very left-wing. So here was the chance to dump Boortz and add on Thom Hartmann- which they thought would make Cullen and the station stronger.

As you can see, that flopped. So I am also skeptical that if Air America was aired with Lynn Cullen and John McIntire and Chris Moore as local hosts it would do any better than WPTT did- assuming the same amount of promotion and signal were in play.

Other than that, Arg, all I can tell you is that WAMO-AM isn't exactly a conservative haven in programming.

And to be honest, it's a rather successful station.

 

[fromtheinsideout]

First, Neil Boortz didn't buy his own billboards out of some altruistic motive. He bought them because he got dumped by 104.7 for Rush, even though he was beating Rush in that timeslot on the FM dial. He even had a semi meltdown on the air when it happened, telling listeners that his show was moving and what station it was moving to.

Thom Hartmann was brought on board after the Bush-Kerry election, when Lynn took a sabbatical and WPTT was left trying to fill a programming void that wouldn't offend her audience, which by that point was the only audience the station had. When she did come back, the problem of having too much programming came to bear, as now you had two shows, Hartmann and Boortz, who were both live at the same time. They opted to go with Hartmann because it was easier to work a deal with Jones and get Clark Howard in place of Boortz than it was to work a deal with Westwood One and Hartman (Westwood One was the original syndicator of Hartman, Air America picked him up later on). So they worked a swap with Jones and switched Boortz for Howard.

As for the station being liberal or conservative, it was neither, it was just a train wreck. The PD wanted to move the station in a more left leaning direction, ownership didn't, whch led to programming genius as Laura Ingraham on 22 hour delay in the morning drive, which was aired solely to appease ownership. Likewise when Ron Insana stopped doing radio, they went with Monica Crowley, partially because it was easy (she was what was being offered by Westwood One as a replacement) and partially because it was more in line with the politics of ownership. It was also why when Hoerth was let go, they again opted for more Laura Ingraham, as if having her on delay once a day wasn't enough, she occupied both drive slots 6-9 and 3-6, even though her show is live from 9-12. So you ended up with 6 hours of liberal talk bookended with 6 hours of conservative talk, followed by 4 hours of Clark Howard, which was also on tape delay.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Other than that, Arg, all I can tell you is that WAMO-AM isn't exactly a conservative haven in programming.

And to be honest, it's a rather successful station.

Agreed. It doesn't cost much at all to run, so its profit margin is considerably larger.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I'd buy the "it wasn't a liberal or conservative station- it was a train wreck."

However, I don't know what the point was you were trying to make with Boortz. I don't think anyone felt he was buying those 'boards for altruistic purposes.

But if I have one nationally syndicated host that will buy billboards to promote my station (as well as had a following) and another, Clark Howard, who not only is unlistenable and second string to Dave Ramsey in his talk genre but won't buy billboards- then why would anyone get rid of Boortz?

 

[california]

all of this talk about am radio is like sticking a pencil in my eye. i love am, but let's face it gang, unless you have big power, it doesn't matter whether it's boorts, smith, johnson or katzanjammer, it ain't grabbing the numbers anymore in big markets. even the sports stations on am are struggling for meager rations. ...(I KNOW, I KNOW, THERE ''DECENT IN THEIR DEMO." however small that demo really is. sadly most of the AMs in this town are losing and most of the owners would love to find a sucker to take them off their hands. how about qvc on the radio?.... or disney miley cyrus 24-7? .......still loving the romance of the AM crackle late at night...california.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Actually, Disney DOES have a station on AM at 540.

And I don't know how they do- and you really don't either- since their target audience is under 12 and Arbitron hardly records that audience.

 

[fromtheinsideout]

But if I have one nationally syndicated host that will buy billboards to promote my station (as well as had a following) and another, Clark Howard, who not only is unlistenable and second string to Dave Ramsey in his talk genre but won't buy billboards- then why would anyone get rid of Boortz?

The logic, whether it be flawed or not was simply that Jones was in a better position to bargain from a programming perspective than Westwood One was able to, especially from a position of what was palatable to ownership. I don't think anyone expected for Boortz to continue to buy his own billlboards on a station where he drew no numbers, and outside of being on 104.7 Boortz'z numbers were neglible in the market. Let's not kid anyone, the only audience for better or worse that was drawing revenue to the station at that point was Cullen's. People weren't beating down the doors to buy time on Neil Boortz's show simply because he bought a few billboards, which at the end of the day is what radio is all about. So which is better, having a Thom Hartmann Show nobody buys, or having a Neil Boortz Show that nobody buys, that is a coin flip in which I am not willing to be part of simply because I can't see a win win scenario at the end of the day. The station chose to go with Hartmann, and he like Boortz offered a show in which the sales staff couldn't sell spots. But it wasn't like advertisers walked away based on the decision, nobody for the most part cared one way or the other. It was just a syndicated show on a station that save for 3 hours a day was syndicated and with shows nobody wanted to buy into. Which made it all the easier to turn 1360 into what it is now, a station like many others on the AM dial for the snake oil salesman du jour whose checks clear.

 

[Boss Radio]

all of this talk about am radio is like sticking a pencil in my eye. i love am, but let's face it gang, unless you have big power, it doesn't matter whether it's boorts, smith, johnson or katzanjammer, it ain't grabbing the numbers anymore in big markets. even the sports stations on am are struggling for meager rations. ...(I KNOW, I KNOW, THERE ''DECENT IN THEIR DEMO." however small that demo really is. sadly most of the AMs in this town are losing and most of the owners would love to find a sucker to take them off their hands. how about qvc on the radio?.... or disney miley cyrus 24-7? .......still loving the romance of the AM crackle late at night...california.

Very true. Fringe AM stations command a lot more attention here than they do among the audience. If you're far enough from Pittsburgh to serve a separate community, you at least have a chance. Otherwise, the outlook is grim.

 

[Pratte4Life]

From- I'm not sure Boortz's numbers were negligible.

I was told he did better on 104.7 than Limbaugh was doing on KDKA.

The thing is/was- I believe with the effort Boortz put out and whatever name recognition he had from whatever source he had a better chance to bring new listeners to WPTT.

Let's face it, the highest ratings that station had was when Jerry Bowyer had a regular show to go with Hoerth and Cullen.