They ran Obama's speech today, and now they're playing the news.
-
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
Rush not on WABC.com
- Thread starter TTalkradio1
- Start date
DToTheJ said:That is just not right. After all, isn't Rush "America's anchorman"? :
???
He is supposed to be carried on their website, and the news they're playing isn't about obama's speech.
He's on now.
This must be a conspiracy. Somebody needs to call Glenn Beck so he can tell us how the Illuminati are behind this. That or Trotsky's grandchildren.
Reality Checks
105.1 WWPR latest weekly cume 2.8-million mostly young very impressionable, impulsive buyers, highly desired by advertisers.
770 WABC, with Rush, 980,000 individual listeners a week, mostly older white males, set in their ways, not specifcally of much interest to most major advertisers, possibly with the exception of those selling prostate forumlas.
And when it comes to news judgment about which to carry, Rush describes himself as an "entertainer." If he has the 13-million national weekly audience claimed that's still below 5-percent of the US population.
On the other hand, the President of the United States was elected by more than 50-percent of the voting population, and, unlike entertainers, has real power to make a real difference in the lives of Americans.
Given that the Rush audience has an overwhelming preference for "tax reduction" it would make more sense to listen to a speech from a person who can actually keep middle income taxes lower, than to hear an "entertainer" spouting and complaining endlessly about the President being for increased taxes.
Reality always trumps wishful thinking when it comes to news judgment. The speech was supposed to be about keeping reduced tax levels for the middle class.
( Disclaimer: these are just facts, and not any indication of ideological, or music type preferences )
105.1 WWPR latest weekly cume 2.8-million mostly young very impressionable, impulsive buyers, highly desired by advertisers.
770 WABC, with Rush, 980,000 individual listeners a week, mostly older white males, set in their ways, not specifcally of much interest to most major advertisers, possibly with the exception of those selling prostate forumlas.
And when it comes to news judgment about which to carry, Rush describes himself as an "entertainer." If he has the 13-million national weekly audience claimed that's still below 5-percent of the US population.
On the other hand, the President of the United States was elected by more than 50-percent of the voting population, and, unlike entertainers, has real power to make a real difference in the lives of Americans.
Given that the Rush audience has an overwhelming preference for "tax reduction" it would make more sense to listen to a speech from a person who can actually keep middle income taxes lower, than to hear an "entertainer" spouting and complaining endlessly about the President being for increased taxes.
Reality always trumps wishful thinking when it comes to news judgment. The speech was supposed to be about keeping reduced tax levels for the middle class.
( Disclaimer: these are just facts, and not any indication of ideological, or music type preferences )
J
jhguthlac
Guest
I was enjoying the beauty of the total incompetent a-h's at WABC yesterday.
The stream kept airing Sean Hannity opening themes over and over. Instrumental beds repeatedly.
Have they cut the staff back so far that there are no radio people who have the tech ability to run a station?
The stream kept airing Sean Hannity opening themes over and over. Instrumental beds repeatedly.
Have they cut the staff back so far that there are no radio people who have the tech ability to run a station?
B
Bob1370
Guest
"Rush radio 105.1 soon ?"
If he goes anywhere it'll probably be to 101.9...although if they're going to go to talk that'd be only a quick fix rather than a permanent solution. If they really want to succeed with talk they'd be best off developing a new generation of hosts who aren't the same old, same old...
If he goes anywhere it'll probably be to 101.9...although if they're going to go to talk that'd be only a quick fix rather than a permanent solution. If they really want to succeed with talk they'd be best off developing a new generation of hosts who aren't the same old, same old...
TimeIsTight said:Reality Checks
105.1 WWPR latest weekly cume 2.8-million mostly young very impressionable, impulsive buyers, highly desired by advertisers.
770 WABC, with Rush, 980,000 individual listeners a week, mostly older white males, set in their ways, not specifcally of much interest to most major advertisers, possibly with the exception of those selling prostate forumlas.
And when it comes to news judgment about which to carry, Rush describes himself as an "entertainer." If he has the 13-million national weekly audience claimed that's still below 5-percent of the US population.
On the other hand, the President of the United States was elected by more than 50-percent of the voting population, and, unlike entertainers, has real power to make a real difference in the lives of Americans.
Given that the Rush audience has an overwhelming preference for "tax reduction" it would make more sense to listen to a speech from a person who can actually keep middle income taxes lower, than to hear an "entertainer" spouting and complaining endlessly about the President being for increased taxes.
Reality always trumps wishful thinking when it comes to news judgment. The speech was supposed to be about keeping reduced tax levels for the middle class.
( Disclaimer: these are just facts, and not any indication of ideological, or music type preferences )
That's a political post.
jhguthlac said:
They have problems a lot on their internet radio.
How so?
The same kind of news judgment analyses would be true if we were talking about preempting any entertainment programming for a Presidential speech or news conference, no matter who was president, or what party he was from.
Historically, the TV networks always get complaints when they bump entertainment shows for important news, especially soap operas.
Unfortunately, some people have been conditioned to see "everything" through a "political lens." Those on the extreme right, or left, see any facts, comments, or opinions in the neutral middle as "political", and anything not in "lockstep" with their own views as from "the other side." And it is best to use actual facts and numbers to make any points, to help provide perspective. There was nothing in that post that isn't true.
It should be pretty obvious that dumping a top-10 music format and replacing it with a format that draws one-third the total audience and has far less desirable demos makes no sense. And there is nothing political about it.
It should also be pretty obvious that a policy speech from the elected leader of "all" Americans, is much more important, and should be of greater interest, than routine entertainment programming.
Whether to carry that speech is a news judgment call, and apparently somebody at WABC made it, and it's a decision that can certainly be defended. And when you defend those kinds of decisions you have to defend them with facts and figures to remind people that everything an elected national leader, or either party, says, or does, isn't always just "politics."
TimeIsTight said:
"Given that the Rush audience has an overwhelming preference for "tax reduction" it would make more sense to listen to a speech from a person who can actually keep middle income taxes lower, than to hear an "entertainer" spouting and complaining endlessly about the President being for increased taxes."
First of all, Rush doesn't call himself an "entertainer." Secondly, that's not their job to put a balance to Rush. That's his airtime. I want to hear Rush. Rush has the choice to play Obama's speech during his show. And your post is political, because you're supporting Obama.
Way back in 1989, when he was starting his national radio show, Rush was widely reported to have said this:
"I'm not out to save the country. I'm out to get a large audience. I'm an entertainer first and a conservative second."
I read both his books, he thought of himself first as an "entertainer" and his job description hasn't changed.
They weren't putting a "balance on Rush" they were running a policy speech by the elected "President of the United States." And effectively insuring a middle class cut should be important news to most taxpaying Americans.
The airtime belongs to the company that owns the station or the stream and they made a news judgement on what was more important. It's their call and they made it.
No, I was supporting the right of radio station management to make a news judgement to carry a policy speech by the President of the United States on a subject of interest to most American taxpayers. I was also trying to back up the decision they made with as many facts as possible. Just because the station made the news-based decision to run the President's speech doesn't mean they were offering any partisan political support either.
TTalkradio1 said:
This might serve as a heads up. WABC, not Rush decides what goes on they put on their internet stream. I'm sure that WABC is required contractually to broadcast Limbaugh on 770 KHz but they probably don't have that obligation on their web stream. Networks today have had to double their news channels so that spots played on Limbaugh channels are different than the one's played on stations which don't air his product. The reason is that many national advertisers don't want to be associated with Limbaugh or his program. He overstepped when he went after that law student and the implications of his action will be seen when renewal time comes. No one is that big and no matter what he says on the air he’s done serious damage to his brand. Read a few broadcast history books. There have been many broadcasters with much larger audiences who have fallen for far fewer misdeeds.
This was just posted on a web site. Considering the pressure I know he's under, does anyone have access to prove or disprove this?
"The conservative radio host's ratings fell 27 percent in the key 25-54 demo in New York City, 31 percent in Houston-Galveston, 40 percent in Seattle-Tacoma, and 35 percent in Jacksonville, according to a selection of the March 29-April 25 Arbitron ratings provided by an industry source".
This combined with the loss in advertiser dollars says a lot.
"The conservative radio host's ratings fell 27 percent in the key 25-54 demo in New York City, 31 percent in Houston-Galveston, 40 percent in Seattle-Tacoma, and 35 percent in Jacksonville, according to a selection of the March 29-April 25 Arbitron ratings provided by an industry source".
This combined with the loss in advertiser dollars says a lot.
- Status