Savage Claims "Censorship" At WABC

[mikerock]

But he's also not a leftist either. They're portraying this as leftist censorship. It's not. It's bad ratings.

Here's what Shapiro said to Glenn Beck:

We shouldn’t feel compelled to make excuses for bad behavior, and Trump doesn’t need conservative leaders to compromise their principles to cover for him.
“If we’re not willing to call out bad when we see it even from people [when] we like what we’re getting from them, then we can’t have an honest conversation,” Shapiro said. “It turns into simply fan-boying or fan-girling.”

I agree it is not "leftist" censorship. It is ideology of choosing hosts that represent their best political and corporate interests. If this was about hiring a host that could provide the best ratings they would not have picked Shapiro to replace Savage.

There is not much of a difference politically between mainstream Republicans, Democrats and the ideology largely represented by corporate interests. Shapiro represents those interests perfectly and not the populist uprising that was coming for a long time that eventually gave the people Trump out of desperation.

 

[davideduardo]

I agree it is not "leftist" censorship. It is ideology of choosing hosts that represent their best political and corporate interests. If this was about hiring a host that could provide the best ratings they would not have picked Shapiro to replace Savage.

If "corporate interests" and "corporate politics" were a criteria, most of those same stations would not have had Art Bell talking about little green men for a decade or more. Do you really think that Mary Berner or Bob Pittman or David Field really believe in a Martian invasion.

They program for what gets the most listeners. Period.

Even groups like Sinclair that do have a political agenda put forth certain program elements because they think they will be appreciated.

It's still about business, not nit-picking about flavors of the same ideology.

 

[TheBigA]

I agree it is not "leftist" censorship. It is ideology of choosing hosts that represent their best political and corporate interests. If this was about hiring a host that could provide the best ratings they would not have picked Shapiro to replace Savage.

Staying with Savage wasn't working. That's really all that matters. As I said, it's not about ideology, it's about finding a format that will attract the most people. Savage is the talk equivalent of playing obscure folk music. Attract fringe ideologists is not the way to get ratings, especially in New York City. Shapiro has the potential to attract more people. staying the course is no longer an option. One could bring up the age difference, but I don't think its necessary. WABC is in a desperation situation. They would not be making so many wholesale changes if it wasn't so dire. You have to put this change in context to see that it's not about politics.

 

[mikerock]

If "corporate interests" and "corporate politics" were a criteria, most of those same stations would not have had Art Bell talking about little green men for a decade or more. Do you really think that Mary Berner or Bob Pittman or David Field really believe in a Martian invasion.

They program for what gets the most listeners. Period.

Even groups like Sinclair that do have a political agenda put forth certain program elements because they think they will be appreciated.

It's still about business, not nit-picking about flavors of the same ideology.

Have you even listened and evaluated Shapiro's voice and presentation? Are you really claiming his political ideology played no part in the selection?

I am not totally discounting that they believe he will bring in ratings and may have been fooled by his social media following. Social media popularity however does not necessarily translate to success on radio and all too often much of it tends to be paid support. If it were about ratings "period" they would find an host that has a voice and presentation for radio. A political host that could bring in the largest audience that is more representative of party politics in 2018.

 

[TheBigA]

A political host that could bring in the largest audience that is more representative of party politics in 2018.

Let's put it this way: If Shapiro doesn't fix things at WABC, he will meet the same fate as Savage, Cosby, and Plante. Regardless of ideology.

 

[mikerock]

Staying with Savage wasn't working. That's really all that matters. As I said, it's not about ideology, it's about finding a format that will attract the most people. Savage is the talk equivalent of playing obscure folk music. Attract fringe ideologists is not the way to get ratings, especially in New York City. Shapiro has the potential to attract more people. staying the course is no longer an option. One could bring up the age difference, but I don't think its necessary. WABC is in a desperation situation. They would not be making so many wholesale changes if it wasn't so dire. You have to put this change in context to see that it's not about politics.

Half the country voted for Trump based on the ideology Savage has been pushing for years. Shapiro represented the establishment that was overwhelmingly rejected in 2016. Which would make Shapiro more on the fringe than Savage.

If they picked another host to replace Savage we probably would not be having this discussion. I suppose we shall see how the ratings play out for Shapiro next year. Historically however it has not gone to well in the past for his faction on the right.

 

[mikerock]

Let's put it this way: If Shapiro doesn't fix things at WABC, he will meet the same fate as Savage, Cosby, and Plante. Regardless of ideology.

ah, you beat me to it by a few minutes. I should have refreshed

 

[MarkW]

First of all, the cume figures cited in the Washington Times story (talk about failed news publications...) are B.S. The numbers cited for Rush are in the ballpark. The others are WAY off. No mention of Hannity, NPR Morning Edition, or NPR All Things Considered. All of these programs perform very well in the cume department and are almost assuredly in the top five of all news/talk programs nationally.

Secondly, Savage is being demoted because OTA radio stations - especially those owned by Cumulus in large & major markets - have had an extraordinarily difficult time in many instances selling local avails. When he aired in mid-afternoons on WJR in Detroit, I used to hear one commercial break after another filled with nothing more than PSAs and show promos. The national ad business the Savage Nation has garnered for the past several years has been light as well.

Most advertisers rightly or wrongly view his show as too controversial. They don't want to risk being associated with polarizing comments. Funny how the article makes ZERO mention of the advertising challenges Savage's show has faced for years.

 

[TheBigA]

Half the country voted for Trump based on the ideology Savage has been pushing for years.

In case you haven't noticed, WABC is a radio station in NYC. How did the city of NY vote?

It doesn't matter what the rest of the country does. What matters is NYC, and Savage is losing in the Big Apple.

Here's what I've learned: Opinions are like noses, everybody's got one. If Shapiro's opinion doesn't do better than Savage, they'll try someone else.

Most advertisers rightly or wrongly view his show as too controversial. They don't want to risk being associated with polarizing comments.

Thank you for mentioning that. I can attest that Savage's show has always been on the Do Not Air list. In fact his name is the first one on the list. So most major advertisers don't want their spots in his show.

 

[davideduardo]

Have you even listened and evaluated Shapiro's voice and presentation? Are you really claiming his political ideology played no part in the selection?

Conservative format talkers look for conservative hosts. We learned about two decades or so ago that a balanced lineup of liberals, conservatives and centrists just does not work in current times.

I am not totally discounting that they believe he will bring in ratings and may have been fooled by his social media following. Social media popularity however does not necessarily translate to success on radio and all too often much of it tends to be paid support. If it were about ratings "period" they would find an host that has a voice and presentation for radio. A political host that could bring in the largest audience that is more representative of party politics in 2018.

Generally, stations look at ratings. They are not impressed by "likes" as we all know from our own FB and like kind pages that likes do not translate into listeners. Stations dissect the book in other markets in the context of their own environment.

As long as the host is conservative, a conservative talker will consider them as a possibility. They are not going to be trying to get a Rachael Maddow clone on their station, as that would be like playing Cardi B in hot rotation on a country station.

 

[mikerock]

Conservative format talkers look for conservative hosts. We learned about two decades or so ago that a balanced lineup of liberals, conservatives and centrists just does not work in current times.

Generally, stations look at ratings. They are not impressed by "likes" as we all know from our own FB and like kind pages that likes do not translate into listeners. Stations dissect the book in other markets in the context of their own environment.

As long as the host is conservative, a conservative talker will consider them as a possibility. They are not going to be trying to get a Rachael Maddow clone on their station, as that would be like playing Cardi B in hot rotation on a country station.

Neither should they for a Conservative talker. Picking Shapiro is not as an extreme as going to the left with a Maddow clone yet like I was saying above his voice, presentation and his establishment form of Conservative ideology that was rejected is the wrong fit for 2018.

I am not saying they should not pick a Conservative but rather one closer to Paleo-Conservatism which is quite popular now that half the country voted for (likely without realizing it in 2016). Establishment Neo-Conservativism and globalism is not only out, it has been rejected and people that blew it's horn lost their careers. Just look at the fall of never Trumper Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard having to close recently.

 

[davideduardo]

Neither should they for a Conservative talker. Picking Shapiro is not as an extreme as going to the left with a Maddow clone yet like I was saying above his voice, presentation and his establishment form of Conservative ideology that was rejected is the wrong fit for 2018. I am not saying they should not pick a Conservative but rather one closer to Paleo-Conservatism which is quite popular now that half the country voted for (likely without realizing it in 2016). Establishment Neo-Conservativism and globalism is not only out, it has been rejected and people that blew it's horn lost their careers. Just look at the fall of never Trumper Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard having to close recently.

You are putting to much specific politics in the evaluation of talent whose principal purpose is to entertain.

 

[mikerock]

You are putting to much specific politics in the evaluation of talent whose principal purpose is to entertain.

Conservative format talkers look for conservative hosts. We learned about two decades or so ago that a balanced lineup of liberals, conservatives and centrists just does not work in current times.

So obviously you pick a Conservative host that represents the majority of Conservatives. Picking one that represents an ideology that is passe, where we have witnessed careers and businesses fail trying to sell it does not make any sense unless management has a political agenda. Doing so would be similar to what you describe about balanced lineups or something like a Maddow clone on the left. It just does not work in current times.

 

[TheBigA]

So obviously you pick a Conservative host that represents the majority of Conservatives.

No, the goal is picking a host who will win. Someone will can deliver more than a 1 share. Think of it in radio terms. This guy is young, aggressive, and multi-platform. He sounds a lot like Rush did when he was much younger. That's what this format needs. It has enough septuagenarians.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

First, I'm not sure the premise that "the majority of conservatives" do not align with Shapiro is accurate. People cast their votes for President Trump for a multitude of reasons. Some because they were 100% on board with him, some because he simply was the "R" in the race, some because they couldn't abide Secretary Clinton (and various other reasons). It does not follow that every vote for Trump was a vote against "traditional" conservatism.

 

[mikerock]

First, I'm not sure the premise that "the majority of conservatives" do not align with Shapiro is accurate. People cast their votes for President Trump for a multitude of reasons. Some because they were 100% on board with him, some because he simply was the "R" in the race, some because they couldn't abide Secretary Clinton (and various other reasons). It does not follow that every vote for Trump was a vote against "traditional" conservatism.

They have "traditional" values in common despite Trump's presentation. The difference is Trump/populists, Palecons vs the Neocon globalist establishment. The Neocons politically and in the news media have failed miserably in 2008, 2012 and routed embarrassingly by Trump in 2016. Hillary shares some common ground with these Neocons and lost. Following that as a business plan on radio would seem destined for failure. Hannity, Rush and Levin for years played to the tune of the Neocon establishment but they saw which way the wind was blowing and adjusted somewhat accordingly.

So I question why would a station put on a talk show host given that history if they actually want to increase ratings. You see the overwhelming opposition to Trump across the left wing media and partly on the right. So it would be of no surprise considering all this that the selection of Shapiro is partly politically motivated to herd voters accordingly back into the fold for elections in years to come.

 

[mikerock]

No, the goal is picking a host who will win. Someone will can deliver more than a 1 share. Think of it in radio terms. This guy is young, aggressive, and multi-platform. He sounds a lot like Rush did when he was much younger. That's what this format needs. It has enough septuagenarians.

I agree and should have said more to the point: "So obviously you pick a Conservative host that represents the majority of Conservatives who can win".

Obviously not Shapiro given what has already been said here.

 

[TheBigA]

Obviously not Shapiro given what has already been said here.

Nobody can say that yet.

 

[davideduardo]

So obviously you pick a Conservative host that represents the majority of Conservatives. Picking one that represents an ideology that is passe, where we have witnessed careers and businesses fail trying to sell it does not make any sense unless management has a political agenda. Doing so would be similar to what you describe about balanced lineups or something like a Maddow clone on the left. It just does not work in current times.

No.

Pick a non-liberal who reflects anywhere on the spectrum between a few and most of the values and opinions of non-progressive listeners and who is very entertaining and fun to listen to.

There is no need to exactly match platform plank for platform plank every item on the social and political agenda. There is a huge need to be charismatic, entertaining and interesting.

It's not about "agenda". It is all about being entertained.

It's like being a die-hard fan of a team, but disagreeing with the coach sometimes. You love the team, but you want to be a couch quarterback, too.

Air America, which tried to do the "same thing as Rush" but for the left absolutely bombed nearly everywhere because it was dry, boring and not entertaining. The hosts for the most part put the agenda first, were too invested in their "cause" and not enough in making listeners enjoy the shows.

As someone who has programmed talk in 5 of the top 10 markets, I can tell you that I never had politics as my agenda. I had Arbitron and sales as my agenda. Nothing more.

 

[MikaelaArsenault]

Will his show still be on the other stations other than WABC?