Smerconish lost most of his conservative Philly audience when he announced he was voting for Obama. It was intentional. He had to sacrifice something in order to go into syndication, so he gnawed his conservative arm off while his audience was sleeping. Half of his peeps went to Bill Bennet at 990. It was a neccessary loss that had to take place for him to go to the next level. Any other explanantion is ridiculous. It is what it is.
-
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
Smerconish jumped the shark months ago in Philly
- Thread starter early2rise
- Start date
I sampled his morning show recently, and from the times I listened, not only has he strayed from discussing political issues, but he's abandoned issues related to Philadelphia, as well. Before, there was much talk regarding Rendell and Nutter and the Phillies... Now the topics are as folksy as they come.
Wait it really worth it to go that direction, for a 3,000-watt signal?
Wait it really worth it to go that direction, for a 3,000-watt signal?
DToTheJ said:
WHFS-AM 1580 kHz Morningside, Maryland Licensed Class B AM Station
"The Big Talker"
Antenna Mode Directional - 2 Patterns
Daytime Power 50,000 Watts
Nighttime Power 270 Watts
Number of Towers 4
I
imhomerjay
Guest
early2rise said:
Setting aside the silly overuse (not to mention non-applicable uses) of the tired cliche about jumping a shark.....
Yep, how dare someone not follow the approved script, think for themselves and maybe make a decision that doesn't match said script? You know, actually look at the issues and use one's independent brain instead of engaging in groupthink?
I'd love to see if "half" the audience really left. It would be surprising if it's that high. Regardless, since the most successful syndicated radio talk is of the hard right variety, with minimal examples of sucess to the moderate or left positions, one could view his decision to speak truthfully about his decision as hampering his chances of success. The only major venue where he might have improved his chances is MSNBC, and there are fewer opportunities there than in radio.
You didnt have to follow him for long to see that Tv was his goal, not radio. 'Cant blame him.
More power to him for following his dream...but misrepresenting himself and allowing himself to be called the "conservative talk show host" for years. There's nothing conservative about him.
Listeners expect a certain amount of faithfulness to what you talk about.
Kind of like the Bill Bennet thing years ago where he was gambling his life away.
Jump the shark does apply better than any other phrase. Got a better one that everyone understands?
More power to him for following his dream...but misrepresenting himself and allowing himself to be called the "conservative talk show host" for years. There's nothing conservative about him.
Listeners expect a certain amount of faithfulness to what you talk about.
Kind of like the Bill Bennet thing years ago where he was gambling his life away.
Jump the shark does apply better than any other phrase. Got a better one that everyone understands?
I
imhomerjay
Guest
Jumping the shark described a scripted TV show. This is talk radio. In the original case of Happy Days, we're talking about something specifically done in an effort to bring in viewers after they'd faded. Smirconish, regardless of his motives--and none of us know what is in someone else's heart and head with absolute certainty--hadn't sunk in the ratings in a similar way. 1210 meandered up and down within a general range, but he wasn't the sole anchor dragging the station down.
There need not be a 'better' phrase or slang term. Simply saying it looks like he made a decision to share his beliefs about an election as a way to bolster his own career suffices. Cute cliches aren't always the best.
If listeners on the whole cannot accept that sometimes they might disagree with positions or decisions of a host...if they're so desperate for validation that they need someone holding their hand and telling them over and over that they're alwways right and the dreaded "others" are always wrong....that's beyond sad and says far more about them than any individual host.
One can have conservative or progressive views, and Smirconish has many views that are "talking point" conservative as well as some (like staying out of personal lives) that are truly conservative despite being against the agenda of the religious right. However, I applaud anyone who looks at each issue and election on its own merits. This is a man who voted for Regan and Bush. Hardly hardcore 'liberal.' In this one election between the two candidates before us, he made a decision based on how he saw the facts, not what the RNC approved.
Moreover, one can call themselves whatever they want. That's the beauty of free speech. Liberals would balk at me calling myself liberal because of some views I have; conservatives would do the same. I'll call myself whatever I want, and everyone else can suck it up. Smirconish could have called himself a Martian for all it matters--listeners should make up their own minds, not assuming that an artificial label must mean they can only believe A, B and C, with no variations whatsoever.
There need not be a 'better' phrase or slang term. Simply saying it looks like he made a decision to share his beliefs about an election as a way to bolster his own career suffices. Cute cliches aren't always the best.
If listeners on the whole cannot accept that sometimes they might disagree with positions or decisions of a host...if they're so desperate for validation that they need someone holding their hand and telling them over and over that they're alwways right and the dreaded "others" are always wrong....that's beyond sad and says far more about them than any individual host.
One can have conservative or progressive views, and Smirconish has many views that are "talking point" conservative as well as some (like staying out of personal lives) that are truly conservative despite being against the agenda of the religious right. However, I applaud anyone who looks at each issue and election on its own merits. This is a man who voted for Regan and Bush. Hardly hardcore 'liberal.' In this one election between the two candidates before us, he made a decision based on how he saw the facts, not what the RNC approved.
Moreover, one can call themselves whatever they want. That's the beauty of free speech. Liberals would balk at me calling myself liberal because of some views I have; conservatives would do the same. I'll call myself whatever I want, and everyone else can suck it up. Smirconish could have called himself a Martian for all it matters--listeners should make up their own minds, not assuming that an artificial label must mean they can only believe A, B and C, with no variations whatsoever.
I agree with you on most of your points.
I
InTheBiz
Guest
i agree with i'mhomer. don't over-think this. Smerconish endorsed Obama because he WANTED to. Who one votes for is a personal choice, but he had the BALLS to vote with his gut and his heart and go public with his decision. I don't believe for a second that it was a calculated move related to his POTENTIAL syndication audience. You don't become a long-term success being CALCULATED. You become a success by being YOURSELF (and being interesting) and the audience will find you....
I
InTheBiz
Guest
oh, i should mention that i know the Smerconish staff, so i know for a FACT that his Obama endorsement was honest, not calculated.
Yeah right....Honestly calculated.
There are no accidents in radio careers....especially with Michael.
He is a highly calculated pr and spin machine.
He doesnt let the chips fall where they may. He makes sure every chip lands where he wants it to land.
His career is very carefully mapped out.
I dont care what the "staff" may say. They are not paying his bills. He wil do whatever it takes to reach his goal.
I dont expect any less from him.
There are no accidents in radio careers....especially with Michael.
He is a highly calculated pr and spin machine.
He doesnt let the chips fall where they may. He makes sure every chip lands where he wants it to land.
His career is very carefully mapped out.
I dont care what the "staff" may say. They are not paying his bills. He wil do whatever it takes to reach his goal.
I dont expect any less from him.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
early2rise said:
And your inside knowledge comes from.....wait, what exactly was it again?
There are few accidents in many careers (radio is hardly special among careers). And his careers as both lawyer and radio host are enhanced by being a spin and PR machine, as evidenced by many of the successes in the radio biz alone (cough...cough...Rush Limbaugh...cough....cough). Why wouldn't someone want to try to influence where the chips may land, so to speak? I try to do that in my own career. Do you? And since when is trying to reach a goal a bad thing? Didn't folks like Hannity have a goal that they pursued? (Or still pursue, as the case may be.)
You've laid out an assertion that someone is ambitious. That's hardly a bad thing.
The subtext seems to be that in his role as someone who talks about many things in his life (big and small), that his motivations for explaining how he planned to vote were not genuine. But you offer zero proof. He laid out a list of reasons that in this election between these two candidates, he felt the way he did. This wasn't Obama vs. Regan, or McCain vs. Kerry or what have you. Nor was it 1980 or 1988 or 2000 for that matter. His essay was filled with reasons that here in 2008 he chose the way he did, with recognition that people looking at the same election at this same place in history would feel differently. You've offered no evidence that his comments were not truthful. That they happened to get him some buzz is not proof. His job is to lay bare many elements of his life. This falls within that scope. Moreover, by doing so, he may have lowered his value to stations looking to run pretty much all hard-core "right" talk all the time, which has been demonstrably more profitable than "left" talk, or even well-reasoned moderate talk.
It's all well and good to dislike his stance, but you have failed so far to show it wasn't his 'real' view.
You said all that to say what?
By the time a man is in his mid 40's and on his way up...there are no accidents...and that is not a bad thing at all.
Good for him.
As a former listener, he lost me.
Bill Bennett has my ear in the mornings now and it is like switching from McDonalds to The Capital Grille.
I couldnt go back if I tried.
Just my personal preference.
By the time a man is in his mid 40's and on his way up...there are no accidents...and that is not a bad thing at all.
Good for him.
As a former listener, he lost me.
Bill Bennett has my ear in the mornings now and it is like switching from McDonalds to The Capital Grille.
I couldnt go back if I tried.
Just my personal preference.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
That's wonderful news for 990. And if "most" people who listened to 1210 do the same, it will be interesting to see what happens.
One need not cast aspersions on someone they don't like. There's no evidence to back up some of your assertions in earlier posts, and that was all that was pointed out.
One need not cast aspersions on someone they don't like. There's no evidence to back up some of your assertions in earlier posts, and that was all that was pointed out.
T
talkjim
Guest
"I couldnt go back if I tried.
Just my personal preference."
Call me crazy, but I've got a hunch that Michael won't stay up nights worried that his name is no longer on your dance card.
You have made an incredible number of assumptive statements in this thread. Have you ever even met the man? Or are you the new Kreskin?
For myself, I hardly see Michael as some kind of a progressive, but I do applaud his independence.
Just my personal preference."
Call me crazy, but I've got a hunch that Michael won't stay up nights worried that his name is no longer on your dance card.
You have made an incredible number of assumptive statements in this thread. Have you ever even met the man? Or are you the new Kreskin?
For myself, I hardly see Michael as some kind of a progressive, but I do applaud his independence.
- Status