Stephanie Miller on Talk Decline

[flybynight]

i have stopped listening to the right wing stuff particularly because it wasn't interesting anymore and they started repeating demonstrably false facts as though it were true. now, i can appreciate the republican viewpoint even if i don't agree with it but to be lied to over and over with bigger and bigger falacies, i can't stand.

Along with the shallow talking-point approach to shows, THAT is my biggest gripe with today's talkradio. They lie. A lot.

I'm not talking about gray-area info or opinion, I'm talking about spreading repeatedly debunked falsehoods, even when they HAVE to know they're not being honest. I don't care what your ideology is, if you have to LIE to make your argument, then your position is garbage---and you're committing an egregious violation of the public trust by flagrantly misinforming people for your own ego-driven benefit. I just find it disgusting, no matter who's doing it. And yes, it's far more noticeable among right-wing hosts, maybe because there's so many more of them. One repeats a lie, then they all do.

I always thought talk hosts were individualists, but they're not, many are just talking-point repeating robots.
That takes little talent.

the problem with talk radio today is that it has become way too ideological today. the extreme right wing radio has attracted the tea bags, sovereign citizens, and conspiracy demos and has chased away those not deemed ideologically pure enough.

Nailed it again.

The same ideological purity that has the right chastising and trying to cast off fellow Republicans is alienating many who have been talkradio fans for years, myself included. Like MANY people, I have conservative positions as well as liberal ones, depending on the issue. But talkradio has made it clear that it has no interest in appealing to people like me anymore. You have to be completely nutso-extreme or you're the enemy. It's just stupid.

 

[Avid Listener]

the problem with talk radio today is that it has become way too ideological today.

Sorry, but I suspect you've missed the whole point. News/talk has become like music format radio in many ways. The suits don't care any more about the ideology of the talk hosts than they care about the style of the music on their music format stations. It's a product, dispensed by the shovelful. Listen to almost any major market music format station. No matter when you tune in for some of whatever format that station plays, that's what you get. You don't have to pay attention to hearing one kind of music when one DJ is on, or a different kind when a different DJs on. Based on listening to what is broadcast on news/talk station, even a casual observer can hear the result of the station's programming strategy. It doesn't matter which host is on, you're going to hear the same basic program content. The talk topics are no different than the tight playlist of songs, and the hosts are as interchangeable as voice-tracked DJs. There are a few holdover legacy talk hosts that are legends in their own minds, like Limbaugh, but the truth is the "rush hannibeck clone" description you mention is exactly correct.

That's the difference between having radio programs, and having radio programming. Expecting to hear a liberal host on a news/talk station is like expecting a CHR music station to put one classic rock DJ on for a three hour shift. It'll never happen, because it breaks up the total continuity of the station.

 

[flybynight]

Sorry, but I suspect you've missed the whole point. News/talk has become like music format radio in many ways. The suits don't care any more about the ideology of the talk hosts than they care about the style of the music on their music format stations. It's a product, dispensed by the shovelful. Listen to almost any major market music format station. No matter when you tune in for some of whatever format that station plays, that's what you get. You don't have to pay attention to hearing one kind of music when one DJ is on, or a different kind when a different DJs on. Based on listening to what is broadcast on news/talk station, even a casual observer can hear the result of the station's programming strategy. It doesn't matter which host is on, you're going to hear the same basic program content. The talk topics are no different than the tight playlist of songs, and the hosts are as interchangeable as voice-tracked DJs. There are a few holdover legacy talk hosts that are legends in their own minds, like Limbaugh, but the truth is the "rush hannibeck clone" description you mention is exactly correct.

That's the difference between having radio programs, and having radio programming. Expecting to hear a liberal host on a news/talk station is like expecting a CHR music station to put one classic rock DJ on for a three hour shift. It'll never happen, because it breaks up the total continuity of the station.

There is that talkradio-is-just-like-music-radio fallacy again.

Talk stations are not like music stations. WHY? Because in any given market there are anywhere from one to three DOZEN music stations, which is why they try to carve out a niche. In any given market, how many TALK stations are there? And I don't mean inferior rimshots, I mean legit, viable, prominent frequencies/stations that do newstalk? I'll answer that for you: In MOST markets, ONE, maybe two.

Talk stations never had to carve out such a narrow niche. All they have really accomplished in doing that is to blow off many listeners who could actually handle hearing different viewpoints/opinions on a subject. The conservatives they now pander to were already listening.

 

[Avid Listener]

There is that talkradio-is-just-like-music-radio fallacy again.

Talk stations are not like music stations. WHY? Because in any given market there are anywhere from one to three DOZEN music stations, which is why they try to carve out a niche. In any given market, how many TALK stations are there? And I don't mean inferior rimshots, I mean legit, viable, prominent frequencies/stations that do newstalk? I'll answer that for you: In MOST markets, ONE, maybe two.

Your mistake is assuming that news/talk is a broad category with many sub-formats. It isn't. News/talk competes with all other spoken word formats. Most of the markets I'm familiar with have several spoken word format stations. There's usually one or even two sports talk stations, another news/talk station or two, some dollar-a-holler religious talk stations, and maybe a "general" format station. Granted, most spoken word format programming is on AM stations, often daytimers. Spoken word, as a category, isn't very popular, and it doesn't require the audio fidelity of FM to be listenable. Music sounds terrible on AM, regardless of what kind of music it is, so the spoken word formats tend to end up on AM.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Sorry, but I suspect you've missed the whole point. News/talk has become like music format radio in many ways. The suits don't care any more about the ideology of the talk hosts than they care about the style of the music on their music format stations.

// S N I P //

That's the difference between having radio programs, and having radio programming. Expecting to hear a liberal host on a news/talk station is like expecting a CHR music station to put one classic rock DJ on for a three hour shift. It'll never happen, because it breaks up the total continuity of the station.

Let me offer a suggestion: both of you are right... you are just looking at the opposite end of the elephant.

Maybe Talk Radio is traveling down a road that is going to make it (at some date not far in the future) exactly like managing music programming.

It is possible to have 29 music stations in town and all of them have a distinct niche in music.

So far, Talk only has two formats: Right and Left. (Actually the only two formats are Right Extreme and Right Light. )

Depending on what becomes of the costs of music royalties after the current push-and-shove in that area, consider this possibility: Four to five hundred people who have some kind of bona fides (in their own mind at least) to create Talk, produce what we today think of Podcasts on the Internet. Station owners who have had to settle for a music format that even when done well will never rank better than 17th in their market, obtain access to these "podcasts" from the 20 wanna-be talkers who best fit their market place. (maybe the station doesn't have good signal for the entire market, so they choose a talk mix suitable to attract people in their part of town. Could be ethnic choices, religious choices, political choices that are unique. Across town the 18th ranked music station chooses another 20 wanna-be talkers that fits well in their part of town.

Up until now Talk has ridden on BIG personality. When Rush and Hannity and some others "hang it up"... will there be future 800 pound gorillas to replace them, or will stations have to size up their potential audience and go looking for topics instead of personality? If you program in a midwestern city that in the past 50 years drew many, many people up from Appalachia for industrial jobs, your list of critical topics will be different than the city 150 miles away that is awash in descendents of the Eastern Europeans that arrived 150 years ago. And if your city is one of the "Research University High Tech" hot-rod communities like Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Madison WI, or Silicon Valley or Seattle, then you will be looking for 20 different talkers to create your "witches brew" of talk radio critical topics.

Think about that one for awhile. It's like a big kettle of bootleg whiskey fermenting down in the Southern Mountains. It needs a little time to get ripe.

 

[TheBigA]

When Rush and Hannity and some others "hang it up"... will there be future 800 pound gorillas to replace them, or will stations have to size up their potential audience and go looking for topics instead of personality?

My view is that when it happens, the potential audience for AM radio will have shrunk to the point where it won't matter any more.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

My view is that when it happens, the potential audience for AM radio will have shrunk to the point where it won't matter any more.

O.K. I could print that out and tack it on my office wall. Sounds logical.

But let me poke at the edges of the envelope with you. Serious operators of FM stations (high capital requirements) are currently held back in really committing to Talk Radio because they fear some yo-yo with a cheaply capitalized AM will 'muddy their water' if they are successful.

Let's assume Talk is what keeps AM alive today. (Little rural markets being the exception.) So the bigger-than-life Talkers of today all retire and voila'... the AM band with some rapidity that we cannot visualize today... just implodes. (Like an old skyscraper brought down by modern demolition companies using explosives.)

So will there come a day when some adventuresome owners of FM properties look around and see that there are no AMs left to screw things up, and decide to make Talk Radio actually work... long term.... on FM signals. What kind of talk would thrive and survive in such a future-world? What kind of talkers would thrive and survive in such a future-world?

Or is that a scenario that can never happen?

 

[TheBigA]

So will there come a day when some adventuresome owners of FM properties look around and see that there are no AMs left to screw things up, and decide to make Talk Radio actually work... long term.... on FM signals. What kind of talk would thrive and survive in such a future-world? What kind of talkers would thrive and survive in such a future-world?

They already have in some markets. One of the most successful is NJ 101.5 covering most of NJ. It's an all-local talk station that stays away from the typical political topics, although they are consistently tough on the state's governor, regardless of party or ideology. On the other hand, when an FM talk station was launched a couple years ago in Philadelphia, it grabbed syndicated talkers Rush & Hannity and attempted to transition their AM success to FM. The station never got above a 2 share.

 

[Small Market Guy]

during this rather fascinating back and forth between two clear factions of what people think about why talk radio is failing today, someone way back a couple of pages ago noted that the millenials aren't tuning in anymore. well i'll speak as one of those millenials. i've been listening to talk since i was in middle school. i still listen to talk today. but i have migrated to one particular brand of talk radio. and no it isn't npr. i have stopped listening to the right wing stuff particularly because it wasn't interesting anymore and they started repeating demonstrably false facts as though it were true. now, i can appreciate the republican viewpoint even if i don't agree with it but to be lied to over and over with bigger and bigger falacies, i can't stand. you don't find that with a lot of the democratic leaning shows because the callers will check the hosts and the hosts aren't so egotistic as to dismiss the caller out of hand.

you also don't have hosts actually teaching something about something on air. i only know of one who's doing it, norman goldman who also (reportedly) gets excellent ratings on the stations that still carry him in the right demographics the advertisers drool over. now i don't have facts to back this up but if it's actually true that norm does get good ratings it should be a no brainer to get him on the air on as many struggling stations as possible. but no, the liberal format doesn't work. no one listens. even though democratic programming (not that horribly mismanaged air america type stuff. i lean that way politically and even i thought that network was a joke save thom hartmann and rachel maddow and al franken when you got into the policy wonk stuff) has i do believe never been given a chance with a station with a decent signal.

the problem with talk radio today is that it has become way too ideological today. the extreme right wing radio has attracted the tea bags, sovereign citizens, and conspiracy demos and has chased away those not deemed ideologically pure enough. other than those big personalities with the big salaries who were on the big sticks, no one has ever made mention that right wing talk has failed. rush radio in boston? failed. the new keib in la? test pattern ratings. the new knew in the bay area? likewise. in fact i would state that right wing radio has failed worse than left wing radio because it was given way more opportunity to succeed with several times more people to fill the programming hours. but because you have big names like rush limbaugh, sean hannity, and glen beck along with mark levin and michael savage weiner still making millions of dollars and being force carried on legacy (but in some cases not necessarily big stick, wor new york for example) stations you never hear about that.

and on the left side, democratic leaning people were convinced that in order to attract people they had to act more like republicans. on the radio and in politics we see how that worked out (not well). and those who actually tried to inform their listeners instead of shouting at them they simply were pushed off the air in order to make more room for the rush hannibeck clone (because liberal talk fails).

but what do i know, i'm just a fan of radio upset in its rapid decline in quality.

Maybe as a listener you should start being part of the change by not using terms like "tea bag". The listeners being so hateful is why hosts put on these acts.

 

[Small Market Guy]

They already have in some markets. One of the most successful is NJ 101.5 covering most of NJ. It's an all-local talk station that stays away from the typical political topics, although they are consistently tough on the state's governor, regardless of party or ideology. On the other hand, when an FM talk station was launched a couple years ago in Philadelphia, it grabbed syndicated talkers Rush & Hannity and attempted to transition their AM success to FM. The station never got above a 2 share.

And every station that's tried to copy what NJ 101.5 does hasn't exactly been a huge success.

What do you think of hosts that aren't tough on anyone, regardless of party? Hosts that just give everyone a forum and let the listeners decide what's what?

 

[TheBigA]

And every station that's tried to copy what NJ 101.5 does hasn't exactly been a huge success.

I'm aware of that, in fact I've said that exact thing in other threads. Companies like Entercom have tried that approach in places like Kansas City to limited success. But I was simply answering a question.

Regarding your question, I think Larry King was "Mr. Soft Ball," who never was tough on anyone, and left it to the listeners, and it seemed to work for him. Then again, that was 25 years ago, and what worked then probably won't work now. But all of this is why talk radio is in the quandary it's in now.

 

[semoochie]

during this rather fascinating back and forth between two clear factions of what people think about why talk radio is failing today, someone way back a couple of pages ago noted that the millenials aren't tuning in anymore. well i'll speak as one of those millenials. i've been listening to talk since i was in middle school. i still listen to talk today. but i have migrated to one particular brand of talk radio. and no it isn't npr. i have stopped listening to the right wing stuff particularly because it wasn't interesting anymore and they started repeating demonstrably false facts as though it were true. now, i can appreciate the republican viewpoint even if i don't agree with it but to be lied to over and over with bigger and bigger falacies, i can't stand. you don't find that with a lot of the democratic leaning shows because the callers will check the hosts and the hosts aren't so egotistic as to dismiss the caller out of hand.

you also don't have hosts actually teaching something about something on air. i only know of one who's doing it, norman goldman who also (reportedly) gets excellent ratings on the stations that still carry him in the right demographics the advertisers drool over. now i don't have facts to back this up but if it's actually true that norm does get good ratings it should be a no brainer to get him on the air on as many struggling stations as possible. but no, the liberal format doesn't work. no one listens. even though democratic programming (not that horribly mismanaged air america type stuff. i lean that way politically and even i thought that network was a joke save thom hartmann and rachel maddow and al franken when you got into the policy wonk stuff) has i do believe never been given a chance with a station with a decent signal.

the problem with talk radio today is that it has become way too ideological today. the extreme right wing radio has attracted the tea bags, sovereign citizens, and conspiracy demos and has chased away those not deemed ideologically pure enough. other than those big personalities with the big salaries who were on the big sticks, no one has ever made mention that right wing talk has failed. rush radio in boston? failed. the new keib in la? test pattern ratings. the new knew in the bay area? likewise. in fact i would state that right wing radio has failed worse than left wing radio because it was given way more opportunity to succeed with several times more people to fill the programming hours. but because you have big names like rush limbaugh, sean hannity, and glen beck along with mark levin and michael savage weiner still making millions of dollars and being force carried on legacy (but in some cases not necessarily big stick, wor new york for example) stations you never hear about that.

and on the left side, democratic leaning people were convinced that in order to attract people they had to act more like republicans. on the radio and in politics we see how that worked out (not well). and those who actually tried to inform their listeners instead of shouting at them they simply were pushed off the air in order to make more room for the rush hannibeck clone (because liberal talk fails).

but what do i know, i'm just a fan of radio upset in its rapid decline in quality.

It's not that I'm doubting your word or anything like that but I find it hard to believe that a millenial would casually use "test pattern" as a reference point. Of course, you could just be playing to the available audience.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Regarding your question, I think Larry King was "Mr. Soft Ball," who never was tough on anyone, and left it to the listeners, and it seemed to work for him. Then again, that was 25 years ago, and what worked then probably won't work now. But all of this is why talk radio is in the quandary it's in now.

It might not work on a national scale. People like confrontation and fire and brimstone in their national hosts. I've seen the Larry King approach do well on a smaller basis, especially in mornings.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It might not work on a national scale. People like confrontation and fire and brimstone in their national hosts. I've seen the Larry King approach do well on a smaller basis, especially in mornings.

I think it is fair to say that today Talk Shows indicate that the people who listen to them are indeed people who not only have a tolerance level for confrontation, but yes, maybe even an insatiable appetite for confrontation.

What today's Talk Shows do not prove or disprove is that there may a significant number of people who have an appetite for talk but no tolerance for confrontation... or harsh, abraisive, rabid confrontation.

It would be interesting to do a study of people who regularly watch the three network Sunday morning talk shows on TV and see what we can learn by comparing those in that group who also listen to talk radio against those who do not listen to talk radio. I'll save you the trouble. That would not be a scientifically pure study because a lot of people who listen to Talk Radio wouldn't be caught dead watching "all the liberalism" on Sunday morning.

There is no economic pressure currently to encourage broadcasters to research questions like the one I pose. There is not requirement that broadcasters have talk shows so people avoid learning what would and would not work because there are alternate things to air: banjo music; discussion of flower shows, etc. I'm trying to think of some legal requirement or encourgement that would cause broadcasters to want to make (expanded) Talk Radio to work. Only then will they go to the effort and expense of such research.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I'm trying to think of some legal requirement or encourgement that would cause broadcasters to want to make (expanded) Talk Radio to work. Only then will they go to the effort and expense of such research.

No thanks. Enough "legal requirements". "Legal requirements" have done enough damage. Anyone who has tried to apply for a gig and had to weed through thousands of fake job postings done to meet EEO requirements can attest to that. If someone wants to do "nice talk" on a national basis, let them try it. We'll see how it does.

And a study done using people who watch the Sunday morning shows wouldn't be scientific because the sample size would be too small.

 

[Avid Listener]

That would not be a scientifically pure study because a lot of people who listen to Talk Radio wouldn't be caught dead watching "all the liberalism" on Sunday morning.

A large proportion of them would be in church on Sunday morning, and wouldn't be watching TV at all.

 

[Small Market Guy]

A large proportion of them would be in church on Sunday morning, and wouldn't be watching TV at all.

And the rest of us are asleep. Even the people who analyze the Sunday show appearances don't watch them live.

 

[TheBigA]

This story in my OP was picked up by a blog over the weekend:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/rush-limbaughs-california-ratings-debacle

I recognize that the writer was with Media Matters, the group that attacked Rush on the Fluke story. So it's obviously biased. However, a lot of the facts in it are true.

Limbaugh's spokesman responded to the article, and here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glicklich/

 

[Small Market Guy]

This story in my OP was picked up by a blog over the weekend:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/rush-limbaughs-california-ratings-debacle

I recognize that the writer was with Media Matters, the group that attacked Rush on the Fluke story. So it's obviously biased. However, a lot of the facts in it are true.

Limbaugh's spokesman responded to the article, and here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glicklich/

Rush's guy backed up his claims with real numbers. Media Matters has been caught in outright lies more than once, so take all of both sides with a huge grain of salt. The truth is more like Rush improved some really bad stations, but they're still in rough shape.

 

[TheBigA]

The truth is more like Rush improved some really bad stations, but they're still in rough shape.

The question is: Why did CC move their most successful show to its own stations in two major markets? Was his presence having an effect on sales for the primary talk stations in those markets?