• 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

Sue Wilson's Sacramento Bee Article - No Lib Talk + "Fairness" Doctrine

radiovictim said:
Okay... I stand at the ready. Bring on the abuse. I'm sure I know who'll be one of the first to throw a punch. ;)

Not me. I see here that I've been mis-understood. My point was more about radio listening habits than politics. All I'm saying is that the general "liberal" population is not likely to listen to AM radio as a group. Starbucks took that to be the reverse - that conservatives don't listen to FM or get their news from the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Talk radio is compelling when it informs AND entertains. As such, successful shows thrive when they present facts that are heretofore unknown and sensational at the same time. The more outrageous a fact is, the more likely it will garner a big audience - especially if it agrees with your political views. Conservative hosts know their audience (in general) and they do a very good job of presenting their viewpoints in a way that entertains and informs at the same time. Liberal hosts (again, in general) tend to be more matter-of-fact in their presentation. While information is exchanged, that's not entertainment. Combine this with the fact that most liberals don't listen to AM in the 1st place and you can see why liberal talk has an uphill battle. I'm not saying it can't work. In fact, it probably could be profitable (just barely) in Sac with the proper sales force and a little publicity. But it will not be easy.

Dave B.
 
DaveBayArea....

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis...and I do believe "progressive talk" could work to some degree under the guidelines you suggest.

Stage5....

During the brief time I worked under Kohl {if I'd known he was going to S.F., I wouldn't have quit a month before he flew off}, I noted the sensationalist style within the news content & presentation....I think corporate toned him down from his basic instincts.

djj...

Ah...Pat Paulsen.....I still think some of the lead speechwriters of the current political campaign{s} studied Pat's stuff and apply his theories frequently.....

Radiovictim {ain't we all?}.......

We may see things from different sides of the political fence, but I agree with every one of your points....
"Regardless of political affiliation, it all comes down to this... good, compelling radio is worth a listen." That wins you high marks from this judge.....I believe Air America, for example, would have been far more successful with less vitriol {some of it so mind numbingly stupid it made our collective hair hurt} and more entertaining hosts…..but, it is easy to just take one constant subject {I hate George Bush} and pound it into multiple bankruptcies….

Starbucks......

Several excellent points....although I tend to dismiss a lot of demographic analysis because of subjective criteria and the simple fact that a lot of people love to lie to survey takers.....

And then there's Ms. Craft......

First, sincere condolences of your dad's passing, and I do fully understand the sense of "relief" when such tragic circumstances finally conclude.

Second.....comparing your stint at KFBK and that of Ms. O'Neill is comparing out-of-work apples with still-at-her-job oranges.....you had different roles, to be sure....but it does tell us all something that she's survived through corporate sellings, more management changes than you could count, and, now, trying vainly to keep my ol' buddy Bob on a short-to-medium leash...

And, yes, Ms. Craft, I am aware of Citidel/ABC's ownership of KSFO & KGO...as a matter of fact, it was DaveBayArea would mentioned that.....

And while we can all admire your professionalism and the many obstacles you have faced and continue to face in your career, they certainly are not germane to this issue {yes, we've noticed how often this subject arises in your posts, and, lamentable as it was/is, others who post here have also carried on with a variety of careers under the weight of serious family difficulties}.....l

Liberal/"progressive" talk has had ample opportunity to succeed, in commercial and non-commercial formats...but, except for the taxpayer-subsidized NPR setup, it has failed resoundingly. And the rebirth of The "Fairness" Doctrine threat is just a political gimmick designed to stop conservative talk in the only medium it unquestionably dominates...because "progressives" can't stop it any other way. Sue Wilson doesn't mention, in her distorted view of talk radio, anything regarding the real agenda behind the Democrat-controlled Congress' rumblings about "fairness", and for good reason...it would show up "progressives" as sour-grape whiners.
 
"We interrupt this thread for an ice-breaker, gnus-wise"...
BurnedOutOnTheBoards said:
djj...

Ah...Pat Paulsen.....I still think some of the lead speechwriters of the current political campaign{s} studied Pat's stuff and apply his theories frequently.....

Good Lord, I hope not - else, as was Pat's schtick in 1996, the candidates
will declare "war on Canada," and promise to "eliminate crime in the streets
by eliminating streets."

"Meantime, we return you to our regularly-scheduled thread..."
--jay
 
djj.........Pat also said...........

"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

"Assuming either the Left Wing or the Right Wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles."

In opposition to sex education: "Let the kids today learn it where we did...in the gutter."

"I've upped my standards. Now, up yours."

"If elected, I will win."
 
well burned out...you said that I wasn't at kfbk anymore and miss kitten was..so miss kitten was doing something right. That presupposes that being good at sucking-up and never having a controversial opinion that you express is something that I would want to do..let the record reflect.....quite simply...it isn't.

I could never do kitten's role...nor she mine..it's that simple.
 
Coppersmom......

Exactly the point I made...

"comparing your stint at KFBK and that of Ms. O'Neill is comparing out-of-work apples with still-at-her-job oranges.....you had different roles, to be sure...."

You were in specifically different roles. But it is impressive for a career professional who has anchored drive on the long-time #1 station in a fairly large market with virtually dozens of different co-anchors, supervisors, reporters, and other staff {of varying degrees of ability, to be sure}.

coppersmom said:
well burned out...you said that I wasn't at kfbk anymore and miss kitten was..so miss kitten was doing something right. That presupposes that being good at sucking-up and never having a controversial opinion that you express is something that I would want to do..let the record reflect.....quite simply...it isn't.

I could never do kitten's role...nor she mine..it's that simple.

Believe me, CC....If I were choosing BK talent & had to replace Kitty, you wouldn't be on the long list.....

There is also a difference between "sucking up" and performing professionally with your co-workers, just as there is a difference between "never having a controversial opinion" and choosing not to voice them on-air when that is not your role on-air. And I can say one other things about Kitty....she certainly doesn't sound "deferential" to anyone, male or female....just polite and civil. KFBK listeners seem to like that.
 
No clue where this thread has gone but let me try to take it back on track...

the writer argues...

Why would advertisers steer clear of progressive talk? Chris Jones, managing editor of the blog "the Hot Points," writes: "What respectable business is going to send millions of dollars in ad revenue to people who bash the president, the country and the war on a constant basis? Not only that, but liberals never miss an opportunity to bash corporations as evil and crooked. Why the hell would big business support the enemy?"
Then answers...
Well, wait a minute. Plenty of advertisers supported radio shows that bashed then- President Bill Clinton, calling his pursuit of Osama bin Laden "wagging the dog." But this misses the real point: Why are corporate dollars the sole arbiter of what information we the people get to hear on publicly owned airwaves?
Do we notice that she ignored this point...
Not only that, but liberals never miss an opportunity to bash corporations as evil and crooked. Why the hell would big business support the enemy?
To me that seems pretty telling.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom