Talk Radio Scoreboard for Large Markets: August 2014

[Gregg.]

KFI saw a ratings increase this past month, returning to the top 10 in Los Angeles. KFI, along with WGN Chicago and WSB Atlanta, are the only three large market Talk Radio stations in their city's top 10. Notice in the NYC ratings that WKXW, an FM station based in Trenton, outside the NYC market, has ratings close to New York's two Talk Radio powerhouses, WOR and WABC.

After Labor Day, the 2014 Senate races may get more listeners interested in politics as the summer ends, helping Talk Radio ratings.

1. New York...WOR (Clear Channel) #20 tie ... WABC (Cumulus) #20 tie ... WKXW(FM) (Townsquare) #24
2. Los Angeles...KFI (Clear Channel) #8 tie ... KEIB (Clear Channel) #36 tie*... KABC (Cumulus) #36 tie*
3. Chicago...WGN (Tribune) #8 ... WLS (Cumulus) #22 tie
4. San Francisco...KSFO (Cumulus) #19 tie ... KKSF (Clear Channel) #26 ... KNEW (Clear Channel) #29 tie*
5. Dallas...WBAP (Cumulus) #18
6. Houston...KTRH (Clear Channel) #16
7. Washington...WMAL-AM-FM (Cumulus) #12 tie
8. Philadelphia...WPHT (CBS) #17 tie
9. Atlanta...WSB/WSBB(FM) (Cox) #3 ... WYAY(FM) #18
10. Boston...WRKO (Entercom) #13 tie

* I only include commercial Talk stations that scored at least a one rating, except for heritage Talk outlet KABC Los Angeles and Rush's LA and SF outlets, KEIB and KNEW.

 

[FredLeonard]

Once again this list deliberately excludes public radio news and information stations, which are the leading talk radio stations in most of these markets. An example of covert right-wing bias? Only right-wing talk stations need apply.

For the record, top ten markets are considered "major markets." Other top 50 markets are considered "large markets."

 

[davideduardo]

For the record, top ten markets are considered "major markets." Other top 50 markets are considered "large markets."

The top ten markets are considered "Top Ten" markets.

"Major markets" is a more vague concept.

The best definition is likely from the old rep firm, Major Market Radio. They only repped stations in, roughly, the towp 50 markets.

Some might consider the top 25 market limit to be the boundary, others the 20th market. There is no consensus.

Nielsen considers the Top 50 to be "major markets" as that is as far as they have and will currently go in offering PPM measurement.

Who in the world would not consider Phoenix, San Diego, Miami or Seattle to be a major market? Yet they are not in the top 10....

 

[umfan]

Fred,

Why don't you take the initative and make the effort to put a list together for public talk in these same markets like Gregg does for his list?

What's stopping you?

 

[FredLeonard]

Fred,

Why don't you take the initative and make the effort to put a list together for public talk in these same markets like Gregg does for his list?

What's stopping you?

(1) I don't share the enthusiasm some of you have for topline ratings - essentially meaningless numbers.
(2) I see no reason why talk stations should be segregated on the basis of whether the owners operate as for-profit or non-profit stations. (Besides many of those so-called "for-profit" stations operate in the red any how.)
(3) Apparently you and Gregg share the same interest in marginalizing or invalidating public radio news and information stations as if they were not real radio stations. No surprise. You did the same thing with progressive talk stations, which were commercial stations. So, this is all about you own political bias and your misguided belief that public radio is "liberal."

Curious that you claim to be a "fan" of the non-profit organization that owns and operates three, count 'em, public radio stations.

 

[davideduardo]

(Besides many of those so-called "for-profit" stations operate in the red any how.)

I don't think any of the stations brought up in this thread are "in the red" right now. Even in the sister thread about all-news, only the start-up in Houston may be unprofitable (although shareholder reports indicate it has turned the corner).

 

[Avid Listener]

(1) I don't share the enthusiasm some of you have for topline ratings - essentially meaningless numbers.
(2) I see no reason why talk stations should be segregated on the basis of whether the owners operate as for-profit or non-profit stations. (Besides many of those so-called "for-profit" stations operate in the red any how.)
(3) Apparently you and Gregg share the same interest in marginalizing or invalidating public radio news and information stations as if they were not real radio stations. No surprise. You did the same thing with progressive talk stations, which were commercial stations. So, this is all about you own political bias and your misguided belief that public radio is "liberal."

Curious that you claim to be a "fan" of the non-profit organization that owns and operates three, count 'em, public radio stations.

You left out the fact that threads of nothing but lists are a pox.

 

[umfan]

And yet you took the time to criticize Gregg's post.

There is a separate thread for Public Radio on this board. A list for such ratings, if someone cares enough to compile one, would be appropriately placed there. I appreciate that Gregg compiles these lists every month. It's topical and enhances the dicussion on this section of the board.

 

[radiophiler]

Perhaps it's correct to not include public radio stations in the list of top "talk radio" stations because these public radio stations aren't talk radio. See: http://darrylparks.com/2014/09/04/wrno-fm-new-orleans-no-longer-rush-radio/

Parks says, "What’s happened to talk radio over the years is simple. It starts with the term “talk radio.” Those two words now mean “extreme conservative views” to radio listeners. You say, “talk radio,” and people think extreme right-wing ideology."

Sure enough, I went to three top-20 market NPR information stations' websites. Not a mention of "talk" anymore. Instead, phrases like, "Where you go to know," and "in-depth perspective and analysis of today's top issues."

For that matter, they don't call themselves News stations either. Those are the stations that give you the headlines, repeated in 30-minutes (or sometimes 20-minute) cycles.

And may I also suggest New Jersey 101.5 not be reported as a talk station. It also is not right-wing talk. And "talk" does not occur as a term on its home page.

Parks makes an interesting point. "Talk" as a radio brand is seriously damaged in some ways.

"The next generation of talk radio" shouldn't even be called that.

People generally have an idea of what "NPR" stations air.

Many all-sports stations also, wisely, don't call themselves "sports talk." They're just "sports radio."

"Conversation stations" perhaps as the name for the small number of spoken word stations like NJ101.5 that aren't doing conservative talk?

Talk radio is dead (or dying). Long live _____???

 

[FredLeonard]

Like Alfred Nobel, Joseph Pulitzer and Dwight Eisenhower, who had "born again" experiences and renounced the directions for their prior careers, Darryl - who spent his career as a right-wing talk show host and PD, the self-proclaimed "grim reaper of progressive talk" - seems to have had an end-of-career Epiphany. The article cited in the previous post makes some valid points.

The right seems to want to appropriate the terms "talk" and "talk radio" to itself - as though right-wing talk or hate speech talk are the default options. Darryl and others like him in management set out deliberately and with malice aforethought to kill "progressive talk" (notice how that format required a modifier - "talk" aka "right-wing talk" does not). Now they want to segregate the news and information format on many public radio stations in their mad effort to deny that a lot of people listen to it (including a good many self-described "conservatives").

I am somewhat perplexed that "radiophiler" wants to banish NJ 101.5 to some new category. NJ 101.5 is probably the only station (or one of very few) that has a legitimate claim to calling itself "talk radio." It's use of the title is far more valid than the hate-filled demagogic rants of Rush and his fellow tea-shills. If there more stations like NJ 101.5, maybe commercial talk radio would not be circling the bowl and maybe its audience demographics would not be limited to working class geezers. Management likes to tell the lie that their programming format choices are "just business." Well, maybe the business of Bain Capital and the Koch Brothers - not the long-term business prospects of radio. In addition, a lot of right-wing managers and programmers are clearly addicted to right-wing talk and have chosen to ignore the success of NJ 101.5 (or public radio news and information, for that matter).

If Gregg wants to publish a scorecard (based on meaningless ratings toplines), fine. But at least be accurate - and honest - and call it the "right-wing talk scorecard."

And speaking of accuracy, there are no "NPR stations." NPR does not own or operate stations. There are "public radio stations," as defined by CPB. Many of them carry programs distributed by NPR and by other public radio distributors - PRI, PRX, APM, Pacifica ... None of them carries programs from NPR exclusively. And public radio stations come in a variety of formats - news and information, classical, jazz, alternative or folk, variety. Public radio (or NPR) are not formats. Unfortunately the suggestion box for reorganizing this board has closed but for the record, public radio should not be treated as a format here.

 

[radiophiler]

The NJ 101.5 comment I made was a little just to stir the pot and a little just to make my point about conservative talk. I was saying that NJ 101.5 isn't like conservative talk stations WABC, WOR, WPHT, WMAL, etc. It is a different sort of "talk" station. I agree with FL's take on it.

As for NPR ... you're right, no NPR stations. However, I think many people refer to their local public radio station as "NPR." As in this type of conversation: "What do you listen to on the radio?" "I listen to NPR." I've had friends and relatives refer to the stations that way. So yes, technically, no such thing as an NPR station. But that's the common term some people use.

 

[FredLeonard]

The NJ 101.5 comment I made was a little just to stir the pot and a little just to make my point about conservative talk. I was saying that NJ 101.5 isn't like conservative talk stations WABC, WOR, WPHT, WMAL, etc. It is a different sort of "talk" station. I agree with FL's take on it.

As for NPR ... you're right, no NPR stations. However, I think many people refer to their local public radio station as "NPR." As in this type of conversation: "What do you listen to on the radio?" "I listen to NPR." I've had friends and relatives refer to the stations that way. So yes, technically, no such thing as an NPR station. But that's the common term some people use.

You're right. People do say "NPR" because that's what they associate the content with that gives the station its identity. Just shows that it's not about the money-grubbing, bean-counting professional fund-raisers that run the stations and the high society types that sit on the governing boards. Public radio would be better if public radio/NPR operated like the CBC or BBC - with O&Os and the same level of public funding and no corporate sponsors or pledge drives. The local drones are the tail wagging the dog of public radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio would be better if public radio/NPR operated like the CBC or BBC

Except that the CBC is slowly falling apart, and the BBC is stuck in a time warp. Both of them wish they could operate like NPR.

Say what you will about the pledge drives...they keep public stations more engaged with their audience than commercial stations.

 

[FredLeonard]

Except that the CBC is slowly falling apart, and the BBC is stuck in a time warp. Both of them wish they could operate like NPR.

Say what you will about the pledge drives...they keep public stations more engaged with their audience than commercial stations.

Bull! All pledge drives do is annoy listeners and drive them away. Which gives pledge drives and you something in common.

 

[TheBigA]

Bull! All pledge drives do is annoy listeners and drive them away. Which gives pledge drives and you something in common.

If that means you won't respond to my post, great!

Pledge drives involve listeners and give them a sense of empowerment. Unlike you, I've volunteered to help stations in their pledge drives, and I've spoken to the listeners who call in. They don't sound annoyed to me. They're excited, and want to express their feelings, just as you do on this board. Giving money to non-profits gives them fulfillment. I just made an unsolicited donation to my college this week, and I feel great about it.

 

[FredLeonard]

If that means you won't respond to my post, great!

Pledge drives involve listeners and give them a sense of empowerment. Unlike you, I've volunteered to help stations in their pledge drives, and I've spoken to the listeners who call in. They don't sound annoyed to me. They're excited, and want to express their feelings, just as you do on this board. Giving money to non-profits gives them fulfillment. I just made an unsolicited donation to my college this week, and I feel great about it.

I never thought I'd see "pledge" and "empowerment" in the same sentence. I realize you just enjoy disagreeing. Maybe that gives you a sense of empowerment, too. For the record, I have donated. I have volunteered. I also have had the experience of donating and having to listen to harangues for another week and a half. I've also had the experience of listening to the start of a Morning Edition or ATC series, with promo for tomorrow's installment - and then having "my member station" start their pledge drive. I've had the experience of being nagged about the great programming on public radio while I am not allowed to hear it. For a long time, as soon I head the begathon start, I switched over to Howard Stern and didn't check back with public radio for several weeks. Now I don't listen to terrestrial public radio at all. I do podcasts or downloads of what interests me and listen to what I want (and only what I want) when I want. That's my idea of being empowered.

I don't give the SOBs at "my member station" money any way. With all the corporate money they rake in - in return for imposing right-wing, pro-corporate bias and running infomercials disguised as news - they don't need my money. Or the government's either. They have a very fancy building, recently expanded, sitting on a prime piece of central business district real estate. They have the latest, fanciest equipment. The suits get huge salaries and bonuses. And they have enough left over to start some for-profit business subsidiaries. They can empower themselves.

If my college pulls out of NCAA Division I-A, I'll think about giving them some money. Until then, they are just as corrupt as the fund-raisers running local public radio.

 

[Avid Listener]

I never thought I'd see "pledge" and "empowerment" in the same sentence. I realize you just enjoy disagreeing. Maybe that gives you a sense of empowerment, too. For the record, I have donated. I have volunteered. I also have had the experience of donating and having to listen to harangues for another week and a half. I've also had the experience of listening to the start of a Morning Edition or ATC series, with promo for tomorrow's installment - and then having "my member station" start their pledge drive. I've had the experience of being nagged about the great programming on public radio while I am not allowed to hear it. For a long time, as soon I head the begathon start, I switched over to Howard Stern and didn't check back with public radio for several weeks. Now I don't listen to terrestrial public radio at all. I do podcasts or downloads of what interests me and listen to what I want (and only what I want) when I want. That's my idea of being empowered.

I don't give the SOBs at "my member station" money any way. With all the corporate money they rake in - in return for imposing right-wing, pro-corporate bias and running infomercials disguised as news - they don't need my money. Or the government's either. They have a very fancy building, recently expanded, sitting on a prime piece of central business district real estate. They have the latest, fanciest equipment. The suits get huge salaries and bonuses. And they have enough left over to start some for-profit business subsidiaries. They can empower themselves.

If my college pulls out of NCAA Division I-A, I'll think about giving them some money. Until then, they are just as corrupt as the fund-raisers running local public radio.

I can understand how the people who actually get sucked into giving money to their local NPR Money Pit might feel "empowered". It's one way to avoid the bitter feeling you get when the reality sinks in that you just helped pay for the station managements' latest round of raises and bonuses.

I'm sorry, but I feel nothing positive towards the snobs who run public radio or public television.

 

[Avid Listener]

I'd also add that this thread is an excellent example of why it makes no sense to have commercial news/talk radio discussions in one forum, and public news/talk radio discussions in a different one.

 

[JeffM]

I never thought I'd see "pledge" and "empowerment" in the same sentence. I realize you just enjoy disagreeing. Maybe that gives you a sense of empowerment, too. For the record, I have donated. I have volunteered. I also have had the experience of donating and having to listen to harangues for another week and a half. I've also had the experience of listening to the start of a Morning Edition or ATC series, with promo for tomorrow's installment - and then having "my member station" start their pledge drive. I've had the experience of being nagged about the great programming on public radio while I am not allowed to hear it. For a long time, as soon I head the begathon start, I switched over to Howard Stern and didn't check back with public radio for several weeks. Now I don't listen to terrestrial public radio at all. I do podcasts or downloads of what interests me and listen to what I want (and only what I want) when I want. That's my idea of being empowered.

I don't give the SOBs at "my member station" money any way. With all the corporate money they rake in - in return for imposing right-wing, pro-corporate bias and running infomercials disguised as news - they don't need my money. Or the government's either. They have a very fancy building, recently expanded, sitting on a prime piece of central business district real estate. They have the latest, fanciest equipment. The suits get huge salaries and bonuses. And they have enough left over to start some for-profit business subsidiaries. They can empower themselves.

If my college pulls out of NCAA Division I-A, I'll think about giving them some money. Until then, they are just as corrupt as the fund-raisers running local public radio.

Hi, I'm Fred Leonard, professional kvetch. And you goddam kids get offa my lawn!!

 

[benale]

The only time I watch my local PBS station is when they have their pledge breaks on. It's the only time you can watch doo wop specials, shows that feature artists who sing standards and other specialty programming. The only time they run these shows is during their fund raising period. You never see them during their regular programming.