TALKERS HEAVY 100...here we go again...

[Slant]

I'm sure Michael Harrison is a nice guy, but this "Heavy 100" list continues to be pretty embarrasing compilation that in my opinion further reduces the credibility of the magazine. Lets face it, nobody really takes it seriously anyway, but I digress. Some of the rankings that stood out weird..

#13: Randi Rhodes...She's ahead of O'Reilly, Imus, Mark Levin, Lars Larson? Certainly not in size of audience.

#23 Lionel...where the hell is he even heard?

#85 Mark Benier (who is he and how is he more popular than Fox's John Gibson Show?)

#5 Ed Schultz & #8 Mike Gallagher AHEAD OF #10 Glenn Beck? Does that make sense.

I don't know why "Talkers" even bothers.

Holland and Phil Boyce...what do you think of the bible of talk radio?

 

[dampier]

I'm sure Michael Harrison is a nice guy, but this "Heavy 100" list continues to be pretty embarrasing compilation that in my opinion further reduces the credibility of the magazine. Lets face it, nobody really takes it seriously anyway, but I digress. Some of the rankings that stood out weird..

#13: Randi Rhodes...She's ahead of O'Reilly, Imus, Mark Levin, Lars Larson? Certainly not in size of audience.

Randi considerably bests O'Reilly in the ratings in a number of markets. Imus is barely a presence outside of NYC and MSNBC, and as far as the other two... who?

#23 Lionel...where the hell is he even heard?

On a growing number of stations. He is one of the most eclectic show hosts out there. He hates talk radio in general, but has a talk radio show. Go figure.

#85 Mark Benier (who is he and how is he more popular than Fox's John Gibson Show?)

John Gibson??? Pulllease. His radio show is a throwaway effort.

#5 Ed Schultz & #8 Mike Gallagher AHEAD OF #10 Glenn Beck? Does that make sense.

Glenn Beck is crazy. Beck's more and more known for his Headline News show than for his radio show anyway.

 

[kaufcom]

I'm beginning to think that Talkers list is right on. It seems that the righties feel it gives too much to liberals and the lefties feel that it is biased towards conservatives.

 

[FTL_Ian]

My show made the Top 250 again. I love you TALKERS!! :-*

Oh, and Lionel rocks.

 

[ajhenderson]

I'm sure Michael Harrison is a nice guy, but this "Heavy 100" list continues to be pretty embarrasing compilation that in my opinion further reduces the credibility of the magazine. Lets face it, nobody really takes it seriously anyway, but I digress. Some of the rankings that stood out weird..

#13: Randi Rhodes...She's ahead of O'Reilly, Imus, Mark Levin, Lars Larson? Certainly not in size of audience.

Randi considerably bests O'Reilly in the ratings in a number of markets. Imus is barely a presence outside of NYC and MSNBC, and as far as the other two... who?

#23 Lionel...where the hell is he even heard?

On a growing number of stations. He is one of the most eclectic show hosts out there. He hates talk radio in general, but has a talk radio show. Go figure.

#85 Mark Benier (who is he and how is he more popular than Fox's John Gibson Show?)

John Gibson??? Pulllease. His radio show is a throwaway effort.

#5 Ed Schultz & #8 Mike Gallagher AHEAD OF #10 Glenn Beck? Does that make sense.

Glenn Beck is crazy. Beck's more and more known for his Headline News show than for his radio show anyway.

I actually agree with Philip. O'Reilly may be on a bunch of stations but doesn't rock the boat in terms of ratings or anything he says. Nothing new from him. Imus, an icon, perhaps, but very yesterday. He's basically become "the name" for a bunch of brokered stations, from KCAA to KCTE to WTAN... heard of any of those?

John Gibson... indeed. Makes Lars Larson look like Rush. The only discrepancy is Glenn Beck; his HLN show may do well for the channel, but it's like the guy who sells condoms in front of the LDS temple... any response is a good response. His radio show is heard on 240 stations, and while he's been bouncing to a few lesser stations in markets he used to own, he's added some new key markets. I would put him above almost any other conservative talker because, like Lionel, it's a different schtick. I know Mr. Dampier won't like that, but, hey, I like Lionel, too. Albeit it in limited quanities sometimes...

 

[moderator7]

Some posts have been moved to TIO:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,64373.0.html

 

[dampier]

I know Mr. Dampier won't like that, but, hey, I like Lionel, too. Albeit it in limited quanities sometimes...

Actually I am a big fan of Lionel... and of trying to figure out Lionel. He's absolutely in a class by himself - a talk show host that hates talk radio. And he's not a liberal but ends up of liberal talk stations mostly because he is convinced Bush is the worst president in the history of this country. And this from a guy who has a pre-war Lionel and post-war Lionel persona. People forget he was a big proponent of attacking Iraq after 9/11. He bought the WMD line completely. Only after it was exposed as nonsense did he begin to change his views, which have grown more and more negative as people watch TeamFailure bungle one thing after another.

But, he's still a big fan of Brit Hume, hates gun control, is Libertarian about government involvement in social issues, and is just as likely to attack Keith Olbermann (he's in over his head) as he is Glenn Beck (he's crazy... totally out of his mind.)

His biggest issue is that you can play a drinking game with his turns of phrase. "Now," "but I digress," and a whole bunch of others come fast and furious as he meanders his way through the opening monologue. You never know where he is going, but you usually enjoy the ride!

Lionel is a great place to go if you're tired of simply debating the Iraq War. And his commentary about the most ridiculous court case since OJ is spot on, and hilarious along the way.

For those unfamiliar with Lionel, here are two clips, one on politics on the other on just as commonly heard "lifestyle talk" topics:

http://www.phillipdampier.com/downloads/lionel 1.mp3 The Lionel Show: Lionel Has Had Enough of Dubya + Pop Culture Targets
http://www.phillipdampier.com/downloads/lionel 2.mp3 The Lionel Show: Lionel on Urban Starbucks, 'Funny Gay Men' and Stupid Right Wing Talk

 

[Signal_Faded]

I think anyone can look at this kind of list and shoot holes in it. Micheal Harrison and the staff of Talkers do a great job of covering the N/T industry and should be commended.

If you've never had a chance to attend Talkers New Media Seminar in NYC you should...great content!

 

[evnlee]

And this from a guy who has a pre-war Lionel and post-war Lionel persona. People forget he was a big proponent of attacking Iraq after 9/11. He bought the WMD line completely. Only after it was exposed as nonsense did he begin to change his views, which have grown more and more negative as people watch TeamFailure bungle one thing after another.

interesting.

wonder why he would give so much credibility and leeway to the 9-11 conspiracy groups?

I would think Lionel would be among those to condemn them, but he's got 'questions'.

must be that 'new' post war Lionel talkin'

 

[dampier]

What got Lionel starting down that path were two things he constantly asks about:

1) No plane parts from the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. "Where is the plane?" He believes not a single plane part was ever located, or if they were, they were spirited away by the FBI and are now being kept away from independent third parties.

2) "Who actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon?" The theory being that not a single eyewitness actually saw the plane crash into the Pentagon despite many busy highways surrounding the building. And also, "why did the FBI seize all of the surveillance footage from nearby establishments" and the few frames released don't really show anything.

But Lionel doesn't actually ever make declarative statements about this entire matter. He just asks questions on these plus the "free fall" theory of the twin towers and the mysteries surrounding Building 7. He can then claim he's just asking questions.

My view is that there is no government conspiracy here - the people now running it are too inept to have pulled it off. And after Katrina, one needs no additional proof. More believable to me is inadequate construction and the potential for insurance fraud if there was funny business with Building 7. But we're going wayyyy off topic. Even Oliver Stone hasn't bought into this yet.

 

[Ultimajock]

Actually I am a big fan of Lionel... and of trying to figure out Lionel. He's absolutely in a class by himself - a talk show host that hates talk radio.

...he's not there by himself -- Tom Leykis has been saying the same thing since day one of his Westwood One/CBS show, when they were pushing him as a liberal and he was denying it on the air as a moderate...

 

[Radio_Realist]

they were pushing him as a liberal and he was denying it on the air as a moderate...

A moderate is just a liberal without any convictions.

 

[evnlee]

What got Lionel starting down that path were two things he constantly asks about:

1) No plane parts from the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. "Where is the plane?" He believes not a single plane part was ever located, or if they were, they were spirited away by the FBI and are now being kept away from independent third parties.

2) "Who actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon?" The theory being that not a single eyewitness actually saw the plane crash into the Pentagon despite many busy highways surrounding the building. And also, "why did the FBI seize all of the surveillance footage from nearby establishments" and the few frames released don't really show anything.

But Lionel doesn't actually ever make declarative statements about this entire matter. He just asks questions on these plus the "free fall" theory of the twin towers and the mysteries surrounding Building 7. He can then claim he's just asking questions.

My view is that there is no government conspiracy here - the people now running it are too inept to have pulled it off. And after Katrina, one needs no additional proof. More believable to me is inadequate construction and the potential for insurance fraud if there was funny business with Building 7. But we're going wayyyy off topic. Even Oliver Stone hasn't bought into this yet.

your views aside, Lionel has destroyed any real talk credibility the minute he started asking 'those questions'. Move over Noory and Alex Jones.

I claim it is that 'wishy-washy', wont take a stand approach that has hindered Lionel's syndication.

"Lionel was for the war before he was against it' and then 'now he has a bunch of ridiculous 'questions' about 9-11' are just some of the examples. Grow a set and state something. :

 

[marko83]

The Heavy 100 is as important as the terror alert level.

 

[evnlee]

What got Lionel starting down that path were two things he constantly asks about:

1) No plane parts from the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. "Where is the plane?" He believes not a single plane part was ever located, or if they were, they were spirited away by the FBI and are now being kept away from independent third parties.

2) "Who actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon?" The theory being that not a single eyewitness actually saw the plane crash into the Pentagon despite many busy highways surrounding the building. And also, "why did the FBI seize all of the surveillance footage from nearby establishments" and the few frames released don't really show anything.

But Lionel doesn't actually ever make declarative statements about this entire matter. He just asks questions on these plus the "free fall" theory of the twin towers and the mysteries surrounding Building 7. He can then claim he's just asking questions.

My view is that there is no government conspiracy here - the people now running it are too inept to have pulled it off. And after Katrina, one needs no additional proof. More believable to me is inadequate construction and the potential for insurance fraud if there was funny business with Building 7. But we're going wayyyy off topic. Even Oliver Stone hasn't bought into this yet.

your views aside, Lionel has destroyed any real talk credibility the minute he started asking 'those questions'. Move over Noory and Alex Jones.

I claim it is that 'wishy-washy', wont take a stand approach that has hindered Lionel's syndication.

"Lionel was for the war before he was against it' and then 'now he has a bunch of ridiculous 'questions' about 9-11' are just some of the examples. Grow a set and state something. :

maybe someone should tell Lionel to check out the Popular Mechanics debunking.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

there were eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash, and they did find airplane parts in Penn.

Building 7 fell due to a fire on the 5th floor that raged for hours, while firefighters were responding to other sites.

A recent poll said 1/4 of all Americans dont believe the 9-11 report. Gee, I wonder how many of those are 'progressive' types? Because the only place on radio I hear it being discussed is on 'progressive' shows. I haven't heard Rush,Beck,Hannity and the like give any creedence to these nuts. It's almost always Lionel, or Mike Malloy, etc.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Slant asks:

Holland and Phil Boyce...what do you think of the bible of talk radio?

I think Michael Harrison does a great job trying to be fair and compile a list of the important players in the talkradio world. It is not a perfect list, by any stretch, and you can always question why some people are ahead of others. Talkers may not be perfect, but Michael has become a strong spokesperson for the profession. Some hosts care a great deal about being on the list, and there is a lot of political pressure involved.

I saw some hosts show up a little higher than they should have...and some other hosts lower than I would have placed them, but overall it is a pretty good representation of who matters in the talkradio world.

I actually pay more attention to the list Talkers creatives in April of the most listeners to hosts in the nation, which is tied pretty closely with Arbitron ratings. Arbitron is not perfect either, but it is the legitimate ratings source in the nation. When that list comes out, Michael attempts to accurately list the number of weekly listeners to each show, and he usually gets it pretty close to right.

 

[Al Johnson]

Dear Mr. Boyce,

You touch on something I've wondered about for a long time. The fine print in Talkers' "Top Radio Audiences says:

"Monday-Sunday cume estimates 12-plus in millions rounded off to the nearest .25 million based up TALKERS' analysis of a national sampling of Arbitron reports supported by other reliable indicators in rated and non-rated markets."

"Monday-Sunday cume estimates 12-plus" sounds like they look at the overall "topline" numbers for the station, not specific numbers for a given show/daypart. This would account for somebody like Mike Gallagher placing in sixth place even though he often gets bumped to overnights.

"National sampling" sounds like they don't look at all the numbers, just a "sample" of books.

"Other reliable indicators" sounds like "windage" or a "fudge factor" is applied.

The numbers in the Top Talk Radio Audiences are estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports and information provided by Arbitron and other sources. These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron or any other rating service totals.

This sounds like another way of saying "for amusement purposes only."

What are these "other sources?" How are they used?

It seems like syndicators, rep firms and ad agencies must have reliable and exact Arbitron numbers. Aren't those numbers available? Why are "estimates" and "rough projections" the best they can do?

 

[Phil Boyce]

Al: These are great questions.

It seems like syndicators, rep firms and ad agencies must have reliable and exact Arbitron numbers. Aren't those numbers available? Why are "estimates" and "rough projections" the best they can do?

Major syndicators and advertisers do have access to Arbitron nationwide ratings, but they do not release them publicly. Arbitron guards these numbers closely and you can't really use them without Arbitron's permission. Even this message board has to remove Arbitron numbers that are posted here, even if they are from a legitimate press release.

So with nobody talking, how is anybody going to get an accurate list together of how many people really do listen to any given show? Talkers sends out a questionaire to each PD twice a month, asking them to submit the cume for each host on the station, both national and local. I do it for WABC every six months. Talkers then compiles those numbers to come up with an estimated national 12+ cume for each show. Of course not every PD participates so Talkers has to look at the numbers and estimate what they think those numbers actually are. It is in the best interest of each PD to submit the numbers, because he or she should want his own hosts to get the credit they deserve in the final tally.

Having said that, it is still a guessing game and Michael does a pretty good job putting it all together. The reason they use the words "national sampling" is because they ask PD's voluntarily to submit their numbers. There is a fudge factor involved, but in general if a host like Rush or Sean or some of the others have had great books, it will be reflected when the final tally comes out. Years ago I had a big problem with the way Talkers came up with this survey...when they were also factoring in mall studies and station focus groups. I worked with Michael to help him come up with a better way of getting an accurate sample, and that is when he started surveying individual PD's. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best one available at the time. Right now, there is no other national list available for public edification, so I think Talkers has done a great service getting a list together that is respected, and accurate (within the above limits I just described).

pb

 

[david5258]

arbitron numbers are copyrighted when issued. the only people who see the exact decimal point going where it really is are those stations that pay arbitron to send them their un-embargoed station copy. when i sold advertising/airtime, even the local agencies in my town only received sanitized versions from arbitron. arbitron makes subscription costs so prohibitive that very few independently owned stations are able to purchase their own copy. many indy gms rely on the friendship/networking factor just be able to view the book.--DAVID5258

 

[Radio_Realist]

Arbitron is not perfect either,

Which is rather like saying that Hurricane Katrina left some excess dampness in New Orleans.

There's an excellent reason why Arbitron keeps the exact numbers under such close wraps. If the more people saw them, they'd realize that one could produce equally as valid ratings data with a ouija board.

it is the legitimate ratings source in the nation.

And that's a really scary piece of truth. Arbitron numbers are regarded as Gospel truth by the industry, and they are about as reliable as reading the entrails of a chicken. It's no wonder terrestrial broadcast radio is hemorrhaging listeners as people switch to their own pre-recorded music or satellite radio receivers. And to make matter worse, the only place one should be able to find proof of that loss of listeners is the Arbitrons! Yet the Arbitrons will only continue to be a "valuable" piece of data if they don't reveal how badly radio is losing all listeners of all formats.

Does anyone really believe that Arbitron would shoot itself in the foot by reporting the truth about how badly all radio formats are really doing against radio's competition?