Tavis Smiley Buys KBLA

[davideduardo]

But going back to my original post, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that KFI didn't kill KABC, Rush Limbaugh himself did. It was when Rush came on in 1989 that KFI's ratings really took off. Today Rush is doing just fine, Michael Jackson and the Old KABC guard, not so much. KABC itself is a shell of its former self. Rush slew them all.

If you look at the books from the mid-90's, you can see that it was Rush plus Dr Laura that built mid-days. But their "magnet" capabilities allowed mornings and afternoons to take off.

My point is that it was the combo of Rush and Laura that made KFI build so strongly, not just Rush.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Howard Stern is pretty popular, don't you think? He was pretty popular when he was on the air in LA. So was Tom Leykis. Tom would tell you every day he wasn't a right wing wacko. So there were popular talk show hosts who weren't conservative in LA.

I said a list of the top "political" talk show hosts. Howard Stern, just like Rick Dees and Kevin and Bean, was/is a morning entertainment show and doesn't belong on the list. Howard has taken both conservative and liberal positions over the years; like any populist, his opinions change with the times. Tom Leykis' show, by his own admission, was not a political show either, although he engaged in it more than he admitted.

just in case you need a reminder, over 70% of the legal residents of LA county voted for Joe Biden.

And the relevance of this to KABC's glory days in the 70s and 80s is what? BTW, he probably did just as well if not better with the illegal vote too.

One other thing about KABC. From what I can remember they got far better ratings BEFORE they went hard conservative than after.

That is true, it is the entire topic of the post. What you don't see is the other side of the coin - they had to ditch virtually ALL of the old KABC guard and go hard conservative just to even compete, otherwise they would have sunk completely. And some post-80's KABC personalities did get decent, if not winning ratings; I believe first among them was Larry Elder who held down afternoon drive for years and was essentially the voice of the station.

 

[TheBigA]

It is exactly the "Fairness Doctrine" I am referring to. We are talking about KABC's success in the 70's and 80's. It is not a stretch to say the Fairness Doctrine is what sheltered KABC from competition until it was repealed in 1987.

Huh? Have you ever READ the fairness doctrine? Sounds like you haven't. It has nothing to do with fairness.

The fairness doctrine ended over 30 years ago as I said.

As I said, it has nothing to do with fairness. The EQUAL TIME rules have to do with candidates for public office. So giving free time to one candidate requires offering the same to his opponent. That's what happened when Trump hosted Saturday Night Live four years ago.

But going back to my original post, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that KFI didn't kill KABC, Rush Limbaugh himself did.

No argument from me there. But Howard Stern also killed a lot of morning radio legends, and he wasn't conservative.

 

[davideduardo]

That is true, it is the entire topic of the post. What you don't see is the other side of the coin - they had to ditch virtually ALL of the old KABC guard and go hard conservative just to even compete, otherwise they would have sunk completely. And some KABC personalities did get decent, if not winning ratings; I believe first among them was Larry Elder who held down afternoon drive for years and was essentially the voice of the station.

Once KFI started winning strongly in the '93-'94 period (1993 was the first 4-book average win), KABC sort of platteued around a 3 share while KFI was in the 4's and younger. In the later 90's, KABC sunk to be the #3 talker, behind KFI and KTNQ.

KABC kept sticking in with around 60% of the KFI audience for the next 6 to 8 years. And when the PPM hit, it showed that there was no cume expansions with the new methodology and the TSL was actually about 1/3 of what the diary showed. That was when it died commercially.

 

[TheBigA]

I said a list of the top "political" talk show hosts.

When you narrowly define the topic, you get narrow results. That's what you've done. But there were lots of other talk show hosts, and they're not all political.

That is true, it is the entire topic of the post. What you don't see is the other side of the coin - they had to ditch virtually ALL of the old KABC guard and go hard conservative just to even compete, otherwise they would have sunk completely.

Because they were old. Their time was up. It happens to everyone. The point is LA isn't a conservative town. By focusing on black people, Tavis Smiley has a chance to do well because there are a lot of progressive blacks in LA.

 

[davideduardo]

Huh? Have you ever READ the fairness doctrine? Sounds like you haven't. It has nothing to do with fairness.

The classic example of Fairness is the Red Lion case. There are good detailed accounts of it online.

Wikipedia actually has a decent review of the policy:

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." However, it strongly suggested that broadcast radio stations (and, by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected. In upholding the Fairness Doctrine, the Court based its rationale partly on a scarce radio spectrum.


The FCC, by administrative rulemaking, had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. As a result, the FCC added an "equal time rule" and a "response to personal attack" rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station's editorial judgment. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, explained: "the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest."

Red Lion shows that Fairness was much more than just political candidates... it was about "fair and balanced" coverage of political, social, economic, moral and all other multi-faceted issues.

"Public interest" is the key to the Fairness Doctrine. Not politics.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

If you look at the books from the mid-90's, you can see that it was Rush plus Dr Laura that built mid-days. But their "magnet" capabilities allowed mornings and afternoons to take off.

My point is that it was the combo of Rush and Laura that made KFI build so strongly, not just Rush.

I agree with your point, but would say that even with all of Dr. Laura's success, Rush has had much more cultural impact and staying power. I believe he is still on 600+ stations across the country, and last I checked, Dr. Laura is only on one of the many Sirius XM talk channels. And I haven't checked in a while, perhaps she is not there anymore either?

At KFI, she had rock solid ratings in that early afternoon slot for many years, but for some reason they started to dip. I believe it was because our society as a whole, and KFI's audience in particular, was becoming much more political, and although Dr. Laura strongly advocated conservative political positions, her show topic of women-oriented relationship advice became less and less of good fit with the rest of the station's programming.

 

[davideduardo]

When you narrowly define the topic, you get narrow results. That's what you've done. But there were lots of other talk show hosts, and they're not all political.

Because they were old. Their time was up. It happens to everyone. The point is LA isn't a conservative town. By focusing on black people, Tavis Smiley has a chance to do well because there are a lot of progressive blacks in LA.

More than the aging KABC line-up, the change in ratings methodology was the real killer. While most stations got higher cume in the PPM due to "phantom cume" that did not get written in diaries, KABC had no phantom cume. And their listeners, obviously old-line fans, filled in diaries generously. When the PPM went in in 2008, we saw no expanded cume and TSL about 60% lower than in the diary; KABC tanked.

When I used to see those "I fell and I can't get up" ads, I'd cynically think of KABC in that era.

But LA has a very small Black population... just 6.7%. That is probably not enough to sustain an AM talk station that might get 5% to maybe 10% of the Black AQH audience. That would mean something like a 0.3 share.

 

[davideduardo]

At KFI, she had rock solid ratings in that early afternoon slot for many years, but for some reason they started to dip. I believe it was because our society as a whole, and KFI's audience in particular, was becoming much more political, and although Dr. Laura strongly advocated conservative political positions, her show topic of women-oriented relationship advice became less and less of good fit with the rest of the station's programming.

Agreed. But when KFI decided to take Dr Laura off, they went through many, many misfires before somewhat stabilizing in noon to 3PM.

And, of course, now KFI is somewhere around 20th in 25-54 whereas in the late 90's it was as high as the top 5 or 6 much of the time, although KTNQ beat it in 25-54 in quite a few books with its lifestyle, non-political talk.

 

[gr8oldies]

Yet Rush, now is on an also-ran station in LA and KFI is doing fine without him.
When it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, there is so much revisionist history being promulgated now it's unbelievable. You'd think there was an FCC guy in the next room running a stopwatch making sure that if someone said something nice about a Republican for 3 minutes and 29 seconds, that someone would have to say something nice about a Democrat for 3 minutes and 29 seconds. Some even think it would have prevented Fox News and conservative websites from existing, or Trump's election. I don't remember it that way at all...as a giant cudgel the FCC wielded to keep everybody in line. Joe Pyne, Father Coughlin and Rush Limbaugh had shows before 1987. Religious stations carried Billy James Hargis, Jerry Falwell and other conservative religious programs, with maybe a token run of the 5-minute liberal "In the Public Interest" with a disclaimer.

BTW I thought Tom Leykis did and excellent show in his liberal talk days (more of a pro-Clinton liberal position than a "progressive" position but not a total turn off for conservatives of the day).

It is exactly the "Fairness Doctrine" I am referring to. We are talking about KABC's success in the 70's and 80's. It is not a stretch to say the Fairness Doctrine is what sheltered KABC from competition until it was repealed in 1987. It is not a coincidence that KFI went all talk soon after the repeal of the fairness doctrine.

I don't know where you are going with the Rush hosting the President thing (relevance?). The fairness doctrine ended over 30 years ago as I said. But to indulge your point, I guarantee you Rush would be more than willing to host Joe Biden for two hours, but as of course you know, Joe would never take the offer because he would be subjected to real questions about his real policies that our "real" media protects him from every day.

But going back to my original post, it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that KFI didn't kill KABC, Rush Limbaugh himself did. It was when Rush came on in 1989 that KFI's ratings really took off. Today Rush is doing just fine, Michael Jackson and the Old KABC guard, not so much. KABC itself is a shell of its former self. Rush slew them all.

 

[TheBigA]

But LA has a very small Black population... just 6.7%. That is probably not enough to sustain an AM talk station that might get 5% to maybe 10% of the Black AQH audience. That would mean something like a 0.3 share.

And remind me what does KEIB get?

It really doesn't matter. Tavis has signed the contract, and he will own the station. What happens next is up to him.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The classic example of Fairness is the Red Lion case. There are good detailed accounts of it online.

Wikipedia actually has a decent review of the policy:

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." However, it strongly suggested that broadcast radio stations (and, by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected. In upholding the Fairness Doctrine, the Court based its rationale partly on a scarce radio spectrum.


The FCC, by administrative rulemaking, had required that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. As a result, the FCC added an "equal time rule" and a "response to personal attack" rule. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. challenged these rules as unconstitutionally infringing on the speech of the station's editorial judgment. Justice Byron White, writing for the majority, explained: "the FCC has included among the conditions of the Red Lion license itself the requirement that operation of the station be carried out in the public interest."

Red Lion shows that Fairness was much more than just political candidates... it was about "fair and balanced" coverage of political, social, economic, moral and all other multi-faceted issues.

"Public interest" is the key to the Fairness Doctrine. Not politics.

And without trying to split legal hairs here, that is what I am referring to. Many stations felt that if they advocated too strongly for one side of an issue, they would have to give equal time to an opposing point of view. That is why when a station gave on-air editorials (like KNX did for years) they also had to say (or felt they had to say) that they welcome and would air opposing public viewpoints. I remember very well hearing those "editorial rebuttals" from a member of the public regularly.

Thus with KABC, I believe their hosts were encouraged to discuss "all sides" to an issue and make it sound more like a true exchange of ideas as opposed to Air America style indoctrination. And again, many of their listeners were conservative, so although the hosts most certainly leaned left, this style of talk radio was just good business at the time and again is why KABC's success is not a very good example of the success of "prog talk", because that is not what it really was.

 

[TheBigA]

"Public interest" is the key to the Fairness Doctrine. Not politics.

The fact is that talk stations got great ratings in the time of the fairness doctrine.

 

[davideduardo]

BTW I thought Tom Leykis did and excellent show in his liberal talk days (more of a pro-Clinton liberal position than a "progressive" position but not a total turn off for conservatives of the day).

Leykis was at his best when he was in Miami at WNWS under manager Dick Casper in the 80's. The whole station was adversarial, but it was issue based, not party based.

 

[gr8oldies]

9/11, as I recall, took Dr. Laura off of most of her midday slots, as stations were looking for something more news oriented and it was Glenn Beck who ended up on most of those stations.

I agree with your point, but would say that even with all of Dr. Laura's success, Rush has had much more cultural impact and staying power. I believe he is still on 600+ stations across the country, and last I checked, Dr. Laura is only on one of the many Sirius XM talk channels. And I haven't checked in a while, perhaps she is not there anymore either?

At KFI, she had rock solid ratings in that early afternoon slot for many years, but for some reason they started to dip. I believe it was because our society as a whole, and KFI's audience in particular, was becoming much more political, and although Dr. Laura strongly advocated conservative political positions, her show topic of women-oriented relationship advice became less and less of good fit with the rest of the station's programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Many stations felt that if they advocated too strongly for one side of an issue, they would have to give equal time to an opposing point of view.

What's wrong with that? Isn't that what "fair and balanced" is all about? "We report, you decide." Nothing wrong with that. It served Fox News and Roger Ailes well up until a few years ago. I still don't understand how that "sheltered KABC from competition until it was repealed." Many other radio stations in LA operated under the exact same rules and competed very well during that time. It's how radio was done. Radio owners felt they had a responsibility to serve the public interest back then. The network owned stations in particular were run very responsibly.

 

[Delete My Account]

Once exposed to actual competition of formats and ideas, the lefties simply couldn't compete. They still can't. Any list of the most popular political talk show hosts even today is filled with nothing but conservatives.

Chicken and egg situation.

The format post Rush became a format of ideology. Not just "compelling" talk or "more stimulating talk" but specifically, conservative talk. Less tolerance and development of moderates and liberals in an increasingly polarized media landscape. A lot of the heritage moderate to left leaners got removed or retired like John Erling at KRMG.

If you honestly believe that list is because there's no liberals talented enough to make great radio.. two words. Jon Stewart.

There are plenty of talented non conservatives that could do great radio talk shows. But outside of a few local exceptions, radio is no longer a place for them. You seem to think conservatives are discriminated against and liberals are the failures. In the case of talk radio, conservatism actually became the "mainstream media" and it could be credibly said, suppresses liberals and moderates. They've been.. what's the word.. "de-platformed."

 

[TheBigA]

The format post Rush became a format of ideology. Not just "compelling" talk or "more stimulating talk" but specifically, conservative talk.

But still the thread here is about KBLA and Tavis Smiley starting a black progressive talk station. There are a number of them in big cities around the country. WOL in Washington DC. WVOX in Chicago. Heritage black owned and black run radio stations. The kind of stations the current FCC is trying to promote. They aren't big ratings winners, and they're not big money makers, but they serve a purpose and they serve an audience, and apparently that's what Tavis wants to do. Will it work in LA? We'll find out.

 

[davideduardo]

But still the thread here is about KBLA and Tavis Smiley starting a black progressive talk station. There are a number of them in big cities around the country. WOL in Washington DC. WVOX in Chicago. Heritage black owned and black run radio stations. The kind of stations the current FCC is trying to promote. They aren't big ratings winners, and they're not big money makers, but they serve a purpose and they serve an audience, and apparently that's what Tavis wants to do. Will it work in LA? We'll find out.

The difference is that the DC market is 35% Black. Chicago is 17%. LA is under 7%. I think that LA may be below the threshold for such a station to work.

A 10 share among African Americans would be less than a 0.6 in total market listening.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Chicken and egg situation.

The format post Rush became a format of ideology. Not just "compelling" talk or "more stimulating talk" but specifically, conservative talk. Less tolerance and development of moderates and liberals in an increasingly polarized media landscape. A lot of the heritage moderate to left leaners got removed or retired like John Erling at KRMG.

If you honestly believe that list is because there's no liberals talented enough to make great radio.. two words. Jon Stewart.

There are plenty of talented non conservatives that could do great radio talk shows. But outside of a few local exceptions, radio is no longer a place for them. You seem to think conservatives are discriminated against and liberals are the failures. In the case of talk radio, conservatism actually became the "mainstream media" and it could be credibly said, suppresses liberals and moderates. They've been.. what's the word.. "de-platformed."

Jon Stewart? Is he on the radio?

Liberals de-platformed? Are you trying to make us laugh? They are welcome to any platform they want, all they have to do is generate ratings. Iheart Media, not exactly a liberal outfit, ran Air America on several of their stations including here in LA. It was a business decision TO run it:

"We will sell advertising to Cons and Libs alike at the same time and this gives us another viable format for our AM properties."

Except Air America was a ratings and operational disaster. Their morning man was an alleged comedian Al Franken, who bored his audience to death every morning and was later thrown out of the Senate for being much more credibly alleged of being a sexual pervert (Don't take my word for that, here you go https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16742442/female-senators-al-franken-resigns).


I have heard only one liberal put on a decent show, and that is Stephanie Miller, who had the 7:00 pm shift on KABC for awhile, and I think had a small role on Air America if I remember right. Her show was less indoctrination and more "let's just joke and make fun of conservatives for three hours". That gets tiring too after awhile, but she was entertaining enough where I would tune in for short periods of time.