The End Of The Influence Of Local Talk Radio...If It Ever Had Any

[Casablanca]

If the polls are correct - the latest Zagby Poll says that Deval Patrick is 22% ahead of Healey - and after the total saturation of local right-wing talk radio in support of the Republicrat Party and its progeny the question is whether the alleged influence of right-wing talk radio to sway an election ever existed. Seems the emperor's clothes never existed as well an his nakedness has become an embarassment.

To be sure, a Governor Deval Patrick will be topic A on local talk for the remainder of his term but its influence will be marginalized at best.

 

[Varulven]

Entercom, CBS and all the other mega corporations know that by buying up all the properties and making the public airwaves a private bullhorn for propaganda that they will lose a huge segment of the available audience. RKO has a dense (word meant to be taken both ways) market of sheep that buy the products their advertisers put out there. They don't care that Muffy is a jerk and that Howie hated her to begin with, all they care about is the bottom line. They comfortably make money with little or no competition.

Just as the oil companies all have their agreements with each other wink wink, don't think for a second that
Greater Media, Entercom, CBS aren't all corresponding with one another and having some sort of truce in place. Look at how Comcast and Time Warner were able to "swap" properties in order to enable "clusters", that the cities where they have cable are all in a neat little row for them.

These are monopolies and monopolies by their very nature control. They provide less service for more profit.

You are surprised when a WRKO wants to keep the sheep happy?

The Available Audience has Ipod, CD players, cassette players, all sorts of diversions now. BUT: If radio made an effort to keep the general audience that audience would consider not buying Sirius or XM

 

[Django]

The Republican party in this state is a joke. Just look at the ratio of Dems to GOP elected for National and Statewide office. It's a tribue to their ineptitude as a party that Healey is their candidate. If Jesus Christ himself hosted a show on WRKO or WTKK and backed Healey it wouldn't change the fact that she's a lightweight and both stations appeal to a niche audience. This isn't like the 80's when WRKO was the only game in town and seatbelt laws could be influenced by hosts. People are much more distracted by other media alternatives for any station to have that sort of power.

 

[Laurence Glavin]

Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrmann who teaches at the University of North Carolina no less has considered the possibility that a historical personage usually identified as Jesus Christ didn't even exist. Non-canonical writings even invented "historical" references to Jesus, because no contemporary works ever mention him or the most prominent "disciples"; even Flavius Josephus's reference was a later interpolation. So J.C. won't be making an appearance on WRKO any time soon, although KFI-AM in LA has a J.C.-titled show!

 

[Lucylu]

The same could be said of Hamlet and I would have to say he finishes a close second to Mary's kid in the Most Influential Fictional Character Derby.

PS: U of NC was one of my safety schools

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

the question is whether the alleged influence of right-wing talk radio to sway an election ever existed.

Dunno where you've been all this time, but this question was settled years ago.

Rush Limbaugh and all his cronies in conservative talk radio could not prevent the election of Bill Clinton to the presidency...twice. They couldn't prevent the Democrats from pulling even with the Republicans in the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections. They couldn't prevent Al Gore from winning the popular vote in the 2000 election. In all likelihood, they will not prevent the Democratic takeover of one or both houses of Congress in two weeks.

A medium which reaches less than 10% of the population (conservative talk radio, not radio in general) is simply not going to have the kind of influence that people like Rush, Sean, Laura et al. would have you believe.

 

[Smoke]

That 10% was going to vote that way anyhow. Preaching to the choir.

Seatbelt law anyone?

 

[SonicOverload]

That 10% was going to vote that way anyhow. Preaching to the choir.

my thoughts exactly

 

[AKLes]

A medium which reaches less than 10% of the population (conservative talk radio, not radio in general) is simply not going to have the kind of influence that people like Rush, Sean, Laura et al. would have you believe.

Consider also that talk audiences are largely composed of adherents of the "wing" (right or left) whose doctrines are espoused by the hosts. They're not going to change many minds. I have seen a few whose loosely-held values were made more solid when they listened in the company of others. The influence may, however, have come more from the peers with the host as a mild facilitator.

There is a certain political value in keeping the base (left or right) energized and talking to others. That secondary influence may well be the more effective.

Local talk where party affilliation is not primary may still have some influence on voter patterns but, yes, I'd judge that it never was immense and has diminished as people have become jaded.

It's time for a new format. Thing is, if I knew what it might be, I'd be rich from syndicating it. But I don't and I'm not.

 

[argytunes]

CALes...

I agree with you 100%...it IS time for a new format!

And I'm willing to bet several contributors to this board could come up with some very interesting suggestions? [Personally...I'd love to listen to a radio station that's devoted to the music of soundtracks and film scores].

Anyway...once you decide on the type of programming you'd like to try, get FCC approval on format, and have a few extra dollars to buy (or rent) an AM or FM frequency....all you need is good on-air talent and plenty of advertising support!

Are you still up for the challenge???

argytunes

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Anyway...once you decide on the type of programming you'd like to try, get FCC approval on format, and have a few extra dollars to buy (or rent) an AM or FM frequency....all you need is good on-air talent and plenty of advertising support!

Why would you bother getting FCC approval on format, especially when there is no such thing?

 

[argytunes]

???

Am I mistaken here....or don't most RADIO station owners or gm's have to indicate (to the FCC) the type(s) of programming that they plan to present over the airwaves?

Or does content no longer matter?

argytunes

 

[Infidel]

If the polls are correct - the latest Zagby Poll says that Deval Patrick is 22% ahead of Healey

If Zomby says he is leading by such a wide margin, what are you worried about?

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Zagby Poll

Is that like the Zogby poll?

Did talk radio have any influence? You forget Jerry W. and the seat belt issue, New Braintree, etc. At a time
when people had to write letters and make phone calls, not email their legislators. Or show up at a rally
organized by Jerry & the opponents*(anti-New Braintree rally...and el Globo "underestimated" the turnout)

>>what are you worried about

the sincere fear that someone from a different Party might hold a position in Mass. We do have to have
100 per cent Democrats, don't you know.

*--remember the Selectwoman's name? Dorothea Thomas-Vitrac. I did.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>It's a tribue to their ineptitude as a party that Healey is their candidate

and to the Dems that Deval is theirs...couldn't they find somebody with less baggage and more
political achievements? Someone who didn't try to get rapists free from jail?

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

???

Am I mistaken here....or don't most RADIO station owners or gm's have to indicate (to the FCC) the type(s) of programming that they plan to present over the airwaves?

Or does content no longer matter?

argytunes

Yes, you are mistaken. The FCC states on their web site that "broadcasters -- not the FCC or any other government agency -- are responsible for selecting all the material they air. The Communications Act prohibits us from censoring broadcast matter and, therefore, our role in overseeing the content of programming is very limited. We are authorized to fine a station or revoke its license if it has, among other things, aired obscene language, broadcast indecent language when children are likely to be in the audience, broadcast some types of lottery information, or solicited money under false pretenses. "

 

[weee]

>>It's a tribue to their ineptitude as a party that Healey is their candidate

and to the Dems that Deval is theirs...couldn't they find somebody with less baggage and more
political achievements? Someone who didn't try to get rapists free from jail?

Someone is getting even more a-scared thatn Ms. Murphy-Healy...have to come out with a scare statement do ya?

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Did talk radio have any influence? You forget Jerry W. and the seat belt issue, New Braintree, etc. At a time
when people had to write letters and make phone calls, not email their legislators. Or show up at a rally
organized by Jerry & the opponents*(anti-New Braintree rally...and el Globo "underestimated" the turnout)

...which is no proof of anything. Just because the referenda turned out the way Jerry wanted them to is no evidence that he had anything to do with it.

 

[AKLes]

Yes, you are mistaken. The FCC states on their web site that "broadcasters -- not the FCC or any other government agency -- are responsible for selecting all the material they air. The Communications Act prohibits us from censoring broadcast matter and, therefore, our role in overseeing the content of programming is very limited. We are authorized to fine a station or revoke its license if it has, among other things, aired obscene language, broadcast indecent language when children are likely to be in the audience, broadcast some types of lottery information, or solicited money under false pretenses. "

The term "no longer matters" seems accurate.

I can recall, in the 1960's, doing license renewal applications which required statements as to types of programming and the percentage of each actually aired.
There were expectations (entertainment, news, public affairs, commercials, public service, etc.) which, if not delivered, were cause for comparative hearings. It actually did constitute meddling in programming decisions. That all went away during the course of deregulation. Much of the earlier policy was rooted in newsaper-driven fear of competition for advertising revenue and fear of loss of readership to the more immediate source of late-breaking news. At one time there was a move by newspapers to force stations to conclude each newscast with a statement like: "For complete information see your local daily newspaper". No, I can't document that now; I've given away (via this board, a couple of years ago) all of my broadcast reference library. Perhaps some of the recipients are reading this and can be more specific.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I can recall, in the 1960's, doing license renewal applications which required statements as to types of programming and the percentage of each actually aired. There were expectations (entertainment, news, public affairs, commercials, public service, etc.) which, if not delivered, were cause for comparative hearings. It actually did constitute meddling in programming decisions. That all went away during the course of deregulation.

I did them too...a lot of them, since license terms back then were three years. The one thing that always had us holding our breaths was the calculation of "promise vs. performance." On each license renewal, you had to promise specific amounts of news and public affairs programming and PSAs. You also had to calculate how you did since the last license renewal. If the figures were reasonably close, they left you alone. If not, and performance was substantially less than what was promised, your renewal was allegedly in jeopardy. I say "allegedly" because even though the threat was there, in theory, I don't believe the FCC failed to renew a single station license for failing to perform up to what was promised three years in the past.