The latest ratings; discuss

[ChrisNH]

Lib talk isn't dead, but it's hardly 'alive' either. Even hard-core Leftists would agree that conservative talk radio outpaces their own format 90%-10%. And the hysteria over the 'Fairness Doctrine' with respect to silencing this 90% is funny to behold. This, coming from the lefty Moonbats, who preach <cough> tolerance <cough> and <cough> freedom of speech <cough>. That must be selective tolerance and selective freedom of speech. Yes, we get it now.

 

[raccoonradio]

It attacks freedom of the press--who is the govt. to tell a radio station, TV station, newspaper,
or magazine what political views to expouse or to monitor it?
I wouldn't mind 50 per cent lib talk & 50 per cent conservative if it were accomplished
through the free market rather than government-sponsored 'fairness'...

 

[robbbc]

Lib talk isn't dead, but it's hardly 'alive' either. Even hard-core Leftists would agree that conservative talk radio outpaces their own format 90%-10%. And the hysteria over the 'Fairness Doctrine' with respect to silencing this 90% is funny to behold. This, coming from the lefty Moonbats, who preach <cough> tolerance <cough> and <cough> freedom of speech <cough>. That must be selective tolerance and selective freedom of speech. Yes, we get it now.

The only "hysteria" about the FD is coming from the right, mostly of their own making. A few libs are talking about a new FD but it is going nowhere fast. The majority of what I have seen quoted on this board is links to comments about ownership caps and increased LPFM licenses that are ignorantly re-interpreted as a FD (how obtuse can one be?). What I see is that conservatives are terrified of ownership caps and anything that upsets their masters on the NAB board. On some of the threads I was the only person to actually read the link and respond to what was actually in the link instead of what the supposed quoter found! I am afraid this phenomenon is becoming epidemic on this board. So where do the conservatives stand on ownership caps? Maybe we could have one big radio station group that owns all the stations? Is that a good idea? Or would you prefer just a third?

 

[Varulven]

RobBBC has it right. Raccoon, when the Conservative FCC makes decisions based on party that have an effect on elections you'd better believe we need a "Fairness Doctrine." Your opinion seems to be someone else's opinion - the talk show hosts you listen to. There's no need for "conservative radio" and "liberal radio".
If things were truly "fair and balanced" you'd have both on all stations.

When ChrisNH says "Lib talk isn't dead, but it's hardly 'alive' either" he is also doing what Raccoon does, not thinking things through.

There is a huge, vast audience for Progressive talk. Conservatives are resisting it by acting like that audience doesn't exist. Their "Talk radio is Conservative" mantra is as believable as WMDs in Iraq. It's not believable.

Ed Schultz is showing up #1 in markets. That is hardly a fluke, but you can't be #1 if you are on AM 1430 and you can't be #1 if you aren't on the air at all. Put Shultz on 950 AM or even better, give him Rush's
slot on RKO and watch the ratings rise. This is a blue state. If RKO's philosophy had any teeth there is no way Muffy would have lost to Deval Patrick. When you get a Todd Feinburg being stupid on a daily basis it insults your intelligence. Call in to Todd Feinberg? I wouldn't want to be in the same room with Fineburgh.
He should change his name like Larry King did. Todd Debutante? Todd King? Todd Queen?

NPR blows away WRKO and WKKK (96.9) in the ratings, Chris. Put an entertaining progressive show on the air on a powerful station and ADVERTISE IT in Massachusetts and you have yourselves a winner.

It is more cost effective for Enterscamm and Greater Meteor to kiss the backside of the Republican Administration and make money on that side of the equation than actually doing some real work and providing quality broadcasting to the public who tunes into the former "public airwaves". Nothing "public" about them.

Republican Radio sells a bill of goods and Raccoon is very happy to buy.

 

[JIBGUY]

Re: LIB RADIO (was: The latest ratings; discuss)

Fairness Doctrine is a bad move.. It will stifle all stations with hordes of paperwork. If the Dems want to see more left-leaning talk-radio, THEN THE LEFT HAS TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER like the right did many years ago after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Simple as that! Me thinks that the reason why the right has their act together is that they have a common bond, a common force; and that is their religion. The left which is made up of religious and non-religious people don't have that unifying force/agenda behind them. But it seems to me that it would be SO EASY for the left to get on the air and do entertaining and humorous skits/conversation about or mocking the mindless EXTREME right. They're so easy to make fun of. THAT would be ratings-getting, money-making talk radio.

 

[mgpt6]

Bob, excellent point. OTR, have you ever thought of renting a FM station's HD-2 channel or if it becomes in use using a FM station's SCA using FMXtra for more coverage at night for JIB?

 

[Finn]

Re: LIB RADIO (was: The latest ratings; discuss)

Fairness Doctrine is a bad move.. It will stifle all stations with hordes of paperwork. If the Dems want to see more left-leaning talk-radio, THEN THE LEFT HAS TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER like the right did many years ago after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Simple as that! Me thinks that the reason why the right has their act together is that they have a common bond, a common force; and that is their religion. The left which is made up of religious and non-religious people don't have that unifying force/agenda behind them. But it seems to me that it would be SO EASY for the left to get on the air and do entertaining and humorous skits/conversation about or mocking the mindless EXTREME right. They're so easy to make fun of. THAT would be ratings-getting, money-making talk radio.

agree 100%

 

[argytunes]

If reinstating the fairness doctrine IS SUCH A BAD MOVE (quoting Bob here), why did the majority of the audience participants...not to mention a few members of the 2 panels...ask for its reinstatement during the recent FCC public access hearing in Portland, ME?

The Fairness Doctrine wasn't just a casual comment from one or two people. At least 40% OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE ASKED FOR ITS REINSTATEMENT!

2 people brought up the freedom document....but the FCC Commissioners who were present wouldn't comment on either freedom or fairness!

argytunes

 

[JIBGUY]

Those 40% of the people you mentioned, are fooled by the Doctrine's title, 'fairness'. And they are not deep-thinkers about the problems it would cause. So many stations would give up controversial talk for interviews with local librarians instead, in order to avoid paperwork and regulatory BS. - Again, the marketplace should decide, not the government. Have the left get their act together, and then there will be better balance. IF the programming and production is good, then the left COULD be very effective, even on lesser signals like 1430, etc. If programming is good, then people will seek it out and make extra effort to receive it.

 

[argytunes]

If programming is good then people will seek it out and make extra effort to retrieve it

Sorry Bob..but I don't buy into your argument.

There was an accountability factor built into the fairness doctrine which most radio stations have ignored since the Reagan Administration phased the doctrine out!

Besides....ANY radio station can have good or even great programming....but if it's not promoted at all...or if it's buried in a 5 or 6 program audio line-up---shotgunned by one or two announcers within 5-10 seconds how many listeners will be able to tell one show host from another! ???

argytunes

 

[NHRonin]

Can anyone explain to me how the Fairness Doctine does NOT violate the First Amendment?

Reading it verbatim, it seems pretty clear to me that the government forcing opposing views does just that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

[raccoonradio]

>>he is also doing what Raccoon does, not thinking things through.

excuse me kind sir, but I _do_ think things through and I would never be so rude as to suggest
that another person does not. We have different opinions on different subjects, maybe agree
on a few things, but I think things through, all right...and I believe that abridging the freedom of
press/speech is the last thing ANYONE should do. Should the government step in and force
different musicians to change the type of music they play?

I'm sorry, but there are more than enough rock artists out there. This government directive,
the Fairness in Music Doctrine, says that we need more country bands. We need to have you
play country instead of rock. No, I don't CARE if you're a really good rock musician and
Mr. V thinks you're talented and you have a good future-- no sir, we have too much rock and roll so you have to change to play country.

This isn't liberal, it's illiberal...just out of convenience because the Left feels they aren't represented
on the radio. It's not my fault that liberal radio is about as successful as the Mass. Republican Party.
It should market itself with a good product and shouldn't be forced on people. How would you like
it if we mandated the Commonwealth must have one Dem. senator and one Republican? How about
two mayors in each town, once from each party--that's fair, isn't it?

And have Ann Coulter co-host with Olby. That's fair, too.

>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

[ciao99]

The problem with rock stations now, is that newer rock music....well sucks, for lack of a better word. Everyone has Sweet Home Alabama, and Stairway to Heaven on their iPods now, so stations like WZLX are becoming less and less relevant. Young teenagers with no taste in music will always flock to whatever they're told to, so stations like Jamn' and Kiss will keep on pulling in ratings. As far as WEEI being Hate radio, that is just not true. WEEI is 99% fat ex jocks talking sports. When you talk sports, you get some trash talking. Then every now and then you get a person who can pick apart and breakdown and NFL defense trying to talk about who should run for president and you get a stupid comment thrown in. It's no different than a conversation you would have at the bar on a Friday after work. That is just my uneducated opinion on the mattah.... thank you.

The Mighty Horse Rocks

I think the newer rock is fresh, exciting. Aerosmith and Led Zep have been played to death. It's time for the hippie generation to get over themselves.

 

[ciao99]

Lib talk isn't dead, but it's hardly 'alive' either. Even hard-core Leftists would agree that conservative talk radio outpaces their own format 90%-10%. And the hysteria over the 'Fairness Doctrine' with respect to silencing this 90% is funny to behold. This, coming from the lefty Moonbats, who preach <cough> tolerance <cough> and <cough> freedom of speech <cough>. That must be selective tolerance and selective freedom of speech. Yes, we get it now.

Funny how all the people demanding liberal talk on the radio have completely overlooked WILD. And how completely patronizing. I guess liberal talk doesn't count to them if it comes from a black oriented radio station. Sharpton has a show on WILD. Is that not liberal enough for the Cambridge lefty types? Or are they showing their true colors about racial issues?
And would the so-called fairness doctrine apply to WILD? Would hannity get a chance to counter Sharpton?

 

[raccoonradio]

I can think of two hosts right now that a Fairness Doctrine would force WILD to carry: Larry Elder, the
"firebrand libertarian", the "Sage From South Central" and also occasional Hannity guest Kevin Martin from
Project 21. That would easily provide a counterpoint to The Tawana Brawley Show...

 

[Varulven]

Ciao, Sharpton's program isn't blasted on the same powerhouses that Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity seem to get.

The Conservatives skillfully went after radio while the Democrats ignored it. It's a political thing and, frankly, I don't like finding bad politics on the public airwaves. They are as annoying as rap "music". There is "good" rap music, but the talented artists - Public Enemy, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, the listenable artists, are in the minority.

Would a fairness doctrine stop record labels from forcing Vanilla Ice into the equation? The idea isn't to force him out as much as to open the doors to independent artists who don't want to give the 25 cd quota that was the fee a Boston station used to charge before airplay could be considered.

Whether it is music getting on the air because someone's palm got greased, or politics, it still doesn't deliver quality programming. Would a fairness doctrine be abused? Certainly, but anything is better than the dictatorship we have now controlling AM and FM radio.

 

[chrish]

You seem to conveniently forget that it took Rush Limbaugh a good 10 years working the the small suburban
stations like WCAP where I first listened to him in the mid 80's. Little by little the majors picked him up and this goes for many of the other conservative talkers.

Typical liberal attitude they do not want to do the work necessary to get to the top via their own hard work,
they expect the government to mandate liberal talk on a 50 KW AM or class B FM

 

[WRKOLD]

Does anyone have the info on how well Finneran is doing compared to Scotto? Also how has WTKK's ratings done since Imus got the boot?

 

[ciao99]

Ciao, Sharpton's program isn't blasted on the same powerhouses that Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity seem to get.

The Conservatives skillfully went after radio while the Democrats ignored it. It's a political thing and, frankly, I don't like finding bad politics on the public airwaves. They are as annoying as rap "music". There is "good" rap music, but the talented artists - Public Enemy, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, the listenable artists, are in the minority.

Would a fairness doctrine stop record labels from forcing Vanilla Ice into the equation? The idea isn't to force him out as much as to open the doors to independent artists who don't want to give the 25 cd quota that was the fee a Boston station used to charge before airplay could be considered.

Whether it is music getting on the air because someone's palm got greased, or politics, it still doesn't deliver quality programming. Would a fairness doctrine be abused? Certainly, but anything is better than the dictatorship we have now controlling AM and FM radio.

Varulven I simply don't agree.

The people who came out with these studies on the dominance of conservative views on radio admitted that they didn't consider black and ethnic oriented stations in their surveys. I find that patronizing and offensive. Look at markets like Atlanta, Chicago, New York, in these major markets it is the so-called ethnic stations that dominate. And many of them have black oriented news and public affairs departments. When I go home to NJ I love listening to "The Week in Review" on Kiss-FM. Air America would have done well to take notes on that program.

A survey of talk on radio airwaves should be comprehensive. It should include religious and ethnic radio stations.