The real story of talkradio

[justareporter]

I commed to you this article authored by the former assistant PD at WTMJ. He now works in NY and writing this did nothing for his career advancement.

But reading it will explain a lot why the talk radio "noise" got even louder as we got closer to the election.

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes

 

[DaleGriffin]

No it actually explains one place, one situation.

It is hardly the REAL story of talk radio.

These "talking points" come from all sides... and are mostly links to favorable news stories.

You wanna hear about biases?

how about this line...

I first got into journalism because I thought I could make a difference.

Make a difference?

How about you report the facts Mr. Journalist.

Wanna change the world to your view? Become a talk show host, an activist or a politician.

 

[cm454]

No it actually explains one place, one situation.

It is hardly the REAL story of talk radio.

These "talking points" come from all sides... and are mostly links to favorable news stories.

You wanna hear about biases?

how about this line...

I first got into journalism because I thought I could make a difference.

Make a difference?

How about you report the facts Mr. Journalist.

Wanna change the world to your view? Become a talk show host, an activist or a politician.

You are a victim of the Hannity/Limbaugh brainwash society.

When a journalist says they want to make a difference, they typically mean they want to shed light on things that are ignored in our communities, or want to keep people (particularly politicians) honest.

Thanks to the one-sided agenda-driven hosts, who are bigger "dive-by" offenders than any journalist I've ever seen, many people like yourself, only see things now through this very cynical and often overly paranoid slant.

The vast majority of newspeople I have worked with want to be objective, want to tell a story, and yes, do want to make a difference in doing what I stated above.

The shallow egomanical talk hosts who do nothing but cast doubt on the newsmedia now, have more in common with the "Islamo-fascists" they claim to hate so much than they do the "great American's" that they congratulate each other for being.

Talkradio has become one, big, conservative circ1e-jerk.

 

[talkjim]

"No it actually explains one place, one situation."

No, Dale. Based on my reading of the article and my experience in the business, it actually explains a range of situations across the right-wing radio landscape.

"You wanna hear about biases?

how about this line...

Quote
I first got into journalism because I thought I could make a difference.


Make a difference?

How about you report the facts Mr. Journalist."

Calm down, Dale. You and others are reading thoughts into this one line that the author never expressed. All of us, or most of us anyway, desire to make a difference in the sense that we wish to do well at our work and be recognized for it. Don't be so presumptuous as to turn a simple, positive thought into the basis for a right-wing conspiracy theory.

I read the article in full and found it to be well-written and thoughtful. I also found it to be notably free of personal venom--the author on one hand compliments the talents of the hosts, but also, in an articulate and specific manner, criticises some of their on-air tactics.

Everyone in the talkradio world seems to be focused on this article--even though it apppeared in a local magazine in Milwaukee. All the attention says a boatload about the quality of the piece.

 

[DaleGriffin]

No what it says is people are posting and linking it imply it is "the real story of talk radio." When someone says that it is typical to people respond directly to it.

This has not sent talk show hosts scrambling because some bitter guy wrote about his experiences.

You are a victim of the Hannity/Limbaugh brainwash society.

And you clearly are an unbiased individual, give it a rest.

When a journalist says they want to make a difference, they typically mean they want to shed light on things that are ignored in our communities, or want to keep people (particularly politicians) honest.

Thanks to the one-sided agenda-driven hosts, who are bigger "dive-by" offenders than any journalist I've ever seen, many people like yourself, only see things now through this very cynical and often overly paranoid slant.

For a group of irrelevant individuals preaching to the choir, they sure are powerful. You personally seem to be very worried about Rush and his followers.

The vast majority of newspeople I have worked with want to be objective, want to tell a story, and yes, do want to make a difference in doing what I stated above.

sorry this guy left a situation where he played along for a paycheck and the minute he was gone he decided to scorch the earth. That strikes me as sour grapes, not this higher purpose you are speaking of.

The shallow egomanical talk hosts who do nothing but cast doubt on the newsmedia now, have more in common with the "Islamo-fascists" they claim to hate so much than they do the "great American's" that they congratulate each other for being.

What exactly do they have in common with "islamo-facists"?

Should they not hate "islamo-fascists?"

Talkradio has become one, big, conservative circ1e-jerk.

I think you have made this point plenty of times, the echo chamber on this board agrees. Congrats.

 

[justareporter]

Here is the so-far unmentioned point. There was a time when talk show hosts migrated to the genre from news....yes....from being journalists. they brought with them their bias for fairness and a desire to see that more than one side got a fair airing.

Yes....those of us who are journalists got into the business to make a difference. I can only speak for the ones I know. Having said that we believed (and mostly still do) that our job is to report what we see and (when appropriate) provide perspective. Simply the facts without the benefit of perspective is almost always useless and often misleading.

If you report on a fire that is reporting the story. When you report this is the thrid fire at the same place in a week and each time you could smell gasoline...that is perspective.

Interestingly, good reporters often become good talk show hosts because they know how to tell a story, provide balance and perspective. That is unless all you want is a one note samba. Then call for Rush, Sean or any of their ilk.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Here is the so-far unmentioned point. There was a time when talk show hosts migrated to the genre from news....yes....from being journalists. they brought with them their bias for fairness and a desire to see that more than one side got a fair airing.

Yes....those of us who are journalists got into the business to make a difference. I can only speak for the ones I know. Having said that we believed (and mostly still do) that our job is to report what we see and (when appropriate) provide perspective. Simply the facts without the benefit of perspective is almost always useless and often misleading.

If you report on a fire that is reporting the story. When you report this is the thrid fire at the same place in a week and each time you could smell gasoline...that is perspective.

Interestingly, good reporters often become good talk show hosts because they know how to tell a story, provide balance and perspective. That is unless all you want is a one note samba. Then call for Rush, Sean or any of their ilk.

You do realize there are local host that talk local issues, right? Some that don't tow the party line on every issue? Those that come to their beliefs honestly? Right? You know that right?

Echo chamber? There is liberal talk, there are libertarians and there are disgruntled conservatives as well.

Your problem with Rusg, Hannity, etc is that you don't agree with them. Find a small market, give your views, get paid nothing and move up. That is how the system changes. It works.

I had an opening and had people who I woud have hired had they had resonable salary demands that did not fit the model of right-wing echo chamber... give it a rest.

There is not going to be a day where so and so burst onto the national scene and gives you what you want unless the government gets involved. When that happens watch out because they will be coming after the internet next. And then what happens when the power structure switches back to the right?

If talk radio is so horrible and irrelevant why do you guys constantly worry about it? Why is it the one format that consistently performs revenue wise?

 

[justareporter]

Most of the so-called liberals have gotten bored enough with talk radio to go listen to all news...or just pipe in music.

Me? If all I can find is Rush, Beck or the local flavor of themonth right wing conservative...I just turn it off.

That is what radio should be most concerned about for the near and distant term..."off."

 

[gr8oldies]

When you find substantial decreases in audience, yeah, you would worry. Then again, the mainstream media has issues of its own. With many of those outlets admitting their bias toward Obama, the only place on the dial you may hear anything other than fawning and softball questions is talk radio.

 

[justareporter]

But it is just "talk." There is no substance. No real reporting. No objective telling of facts and even if you argue that journalists have a bias (in which I would disagreee) there is at least more substance than on talk radio...where babble reins supreme.

 

[talkjim]

"No what it says is people are posting and linking it imply it is "the real story of talk radio." When someone says that it is typical to people respond directly to it.

This has not sent talk show hosts scrambling because some bitter guy wrote about his experiences."

Sounds like you're a psychologist, Dale, or at least imagine yourself as such. So, just how has the author of this piece demonstrated bitterness? And no, don't give me spin or some kind of personal philosopophy--cite me a line from the article that demonstates bitterness. As I said, I read it in full, and found it to be remarkably free of any venom or personal bittnerness. What he did do was make some specific references to incidents that he found objectionable.

And yes, the article has sent many hosts scrambling--anyone and everyone is reacting to it on message boards like this one all over the country.

 

[cm454]

Your problem with Rusg, Hannity, etc is that you don't agree with them. Find a small market, give your views, get paid nothing and move up. That is how the system changes. It works.

For you to imply that people who aren't RUsh-clones have just as good a chance at being hired is.....naive.

 

[DaleGriffin]

"No what it says is people are posting and linking it imply it is "the real story of talk radio." When someone says that it is typical to people respond directly to it.

This has not sent talk show hosts scrambling because some bitter guy wrote about his experiences."

Sounds like you're a psychologist, Dale, or at least imagine yourself as such. So, just how has the author of this piece demonstrated bitterness? And no, don't give me spin or some kind of personal philosopophy--cite me a line from the article that demonstates bitterness. As I said, I read it in full, and found it to be remarkably free of any venom or personal bittnerness. What he did do was make some specific references to incidents that he found objectionable.

And yes, the article has sent many hosts scrambling--anyone and everyone is reacting to it on message boards like this one all over the country.

The article in it self is a bitter piece... he waited till he left and then penned the screed from New York and had it published in a local magazine. Let's not be silly and claim there was no ax to grind here.

It is one station... one situation.

I am sure if my News Director wrote an article about how reasoned and rational I am (which I am not) and how all the hosts he worked with across the board were you would post it everywhere and say wow I got these talk show hosts all wrong. But that piece would never get written.

What I don't is why the talkjims, cm454s and justareporter are constantly coming on here and saying the same thing. so and so sucks... one note.... death of the radio... WE GET IT. Every thread is the same, just with a different reason to say it.

 

[justareporter]

Here is the nice thing: I don't think so-and-so sucks...I think the industry is kiling itself in not developing new and interesting (different) talent.

As fo rthe guy who went to NY and THEN penned the article...what do you think he should do these days....write it wheile he still works for the station? Since just about everything is now owned by a few owners...none of which has a sense of humor....his employment time would have been measured in seconds if he wrote it while still working in Milwaukee.

Give him credit for having the decency and honesty to write it in the first place.

 

[smedge2006]

If talk radio is so horrible and irrelevant why do you guys constantly worry about it? Why is it the one format that consistently performs revenue wise?

If (conservative) talk radio is such a great financial performer, why are Citadel, Salem and Westwood One penny stocks, and why are most of the other publicly traded owners of talk radio stations and networks in the tank?

 

[DaleGriffin]

Do you think Rush and Hannity are the problems? They signed lucrative deals because they make money.

Spoken word is not hurting anywhere near the music stations. This is fact.

As explained before... the market is about growth. Radio is not growing fast enough to please the market. N/T is not the problem with these radio companies.

I seriously wonder if you guys understand the business of radio at all. The goal is to make money. N/T sticks have a ton of inventory to sell and it makes the stations profitable.

I know it's easy to sit here and talk blindly out your ---. But just acknowledge you have a problem with the hosts opinions and move on, trying to crap all over a format when you clearly don't understand how success ($$$) is measured is pathetic.

 

[smedge2006]

N/T sticks have a ton of inventory to sell and it makes the stations profitable.

Judging how much of that ton of inventory -- in prime dayparts -- goes to PI's, quack remedies and gold hawkers, not so much. The prestige accounts in news-talk have really vanished over the last decade. Many news-talkers, especially in markets below 30 or so, are nothing but computers in a closet, running syndication all the time and double audio half the time. Something tells me that's not a profit magnet.

I think those Rush and Hannity deals are going to be problems in the future -- both hosts' audiences appear to be aging and I see no sign that they're bringing in younger demos. Hannity had to bring in two companies and threaten to bail out to get his deal done. I wonder how much damage he did to Citadel -- and how many jobs he might have cost in the process of getting that deal.

The problem with conservative talk radio is that has come to believe its own press bla-bla.

"Rush has 20 million listeners".... no, he doesn't, not anymore, if indeed he ever did.

"Repealing the Fairness Doctrine created talk radio..." no, it didn't.

As explained before... the market is about growth. Radio is not growing fast enough to please the market.

Thanks to the IPod killing music radio, spoken word is the only potential growth area for radio. But it is not growing.

 

[DaleGriffin]

N/T sticks have a ton of inventory to sell and it makes the stations profitable.

Judging how much of that ton of inventory -- in prime dayparts -- goes to PI's, quack remedies and gold hawkers, not so much.

In prime dayparts? None... In syndication, quite a few.

Many news-talkers, especially in markets below 30 or so, are nothing but computers in a closet, running syndication all the time and double audio half the time. Something tells me that's not a profit magnet.

Does that happen yes, is it most of the time? No and you know that. Stop being dishonest.

I think those Rush and Hannity deals are going to be problems in the future -- both hosts' audiences appear to be aging and I see no sign that they're bringing in younger demos. Hannity had to bring in two companies and threaten to bail out to get his deal done. I wonder how much damage he did to Citadel -- and how many jobs he might have cost in the process of getting that deal.

Clearly you don't understand this business... if the deals are profitable and we know they will be, they will cost NO one a job. How many stations have they each picked up since them? Zero. They are insanely profitable NOW and will continue to be.

 

[smedge2006]

In prime dayparts? None... In syndication, quite a few.

Most prime dayparts, on most stations, these days ARE syndication. And it's clear by listening that the quality of local advertisers is way down too, and plenty of stations are using the snake oil to fill inventory.

Clearly you don't understand this business... if the deals are profitable and we know they will be, they will cost NO one a job. How many stations have they each picked up since them? Zero. They are insanely profitable NOW and will continue to be.

Is it so hard a concept to understand? Revenue is not increasing in radio, fixed expenses are, thus there is a finite (and shrinking) pool of money available for personnel. If somebody gets a bigger piece, the rest of the pie has to get a lot smaller. It's zero-sum, not win-win.

 

[justareporter]

Here is a little test for the "radio is doing splendidly and you don't understand the business" people.

Go for a drive. Leave the top 20 markets behind and drive parts of the US. Find ANYTHING out of morning drive that doesn't come off a bird. Sure you'll find something every now and then but NOTHING like that which existed 10 years ago.

Face the reality: most radio stations are now repeaters for syndicated or voice tracked programs. Localism died, not because it was a bad idea but because FREE trumped quality local programming.

And the next time something serious happens in a local community...pray there is a local TV station because local radio is almost dead.