• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Thom addresses competition with Franken on his message board...(link)

T

Tom_

Guest
I found this interesting, from a post from Thom on his web site discussion board...scroll down or search for key words in this excerpt from a long entry:

http://www.thomhartman.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/5/t/003145.html

Thom:

"I'm not replacing Al Franken, but competing with him (and Rush, etc.), as I have been all along. Stations can carry his show or mine. Most will choose his show, as he's a Big Star and does a great show, but in some markets (like Santa Cruz, which has two liberal stations) he and I go head-to-head in the same time slot........"

Air America syndication division Hartmann link:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/thomhartmannpage
 
FRANKEN IS ABOUT TO BE HISTORY

Hartmann is not replacing Franken, he says. Not yet. But AAR has him place to do so. People around radio learn to recognize the classic signs of imminent departure. Sign number one: They hire somebody and say he's NOT a replacement.

Franken was supposed to be the big draw. He hasn't been. He was paid to be the big draw and AAR may not be able to cost-justify his salary any more.

Franken keeps talking about leaving. Everybody who works in radio does that, one time or another. But don't let the boss hear you.

And we have yet to get a clear response on Franken and "what did he know and when did he know it" with the Gloria Wise thing.

All sorts of changes are coming at AAR. It's already started. They are well overdue. You read it here first.

Gnarlodious: AAR eyeballing Ed Schultz? In their dreams. Schultz does not need them. He does better without AAR already. Now he's got the guy who made Rush.
 
just another stepping stone...

> Franken keeps talking about leaving. Everybody who works in
> radio does that, one time or another.
I agree. Franken has treated this job as just another stepping stone and rumors of a senate seat swirl around him. I think he'd make a better politician than talk-radio host, just look at some of the high profile guests he has interviewed.
Besides, as a senator he can still get radio time.

> Gnarlodious: AAR eyeballing Ed Schultz? In their dreams.
> Schultz does not need them. He does better without AAR
> already.
He does seem to be doing pretty well with Jones Network, and his show is more listenable than ever. It's been a good thing too, since he's less offensive than Randi Rhodes and Clear Channel knows it.<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
What's wrong with Franken

I just finished watching "The First Five Years of Saturday Night Live." Al Franken was interviewed and seen in some of the "backstage" clips.

Al Franken was a good comedy writer (as his SNL work and books show). He was just an OK performer in improvisational sketch comedy (as the clips showed). He's good at writing a script with a partner (Tom Davis). He's no good at performing without a script. Even in the interview segments he was lame and not funny (although he laughed at his own comments, just like on the radio).

I don't know that any of the top SNL performers could have done talk radio. Talk radio is just a different ballgame. And the only way to know how well somebody can play is to see how well they do play.

What's wrong with Franken? He's a good writer but he's doing a talk show.
 
Ummm...

> What's wrong with Franken? He's a good writer but he's
> doing a talk show.

Well that's exactly it, he's not a good talker. Take a look at Michael Savage, now THERE's a good Jewish talker! So Franken should stick to what he does best, writing. Because his voice is nasally, his throat is tight, he talks way too slow and he ummms and ahhhs entirely too much.
Without the support of AAR behind him he mever would have been a success as a talker.
<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
Re: FRANKEN IS ABOUT TO BE HISTORY

> And we have yet to get a clear response on Franken and "what
> did he know and when did he know it" with the Gloria Wise
> thing.

Nobody beyond right wing blogs cares one bit about Franken and the Gloria Wise thing.

> All sorts of changes are coming at AAR. It's already
> started. They are well overdue. You read it here first.

The only way Franken departs AAR is if he launches his Senate bid. It's much more likely the preparation work underway is occuring because of that, not because of "low ratings" for Al Franken. I am not sure Hartmann has the stature to be the designated replacement. AAR is also probably responding to Jones who is competing against them. Lock up the "free agents" in syndication contracts before Jones signs them.

> Gnarlodious: AAR eyeballing Ed Schultz? In their dreams.
> Schultz does not need them. He does better without AAR
> already. Now he's got the guy who made Rush.

Schultz just doesn't feel like star quality outside of the heartland. I don't see him being the chosen one by the east and west coast progressive listeners. A lot of people treat him nominally better than Alan Colmes, but not MUCH better.
 
Re: FRANKEN IS ABOUT TO BE HISTORY

> The only way Franken departs AAR is if he launches his
> Senate bid. It's much more likely the preparation work
> underway is occuring because of that, not because of "low
> ratings" for Al Franken. I am not sure Hartmann has the
> stature to be the designated replacement. AAR is also
> probably responding to Jones who is competing against them.
> Lock up the "free agents" in syndication contracts before
> Jones signs them.
>
>
I am a little confused by the whole Jones and AAR relationship. I mentioned it above in a post. Jones is representing AAR in Sales already. Democracy radio works with Jones and they have Steph. AAR took Springer on becasue CC told them to. Hard to believe everyone is in competition here when they all seem to sleep in the same bed...

I don't think Schultz is right for progressive talk stations regardless of state, but some stations that do local, conservative or happy talk might want to add him to the schedule.
 
Re: FRANKEN IS ABOUT TO BE HISTORY

> I am a little confused by the whole Jones and AAR
> relationship. I mentioned it above in a post. Jones is
> representing AAR in Sales already. Democracy radio works
> with Jones and they have Steph. AAR took Springer on becasue
> CC told them to. Hard to believe everyone is in competition
> here when they all seem to sleep in the same bed...

Jones is working with Democracy Radio, an organization which conservatives rightly criticized for having a bit too much of a helping hand from the Democratic party and their fundraisers to get started. It's the main reason Randi Rhodes went to AAR - she didn't want to be beholden to the Democratic party (although she fawns over them on the air now :) ).

Democracy Radio is a libtalk incubator. They find local shows/talent, and up and coming talent that could do a libtalk show and they launch it for national syndication.

In looking at the Unequalizer's posting of the confidential agreement, I see the client listing towards the back. It's not the most impressive I've ever seen. Jones has FAR more experience in ad sales than AAR (they've run satellite networks for years), but even I am surprised by news they would team up for ad sales. All I can think is that ad dollars are somewhat scarce or AAR simply found a way to outsource it.

The story of Springer seems to be one of convenience and being in the right place at the right time. Unfiltered, although enjoyable to me, was not to most of the AAR audience and it appeared they were looking to dump it. Meanwhile, Springer launched a show on the Cincinnati AAR station for the local market. When it comes to name recognition, Springer is an instant curiousity draw, so AAR looking for something to replace Unfiltered discovered Springer's show ran in the same slot. Lizz Winstead left AAR precisely because Springer was invited to come on board. In fact, the only AAR personality that I've heard get along very well with Jerry Springer has been Randi Rhodes.

Springer's show appears to be done in both Cincinnati and Chicago when he is filming his TV show. (The audio production quality is absolutely horrible when he's in Chicago BTW - very fuzzy audio and even dropouts have been heard - it's especially noticeable on XM.)

I don't think CC told AAR to pick up Springer - they probably didn't need to be told.

> I don't think Schultz is right for progressive talk stations
> regardless of state, but some stations that do local,
> conservative or happy talk might want to add him to the
> schedule.

I can't imagine Schultz on a happy talk or advice format. He's very political. He's just held with some suspicion by a lot of progressives.

The elephant in the room nobody talks about is Alan Colmes and Fox Radio. Only XM seems to continue to tempt fate by dumping his show on the AAR channel.
 
Re: Franken deserves credit for success of Air America and progressive talk...

> Well that's exactly it, he's not a good talker. Take a look
> at Michael Savage, now THERE's a good Jewish talker! So
> Franken should stick to what he does best, writing. Because
> his voice is nasally, his throat is tight, he talks way too
> slow and he ummms and ahhhs entirely too much.
> Without the support of AAR behind him he mever would have
> been a success as a talker.

We all have our own problems with on-air style...put all criticisms of this issue aside and realize that Franken is THE star of Air America's lineup, in large part due to his NAME RECOGNITION...

Without Franken, would we even have AIR AMERICA? Without Franken, would we have PROGRESSIVE TALK on DOZENS of stations (70 last count for AAR affiliates)?

That's why I personally think that Air America is making a big mistake by offering Hartmann in the same time slot. Hartmann is also a great host.

But to replace Franken w/ Hartmann in large markets like Seattle might not be good for Air America due to the loss of NAME RECOGNITION. And it may not be good for the future of Progressive Talk in general.

Name recognition DOES means SOMETHING for the success of progressive talk...at least for now... It's both the BRAND (AIR AMERIFCA) and certain hosts (Franken,Rhodes,RobertFKennedeyJr).

Few people have heard of conservative networks like "Talk Radio Network," or "Premeire." But progressive talk stations often say phrases that people remember, e.g. "...this is Air America Minnesota," or "Air America has landed...Seattle's Progressive Talk - AM 1090."
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

> I can't imagine Schultz on a happy talk or advice format.
> He's very political. He's just held with some suspicion by
> a lot of progressives.
>
> The elephant in the room nobody talks about is Alan Colmes
> and Fox Radio. Only XM seems to continue to tempt fate by
> dumping his show on the AAR channel.




The criticism of Colmes and Schultz offered on radio-info from time to time would not be accepted by most programmers. Most talk radio listeners are conservative. To succeed in the industry, especially in red states, you have to appeal to have to conservative listeners. Schultz and Colmes both have are able to interact with and respect conservative callers and guests. They also do not criticize organized religion. All in all, perfect hosts for red areas, whereas Malloy or Morning Sedition would generate poor ratings.

"Red or blue, there's a host for you." -ME! :)
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

> The criticism of Colmes and Schultz offered on radio-info
> from time to time would not be accepted by most
> programmers. Most talk radio listeners are conservative.

Alan Colmes is considered a Vichy collaborator by most progressives and is loathed despite his more routine libtalk radio show. As he is completely impotent on Hannity & Colmes, active progressives see him as less than worthwhile - just another weak liberal who won't stand up and confront the nonsense that gets spewed out. It's better not to have a liberal on Fox at all than to be stuck with some of these folks.

I listen to Alan Colmes semi-regularly. Most of his callers seem to be Fox News Channel viewers who are either liberals who seem stuck in Fox News world and are unaware or don't have access to other libtalk, or conservative Fox News viewers who call to argue (and the Fox News radio liners during the break seem to emphasize "have a problem with Colmes? Call now and tell him!")

He does a reasonably competant job, but will never have a place at the AAR or Jones table as long as he continues to basically phone in his performance on Hannity & Colmes. Imagine that show with a Rachel Maddow or Stephanie Miller even. Totally different world.
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

The game is ratings, not ideological purity.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

>
> The criticism of Colmes and Schultz offered on radio-info
> from time to time would not be accepted by most
> programmers. Most talk radio listeners are conservative.
> To succeed in the industry, especially in red states, you
> have to appeal to have to conservative listeners. Schultz
> and Colmes both have are able to interact with and respect
> conservative callers and guests. They also do not criticize
> organized religion. All in all, perfect hosts for red
> areas, whereas Malloy or Morning Sedition would generate
> poor ratings.
>
> "Red or blue, there's a host for you." -ME! :)
>

AAR criticizes Fundamentalism- whether it is from Muslims or Christians. I have not heard any real criticism on Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC, or any of the mainstream religious faiths (although I am trying to remember if I heard much on the new Pope?). If you think that AAR should lighten up on the Fundamentalists than you are never going to be a potential listener. As for the respect for conservatives- you get plenty of it from Maddow and from Laura Flanders and they still can put up a decent rebuttal- Schultz doesn't put up any defense against the right on his program so he is as bad as Colmes- he just lets the calls run then respectfully disagrees. He is a moderate for gosh sake.
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

> AAR criticizes Fundamentalism- whether it is from Muslims or
> Christians. I have not heard any real criticism on
> Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC, or any of the mainstream
> religious faiths (although I am trying to remember if I
> heard much on the new Pope?). If you think that AAR should
> lighten up on the Fundamentalists than you are never going
> to be a potential listener.

I have no problem with fundamentalists. Last time I checked, we still had freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Dr. James Dobson has every right to say whatever he wants to about abortion, stem cells, or gay rights just as some ultraliberal atheist talk host on the other side does on these issues.

What I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH is this CONSTANT ATTACKS of "fundamentalists" from "liberal" hosts...and the opposite ATTACKS against "liberals" from conservative hosts like James C. Dobson and Michael W. Savage. This sort of name calling is unfortunate, although admittedly it does get ratings.

> Schultz doesn't put up any defense against the right on his
> program so he is as bad as Colmes- he just lets the calls
> run then respectfully disagrees. He is a moderate for gosh
> sake.

With Schultz and Colmes NOT attacking conservatives, they are NOT alienating them as potential listeners. The main goal in radio is to attract listeners and get ratings and revenue. So for "Republican" areas of the US w/ moderate Democrats, Ed and Alan will get affiliates/ratings.
 
Program Directors: Alan Colmes

> Alan Colmes is considered a Vichy collaborator by most
> progressives and is loathed despite his more routine libtalk
> radio show. As he is completely impotent on Hannity &
> Colmes, active progressives see him as less than worthwhile

Nope. We do not see him as less than worthwhile. Alan has pioneered progressive talk, with DAYNET 15yrs ago. DAYNET was on hundreds of stations.

Program directors can't let their own political viewpoints influence their decisions for their hosts/station/network/etc. Remember: what guides programming decisions is ratings, revenue, and entertainment value. Ideology is in last place. If a Socialist, Libertarian, or some other fringe party host got 20 shares I'd put him on.
 
Re: Program Directors: Alan Colmes

> Program directors can't let their own political viewpoints
> influence their decisions for their
> hosts/station/network/etc. Remember: what guides
> programming decisions is ratings, revenue, and entertainment
> value. Ideology is in last place. If a Socialist,
> Libertarian, or some other fringe party host got 20 shares
> I'd put him on.

I wish this were true, but it's demonstrably false in the case of Fox. Despite profit potential and "ratings," how many AAR Clear Channel stations are running Fox News at the top of the hour? XM Radio gets a blizzard of complaints about Colmes on the AAR channel and they have even told their listeners the only reason his show is still there is because of the contract. Ratings or not, he'll be off that channel the day the contract expires. Regardless of past performance, his impotence on Fox News has made him infamous among most libtalk listeners. He's taunted by just about every libtalk host I've heard, and achieved pariah status at the Democrat's convention in 2004 when people wouldn't sit with him in the cafeteria. (Franken, Rhodes, and Garofalo all recounted this story).

How many stations have dropped network radio or TV shows in the south (or pre-empted them) regardless of ratings because they had a political/cultural disagreement with the topic. Sinclair wouldn't air Nightline for political reasons. They flushed their stock price and got a hailstorm of criticism and boycotts with the John Kerry hitpiece they tried to run after also censoring Nightline on their ABC stations. Talent goes too far and they get tossed or stations get heavily fined. Ask Howard Stern.

Politics very much does influence companies and stations that have a strong ideology themselves. Others look only at the bottom line, but with large corporate media having so much business before the legislature, even that bottom dollar can influence what gets on the air and what doesn't.
 
programming closer to the center

So I guess you want to see only far left ultraliberals in talk radio, and no moderate Democrats like Schultz and Colmes???

That won't happen, because program directors in more conservative areas have to program closer to the center.

As for who has lunch with who, I fail to see how that is relevant to our discussion.









> I wish this were true, but it's demonstrably false in the
> case of Fox. Despite profit potential and "ratings," how
> many AAR Clear Channel stations are running Fox News at the
> top of the hour? XM Radio gets a blizzard of complaints
> about Colmes on the AAR channel and they have even told
> their listeners the only reason his show is still there is
> because of the contract. Ratings or not, he'll be off that
> channel the day the contract expires. Regardless of past
> performance, his impotence on Fox News has made him infamous
> among most libtalk listeners. He's taunted by just about
> every libtalk host I've heard, and achieved pariah status at
> the Democrat's convention in 2004 when people wouldn't sit
> with him in the cafeteria. (Franken, Rhodes, and Garofalo
> all recounted this story).
>
> How many stations have dropped network radio or TV shows in
> the south (or pre-empted them) regardless of ratings because
> they had a political/cultural disagreement with the topic.
> Sinclair wouldn't air Nightline for political reasons. They
> flushed their stock price and got a hailstorm of criticism
> and boycotts with the John Kerry hitpiece they tried to run
> after also censoring Nightline on their ABC stations.
> Talent goes too far and they get tossed or stations get
> heavily fined. Ask Howard Stern.
>
> Politics very much does influence companies and stations
> that have a strong ideology themselves. Others look only at
> the bottom line, but with large corporate media having so
> much business before the legislature, even that bottom
> dollar can influence what gets on the air and what doesn't.
>
 
Re: Criticism of Colmes, Schultz unjustified by most talk programmers...

> AAR criticizes Fundamentalism- whether it is from Muslims or
> Christians.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that AAR hosts tend to criticize promoters of Theocracy, most of whom tend to be Fundamentalists.

I can't remember ever hearing of a Unitarian Universalist Theocrat, but I may be wrong...<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Re: Program Directors: Alan Colmes

> I wish this were true, but it's demonstrably false in the
> case of Fox. Despite profit potential and "ratings," how
> many AAR Clear Channel stations are running Fox News at the
> top of the hour?

By a pure technicality - and total error - there is one.

News-Talk WTAM/1100 in Cleveland. It's accidentally listed in some circles as an AAR affil, even though it only has Jerry. They have Fox News at the TOH. Man, talk about an identity crisis.

Post #760: Dedicated to WJR/760 in Detroit!

- nate81<P ID="signature">______________
Nathan Obral
University Partnership Representative: LCCC Student Senate, Elyria, Ohio

The Morning Love with Mark and Sarah - Fridays 9AM EDT on Duck Radio!</P>
 
Re: Franken deserves credit for success of Air America and progressive talk...

> > Well that's exactly it, he's not a good talker. Take a look
> > at Michael Savage, now THERE's a good Jewish talker! So
> > Franken should stick to what he does best, writing. Because
> > his voice is nasally, his throat is tight, he talks way too
> > slow and he ummms and ahhhs entirely too much.
> > Without the support of AAR behind him he mever would have
> > been a success as a talker.
>
> We all have our own problems with on-air style...put all
> criticisms of this issue aside and realize that Franken is
> THE star of Air America's lineup, in large part due to his
> NAME RECOGNITION...
>
> Without Franken, would we even have AIR AMERICA? Without
> Franken, would we have PROGRESSIVE TALK on DOZENS of
> stations (70 last count for AAR affiliates)?
>
> That's why I personally think that Air America is making a
> big mistake by offering Hartmann in the same time slot.
> Hartmann is also a great host.
>
> But to replace Franken w/ Hartmann in large markets like
> Seattle might not be good for Air America due to the loss of
> NAME RECOGNITION. And it may not be good for the future of
> Progressive Talk in general.
>
> Name recognition DOES means SOMETHING for the success of
> progressive talk...at least for now... It's both the BRAND
> (AIR AMERIFCA) and certain hosts
> (Franken,Rhodes,RobertFKennedeyJr).
>
> Few people have heard of conservative networks like "Talk
> Radio Network," or "Premeire." But progressive talk
> stations often say phrases that people remember, e.g.
> "...this is Air America Minnesota," or "Air America has
> landed...Seattle's Progressive Talk - AM 1090."

I have to agree. AAR stations have had to think differently.

In the 90's, with the advent of Rush, soon most general talk stations evolved into having a conservative angle. Hard to dispute. Usually, hear the "NewsRadio," "News/Talk" or "TalkRadio" positioner combined with the freq. # and callsign, and that usually gets ingrained into a listener's mind.

Hosts like Rush, Hannity or Savage don't need to have a unified "network" name backing their shows. Rush's "EIB" network dates back to his days as a Top 40 DJ in the early 70's, he won't say "Premiere." Neither would Hannity explictly use the "ABC Radio" name; it's his show. Their names say it all.

And while the Salem talk team of Bennett/Gallagher/Prager/Medved/Hewitt are essentially packed together (the first two are more apt to air on non-Salem stations) on many of Salem's suburban-tract-esque talk stations, they haven't been marketed under a solo name.

Put the political shoe on the other foot, and such a positioner like "Detroit's Conservative Talk: AM 1310" or a "Federalist/Heritage/Neocon Radio Network" wouldn't be THAT shocking.

- nate81<P ID="signature">______________
Nathan Obral
University Partnership Representative: LCCC Student Senate, Elyria, Ohio

The Morning Love with Mark and Sarah - Fridays 9AM EDT on Duck Radio!</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom