Types of callers

[NewsNow]

I've heard this exact type of caller now on Glenn Beck, Rush (several times), Hannity, and now just last week, Mark Levin.

The caller always has these common denominators. They are female. They have kids. They are going to college late in life. Their professors are liberal. They took time off to make a "real" family rather than stuff their heads with fancy book smarts.

The way the caller goes, they call the host, they talk about how their professor is espousing a view antithetical to the wonderful education they get from talk radio. They respond with what they've learned from Beck/Rush/Hannity/Levin. The professor is appropriately "sassed" and has no come back.

I've never heard a male caller with these denominators. However, there is a male version. They are usually young, going straight from high school into college, and they've learned so much already from the radio gasbags that they too, can sass their professors. I've never heard a young female college student calling in.

I suppose with 8 to 10 million listeners, there could be that many people who fit the description that it happens on an almost weekly basis, but the script is almost word for word identitcal every time. Has anybody else ever noticed this?

 

[brian65]

I'm sure the call was just the next randomly selected caller.

Just like when, after the host trashes some caller as an idiot with an idiotic idea, the next random caller always completely agrees the the host and never with what the prior caller may have tried to say.



The discussions are usually completely orchestrated by the call screeners. No teaming up against the hosts allowed.

 

[radiotower40]

Brian is right the discussions are orchestrated by the call screeners, say for example the topic is what kind of soap you use
(just an example I could not actually listen to a talk show about soap although it might be more interesting than somethings
they talk about)if a previous caller has already said I don't like brand x and you call in to agree with that caller they will usually
say someone already said the same thing (which is contrary to what the host thinks)and to call back again on another topic,
which is very frustrating because maybe you agreed with the caller but had a different reason for not liking brand x that would
have made a better case but they just want to move the show along and fit in another ten minutes of commercials.

 

[ajhenderson]

Call screeners are there to screen out callers that make the show sound bad. That means people with no point, slow talkers, mumblers and bumblers, idiots, drunk people, and, if the host can't argue a point, people who disagree. What's wrong with that?

The reason there are no young women calling in is because what 19 year old chic listens to talk radio? There aren't many guys that age listening. If there was a talk format that discussed manicures, finding guys to support you, or what kind of cat food to feed Fluffy, college-age women might listen. Oh wait, there is... and no one in Minneapolis listens to that, either.

 

[brian65]

Call screeners are there to screen out callers that make the show sound bad. That means people with no point, slow talkers, mumblers and bumblers, idiots, drunk people, and, if the host can't argue a point, people who disagree. What's wrong with that?

The reason there are no young women calling in is because what 19 year old chic listens to talk radio? There aren't many guys that age listening. If there was a talk format that discussed manicures, finding guys to support you, or what kind of cat food to feed Fluffy, college-age women might listen. Oh wait, there is... and no one in Minneapolis listens to that, either.

You almost had it right.

Its really: "Call screeners are there to screen out callers that make the host sound bad."

 

[ajhenderson]

That, too. Although some mosts take more disagreeing calls than others. Some devote full segments to goading on certain groups of idiots to then call in, knowing they won't defend themselves as well as the host. Shouldn't we have more hosts who can actually argue with callers? It's very entertaining at times.

 

[NewsNow]

I worked at a top 10 news talker and the only rule our screeners followed was to put younger voices on the air. That meant the majority of the callers were about 30-50 years old. In addition, I've worked/work at three other news talkers with large audiences in large markets. At all these stations, I've never heard a local middle aged woman calling with the sassed her professors story. And these are stations that have local hosts who follow the Rush pattern (in fact, three that I've worked with have filled in for Rush and Mark Levin). It's only the national shows, and really only those associated with that particular lineup. I've never heard it on Rusty Humphries, Savage, or any of the other right wing shows.

It happens for every topic. "Rush, I'm going back to school now that my babies are grown and fighting in Iraq, and my professor says that they're going to die for an unjust cause/no blood for oil/national healthcare is a God given right/communism is great. But I told him what I heard you say the other day, that John Edwards has a gay haircut. That shut him up good."

 

[brian65]

Here's another example of an arranged discussion:

1-Host has a diatribe he has prepared about some juicy item that he hasn't the balls to bring up as his own idea as he would then be accused of being nasty.

2-Screener (and host) wait until a caller calls in and raises said juicy item.

3-Call is passed through; host has brief discussion with caller about item.

4-Host says "Now that's a very astute point that caller has raised....<diatribe begins>."

 

[Gnarlodious]

They took time off to make a "real" family rather than stuff their heads with fancy book smarts.
Has anybody else ever noticed this?

Yes, I have heard that caller on Michael Savage and Laura Schlesinger, and they are both doctors ??? In every case, the virtues of the unambitious mother are emphasized and the caller is treated extra-politely by the host.

You just gotta accept it as part of the threatrics...

 

[HHH]

Call screeners, it seems, are also making sure that moderate callers do not get on the air.

I have been told by more than one person within talk radio circles that moderate-opinionated callers are usually downplayed due to the lack of "fireworks" resulting from such calls.

I would presume because moderates force actual discussion of the issues as opposed to just painting everything with a broad-brush full of red or blue paint. Many talk hosts are unwilling to actually discuss issues this way, because they might have to concede that the "opposition" might have done something right at one time. This blows their entire act as the saviors against demons. Also, their core audience's eyes may glaze over if the actually had to listen to real analysis and decipher the information. Also, some talk hosts are UNABLE to discuss issues in a nuanced fashion because they just plain don't have the journalistic chops, and are really more theatrical performers than anything else.

It is much easier for Sean to put on some dopey flower child girl, or for Randy Rhodes to put on some raving racist.

I suppose this formula works in the marketplace, but--to me anyway--it is all pretty moronic, and I take away nothing from these shows, except a sadness that stereotypes and hated continue to flourish through these broadcasts.

 

[brian65]

Call screeners, it seems, are also making sure that moderate callers do not get on the air.

I have been told by more than one person within talk radio circles that moderate-opinionated callers are usually downplayed due to the lack of "fireworks" resulting from such calls.

I would presume because moderates force actual discussion of the issues as opposed to just painting everything with a broad-brush full of red or blue paint. Many talk hosts are unwilling to actually discuss issues this way, because they might have to concede that the "opposition" might have done something right at one time. This blows their entire act as the saviors against demons. Also, their core audience's eyes may glaze over if the actually had to listen to real analysis and decipher the information. Also, some talk hosts are UNABLE to discuss issues in a nuanced fashion because they just plain don't have the journalistic chops, and are really more theatrical performers than anything else.

It is much easier for Sean to put on some dopey flower child girl, or for Randy Rhodes to put on some raving racist.

I suppose this formula works in the marketplace, but--to me anyway--it is all pretty moronic, and I take away nothing from these shows, except a sadness that stereotypes and hated continue to flourish through these broadcasts.

Nicely stated.