What should NOT be said on the radio?

[Holland Cooke]

"Friggin'?"
"Ass?"
"******bag?"

WHAT ELSE do you hear...that you think you shouldn't?

HC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akTZqwe10Zo

 

[DonTheTrucker]

The less dumped out, the better. Dumping mentions of competing stations/hosts is just silly. That's what call screeners are for. I think the soccer mom isn't the most media-savvy listener, and dumping out all the time is just going to make her change the dial. She's also not the prude that some may think. I think a lively discussion with colorful (but FCC compliant) language is appropriate for the average soccer mom.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I only hear things I shouldn't hear on any station ONCE. I figured out how to not hear it again.

Of course, what offends me isn't specific words, especially the semi-objectionable, PG-13 rated ones. What bothers me are errors stated as facts.

Sometimes I wish there was more attention paid to accuracy in what is said and less concern with the use of "colorful" terms.

 

[Holland Cooke]

May I quote you?

I only hear things I shouldn't hear on any station ONCE. I figured out how to not hear it again.

WELL-said.
I wish more who-talk-on-Talk Radio "got" that.

What bothers me are errors stated as facts. Sometimes I wish there was more attention paid to accuracy in what is said and less concern with the use of "colorful" terms.

Ditto.
And what-you're-observing is hurting Talk Radio.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com (where your comments on the issues raised in this video are also welcome)

 

[smedge2006]

How realistic is it to target the soccer mom as an AM conservative talk listener anyway? Conservative talk radio is what it is because it's white guys in their forties and fifties programming to white guys in their forties and fifties. This same boys club has, whenever it has gotten the chance, crushed female-friendly programming. Witness the transformation of WGN including the dumping of Kathy and Judy, as well as the stonewalling by corporate chains of Greenstone Media, leading to its eventual demise. There is basically just one female-friendly talker in US radio, 107.1 in Minneapolis.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Exactly!

How realistic is it to target the soccer mom as an AM conservative talk listener anyway?

No kidding!
And she's not-the-only-one Talk Radio is tuning-out by a one-note act.

Yet the industry remains content to aim low, being typecast as about-politics, largely one-sided, and favoring monologue over dialogue.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Delilah's show, is a talk show of sorts (music with heart throb talk), it definitely appeals to women. Dr. Laura's and her sperm donor comments, take on the day thoughts, she is a social conservative show that targets women generally (she does take male callers, but that show is more aimed at the female demo). Laura Ingraham is a conservative talker, but I don't know if her style of talk appeals to women or not. Same with Kim Kommando's computer talk show( I hear mostly men calling in on this show so I'd assume her show appeals more to male listeners). Some NPR shows seem to aim at women, "Tell Me More" aims mainly at minority issues (generally black, female, black female, plus Hispanic issues - of course this is a liberal oriented show). So there are female oriented talk shows. I've heard women calling in to Beck/Rush/Hannity so I'd assume some of those women would fit the mold of being conservative soccer moms.

It would be interesting to find out what national conservative talk shows pull in the most female listeners, including Fox's Greta, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc vs how many women watch MSNBC's Rachel and ABC's The View, etc. Another interesting question would be how many soccer moms have subscribed and became a part of the Tea Party Movement. How many have subscribed to the Coffee Party and become a part of that movement.

My guess is,that soccer moms would be far more interested in talk if it were on FM rather than AM radio. Most women that young, generally don't even realize there is an AM radio dial and would not gravitate to the AM dial unless something really compelled them to.

 

[Holland Cooke]

DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

My guess is,that soccer moms would be far more interested in talk if it were on FM rather than AM radio. Most women that young, generally don't even realize there is an AM radio dial and would not gravitate to the AM dial unless something really compelled them to.

You are 100% right.
OK...80% right.
Because some 80% of Time Spent Listening is on FM.

So, no-matter how-appealing what's-on-AM is, it's talking to a-fraction-of available audience. Which is why having-only-a-5- share makes Rush Limbaugh "a star." Mathematically, he's the tallest dwarf.

Last week, I visited an FM Talk station that OVER A MILLION PEOPLE A WEEK listen to. And they AVOID talking about national politics.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

Last week, I visited an FM Talk station that OVER A MILLION PEOPLE A WEEK listen to. And they AVOID talking about national politics.

WOW! Is that legal? What a concept.

I have been attending some local town-hall type candidate forums. (DEBATE is not an accurate word for what they are doing.)

The tone of national talk radio has so saturated the atmosphere that these folks can no longer have an intelligent discussion of LOCAL ISSUES as in country commissioners or city council.

I think of how the Harlem Globetrotters have made a style of strange, behind-the-back trick shots and novelty plays. In trying to explain their position of local issues, they spend more time making behind-the-back verbal trick-shots of bashing the President and Washington in general than they do giving any viable ideas on how they might make local government work.

Thank you, Talk Radio, for taking world's greatest experiment in self-government and turning it into some kind of mindless collection of verbal trick-shots with little or no socially redeeming values.

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

Thank you, Talk Radio, for taking world's greatest experiment in self-government and turning it into some kind of mindless collection of verbal trick-shots with little or no socially redeeming values.

Yeah look how they drove the Jackson-Adams campaign of 1828 off the rails, and what they did to Huey Long. Yellow journalism never happened, either?0

Don't you think that, a lot of times, politicians [there are few "statesmen" left] kinda "make it too easy" for talk show hosts to question the stuff they do? Especially today, when everything they do and say is scrutinized? And they don't seem to care a lot of the time?

Seriously, people have been people since people have been people. People messing stuff up goes way back before our little experiment in self-government. There's a lot of blame to go around that extends waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond talk radio for the way people are today. There's been a lot of history and anthropology that goes into those local town-hall type candidate forums, it's not just a reflection of what they heard on the radio that afternoon.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Never forget: It's A SHOW.

The tone of national talk radio has so saturated the atmosphere that these folks can no longer have an intelligent discussion of LOCAL ISSUES as in country commissioners or city council...Thank you, Talk Radio, for taking world's greatest experiment in self-government and turning it into some kind of mindless collection of verbal trick-shots with little or no socially redeeming values.

Never forget: The national hosts are:

1. dominating Talk radio because stations -- the-biggest-of-which are owned-by-the-company-that-also-owns-the-big-syndicated-shows -- can't afford local talent; and

2. doing A SHOW.

The several high-school-graduates-lecturing-daily-on-public-policy who dominate Talk radio aren't compensated on the-societal-impact-of their consequence-free musings.

Their compensation formula is TSL-driven AQH. Selling Sleep-Number Beds, as Rush Limbaugh told the NAB Radio Show in Philadelphia, the R&R Talk Radio Seminar in Marina del Rey, and the Talkers magazine New Media Seminar in New York. HE ADMITS that he's not there to change any minds. Mathematically, his job is to get the-like-minded to listen more-consecutive-days-per-week. "Appointment listening" by "Dittoheads."

The reason radio's loudest righties are selling Sleep Number Beds, and Carbonite back-up, and Pro Flowers and other Direct Response deals that invite you to "click on the microphone and type-in Promo Code 'Glenn'" is:

1. Because they still have only 5% of the audience, this is the-next-best-way to monetize the show; and

2. As the Media Director of an agency reminded me recently, these shows are still on lots of "real" advertisers' "don't buy" lists.

Rush/Beck/Sean et all sure DO need to SEEM earnest. And I believe that, of the three, Hannity may be the only one who actually believes what he's saying. The other two spotted a parade, jumped in-front-of-it, and do-what-they-do EXTREMELY well to seem-to-be-leading-it (to the 5% who listen, and media-watchers who anoint them stars).

But -- on-any-given-day -- they sound, to "real people," like what-they're-talking-about is:
1. the-same-thing-they-talked-about-yesterday; and
2. "blah blah blah."

There's been a lot of history and anthropology that goes into those local town-hall type candidate forums, it's not just a reflection of what they heard on the radio that afternoon.

IMPORTANT POINT. And that line outside The Apple Store reminds us that media evolution continues, and will re-shape conversation. People don't need Talk radio to talk any more. For SEVERAL years, the NFL has been credentialing BLOGGERS for the Super Bowl.

Talk radio will play this one-note song at its own peril.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

Thank you, Talk Radio, for taking world's greatest experiment in self-government and turning it into some kind of mindless collection of verbal trick-shots with little or no socially redeeming values.

Yeah look how they drove the Jackson-Adams campaign of 1828 off the rails, and what they did to Huey Long. Yellow journalism never happened, either?

And even by then, dirty politics and dirty media were VERY old news. People want to believe that things are so bad now because they can't stand to blame the people truly responsible for our current troubles. They want to blame guys who talk on the radio and a bunch of old people who go to a Tea Party. It's much easier than accepting that bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

Yeah look how they drove the Jackson-Adams campaign of 1828 off the rails, and what they did to Huey Long. Yellow journalism never happened, either?

And even by then, dirty politics and dirty media were VERY old news. People want to believe that things are so bad now because they can't stand to blame the people truly responsible for our current troubles. They want to blame guys who talk on the radio and a bunch of old people who go to a Tea Party. It's much easier than accepting that bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it.

In 1828 we were a frontier-oriented, agrarian based society made up of people who thought it perfectly ordinary to own other people as slaves, who thought it perfectly ordinary to deny women the voice of a vote. People basically were uneducated.

And even those of 1828 who were well educated, civilization had barely stuck it's big-toe into the area of psychology.

In this age with its values regarding human life, civil rights and an advanced level of education where we understand "group dynamics" and the psychology of working our way through change, it strikes me as a rather crude, knuckle-dragging logic that says it is o.k. for Talk Radio to act like we still lived in 1832.

It's much easier than accepting that bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it.

Some one explain to me why they would defend the status of Talk Radio which seems to spend all its time telling us how to recognize that times are bad and what we should be doing about it..... if as you say: "bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it."

What IS the purpose of talk radio?

 

[Talk_Dude]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

What IS the purpose of talk radio?

It is to get people to tune their radios to the station programming the talk so that the owners of the stations can sell commercials to advertisers who want the people listening to the talk shows to buy their products. Secondarily, it is to provide the maximum return on profits from the sale of commercial slots while incurring the minimum of costs to attract the audience. Sometimes the expenses and profits are the result of multiple layers of production, such as syndication companies.

If there must be a balance struck between the income generated from airtime sales and the expense of attracting an audience, it will be in favor of maximizing the bottom line profits to the station owner.

That is the same purpose as all other radio formats, including all music format radio.

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

Yeah look how they drove the Jackson-Adams campaign of 1828 off the rails, and what they did to Huey Long. Yellow journalism never happened, either?

And even by then, dirty politics and dirty media were VERY old news. People want to believe that things are so bad now because they can't stand to blame the people truly responsible for our current troubles. They want to blame guys who talk on the radio and a bunch of old people who go to a Tea Party. It's much easier than accepting that bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it.

In 1828 we were a frontier-oriented, agrarian based society made up of people who thought it perfectly ordinary to own other people as slaves, who thought it perfectly ordinary to deny women the voice of a vote. People basically were uneducated.

And even those of 1828 who were well educated, civilization had barely stuck it's big-toe into the area of psychology.

In this age with its values regarding human life, civil rights and an advanced level of education where we understand "group dynamics" and the psychology of working our way through change, it strikes me as a rather crude, knuckle-dragging logic that says it is o.k. for Talk Radio to act like we still lived in 1832.

It's much easier than accepting that bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it.

Some one explain to me why they would defend the status of Talk Radio which seems to spend all its time telling us how to recognize that times are bad and what we should be doing about it..... if as you say: "bad times are a part of life and not much can be done about it."

What IS the purpose of talk radio?

To entertain. To keep enough people listening so they can sell ads.

If you expect talk radio to usher humanity into some higher realm of self-consciousness and some higher level of cultural beingness, your hopes might be a bit high.

If you expect it out of talk radio, an entertainment medium, then you have to expect it out of every other entertainment medium, to be consistent.

In this age with its values regarding human life, civil rights and an advanced level of education where we understand "group dynamics" and the psychology of working our way through change, it strikes me as a rather crude, knuckle-dragging logic that says it is o.k. for Talk Radio to act like we still lived in 1832.

Maybe even the values, cultural strides, and broadened recent understanding of human psychology you're listing here can't change the fact that people are people?
Maybe our understanding of human psychology and all it's "strides" you're listing aren't actually for "changing" they are for "reflecting." And if we ignore all the past human history and the psychologies that went into them, then we're reflecting our own biases, not the past. That focus on "how bad it is now" is what's making you discount all of historical human psychology.

Again, if you're seeing "enjoy the rape" like you did on the other thread, it's not here. Nobody said we should act like we still lived in 1832. But to think that some jargon, some psychology, and some sloganeering will change the fact that people are people is futility. And to expect talk radio to drag a reticent humanity forward by "working our way through change" is a plateful of misplaced hopeful expectations. To blame talk radio for the ills of society [that are similar to those that have gone on in all societies and all through history] sounds a lil' bit Quixoteish, knuckle-dragging, crude, myopic, unrealistic.

Change what you can in your life. Speak out where you can. Do what you can to make a difference. Just don't be surprised if talk radio, or horror movies, or teen flicks, or how-to books, or any other genre of entertainment commerce don't share your direction-setting, because they usually only listen to people who can put keisters in the seats or money in the bank.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

To entertain. To keep enough people listening so they can sell ads.

If you expect talk radio to usher humanity into some higher realm of self-consciousness and some higher level of cultural beingness, your hopes might be a bit high.

I assume for today's younger generation of broadcasters and fans of broadcasting, it is hard to really picture what life was like 20 years ago, 40 or 60 years ago in our country. It is hard for city dwellers to understand the values and the thought-processes of the dwellers of "fly-over country.

And of course, the other end of the see-saw works the other way. Those who have expanding waists and shrinking amounts of hair find it hard to believe that what is going on today is something other than just temporary until we all come to our senses.

I have chastised more than one reporter for writing a story that had the facts all mixed up or a story that let's the facts go AWOL. And when they howl: "Look, this is JUST A JOB.... do you do your job perfectly every day?" I respond with: "You have chosen to practice a profession that is given special recognition in the Constitution of the United States and maybe that brings with it standards you must live up to. The privilege of The Free Press brings with it expectations of high standards."

The origins of broadcasting were wrapped in the covenant: "We the people grant you the broadcaster the use of this precious channel of spectrum and in return, you must do more than just print money.... you must serve the best interests of the people who populate this nation." And during my lifetime I have watched (and at times participated in) a movement by broadcasters to expand the Constitution promise of a free press to include the broadcasting industry.

Do I have hopes that are little bit high? To quote the gadfly from Alaska: "You bet'cha!"

Do I suffer from some kind of delusion that "back in the day" we had a better handle on a valid place and function for broadcasting than the currently expressed standards? Yes, I do.

If indeed the only valid purpose for a channel of RF spectrum is that use which generates the most revenue and profit, then broadcasters must prepare for the day when our nation says: "Broadcasting is no longer a valid use of the airwaves. Cell phones, Game Boys, Stop Light Synchronization, garage door openers and in-store security cameras now promise us more revenue and profits. Broadcasters: GAME OVER."

I hope that is a thought worth pondering for at least 15 or 20 seconds on this weekend when we all become a bit nostalgic and weepy-eyed about our great nation and how we got here.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Goat Rodeo Cowboy, you said it well.

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

To entertain. To keep enough people listening so they can sell ads.

If you expect talk radio to usher humanity into some higher realm of self-consciousness and some higher level of cultural beingness, your hopes might be a bit high.

I assume for today's younger generation of broadcasters and fans of broadcasting, it is hard to really picture what life was like 20 years ago, 40 or 60 years ago in our country. It is hard for city dwellers to understand the values and the thought-processes of the dwellers of "fly-over country.

And of course, the other end of the see-saw works the other way. Those who have expanding waists and shrinking amounts of hair find it hard to believe that what is going on today is something other than just temporary until we all come to our senses.

I have chastised more than one reporter for writing a story that had the facts all mixed up or a story that let's the facts go AWOL.

Kind of like when people see "enjoy the rape" because that's what they are reading into someone's code words, and it's not actually there?

And when they howl: "Look, this is JUST A JOB.... do you do your job perfectly every day?" I respond with: "You have chosen to practice a profession that is given special recognition in the Constitution of the United States and maybe that brings with it standards you must live up to. The privilege of The Free Press brings with it expectations of high standards."

Seriously, "they howl?" Were these bad-fact stories about "Twilight?" ??? ???

The origins of broadcasting were wrapped in the covenant: "We the people grant you the broadcaster the use of this precious channel of spectrum and in return, you must do more than just print money.... you must serve the best interests of the people who populate this nation." And during my lifetime I have watched (and at times participated in) a movement by broadcasters to expand the Constitution promise of a free press to include the broadcasting industry.

Do I have hopes that are little bit high? To quote the gadfly from Alaska: "You bet'cha!"

Do I suffer from some kind of delusion that "back in the day" we had a better handle on a valid place and function for broadcasting than the currently expressed standards? Yes, I do.

If indeed the only valid purpose for a channel of RF spectrum is that use which generates the most revenue and profit, then broadcasters must prepare for the day when our nation says: "Broadcasting is no longer a valid use of the airwaves. Cell phones, Game Boys, Stop Light Synchronization, garage door openers and in-store security cameras now promise us more revenue and profits. Broadcasters: GAME OVER."

I hope that is a thought worth pondering for at least 15 or 20 seconds on this weekend when we all become a bit nostalgic and weepy-eyed about our great nation and how we got here.

It's a whole new thought line worth pondering there entirely.

Sorry. I read the question as

What IS the purpose of talk radio?

You're railing against the state of talk radio and how it affects people today.
I didn't read what you meant, what I should have assumed, what you may or may not have been implying, what you may or may not have been leaving unsaid for effect, or what you may or may not have intended to mean with the words you used in my reply. I only stuck to the actual words. My bad.

In answering my reply to the question, you have gone from the present tense to the conditional and hypothetical tenses, and applied broad terms like "use of the public airwaves" only to talk radio, comparing apples and oranges along the way, and leaving huge swaths of the broadcasting world unmentioned, as if they don't exist.

You have to be able to understand my quandary there, not knowing that the present tense you used was actually intended to be some future conditional/past tense mashup.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Re: DARN RIGHT! And NOT just theoretical...

I have chastised more than one reporter for writing a story that had the facts all mixed up or a story that let's the facts go AWOL. And when they howl: "Look, this is JUST A JOB.... do you do your job perfectly every day?" I respond with: "You have chosen to practice a profession that is given special recognition in the Constitution of the United States and maybe that brings with it standards you must live up to. The privilege of The Free Press brings with it expectations of high standards."

How much of a ladder does it take to get on that high horse? Hosting a talk radio show is no different that babbling between Top 40 records on a music format station. You need to read more about the history of journalism as a "profession", and about how Joe Pulitzer invented the idea of objectivity as a gimmick in his circulation wars with William Randolph Hearst.

 

[bturner]

Conservative Talk Radio is about money and listeners and nothing more.

To the radio station it is programming that will bring them an audience. It is about selling commercials. Profit and success is the agenda of conservative talk radio. It has nothing to do with politics.

The conservative talk hosts are not really about politics but about building an emotional connection with listeners.

Think about it. Who are the hosts of conservative talk shows? Are they not former music radio air personalities that had been well versed with creating an emotional bond with their listeners? Think back to those personalities you heard on radio. Collectively they built radio stations their listeners were passionate about.

Building an audience of passionate listeners is what conservative talk radio is all about. It is not really politics. It goes deeper. The talk show hosts want to have great support teams so they can stay on top of what their audience is thinking. Their art is saying what their audience is thinking.

I can't stand hearing Rush's cocky attitude, but I realize it is an act. By being that way he attracts all those who feel they cannot be heard and those who feel their opinion will be discounted by the people around them. Rush becomes the person they can latch on to in order to feel important and ahead of the curve. They are much like the weak and insignificant guys that surround the guy who is always geting the girl and doing the most outrageous things. In essence, the guys flanking this leader get to live out their desires by being close to the action.

Conservative talk radio does so well because it does what radio has tossed aside: create an emotional bond with your audience. Politics is much like the songs the air personality used to play. It was the jock that got the listener, then the songs.