• 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

Why No Black Talk Show Hosts ?

> In light of Bill Bennett's controversial remarks on his
> Salem Broadcasting (WEZE/WROL) talk show, the question is
> raise: why are there no full-time Black (non sports)Talk
> show hosts in Boston. Levell Dyett is the only person of
> color on one of the major Boston stations and he is only on
> Saturday night for too short a time.
>
> Isn't about time a WBZ a WRKO or a WTKK hired a full-time
> qualified Black talk host- man or woman. I know there are
> many qualified candidates out there and they are needed to
> address the likes of Bill Bennett.
>
The only Black person I believe who could handle a talk show is Allan Keys.Maybe Morgan White.
Qualified , i.e. Brains .
Its not racist its true. Flip side; Why no N.B.A. teams with all White players?
Its the way we seem to be made. sorry!
Fallriveractive.
 
Michael Holley on WEEI.


> In light of Bill Bennett's controversial remarks on his
> Salem Broadcasting (WEZE/WROL) talk show, the question is
> raise: why are there no full-time Black (non sports)Talk
> show hosts in Boston. Levell Dyett is the only person of
> color on one of the major Boston stations and he is only on
> Saturday night for too short a time.
>
> Isn't about time a WBZ a WRKO or a WTKK hired a full-time
> qualified Black talk host- man or woman. I know there are
> many qualified candidates out there and they are needed to
> address the likes of Bill Bennett.
>
 
I think someone here excluded sports talk radio which is way ahead of the others.


> Michael Holley on WEEI.
>
>
> > In light of Bill Bennett's controversial remarks on his
> > Salem Broadcasting (WEZE/WROL) talk show, the question is
> > raise: why are there no full-time Black (non sports)Talk
> > show hosts in Boston. Levell Dyett is the only person of
> > color on one of the major Boston stations and he is only
> on
> > Saturday night for too short a time.
> >
> > Isn't about time a WBZ a WRKO or a WTKK hired a full-time
> > qualified Black talk host- man or woman. I know there are
>
> > many qualified candidates out there and they are needed to
>
> > address the likes of Bill Bennett.
> >
>
 
Re: This is NOT about discrimination, so STOP NOW!

People here seem to forget with freedom there is responsibility. That seems to be lacking quite a bit here.


> Right on, Al. Why cannot we have a free exchange of ideas
> here? Granted, this board is geared toward discussion of
> radio, but when other social issues come up, if we sweep
> them under the rug, isn't that adding to the problem (actual
> or perceived)?
>
> > I agree that it's not about discrimination and I think
> that
> > the people that are bringing this up are just trying to
> make
> > trouble. On the other hand, anytime any sensitive subject
>
> > appears on this board the moderators jump in and kill it.
> I
> > find that more offensive then the objectional subject
> > matter.
> >
> > Why does this go on? Have there been legal treats or do
> the
> > moderators just want to kill any topic that might make for
> a
> > lively discussion on the board?
> >
> > - Al
> >
> > > > Radio has been able to get away with its dirty little
> > > secret
> > > > of racial discrimination because it is not a visual
> > > medium.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, lets put this to bed RIGHT NOW. The fact that
> there
> >
> > > aren't many black talk show hosts in Boston has nothing
> to
> >
> > > do with RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. You guys are way WAY off
>
> > > base.
> > >
> > > Whether it's been wrong place, wrong time, or something
> > > else, the bottom line here is the same reason as to why
> > it's
> > > so difficult for new jocks to get anywhere in this
> > business.
> > > Radio stays with the same recycled hosts over and over
> > > again from one market to another because they are SAFE.
>
> > > Radio management does not like to take chances, whether
> > it's
> > > music, jocks or talk show hosts. THAT'S the reason why.
>
> > > Nothing else.
> > >
> > > You guys who are screaming discrimination should pull
> your
> >
> > > head out of your collective gluteus-maximus and get with
>
> > > it!!
> > >
> > > Don't.... I mean DO NOT start a discrimination thread on
>
> > > this board. You've all been warned!
> > >
> >
>
 
Re: This is NOT about discrimination, so STOP NOW!

> > Radio has been able to get away with its dirty little
> secret
> > of racial discrimination because it is not a visual
> medium.
> >
>
> Okay, lets put this to bed RIGHT NOW. The fact that there
> aren't many black talk show hosts in Boston has nothing to
> do with RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. You guys are way WAY off
> base.
>
> Whether it's been wrong place, wrong time, or something
> else, the bottom line here is the same reason as to why it's
> so difficult for new jocks to get anywhere in this business.
> Radio stays with the same recycled hosts over and over
> again from one market to another because they are SAFE.
> Radio management does not like to take chances, whether it's
> music, jocks or talk show hosts. THAT'S the reason why.
> Nothing else.
>
> You guys who are screaming discrimination should pull your
> head out of your collective gluteus-maximus and get with
> it!!
>
> Don't.... I mean DO NOT start a discrimination thread on
> this board. You've all been warned!
>
That is your opinion Steve and if you do not want a discrimination thread for whatever reason just say so but DO NOT preface it with your own OPININION that the reason that there are no black talk show hosts has nothing to do with discrimination/Discrimination is not a factor, it is and it's hypocritical of you to post an opinion and then stamp out the discussion. Moderate the board the way you see fit, I think you do a good job in what is obviously a tough arena corraling people paid for their opinions a lot of the time. Omit topics the way you see fit but do so without your own agenda my friend, you just entered your own opinion as fact and then shut down the discussion, that's not right. OR even accurate.
 
Re: This is NOT about discrimination, so STOP NOW!

> People here seem to forget with freedom there is
> responsibility. That seems to be lacking quite a bit here.

with freedom comes responsibility?..thank you frigging SPIDER MAN!

LMAO
>
>
>
> > Right on, Al. Why cannot we have a free exchange of ideas
>
> > here? Granted, this board is geared toward discussion of
> > radio, but when other social issues come up, if we sweep
> > them under the rug, isn't that adding to the problem
> (actual
> > or perceived)?
> >
> > > I agree that it's not about discrimination and I think
> > that
> > > the people that are bringing this up are just trying to
> > make
> > > trouble. On the other hand, anytime any sensitive
> subject
> >
> > > appears on this board the moderators jump in and kill
> it.
> > I
> > > find that more offensive then the objectional subject
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Why does this go on? Have there been legal treats or do
>
> > the
> > > moderators just want to kill any topic that might make
> for
> > a
> > > lively discussion on the board?
> > >
> > > - Al
> > >
> > > > > Radio has been able to get away with its dirty
> little
> > > > secret
> > > > > of racial discrimination because it is not a visual
> > > > medium.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, lets put this to bed RIGHT NOW. The fact that
> > there
> > >
> > > > aren't many black talk show hosts in Boston has
> nothing
> > to
> > >
> > > > do with RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. You guys are way WAY
> off
> >
> > > > base.
> > > >
> > > > Whether it's been wrong place, wrong time, or
> something
> > > > else, the bottom line here is the same reason as to
> why
> > > it's
> > > > so difficult for new jocks to get anywhere in this
> > > business.
> > > > Radio stays with the same recycled hosts over and
> over
> > > > again from one market to another because they are
> SAFE.
> >
> > > > Radio management does not like to take chances,
> whether
> > > it's
> > > > music, jocks or talk show hosts. THAT'S the reason
> why.
> >
> > > > Nothing else.
> > > >
> > > > You guys who are screaming discrimination should pull
> > your
> > >
> > > > head out of your collective gluteus-maximus and get
> with
> >
> > > > it!!
> > > >
> > > > Don't.... I mean DO NOT start a discrimination thread
> on
> >
> > > > this board. You've all been warned!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
 
NAACP is, by definition,a racist oganization

> Those are all valid points, but they are also corporate
> excuses. Would like to see the NAACP Boston Branch speak up
> about this discrimnation.

Suppose, just for a moment, that there was a new organization NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion People. Can you just IMAGINE the fireworks that would be set in motion?

As long as there are these disgraceful, and ultimately unconstitutional, so-called "Affirmative Action" policies out there, it is highly unlikely you will see
black talk show hosts in any significant numbers. AA is nothing but quotas in disguise. It is only "affirmative", if you are part of a group that is being "affirmed". For anybody else, it is negative action: being denied on the basis of race. That is the dictionary definition of racism. Look it up!

Doesn't anybody remember the Baake decision by the Supreme Court? When there is a black talk show host who can also play to an audience outside of the local black community, then - and only then - will you see this change.

Everything in life cuts both ways. If you choose to play the race card, you are severely restricting yourself to a minority community. If you take your lumps like everybody else (who is NOT being "affirmed") then you have, indeed, earned the privilege. It is a privilege, not a right.

Once you are in the job, it will, ultimately, be the listening/viewing public who will determine your future. The ratings (or lack thereof) will seal the deal - one way or the other...
 
May I ask?

What relationship skin pigment has, to the ability to provide compelling content on the radio?

This is one of the most uneccessary discussions of all time.

Good radio has no color line.

Was it Gene Burns who inquired?

"Do you know when this country will stop using race as a litmus test?....When this country stops using race as a litmus test."

I hate race-based excuses. On both sides.

Sorry to have even intruded.
 
Re: May I ask?

However, the fact the this is still an issue in radio and not in television says something. The issue has problems on both sides of the issue. It is quiet racism based on advertising dollars but sweeping it under the rug is not a solution.

> What relationship skin pigment has, to the ability to
> provide compelling content on the radio?
>
> This is one of the most uneccessary discussions of all time.
>
>
> Good radio has no color line.
>
> Was it Gene Burns who inquired?
>
> "Do you know when this country will stop using race as a
> litmus test?....When this country stops using race as a
> litmus test."
>
> I hate race-based excuses. On both sides.
>
> Sorry to have even intruded.
>
 
Re: May I ask?

> However, the fact the this is still an issue in radio and
> not in television says something. The issue has problems on
> both sides of the issue. It is quiet racism based on
> advertising dollars but sweeping it under the rug is not a
> solution.

No it's not an issue. People are making an issue out of it. But the fact is. There is no issue. Good radio people get the jobs.

Quotas do nothing to solve any problem. And the color of one's skin does not make anyone more, or less worthy of anything.

The best person for the job should get the job. Does that always happen? No. Does racism exist? It always will. As will sexism, homophobia, ethnic humor, fart jokes, religious broadcasting et al. All you can do is your best. No matter what category you choose to label yourself, or others as. If an employer chooses to sacrifice the quality of their broadcasts based on any external influence other than choosing the best person for the job, nothing can EVER be done about it.

Affirmative action is an excuse. Any organization that operates under the pretense of race-based anything just perpetuates the problem.

True equality will never exist until we stop talking about it.

I begin right now.
 
Re: May I ask?

I agree with everything you say, but why are there so many Qualified Blacks and minorities on television and so Few in radio. If they are qualified for TV they should be qualified for radio talk. The numbers don't lie. The cause may be up for discussion.


> > However, the fact the this is still an issue in radio and
> > not in television says something. The issue has problems
> on
> > both sides of the issue. It is quiet racism based on
> > advertising dollars but sweeping it under the rug is not a
>
> > solution.
>
> No it's not an issue. People are making an issue out of it.
> But the fact is. There is no issue. Good radio people get
> the jobs.
>
> Quotas do nothing to solve any problem. And the color of
> one's skin does not make anyone more, or less worthy of
> anything.
>
> The best person for the job should get the job. Does that
> always happen? No. Does racism exist? It always will. As
> will sexism, homophobia, ethnic humor, fart jokes, religious
> broadcasting et al. All you can do is your best. No matter
> what category you choose to label yourself, or others as. If
> an employer chooses to sacrifice the quality of their
> broadcasts based on any external influence other than
> choosing the best person for the job, nothing can EVER be
> done about it.
>
> Affirmative action is an excuse. Any organization that
> operates under the pretense of race-based anything just
> perpetuates the problem.
>
> True equality will never exist until we stop talking about
> it.
>
> I begin right now.
>
 
Re: May I ask?

> I agree with everything you say, but why are there so many
> Qualified Blacks and minorities on television and so Few in
> radio. If they are qualified for TV they should be qualified
> for radio talk. The numbers don't lie. The cause may be up
> for discussion.

You still seem to be missing the point. Why are you segregating?

And how do you know the skin pigment of someone on the radio? Or their ethnic background? You don't. And you shouldn't care. Because it does not matter.
 
Re: May I ask?

> I agree with everything you say, but why are there so many
> Qualified Blacks and minorities on television and so Few in
> radio. If they are qualified for TV they should be qualified
> for radio talk. The numbers don't lie. The cause may be up
> for discussion.
>
I would say that the difference in TV and radio is that on radio, you need a good voice, that's all...on TV you need to be reasonbly attractive and have good camera prescense. Since were on the lines of race, I'll use Garry Armstrong and Byron Barneett as an example. On the air, Armstrong is not attractive, and he just didn't look good on camerca. While Barnett speaks well, and is attractive.
 
Re: May I ask?

> > However, the fact the this is still an issue in radio and
> > not in television says something. The issue has problems
> on
> > both sides of the issue. It is quiet racism based on
> > advertising dollars but sweeping it under the rug is not a
>
> > solution.
>
> No it's not an issue. People are making an issue out of it.
> But the fact is. There is no issue. Good radio people get
> the jobs.
>
> Quotas do nothing to solve any problem. And the color of
> one's skin does not make anyone more, or less worthy of
> anything.
>
> The best person for the job should get the job. Does that
> always happen? No. Does racism exist? It always will. As
> will sexism, homophobia, ethnic humor, fart jokes, religious
> broadcasting et al. All you can do is your best. No matter
> what category you choose to label yourself, or others as. If
> an employer chooses to sacrifice the quality of their
> broadcasts based on any external influence other than
> choosing the best person for the job, nothing can EVER be
> done about it.
>
> Affirmative action is an excuse. Any organization that
> operates under the pretense of race-based anything just
> perpetuates the problem.
>
> True equality will never exist until we stop talking about
> it.
>
> I begin right now.
>
While your heart is in teh right place Paul you are incorrect fundamentally. Yes in a perfect worldd the best man/woman would get the job, bnut it is rarely the case and race is not the only litmus test there. The problem persists to the point where if a qualified ethnic person gets a gig there are still those that assume that it was an EOE hire etc, that sentiment has been expressed on this very board about some. Reality is that any white person who complains about "affirmative action" usually doesnt fully understand it and dismisses it as "the less qualified ethnic gets the job over a more qualified white person" which is rarely the case. IF youre a member of the majority you often want to blame your own failures on "affirmatiev action" whereas it is rarely the culprit, sometimes we cannot deal with our own level in terms of reality, in short it is too painful to admit to oneself "maybe Im not as good as I want to think I am". To say the best person should get the job is a noble sentiiment but it rarely happens that way, you as a member of the majority can think that way because the one standard you are judged by is your talent, you dont have the badge of your skin color to bare. Also if you dont get a job you'll never ever wonder if it was your talent ? or something else that kept you from the position, that in and of itself gives you the freedom to make heartfelt statements like you have made which I sincerly believe that you mean by the way.

In other words you have your perspective becauuse you can afford to have it and you can look at the world through altruistic eyes yet you probably still do not agree. Sure you can say talent should be the only measuure because for you that is the way it will always be and you'll never have any other standard by which you are judged.If you were ever discriminated over a job for say having long haird if you decided to change formats tomorrow you can always cut your hair and no one will be the wiser.....It doenst work that way in other areas.
 
Re: May I ask?

the days of stentorian radio voices are a thing of the past. The old Ted Baxter hand over the ear days are gone. Moreover, the "voice" is apparently less important in talk radio. Have you ever heard: Paul Sullivan, John DePetro, Jay Severin, MICHAEL SAVAGE, and so on. The only two talk personalities who have great voices are: Gene Burns and Lovell Dyett. Of course you know Lovell is an African American. But one is not enough.

> > I agree with everything you say, but why are there so many
>
> > Qualified Blacks and minorities on television and so Few
> in
> > radio. If they are qualified for TV they should be
> qualified
> > for radio talk. The numbers don't lie. The cause may be
> up
> > for discussion.
> >
> I would say that the difference in TV and radio is that on
> radio, you need a good voice, that's all...on TV you need to
> be reasonbly attractive and have good camera prescense.
> Since were on the lines of race, I'll use Garry Armstrong
> and Byron Barneett as an example. On the air, Armstrong is
> not attractive, and he just didn't look good on camerca.
> While Barnett speaks well, and is attractive.
>
 
Re: May I ask?

Of course, you don't see the skin color on radio which makes the problem more pernicious.

> > I agree with everything you say, but why are there so many
>
> > Qualified Blacks and minorities on television and so Few
> in
> > radio. If they are qualified for TV they should be
> qualified
> > for radio talk. The numbers don't lie. The cause may be
> up
> > for discussion.
>
> You still seem to be missing the point. Why are you
> segregating?
>
> And how do you know the skin pigment of someone on the
> radio? Or their ethnic background? You don't. And you
> shouldn't care. Because it does not matter.
>
 
Re: May I ask?

> While your heart is in teh right place Paul you are
> incorrect fundamentally. Yes in a perfect worldd the best
> man/woman would get the job, bnut it is rarely the case and
> race is not the only litmus test there. The problem persists
> to the point where if a qualified ethnic person gets a gig
> there are still those that assume that it was an EOE hire
> etc, that sentiment has been expressed on this very board
> about some.

The problem is within those individuals. The world shouldn't revolve around the opinions of the ignorant.


> Reality is that any white person who complains
> about "affirmative action" usually doesnt fully understand
> it and dismisses it as "the less qualified ethnic gets the
> job over a more qualified white person" which is rarely the
> case.

Your definition of "reality" is a stereotype. The exact kind of behavior that "affirmative action" is supposed to help avoid being placed on individuals based upon their skin pigment.

And at this point I want to make sure that people aren't interpreting this as a "hostile" discussion. I think we're both raising valid points. even though I said I didn't want in, apparently I'm going to discuss it anyway.

> IF youre a member of the majority you often want to
> blame your own failures on "affirmatiev action" whereas it
> is rarely the culprit, sometimes we cannot deal with our own
> level in terms of reality, in short it is too painful to
> admit to oneself "maybe Im not as good as I want to think I
> am". To say the best person should get the job is a noble
> sentiiment but it rarely happens that way, you as a member
> of the majority can think that way because the one standard
> you are judged by is your talent, you dont have the badge of
> your skin color to bare.

With all due respect. I reject that argument 110%. Using skin pigment as an excuse for any behavior, or attitude is IMHO a copout of the highest order. It's not equality being sought when that card is played. It's IMHO a "make good". It's not only insulting to those who "cannot know what it's like". It's also insluting to every qualified person in our industry.

...keeping this as on-topic as we can, The original assertion was why are there no/fewer "black" talk show hosts. And I continue to ask:

Why should it matter what color one's skin is in any profession?


> Also if you dont get a job you'll
> never ever wonder if it was your talent ? or something else
> that kept you from the position, that in and of itself gives
> you the freedom to make heartfelt statements like you have
> made which I sincerly believe that you mean by the way.

I appreciate that. I grew up in Southie, and have also lived in the South. I've seen racism and race-based behavior enough in my life. I empathize with everyone and have come to the conclusion: Life's too short to blame anyone for my shortcomings. I'll work hard, and it will be rewarded. And if it's not...I'll work harder.

> In other words you have your perspective becauuse you can
> afford to have it and you can look at the world through
> altruistic eyes yet you probably still do not agree. Sure
> you can say talent should be the only measuure because for
> you that is the way it will always be and you'll never have
> any other standard by which you are judged.If you were ever
> discriminated over a job for say having long haird if you
> decided to change formats tomorrow you can always cut your
> hair and no one will be the wiser.....It doenst work that
> way in other areas.

Funny...Paul Lemieux (former APD/MD at WZLX) once told me "Nobody takes you seriously because you have long hair...you won't get a job until you cut it".

He was right...I cut it and got a job. So, I guess that speaks volumes about whether I got it on talent, or not.

Either way. I still don't think skin pigment should be the basis for anything. And I have some color in my family tree ;)
 
Re: May I ask?

> ...Of course you know Lovell is an African
> American. But one is not enough.

Wow...re-read that a few times.

"one is not enough".

How many are "enough"?

Nothing like reducing the achievements of any individual to a matter of "you are part of a statistic".

...two wrongs never make a right.
 
Re: May I ask?

My comments came off as condecending but they were not meant to regarding Lovell Dyatt. Just wanted to say he has one of the best voices on radio as does Gene Burns but those kind of voices are few and far between in talk radio.

> > ...Of course you know Lovell is an African
> > American. But one is not enough.
>
> Wow...re-read that a few times.
>
> "one is not enough".
>
> How many are "enough"?
>
> Nothing like reducing the achievements of any individual to
> a matter of "you are part of a statistic".
>
> ...two wrongs never make a right.
>
 
Re: May I ask?

> My comments came off as condecending but they were not meant
> to regarding Lovell Dyatt. Just wanted to say he has one of
> the best voices on radio as does Gene Burns but those kind
> of voices are few and far between in talk radio.
>

My apologies. I misinterpreted.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom