Why "Preaching To The Choir" Talk Radio Doesn't Work - In Either Direction

[OldAkronite]

As I was thinking about the news from Buffalo, where Entercom flipped WWKB/1520 to liberal talk one week before a locally-run LMA was set to do so on WHLD/1270, some thoughts came to mind.

The WHLD format, brokered by a group of local activists and left-leaning program producers, was announced first. In addition to local morning and afternoon drive shows, they're running Air America's Al Franken and Randi Rhodes. But as I've said before, the entire LMA operation has a feeling of an "in-house organ" for those activists, labor unions and other groups with a political stake.

What came to my mind, then?

Salem.

That's right, the right-leaning religious and conservative talk operator. In recent years, they've sprung up a number of secular talkers...almost all of them running nearly all Salem-owned programming, with identical logos and slogans. Here, it's WHK/1420 "Where Your Opinion Counts".

Though they've gone off the master plan at times - running TRN's Laura Ingraham here and in some other markets, and even adding ABC star Sean Hannity in afternoon drive in Boston - they're mostly there for a reason.

To sell conservative talk to a certain set of ideologically-based listeners, almost in addition to their existing Christian talk/teaching formats. Perhaps they sell listeners who go back and forth between religious AM radio and conservative secular talk...perhaps they get hard-core conservatives who don't listen to religious teaching and talk.

Either way, it's a mirror image of much of the Air America crowd on the left, and certainly of the local "independent media" run format that'll pop up on Buffalo's WHLD/1270 next Monday.

It's "preaching to the choir" radio.

When the WHLD format was announced, most of us who have some experience in the radio business groaned. OK, so they've got libtalk's biggest "name", the still uneven Al Franken. They've got one of its stronger hosts, Randi Rhodes. But the rest of the schedule? Unless the local drive-time shows prove NOT to be "labor union radio" (yawn), they've also got Pacifica's "Democracy Now", a NON-COMMERCIAL and extremely left-leaning show. (They make Franken look like a Republican, and even Rhodes looks moderate compared to Pacifica.)

And it's a recipe for radio disaster.

Meanwhile, back to Salem. Ditto, as non-Salem host Rush Limbaugh would say. Most of their stations struggle to break a 1 or 2 share 12-plus. In Sacramento, their long-time conservatalker with a local morning host got beat by the puny Air America affiliate when it first hit the air! (Again, 12-plus numbers here, and that station's numbers have settled down since then.)

The problem for Salem and their own brand of "PTC Radio" (preaching to...) is not libtalk and Air America, or even the more commercially friendly Jones Radio stable of talkers. It's the fact that in markets like Sacramento, there's no ROOM for them on the right side of the agenda...with two established and successful Clear Channel talkers.

Salem may be beginning to see this, with the addition of Hannity in Boston. Maybe they'll wake up here in Northeast Ohio, and add him to WHK (Hannity doesn't run in Cleveland, but can be heard by some market listeners via Akron's WHLO and Elyria's WEOL). But a good part of their deal is also providing an outlet for their own talkers...even if that does mean they inflict Bill Bennett on an unsuspecting radio public.

Anyway, it's a lesson that the WHLD LMA operator will find out in Buffalo, and soon...especially with a big signal libtalk competitor beating them to the punch.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[dampier]

> To sell conservative talk to a certain set of
> ideologically-based listeners, almost in addition to their
> existing Christian talk/teaching formats. Perhaps they sell
> listeners who go back and forth between religious AM radio
> and conservative secular talk...perhaps they get hard-core
> conservatives who don't listen to religious teaching and
> talk.
>
> Either way, it's a mirror image of much of the Air America
> crowd on the left, and certainly of the local "independent
> media" run format that'll pop up on Buffalo's WHLD/1270 next
> Monday.
>
> It's "preaching to the choir" radio.

Why is it that when conservative talk radio signs on or adds a host, we don't get these posts. When a libtalk show pops up, all of a sudden it's "preaching to the choir" radio or "it will never work" or "nobody listens." Argh... nothing personal against Old Akronite - I know he listens to a range of shows, but I've seen this kind of post several times before, so let me hit the general points.

Let's cut through the nonsense here. Are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage preaching to the choir? Do their shows work? Do people listen to that?

Is there a reason hundreds of radio stations run one-sided talk shows? Is there a reason there are often two or three talk radio stations in many markets?

The fact is, enough people listen to these shows to pay the bills. When libtalk started, suddently there is an ongoing agenda by some conservatives who are bizarrely obsessed with the intrusion of their airwaves by someone with a contrary position from getting their shot. In some markets, it's people like O'Reilly telling people that nobody is listening to Al Franken or AAR (even while his show is dropped from several markets because few people are listening to him). In some other markets, there were actual advertiser boycotts suggested over the launching of a liberal station in town. There are web sites dedicated to trying to smear liberal talk all while ignoring skeletons in the closet of conservative shows.

The fact is, preaching to the choir talk radio works VERY WELL when it is entertaining. If you wring your hands for three hours a day wondering if you are fair and balanced enough or sit there are lecture your listeners by droning on and on about how they just don't get "it" your ratings will suck.

If you use humor and conviction and keep the pace moving, people will tune in and listen.

Salem has their following, but their biggest problem is that they launch conservative talk in markets already crowded with it. Why would you want to listen to the second tier of hosts like Janet Parshall and her Godtalk if you were a political secular conservative and Rush or Sean was on the station down the dial? You wouldn't, and their ratings suffer for it.

Inevitably, competition will do the same for weak libtalk shows. That is what is happening right now with Jones competing with AAR. Springer is dumped for Stephanie, Franken is dumped or moved for Hartmann, Majority Report is dumped for Lionel.

WROC in Rochester runs union radio shows on the weekend. I have never listened to them because they don't impact on me, and weekend political talk shows tend to be weak anyway.

12+ ratings for talk radio aren't terribly relevant BTW. The money demo means a lot more. Preaching to the Choir really isn't the biggest issue here - running an entertaining show is.

 

[SquiggyFM]

> Why is it that when conservative talk radio signs on or adds
> a host, we don't get these posts. When a libtalk show pops
> up, all of a sudden it's "preaching to the choir" radio or
> "it will never work" or "nobody listens."

Because con-talk was going on unopposed for 15 years. We were used to another Rush-Lite quitting, getting fired or getting cancelled. We're used to the con-talk market in flux. Now, since we have a new team in the league, we're looking at their changing line-up...because its new.

Not everything needs to be an agenda Phillip, some of it can be attributed to something called human nature. I'm sure not everything on your side of the isle is an agenda...as I saw Senator Boxer promoting her new book last night on Colbert, with little to none rancor. (which begs the question, if the state of the union is "not so good" (her words) when did she find the time to write a book?)

If its shiny, moving, or new we'll pay attention to it.
**** sapiens - 14,211 BC

 

[dampier]

> Not everything needs to be an agenda Phillip, some of it can
> be attributed to something called human nature. I'm sure
> not everything on your side of the isle is an agenda...as I
> saw Senator Boxer promoting her new book last night on
> Colbert, with little to none rancor. (which begs the
> question, if the state of the union is "not so good" (her
> words) when did she find the time to write a book?)

Politicians write books like the rest of us breathe. Considering how little attention is paid in the House and Senate to the Democratic party by the majority, I'd say there are a lot of Democrats with free time to write books.

 

[mwebster]

Depends on how you define "work"

Yes, WHLD is "an "in-house organ" for ... activists, labor unions and
other groups with a political stake." For them, the goal may be rallying the troops.

Niagra Independent Media is a group of nine:

Brian Brown-Cashdollar, NIM President (interesting name for a fund raiser)
Heads Buffalo Coalition for Progressive Media (radiofreebuffalo.org)*
Former official WNY Council on Occupational Safety and Health

Ray Marks, "station manager," morning show co-host
Former Entercom Buffalo Cluster News Director

Alex Blair, morning co-host
Producer, "Prospering in America"*
Adjunct faculty, Labor Studies, Cornell University

Richard Lipsitz, Jr.
Labor Attorney
Business Agent for Teamsters, Local 264.

Roger Cook
WNY Council on Occupational Safety and Health

Carl Kustell
Attorney, active in the Democratic party
Kustell is currently active in NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's election campaign (the same Elliot Spitzer who is investigating radio payola and the unsecured Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club loan to Air America Radio).

Michael Niman
Assoc Prof, Journalism and Media Studies, Buffalo State College
Editor, alterNet.com*

Mo Saladin
Acupuncturist

Paul Mohkiber
No information found

* Produces current "community" programming on WHLD.

According to the Buffalo News:
<blockquote>The station will operate out of WHLD's studio at Delaware Avenue and Chippewa Street for about six weeks before moving into a new, 3,500-square-foot studio under construction at the Tri-Main Center on Main Street.

Niagara Independent Media has entered into a license management agreement with Citadel Broadcasting Company to operate WHLD. The new WHLD plans to hire 15 employees by the end of its first year, and the entire operation represents an investment of $600,000, said Brown-Cashdollar.</blockquote>
This sounds like the activists did not learn from AAR's mistake. They pay rent for the LMA. And they are spending more money to go build themselves a studio.

Fifteen employees: Wonder if they will want a union?

In another article, the Buffalo News says that Entercom claims this move has been in the works for over a year:
<blockquote>By making the move to a talk format now, KB gets a jump on WHLD-AM 1270, which last week announced it plans to begin airing liberal talk programming next Monday. Wenger said the WHLD announcement didn't trigger Monday's change.

"This has been in the works for in excess of a year," he said. </blockquote>
If this flip has been in the works for a year, why is AAR not in the picture with 'KB? The idea that 'KB "waited too long" doesn't fit. Entercom has other stations taking programming from AAR. Did local Entercom management decide to by-pass AAR? Did a deal fall through?

Local articles also point out (how could we have forgotten?) that KB's line-up includes "Lockport native" Stephanie Miller, the daughter of a former local congressman.

Salem is different from AAR and NIM. They think God wants them to make money; the old Puritan idea that the elect of God will prosper. And Salem does make money; whether they serve God is another matter. Salem is controlled by borthers-in-law Stuart W. Epperson and Edward G. Atsinger III, both wealthy fundamentalist religious broadcasters and conservative political activists. Whatever else they are, they know how to make money in radio. They run finacially successful Christian music format and Christian preaching format stations. They made a point of acquiring stations with good signals. Conservative talk is an adjunct to their main business lines. (Note to Phillip: Janet Parshall is heard on Salem's Christian talk format - opposite Praeger and Medved on Salem's news-talk format. She - like Dobson, Dr. Laura, et al - preach to another choir.)

Salem's website indicates Christian Teaching (i.e., brokered preachers) is the core of their business. It's highly profitable, a consistent revenue stream, low-cost and you don't need ratings. They say they consider Christian music a format with an under-served audience. And news-talk syndication they call "comnplimentary" to the core Christian Teaching format.

However, as Phillip pointed out, Conservative talk ("con-talk") also includes Rush and Hannity plus other second tier con-talkers. I agree that the AAR hosts (more so than Hartmann and the Jones hosts) do preach to the core converted; the phrase "mirror image" is apt in many ways. I'd also include the TRN-Westwood-Fox con-talkers among the choir preachers. But Rush and Hannity manage also to reach beyond the choir, the deacons and even the regular church goers. I say it is because they manage to be entertaining and to attract occasional church goes. However, nobody in talk radio manages to reach the unchurched or to get people to change churches.

The con-talk "choir" can be typified as angry, working class, middle age White guys (anger is a constant but working class, middle age, White and male appear to be the core demos although not the exclusive audience). These are people who think they are getting screwed by the system and nobody cares about them. Con-talk articulates their rage. In contrast, "lib-talk" (OK, I won't fight this one any more) has better demos and articulates the contempt its audience feels for neo-cons in power. The appeal of talk radio is all about somebody who will speak for you; who will say what you can't say - or what you can't get away with saying. (i.e., Howard Stern speaks for guys who wish they could walk up to a girl and say the kind of thing Howard says and not get slapped. Sports talk hosts tell off the coach for you.)

So con-talk, lib-talk, lifestyle talk, Christian talk, and hot talk all have hightly segmented and targeted audiences. All radio formats are about appealing to a core group of one type or another.

 

[OldAkronite]

Re: Depends on how you define "work"

> So con-talk, lib-talk, lifestyle talk, Christian talk, and
> hot talk all have hightly segmented and targeted audiences.
> All radio formats are about appealing to a core group of one
> type or another.

Some very excellent analysis here, mwebster.

One thing I probably should have made clearer...by "preaching to the choir", I'm not really talking about hosts like Rush or Hannity on the right side.

Most of the *successful* conservative talkers know that their success is not due to working up the converted. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be Rush Limbaugh if his show really WAS solely designed to rally Republican activists. He wouldn't have gotten where he went without non-"converted" listeners.

And though all the hosts talk on the air about getting people to join their point of view, the whole point of the show is to *entertain* listeners. THAT'S the magical formula the Salem hosts don't really get. THAT'S the magical formula that AAR *thought* they were tapping into by hiring non-radio-seasoned comedians and movie stars, but didn't. They thought "entertainment" meant getting personalities from that world, not getting radio people who know how to hold a RADIO audience.

And indeed, with both Salem and AAR, the MISSION is the thing. Salem's hoping that milquetoast in-house conservatalk with a "message" taps them directly into like-minded listeners. AAR's problem is that they almost see the financial rewards as second, and came to bat basically trying to influence a presidential election.

"It's the entertainment, stupid"...to ape a presidential election saying. (No, that's not aimed at you. )

It's something that Rush, Hannity and their ilk get. It's something that Jones Radio's left leaning hosts get. It's something AAR and Salem seem to miss. And it certainly seems to be missing from the arsenal of the activist/labor folks running the new WHLD/Buffalo format.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[OldAkronite]

I Actually Agree With Most of Your Message...

> Let's cut through the nonsense here. Are Rush Limbaugh,
> Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage preaching to the choir? Do
> their shows work? Do people listen to that?

Yes, they do. I suppose I should have made my point clearer. My definition of "PTC" involves programs, or networks, that exist PRIMARILY to spread an ideological message. If that's their sole purpose...if they don't have any appeal to those outside their "base", they're not successful.

Even if their sole "entertainment" is saying such outrageous things that people who disagree with them listen solely to hear those outrageous things, it's different than the Salem hosts or on the left, many of the AAR hosts. (I don't include Randi Rhodes, for example, as she's more of a traditional host who knows how to do a *radio* show.)

> Is there a reason hundreds of radio stations run one-sided
> talk shows? Is there a reason there are often two or three
> talk radio stations in many markets?

It's not "one-sided talk radio" I'm talking about here...it's "PTC" radio, to coin a new abbreviation.

> In some other markets, there were actual advertiser boycotts
> suggested over the launching of a liberal station in town.
> There are web sites dedicated to trying to smear liberal
> talk all while ignoring skeletons in the closet of
> conservative shows.

And there's a whole universe of websites that do the same in reverse. Don't be silly.

PTC or not, the political talk universe is filled with partisan listeners defending their own choices, and detracting the other side. That's just the way it works. No one expects Brian Maloney to come out and say good things about liberal talk radio, and no one expects David Brock to call a liberal show on the carpet on his "Media Matters" site.

> The fact is, preaching to the choir talk radio works VERY
> WELL when it is entertaining.

I agree. And I said so in the other messages I've posted on this thread. But the Buffalo effort by the folks LMA'ing WHLD...I find it hard to believe that entertainment is high on their agenda. And if that is indeed the case, they're gonna get blown out of the water by WWKB, at least within that universe (whatever liberal talk manages to get in Buffalo, ratings wise).

> If you use humor and conviction and keep the pace moving,
> people will tune in and listen.

Agreed.

> Salem has their following, but their biggest problem is that
> they launch conservative talk in markets already crowded
> with it. Why would you want to listen to the second tier of
> hosts like Janet Parshall and her Godtalk if you were a
> political secular conservative and Rush or Sean was on the
> station down the dial? You wouldn't, and their ratings
> suffer for it.

And it suffers in markets like Sacramento, as I mentioned. Sacramento loves its conservative talk. It launched Rush Limbaugh into national superstardom, for crying out loud, and Rush STILL gets double-digit shares on his affiliate and former home station. Or at least he did, last I checked.

His affiliate's sister station has mounted a credible second-tier effort, with a now very popular local morning show ("Armstrong and Getty").

Where's the room for Salem's KTKZ there? It isn't. And KTKZ is a secular conservative station. Heck, I believe even Salem's teaching/talk KFIA does better at times!

> Inevitably, competition will do the same for weak libtalk
> shows. That is what is happening right now with Jones
> competing with AAR. Springer is dumped for Stephanie,
> Franken is dumped or moved for Hartmann, Majority Report is
> dumped for Lionel.

Agreed.

> WROC in Rochester runs union radio shows on the weekend. I
> have never listened to them because they don't impact on me,
> and weekend political talk shows tend to be weak anyway.

Agreed, again. And that was my whole point...the WHLD LMA effort seems to be chock full of these shows brought to weekday hours. Look at the list mwebster pointed...it's darn near a union meeting on the radio, and unless they figure out that entertainment is more important, no one is going to listen.

> 12+ ratings for talk radio aren't terribly relevant BTW.
> The money demo means a lot more. Preaching to the Choir
> really isn't the biggest issue here - running an
> entertaining show is.

True, but that's still my point. Again, my "PTC" definition takes in shows or networks that are ideologically based first, radio entertainment second. I'd define nearly all of Salem's efforts this way, most of AAR (outside of Randi) this way, and the WHLD/1270 Buffalo LMA this way.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[mwebster]

For Love of Radio

> Some very excellent analysis here, mwebster.

Thank you. A great compliment coming from you.

And for the rest of your post: Amen, brother (since we are using church metaphors).

Your post triggered some additional thoughts:

When Salem News-Talk first came on in my town, I liked it - at first. It was such a relief to hear a little civility in contrast to the mean, angry bashing of Gallagher, O'Reilly et al. Nasty is no substitute for talent. Neither is nice. Salem's crew did start to seem like milquetoasts over time. Something was missing.

I said in an earlier post the audience has to like you. That's not the same as being seen as "nice." And being liked is a consequence, it's not what makes a good radio personality. Successful radio personalities establish the illusion of a one-on-one connection; they are talking only to you. And they appear to be having fun and they are able to draw you into their fun.

The first and greatest radio personality of all time, Arthur Godfrey, discovered it. But the good ones ever since somehow knew it: Howard Stern, Imus, Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Phil Donahue in Dayton, Larry King doing overnights on Mutual and most of the perennial local morning drive hosts/jocks. Rush had it early in his syndication career. Sometimes he still has it but not like he used to. But none - NONE - of the Salem hosts, the TRN hosts, the AAR hosts, the Jones hosts, the Fox hosts or the rest really gets it. They are working. They are not having fun. And therefore they are not entertaining. Steph comes close at times but that's it.

There's so little personality or entertainment in radio any more because there is so little fun. Hardly anybody is having fun in radio any more. And I suspect that sense of fun, that quality of fun is what got all of us hooked on radio in the first place (those of us who ended up in the biz and those who got real jobs). People on the Buffalo board are bemoaning the loss of their Oldies station. But what they are really grieving is the loss of fun that was part of the old Top 40 WKBW and its legendary jocks/personalities. Oldies WWKB was just a very pale reflection. The music is still around (online, mp3, satellite radio). But the fun made it magical and that's been gone a long time.

And one might think comedians might be able to create fun on the radio. I heard Steve Allen in an interview a few years ago say that comedy in clubs today is about zingers - not jokes. And the usual response is groans or applause - not laughter. Now I think I'll go listen to an old Jack Benny Program and have a few laughs.

 

[doc9464]

Re: I Actually Agree With Most of Your Message...

> Even if their sole "entertainment" is saying such outrageous
> things that people who disagree with them listen solely to
> hear those outrageous things, it's different than the Salem
> hosts or on the left, many of the AAR hosts. (I don't
> include Randi Rhodes, for example, as she's more of a
> traditional host who knows how to do a *radio* show.)

When I read comments like "she's more of a traditional host who knows how to do a *radio* show", I get an impression that there is a (depending on the poster) offense to some of the people who have for lack of a better term...skipped over the experienced to land into an opportunity many have worked years for and still don't have. AAR is normally penalized here most and I think the comment of "It's the entertainment, stupid" applied here best. They did try to put on "non-traditional hosts" to very mixed results. That point may color an opinion or not but when we hear the "outrageous" statements, you have to wonder what shows you are listening to sometimes. All hosts from all Talk Radio know that to keep the audience awake, alert, and "connected" some hyperbole must me implemented. I just don't think its fair when these posts come up to ignore the highly questionable and flammable statements coming from conservative hosts yet malign liberal radio hosts for the same "offense". OA, I would like to get yourtake on the "lack of experience" bias....isn't that coloring some opinions on lib radio over PTC? Phil, your take as well?



> > The fact is, preaching to the choir talk radio works VERY
> > WELL when it is entertaining.

The other point which has been made very clear in the recent past is that Talk Radio is very effective at "grassroots" efforts even when masked as that. Rush is the best/most-effective on the Conservative side to "insert" grassroots statements into his show. Rush has spent much time modulating his "calls to action". Hannity is the most blatant and the worst at doing it. On the liberal side, I believe Franken had this in mind for himself to be "Paul Revere" but muddled his messages, and allowed his possible campaign to mute his voice further than he did on his own. Randi Rhodes and Sam Seder are the most blatant....but Randi Rhodes is very effective in getting people to take action the "grassroots" thing. Stephanie Miller is also skilled because she doesn't mask her "calls to action" but she does use humor to make it clear that something needs to be done...and humor is a very powerful message delivery vehicle....and she knows that being a policy wonk doesn't work for her show....so she picks her battles carefully...my opinion there...



> True, but that's still my point. Again, my "PTC" definition
> takes in shows or networks that are ideologically based
> first, radio entertainment second. I'd define nearly all of
> Salem's efforts this way, most of AAR (outside of Randi)
> this way, and the WHLD/1270 Buffalo LMA this way.


I disagree, of the AAR and Jones shows, only Randi, Majority Report, Mike Malloy, and Ed Schultz (to a lesser degree) are ideological

Randi - appeals to traditional dems/liberals who tend to be actvist

Malloy - anti-Savage - hard left and the extremely frustrated

Seder - youth youth youth....i think Garafalo has checked out more or less

Ed - Centrists, goes out of his way to emulate Rush on the right and a mix of Byrd and Steny Hoyer on the left, I don't like his schtick but he is trying to appeal to that straight center and not more left or right...that that...


People may debate that Maddow needs to be on that list but I think her Television time has allowed her to expand her view a bit more...or shes just working on being a better host.....she's damn good and getting better...

 

[OldAkronite]

Re: For Love of Radio

> The first and greatest radio personality of all time, Arthur
> Godfrey, discovered it. But the good ones ever since
> somehow knew it: Howard Stern, Imus, Johnny Carson, David
> Letterman, Phil Donahue in Dayton, Larry King doing
> overnights on Mutual and most of the perennial local morning
> drive hosts/jocks. Rush had it early in his syndication
> career. Sometimes he still has it but not like he used to.
> But none - NONE - of the Salem hosts, the TRN hosts, the AAR
> hosts, the Jones hosts, the Fox hosts or the rest really
> gets it. They are working. They are not having fun. And
> therefore they are not entertaining. Steph comes close at
> times but that's it.

Steph is the only one of the libtalk crop I'll listen to these days. She gets it most of the time.

One of the things she "gets" is that a show has a feel to it, a feel that you bring the listeners in for. You make them feel a part of what's going on. You create a "storyline" for the show, and draw the listeners in to join you. You can tell a good show by listeners feeling free to take part in "inside show jokes", which aren't really "inside" because they're meant for listeners.

Does Steph really drink box wine at all hours of the day? Of course not, but it's a running gag, and the listeners get it, and feel "involved" and invested in the show. Rush had it early on with his "Rush Rooms" and ongoing storyline with things like calling his producer "Snerdly". You're right...he's lost a lot of that lately.

As far as even Jones/P1's Ed Schultz goes, he at least has a storyline. I don't really listen to him, but he's apparently got some background other than "I'm a guy on the radio who hates the current administration". He talks about sports and he talks about his hunting and fishing. It bothers some of the "red meat" libtalk listeners, and it really doesn't speak to me, but it's something other than "Bush sucks".

I can't really speak about Bill Press, as I don't get up that early (and he started, of course, here on my local libtalker), but I don't get the sense he has the same "feel" to his show.

> People on the Buffalo
> board are bemoaning the loss of their Oldies station. But
> what they are really grieving is the loss of fun that was
> part of the old Top 40 WKBW and its legendary
> jocks/personalities. Oldies WWKB was just a very pale
> reflection. The music is still around (online, mp3,
> satellite radio). But the fun made it magical and that's
> been gone a long time.

'KB was a recreation of the station's music days. But not really a good one in many forms...for one, it skewed older than much of what the station did as a music station.

I see the "loss" of an AM station playing oldies...I certainly see the loss of veteran personalities like Danny Neaverth and the legendary Jack Armstrong (who still "has it", even in 2006), but folks forget that the station was running business talk, satellite (conservative) talk and even "hot talk" for years before Entercom revived the "KB Radio 1520" music format in 2003. I'd feel more of a loss if the station had held onto its music format past the 80's, and was only now dropping it.

I know how you feel, my friend. I am a 15 year radio veteran who's seriously wondering if I want to return to the day to day battles of a business that more and more seems like it's not as fun as it used to be.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[OldAkronite]

Re: I Actually Agree With Most of Your Message...

> OA, I would like to get yourtake on the
> "lack of experience" bias....isn't that coloring some
> opinions on lib radio over PTC? Phil, your take as well?

My point here is VERY simple.

Creating and maintaining an entertaining RADIO show is a skill. It is not the same skill as creating and maintaining an entertaining TV show. It is not the same skill as entertaining people in a movie or TV show. It's a different skill set.

Does that mean people can't come in from outside the business and "get it"? No, of course not. The talk radio world is littered with successful folks who made their name in other professions. But, unlike the AAR hosts (except Randi, and for that matter, Mike Malloy), they weren't presented on day one, with no radio experience, as "entertaining radio hosts".

Take the case of Tom Sullivan, a local host in Sacramento who occasionally fills in for Rush. His "day job" (often pointed out on the air) is as a stockbroker.

Tom didn't get to be a popular general issues host overnight. He first started doing a show about money and business, in a slot before then-local host Rush Limbaugh in the 80's. His show evolved naturally, and so did his radio skills. He didn't show up on day one and say "I'm a great general talk show host".

At very least, people like Al Franken should have developed their radio skills before being presented as the very face of the network, the LYNCHPIN host of the network. But considering that AAR was basically rushing to put on their network in hopes of influencing the 2004 presidential election, they had no choice.

> The other point which has been made very clear in the recent
> past is that Talk Radio is very effective at "grassroots"
> efforts even when masked as that.

As you note, Rush hardly ever does a "call to action". He shies away from it. When's the last time you heard him give out a Congress member's office phone number? I don't think he's ever done it seriously (aside from maybe once when he did it to prove a point). His show doesn't exist to rally the troops... it exists to entertain listeners by poking fun at people on the other side of the political spectrum. And it has to be entertaining enough to get people who are NOT on his side to listen.

> Stephanie Miller is also skilled
> because she doesn't mask her "calls to action" but she does
> use humor to make it clear that something needs to be
> done...and humor is a very powerful message delivery
> vehicle....and she knows that being a policy wonk doesn't
> work for her show....so she picks her battles carefully...my
> opinion there...

Oh, it's not that the host shouldn't have an opinion about what should be done. Steph and her co-hosts have even said that they believe a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in 2006 is needed. But that's not why she's there, and she knows it. She's there to have fun with the foibles of the current administration and those in their axis of belief.

Rush is actually mostly the same way. He clearly supports the current administration and clearly did not support John Kerry, for example, and he'll likely find a compatible Republican candidate for 2008 at some point and get behind him.

But that's not why he's there, and he knows it.

One way you can gauge hosts...see how they react to "over the top" callers. To keep with our example of both Rush and Stephanie Miller, both of them occasionally talk down really overheated callers from the edge. They know they can't pander to the extremes of their ideologies on the air, or they lose the mainstream listeners. If Rush turns to carrying water for the Free Republic folks, or Steph turns to carrying water for some of the most extreme leftie sites, they lose the folks closer to the middle.

> I disagree, of the AAR and Jones shows, only Randi, Majority
> Report, Mike Malloy, and Ed Schultz (to a lesser degree) are
> ideological

I'd agree to some extent, but note that the entire AAR MO is ideological for the most part. They rushed to the air in mid-2004, and many of their hosts considered it a goal to influence the 2004 election. Not as radio hosts, per se, but activists. It's the reason, for one, that Ms. Garofolo is even there. Franken's there in part for that reason, but he's just also there because AAR pays him out the ying yang, and treats him like a superstar. It gets his name in the papers.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[SquiggyFM]

> Politicians write books like the rest of us breathe.
> Considering how little attention is paid in the House and
> Senate to the Democratic party by the majority, I'd say
> there are a lot of Democrats with free time to write books.
>

So instead of fight for what you were elected to do...you give up and write? Don't give me "They can't do anything because the right won't let them". They're still elected to represent their state/district.

Hell, we all pay all of their salaries. I don't want any of them making money while I'm paying 'em. I didn't vote my representives into office so they can milk it and write a book on fiction, or their memoirs...or anything...GOVERN DAMN YOU GOVERN. Saying that the country is messed up while your in your study writing your forward sorta takes the wind out of your sails.

Maybe Sheehan should run for senator. At least she would have the cajones to govern.

 

[Les]

Re: Depends on how you define "work"

> Fifteen employees: Wonder if they will want a union?

And if they did, one might expect encouragement, rather than
typical capitalist opposition to the effort, nuuuu?
Well, one might hope.....<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>

 

[mwebster]

Solidarity Forever

Several years ago the office workers at UAW Headquarters organized. The UAW did not like it much, especially after the TV crews showed up to photograph the picket line in front of Solidarity House. After that, the UAW leaders caved.

Sort of like Animal Farm.

At least one of the people in this group is involved with the Teamsters. If Teamster money is in this thing ... Well, let's hope Niagra Independent Media meets all their financial projections.


> > Fifteen employees: Wonder if they will want a union?
>
> And if they did, one might expect encouragement, rather than
>
> typical capitalist opposition to the effort, nuuuu?
> Well, one might hope.....
>

 

[Oldbones]

Re: I Actually Agree With Most of Your Message...

> Even if their sole "entertainment" is saying such outrageous
> things that people who disagree with them listen solely to
> hear those outrageous things, it's different than the Salem
> hosts or on the left, many of the AAR hosts. (I don't
> include Randi Rhodes, for example, as she's more of a
> traditional host who knows how to do a *radio* show.)
>

Not sure I'd leave her out of the PTC list...granted she has talk radio experience, but she's still pretty unlistenable to anyone but a hard-core liberal.