Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Phil Boyce · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Julius says:

And with all due respect, there is evidence the audience for this approach is shrinking and aging.

The audience for all radio is shrinking and aging, and it has nothing to do with talkradio. It has to do with all the different choices out there. The competition for people's time is enormous. Ask anybody under 25 if they even listen to radio...and many do not. This is a problem...but it is not because talkradio is the cause.

How come nobody else is trying a NJ 101.5 approach to talk radio?

I like that station a lot. It is all local...and probably the only station that claims to be New Jersey's radio station. There are a TON of listeners between NYC and Philly and nobody else is really super serving them. This station does a great job, even with traffic and weather. I compete with them well in those middle NJ counties. In fact in Monmouth and Ocean Counties it is a battle between the two of us to see who is number one.

I think more stations should try this approach. They also play oldies on the weekend, which is smart. That is a time when most talk radio stations play crappy infomercials, and the ratings take a nose dive.

pb

Julius Leonard Marx · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
Julius says:

And with all due respect, there is evidence the audience for this approach is shrinking and aging.

Click to expand...

The audience for all radio is shrinking and aging, and it has nothing to do with talkradio. It has to do with all the different choices out there. The competition for people's time is enormous. Ask anybody under 25 if they even listen to radio...and many do not. This is a problem...but it is not because talkradio is the cause.

pb

And now we get back to the million dollar question: Is radio losing listeners because they have other choices or because they don't like what radio is now offering? (Which is the chicken and which is the egg?)

When TV came along, movies and radio re-invented themselves. They adapted, rather than perished. Radio today, when faced with increased competition, seems to be following the example of those industries (now extinct) which responded to increased competition and declining market share by cutting costs and quality and raising prices. WABC has done a good job of hanging on in the face of an unfavorable business climate for radio. Most have not. Look how far WJR has fallen (see thread on the Detroit board) in the last 20 years. Look at all the once legendary stations that are now all automated, voice-track, syndicated or filled with brokered programming, preachers and infomercials. Look at how you don't hear blue-chip advertisers on radio that were once the medium's bread and butter. It's great that you have Imus back on the air. He has a great past but any life insurance actuary can tell you his future is limited. What's telling is radio no longer has a farm system so the industry is not finding, grooming and developing people to take his place. As Jay Marvin pointed out, what made most of us fall in love with radio, be excited about radio and want to be in radio when we were young has been lost on all but a few stations (such as the aforementioned NJ 101.5). WABC gets good numbers and makes money but it doesn't have the magic and the passion (or generate it) that Musicradio 77 once did (or the station in Colorado you used to listen to). It was magic and passion and showmanship that got listeners, not a lack of alternatives.

cm454 · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Julius Leonard Marx said:
Radio today, when faced with increased competition, seems to be following the example of those industries (now extinct) which responded to increased competition and declining market share by cutting costs and quality and raising prices.

Look at all the once legendary stations that are now all automated, voice-track, syndicated or filled with brokered programming, preachers and infomercials.

What's telling is radio no longer has a farm system so the industry is not finding, grooming and developing people to take his place.

All EXCELLENT points.

Fact is, today's corporate owners have done to radio (using syndication & voice tracking) what is the equivalent of salting the earth after harvesting the crops.

This industry's farm system has given us some of the biggest names that exist today. That system has been all but destroyed. The Wall Street conscious owners have reaped the rewards of the farm system, but have replanted practically NOTHING. None of them seem to care.

Are you aware that Japanese companies have 50 and 100+ year plans for their companies? That's called thinking ahead.

Does today's radio have even a 2 year plan?

Doubtful. They're stripping away the ONE commodity that they have over all the other audio sources: on air talent. They are trying to compete by playing to their weaknesses, not their strengths. CCU, for example, is making a company-wide concerted effort to play more music with less or no talk or entertainment elements--even in morning drive. BRILLIANT! Tell me, how do they sincerely intend on competeing with all those COMMERCIAL FREE sources when they still have to play commercials? Hmmmmm. The point is, they can't.

Oh, I know! HD!

Right.

HD is nothing but a diversion from the ugly reality of what is happening---just as AM Stereo was a wonderful distraction for all those AM's that were horrified at the explosive popularity of FM. HD will be just as successful as AM stereo too.

Talk about taking your eye off the ball.

bub · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
You can't drive me nuts. I already am.

So, you're one of us after all.

bub · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
...when most talk radio stations play crappy infomercials, and the ratings take a nose dive.

Uh, Phil, doesn't WABC play infomercials too?

bub · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

cm454 said:
Fact is, today's corporate owners have done to radio (using syndication & voice tracking) what is the equivalent of salting the earth after harvesting the crops.

Or, in their haste to get one fly out of a bowl of soup, they take a bulldozer to the dining room.

Phil Boyce · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Bub: WABC plays infomercials, and I hate it, and I fight it. I have been able to limit them to less damaging locations on the weekend, but I do not pretend we are immune from this problem. It is a lot worse on other stations, but still we suffer also.

Julius says:

It's great that you have Imus back on the air. He has a great past but any life insurance actuary can tell you his future is limited. What's telling is radio no longer has a farm system so the industry is not finding, grooming and developing people to take his place.

I have been saying the same thing. Radio has destroyed it's own farm system. Small market radio is no longer able to provide the next up and coming talent. I have to find my own at WABC. I created Curtis and Kuby like a mad scientist in the basement growing something in the petri dish. I had no idea it would be my morning show. It lasted 8 years, and if Imus dropped dead tomorrow I still have Curtis under contract and could rebuild the show. Mark Levin is another guy with NO radio experience before I found him. Sean Hannity was doing 9-Noon at WGST in Atlanta when I found him. There are still places to find talent, but the best place is to grow your own.

As Jay Marvin pointed out, what made most of us fall in love with radio, be excited about radio and want to be in radio when we were young has been lost on all but a few stations (such as the aforementioned NJ 101.5). WABC gets good numbers and makes money but it doesn't have the magic and the passion (or generate it) that Musicradio 77 once did (or the station in Colorado you used to listen to). It was magic and passion and showmanship that got listeners, not a lack of alternatives.

I agree with the magic and passion and showmanship part of your post. You are dead on. I do not share your pessimism that radio today can't create the same. I know that Mark Levin is developing more than a listener base, he is creating "followers." I know that some young person is listening to him and learning from him, just like he did when he was their age. Mark was a Talkradio freak when he was younger, and he finally got his chance when he was nearly 40. He was pretty bad that first year, but he learned and got better and today is one of the best. There are others out there like him.

Things are not as bad as they seem. Radio is still a great medium and a great profession. You just have to get past the corporate crap...which I know is tough for some. Don't give up.

pb

Jacquel7 · Dec 2, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

my talk show does not fit inside a box. Most corporate media networks want "formula" talk (right, left or whatever)

Jacqueline Lerner Aderman

Julius Leonard Marx · Dec 3, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

PB:

Yup, you did great work as a "mad scientist." In reality, opposites don't always attract and the pairing of opposites (heck, any pairing) is very tough to pull off. The only other team built in on differences of opinion (as opposed to contrasting personalities) I can think of off-hand that worked as well was Siskel and Ebert.

That said (as long as we've got your attention here and inquiring minds do want to know) how come Ron Kuby was not allowed to finish the final month before Imus and get a better finish to 10 years at the station?

I'm glad someone in your position shares the view that radio needs a farm system again. I know from your posts that you believe in Mark Levin (which, as his PD, you should). But with all due respect, putting a lawyer from a political think tank on weekends in the number one market does not seem like how a farm system is supposed to work. A farm system is Imus starting out at a coffee pot in the California desert and moving to Stockton, Cleveland and then New York. A farm system is Limbaugh in Cape Girardeau, McKeesport, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Sacramento. It seems that companies like Citadel and Clear Channel, with hundreds of stations, including stations in small and medium markets, could have and should a defined farm system (like baseball has had since Branch Rickey came up with the idea in the 20s).

bigtalkradiofan · Dec 3, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
bigtalkradiofan says:

But don't you think 9 straight hours a day of "I Hate Hillary" gets stale and unentertaining afterwhile, for even the most die-hard talk radio fan?

Click to expand...

Yes of course, but you are not really a big talkradio fan, despite your screen name. If you were you would know that Rush, Sean, and Mark do not bash Hillary all the time. Sure they do a lot of the time, but there is so much more to these shows that if you really are a fan of this kind of talk, you will not get tired of it.

When Rush was attacked on the floor of the Senate by Harry Reid it had nothing to do with Hillary. Watching Rush completely humiliate Reid and the senate for that letter was some of the best radio I have heard in years. It was brilliant. That is just one example. The are the big three. They would not succeed together if they did not find something unique, different, and compelling to talk about every day. During the period of time where you think they were just bashing Hillary all the time...I was setting high water marks for TSL, the amount of time the average listener stays listening to my station. The facts do not lie. I listed the TSL above. If these shows were as boring as you say, that TSL would drop.

They are not boring, and I question your screen name.

pb

Phil Boyce,

Actually, since Hillary was on of the co-signers of the Reid letter - Rush talked about Hillary's name being on the letter quite a bit - he would mention it during the show hoping to get larger bids for the letter.

Only a BIGTALKRADIOFAN would know that - question my screen name no more!! ;D

I agree that Rush, Sean and Mark used to have a lot more to their shows than just Hillary-bashing - but lately she seems like their only topic - and with the 2008 elections 11 months away, I worry that this will be their main topic for the next 11 months.

There's only one way to settle this...

A contest - to decide if there is "too much, just enough, or not enough" Hillary-bashing on Rush, Sean and Mark:

Rules of the Contest - You have to take a chug of beer every time the host says the name "Hillary" through all 9 hours of all 3 shows.

We'll see how long it takes Radio-Info.com posters to get drunk each day.

P.S. Can you tell I'm from WI - home of Miller beer, cheese and brats!

Phil Boyce · Dec 5, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

BigTalkRadio fan. OK maybe I judged you too harshly. I do share your concern that we bash Hillary too much and it becomes boring and over kill. Just just like John Kerry did in the months leading up to the last election, Hillary will make stumbles that only talkradio will love. It will still be great radio, trust me.

As for the beer chugging contest...I like your style. I will take you up on your offer, but I am still waiting for a response to my challenge of Ed Schultz to a sumo wrestling contest. I can't take on too many contests at the same time.

Julius says:

That said (as long as we've got your attention here and inquiring minds do want to know) how come Ron Kuby was not allowed to finish the final month before Imus and get a better finish to 10 years at the station?

I had a couple of reasons. I could not keep both Curtis and Ron on WABC with their morning show salaries. I had to pick one. Of course I picked Curtis who has been loyal to me and the station through thick and thin. Once we made the decisions that Kuby had to go, what good was it to have him stay on the air for a month, making painful cracks at his own demise? It was better to put Curtis with Jeffrey who did not have that emotional baggage. The final month (Curtis and Jeffrey) was great radio. And because I intend to find a place for Curtis I had a guy on the air who intended to stay, as opposed to a guy who was definitely not going to stick around. There were other reasons beyond this...but this is the big one.

I'm glad someone in your position shares the view that radio needs a farm system again. I know from your posts that you believe in Mark Levin (which, as his PD, you should). But with all due respect, putting a lawyer from a political think tank on weekends in the number one market does not seem like how a farm system is supposed to work.

A farm system only means the way you identify and groom new talent to fill the void in this format. Mark did not work for a think tank. It is a legitimate law firm in Washington D.C. But the point is, he had never hosted his own show and always wanted to try it. There are a few important check boxes I look to fill before I throw just anybody on the radio. Have they accomplished something with their life or are they just a lifetime talkradio wannabe? Check. Do they have a fascinating, witty, and compelling personality? Check. Are they really smart and able to present their ideas well on the radio? Check. Do they have an ability to convince a crowd of people they should take up the torch and join them? Check. Are they driven to succeed like nobody ever before, and willing to do anything it takes to make it? Check.

That is what I found in Mark, and thatis what I look for in the next one...and there is a next one. I just have to find them.

pb

jimwalsh2001 · Dec 5, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Phil Boyce said:
Things are not as bad as they seem. Radio is still a great medium and a great profession. You just have to get past the corporate crap...which I know is tough for some. Don't give up.

pb

All I can say is I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong about this...

Phil Boyce said:
I will take you up on your offer, but I am still waiting for a response to my challenge of Ed Schultz to a sumo wrestling contest.
pb

Thanks...I'll be months getting that little image out of my head...

bub · Dec 8, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
Bub: WABC plays infomercials, and I hate it, and I fight it. I have been able to limit them to less damaging locations on the weekend, but I do not pretend we are immune from this problem. It is a lot worse on other stations, but still we suffer also.

Phil, please drop them and replace them with an encore presentation of Bob Brinker's Moneytalk. Please? I promise I'll put WABC on my presets if you do. Please? Pretty please? I'll give you a dollar. ;D

Julius Leonard Marx · Dec 8, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
Julius says:

That said (as long as we've got your attention here and inquiring minds do want to know) how come Ron Kuby was not allowed to finish the final month before Imus and get a better finish to 10 years at the station?

Click to expand...

I had a couple of reasons. I could not keep both Curtis and Ron on WABC with their morning show salaries. I had to pick one. Of course I picked Curtis who has been loyal to me and the station through thick and thin. Once we made the decisions that Kuby had to go, what good was it to have him stay on the air for a month, making painful cracks at his own demise? It was better to put Curtis with Jeffrey who did not have that emotional baggage. The final month (Curtis and Jeffrey) was great radio. And because I intend to find a place for Curtis I had a guy on the air who intended to stay, as opposed to a guy who was definitely not going to stick around. There were other reasons beyond this...but this is the big one.

I'm glad someone in your position shares the view that radio needs a farm system again. I know from your posts that you believe in Mark Levin (which, as his PD, you should). But with all due respect, putting a lawyer from a political think tank on weekends in the number one market does not seem like how a farm system is supposed to work.

Click to expand...

A farm system only means the way you identify and groom new talent to fill the void in this format. Mark did not work for a think tank. It is a legitimate law firm in Washington D.C. But the point is, he had never hosted his own show and always wanted to try it. There are a few important check boxes I look to fill before I throw just anybody on the radio. Have they accomplished something with their life or are they just a lifetime talkradio wannabe? Check. Do they have a fascinating, witty, and compelling personality? Check. Are they really smart and able to present their ideas well on the radio? Check. Do they have an ability to convince a crowd of people they should take up the torch and join them? Check. Are they driven to succeed like nobody ever before, and willing to do anything it takes to make it? Check.

That is what I found in Mark, and thatis what I look for in the next one...and there is a next one. I just have to find them.

pb

PB:

Thanks for your reply about Ron Kuby. Having read your comments on various topics here, I am sure you tried to make the best of a potentially awkward situation. Ron Kuby seemed like a classy guy and a mature adult; not the kind to go back on the air a pee in the soup. I had read that his law practice precluded him doing radio during the day. You also have gone out of your way in a few posts to express pride in the Curtis and Kuby teaming, so I suspect (as have others) replacing them with I-man may not have been your idea. I know you probably can't either confirm or deny those suspicions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lifetime talk radio wannabe." I hope it doesn't mean somebody who planned a broadcasting career, selected a relevant major in college, and then went "town to town, up and down the dial" in small and medium markets perfecting their craft. Your checklist would also pass Al Franken, Whoopi Goldberg and many others who thought radio looked like fun and anybody could do it better than whoever they were listening to at the time. It seems like even when there remains a farm system, it's not being taken advantage of much any more. Yes, I know Imus, Rush and Hannity did come up from the minors. Sliwa, Kuby, Levin and Gambling III did not.

Phil Boyce · Dec 8, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Julius says:

Yes, I know Imus, Rush and Hannity did come up from the minors. Sliwa, Kuby, Levin and Gambling III did not.

As we have noted, radio has destroyed it's own farm system. Therefore, a programmer in NYC can't always rely on a smaller market to produce the next great host. John Gambling the third did work in Middletown NY before NYC. But guys like Sliwa, Kuby and Levin showed great talent....and the fact that they did not work on the radio should not preclude them from getting a job. Good PD's should always be looking for the next guy with talent...and it may not be somebody who has been on the radio.

pb

Julius Leonard Marx · Dec 8, 2007

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Phil Boyce said:
But guys like Sliwa, Kuby and Levin showed great talent....and the fact that they did not work on the radio should not preclude them from getting a job. Good PD's should always be looking for the next guy with talent...and it may not be somebody who has been on the radio.

pb

The question is not whether they should be able to get a job. It's whether they should start out in the number one market. Before baseball's farm system (as we know it), when the Yankees signed Lou Gehrig, they sent him to Hartford. I wonder how these guys would do if they weren't on stations tightly formatted for consistent political viewpoint and with Rush as a lead-in. They have both their jobs and their audiences handed to them (plus I assume a support staff to make sure they sound good). Could they work without a net like you have to in the boonies?

bigtalkradiofan · Sep 3, 2008

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking

Given that I started this topic back in Nov 2007, I'd be interested to know...

Now that we can go back and look at ratings for winter 2007 and spring and summer 2008.

How have the ratings been for the local N/T station in your area this political season? The ratings usually go up in an election year. Did the local N/T station in your area see this ratings bump this year?

NOTE - Please keep responses to dealing with talk radio - this is not a thread for political discussion, take that elsewhere.

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,86597.0.html

bigtalkradiofan said:
Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking about "issues."

As my username demonstrates, I love listening to talk radio ...

But I'm already absolutely sick and tired of listening to "candidate bashing" this election season - I want to hear about "issues" that I care about again.

At this point, I'll listen to anything about an issue I even have a moderate amount of interest in - so long as I don't have to listen to any more "candidate bashing."

Lately, when I hear a radio talk show host begin to utter the name one of the major political candidates to begin a rant (e.g. Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney) - I immediately change the channel - I just can't bear to listen to another radio segment, more or less another year, of bashing/ranting about Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney.

We get it - you don't like them, and don't want us to vote for them - now move on to the next topic - move on to issues that we care about - PLEASE!!!!!!!!

But given that the 2008 election season started as soon as the 2006 mid-term elections were completed - and with nearly a year before the 2008 elections - talk radio has turned into 2 years of nothing but "candidate bashing" - which is awfully boring.

There is a time and a place for "candidate bashing" on talk radio - in the summer/fall prior to an election. But I've already reached my "saturation point" for this political season, and there is still a year till the election.

N/T radio stations and talk show hosts need to get back to "issues" that listeners care about - and guard against following the easy, but ridiculously boring, path of "candidate-bashing."

bigtalkradiofan said:
Phil Boyce said:

Big Talk Radio Fan says:

N/T radio stations and talk show hosts need to get back to "issues" that listeners care about - and guard against following the easy, but ridiculously boring, path of "candidate-bashing."

Click to expand...

The latest ABC-Washington Post Poll of average Americans shows that 70% of Americans are following the 08 presidential race closely. This is the highest it has ever been in the history of this poll, more than a year away from the actual election. It has been at this high level since last February.

You may not care....but an unusual number of Americans do care. These shows you are complaining about are merely reflecting what listeners are talking about. The potential Hillary vs. Rudy race is one that everybody will be talking about. I want a front row seat to that race...and talkradio gives that seat to me.

pb

Click to expand...

Two quick replies:

* Sean Gilbow - This is a "talk radio thread" and not a "politics thread." Since I started this thread, I'd prefer to keep this thread here in the N/T section - I don't want it moved to "Off-Topic" - so please keep comments related to talk radio (as opposed to general political discussion). Thanks!

* Phil Boyce - I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (I likely wasn't clear enough).

It is not a matter of me not caring about the election - I care very deeply about the political scene - and I follow it religiously.

Rather just the opposite, I would consider myself a "political junkie," so I follow the daily newspaper, internet and blog stories and constantly listen to talk radio.

I also agree that the 2008 election has more people following closely than ever before.

But it is because everyone is following the race so closely - that the daily "candidate bashing" has gotten stale and boring - and fails to be entertaining anymore - and here's why:

One or two incidents occur on the campaign trail each day - here's how it unfolds on talk radio ...

Here's what it sounds like to conservative talk radio listeners:
* Local Morning show - Usually mentions the incidents, and spends time bashing Hillary/Obama
* Rush = Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Hillary/Obama
* Sean = Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Hillary/Obama
* Local Afternoon show - Last Rinse - Completes the bashing Hillary/Obama

And for the counterpoint example, here's what it sounds like to liberal talk radio listeners:
* Local Morning show - Usually mentions the incidents, and spends time bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Stephanie Miller - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Ed Schultz - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Randi Rhodes - Rinse and repeat - 3 hours of bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney
* Local Evening show - Last Rinse - Completes the bashing Bush/Giuliani/Romney

Not to mention: the local/national TV news, newspapers, internet, etc all covering the exact same one or two incidents from the campaign trail each day.

As people drive in to work - they hear it initially. As they eat lunch at their desk - they hear it repeated. By the time they drive home, it is all getting repeated yet again for the 3rd time.

And this happens every business day since the 2006 elections ended in Nov 2006 - so talk radio listeners reach a "saturation point" where its the exact same thing - day in and day out, all day long - the same political candidates - the same critiques - and the only thing new, is one or two incidents that are being replayed everywhere in the media all day long.

I would tell the talk show hosts:
* We get it - you don't like them (opposing candidates), and you don't want us to vote for them.
* Since we listen to your show, we are in the choir too - so you don't need to sell us, we are already sold.
* Spend a few minutes on bashing the opposing candidate, do your diligent duty
* But then move on to other topics that we (your audience) care about.
* I don't want to turn back and hear the same thing (candidate bashing) repeated in Hours 2 and 3.
* Rather spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about issues that I (the audience) care deeply about.

Maybe only spend Hour 1 bashing Hillary/Obama or Bush/Giuliani/Romney.

Then move on and spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about issues conservatives care about (or substitute liberal for LibTalk) - talk about the issues: taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues - whatever - just please move beyond the "candidate bashing" and talk about the issues that your audience cares about - PLEASE!!!!

bigtalkradiofan said:
cm454 said:

While THIS period may be a legit time to dwell on national politics, I believe the original poster of this thread was really addressing the incredible and rather lazy reliance on politics ad nauseum.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify even further:

A.) National Politics - I enjoy listening to talk radio discussing national politics (e.g. Rush & Sean) when it talks about:
* More than just bashing individual politicians, and
* Ventures into political issues (e.g. taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues, whatever, etc), or
* Talks about political philosophy, or
* The prospects of a piece of legislation making it through the legislative process, etc
* In general, I'm fine with national politics, as long as it isn't fixated on bashing one or two politicians all the live long day.

B.) 2008 Elections - I can benefit from a "short" update each day on the election horse-race, but after about 20 minutes - I'm looking for a different topic to keep my attention. I also realize that as the primaries start occurring there will be more to report on this front.

C.) 2008 Candidate Bashing - This is what I can't stand anymore:

3 Hours A Day X 5 Days A Week X For 2 Years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) of:

* Conservatives - Hillary/Obama bad; Bush/Giuliani/Romney good.

* Liberals - Bush/Giuliani/Romney bad; Hillary/Obama good.

Nothing is more boring and unentertaining - than hour after hour of - Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 1)...Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 2)...Hillary this or Bush that (Hour 3)...on and on and on ...

At some point a listener says, got the point - now please move on - to an issue that I care deeply about!

So I'm not anti-national politics, or even anti-2008 election coverage - but I am anti-"nothing but candidate bashing" talk radio for 2 years.

As an avid talk radio listener, if I've already reached my "saturation point" with "candidate bashing" (and I'm not the only one) - I can't imagine what another 11 months of talk radio that does nothing but "candidate bash" will be like - maybe I will take one poster's suggestion and start listening to more music.

bigtalkradiofan said:
Phil Boyce said:

I realize some of you think Rush to Sean to Mark Levin is a long boring rant of "I Hate Hillary" but you are not a talkradio fan, so you just don't get it. The same could be said if a housewife who watches the View accidentally got stuck in a rental car that only picked up the sports radio station. She would soon drive off the road.

Click to expand...

Phil Boyce,

But don't you think 9 straight hours a day of "I Hate Hillary" gets stale and unentertaining afterwhile, for even the most die-hard talk radio fan?

"I Hate Hillary" for 9 Straight Hours A Day X 5 Days A Week X For 2 Years (Nov 2006 - Nov 2008) = a recipe for boring and unenteraining radio.

I think someone can be a dedicated talk radio fan - and get how the radio industry works - and yet grow tired of "I Hate Hillary" for 9 straight hours every day.

Why not spend only Hour 1 fixated on "I Hate Hillary", and instead spend Hours 2 & 3 talking about conservative issues: e.g. taxes, immigration, God, guns, life/social/moral issues, whatever, etc.

I never thought I'd see the day - where I couldn't wait for Rush or Sean to go back to bashing the Democrats party (the usual whipping boy) - because I'm sick and tired of hearing them spend 9 straight hours every day repeating the same chorus line of "I Hate Hillary."

Biz Listener · Sep 4, 2008

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Sorry, but saying that talk radio needs to stop concentrating on topics that draw ratings for something else is like telling music stations to stop using playlists of songs that test well with target markets. Topics are to talk radio what songs are to music format radio. When you find that certain topics draw more listeners than others, you stick with the topics that work.

Talk radio doesn't appeal to everyone. Changing the topics on talk radio stations isn't going to convince music fans to switch from their favorite music stations to talk stations. But it might chase the talk radio audiences away or to a different talk station.

smedge2006 · Sep 4, 2008

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Sorry, but saying that talk radio needs to stop concentrating on topics that draw ratings for something else is like telling music stations to stop using playlists of songs that test well with target markets. Topics are to talk radio what songs are to music format radio. When you find that certain topics draw more listeners than others, you stick with the topics that work.

Talk radio doesn't appeal to everyone. Changing the topics on talk radio stations isn't going to convince music fans to switch from their favorite music stations to talk stations. But it might chase the talk radio audiences away or to a different talk station.

I really have to disagree with this -- especially the underlying assumption that talk radio audiences shouldn't try to convert music listeners. The base assumption of the format -- that people get interested as they get older and more involved in politics -- assumes they are converted from listening to music. How does Biz Lis think the original talk stations of the 60's and 70's grew their audiences? There weren't any talk stations from which to draw listeners. Clearly SOMETHING convinced those music listeners to switch their allegiance, and
it is definitely worth a Talk PD's time to find topics (and hosts and -- a long forgotten part of the equation -- callers) that will cause more of them to change.

quadraphonic · Sep 4, 2008

Re: Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

smedge is right.
Shortterm, it's important to "get ratings" and do the tried-and-true, repetitive, standard-fare stuff everybody else is doing.
But that does nothing for the long term, because there's nothing "new" to the format.
If the station doesn't "grow and change" beyond itself, the listeners will.
The key is growing and changing WITH the listeners, which few PD's seem to be able to do, for various reasons [looking at the stations as raw statistics and not an organism, or not knowing the listeners of the area, for example].

Talk radio needs to move beyond "candidate-bashing" and get back to talking abou

Phil Boyce

Inactive

Julius Leonard Marx

Guest

cm454

Inactive

bub

Guest

bub

Guest

bub

Guest

Phil Boyce

Inactive

Jacquel7

Guest

Julius Leonard Marx

Guest

bigtalkradiofan

Guest

Phil Boyce

Inactive

jimwalsh2001

Inactive

bub

Guest

Julius Leonard Marx

Guest

Phil Boyce

Inactive

Julius Leonard Marx

Guest

bigtalkradiofan

Guest

Biz Listener

Guest

smedge2006

quadraphonic