J
Jul
Guest
Now that Trump is president-elect, can you explain is this a good or bad thing overall for the future of the talk formats on WNTP 990 AM and WPHT 1210 AM?
Last edited:
-
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
Future of talk radio in Philadelphia now that Trump is President-Elect
Not exactly so. Talk "exploded" after the Reagan administration repeal of Fairness and was already in great growth mode before Clinton came in in 1992.
It didn't exactly go away during the George W. Bush administration most recently. Besides, there will ALWAYS be a target. A judge who rules unfavorably, the ACLU, a senator trying to filibuster, and in 18 months or so, the mid-terms and challenges to GOP candidates.
WPHT and WNTP will be pretty much exactly what they've have been had the election gone the other way. Just a different punching bag.
I agree, plus the debate will get interesting as the Republican Congress battles with a so-called Republican President, who is used to having the power of the purse, and the ability to do whatever he wants. The Constitution doesn't allow for that. Trump is about to get a lesson in civics. I'm expecting a lot of heated battles over foreign policy, immigration, jobs, the tax code, the border wall and even such simple things as infrastructure. All of those decisions have to be made with Congress.
There's always someone to attack.
True. But a hated president is a much bigger and better target. Trump gives the advantage to Alec Baldwin, not Rush.
Right wing talk did not go away during W but it didn't do nearly as well as when it Slick Willy and Barry to kick around.
But then, who cares about radio any more?
Right wing talk did not go away during W but it didn't do nearly as well as when it Slick Willy and Barry to kick around.
But then, who cares about radio any more?
There is always some wrong that hosts & listereners will want to talk about. With Trump not being a true conservative, there will probably be some complaining about some of his moves also. Don't forget, Rush became a powerhouse, and had plenty to talk about, during his first 5 years, and that was during the Reagan & the Bush administrations.
Rush began his national show and New York shows on August 01, 1988 - during the Bush-Dukakis campaign. Reagan was finished for all practical purposes. During Bush's time in office, Rush attacked Bush and other "establishment" Republicans. He supported Pat Buchanan and paleoconstervatives. Then Bush and Lee Atwater invited Rush to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom and El Rushbo caved, sold out the paleoconservatives and started shilling for the Bush and the party establishment.
The common thread through all these presidencies is the lack of commercial talk radio with a Democratic/liberal bent and the failures of such formats when they are tried. It doesn't seem to make sense, seeing as how this country is pretty much split down the middle and not overwhelmingly conservative. Some say NPR has got that audience in its pocket, but I don't know about that. I find talk radio I agree with even less interesting than talk radio that challenges my views -- result: most of my radio listening is either music or sports, and when I do listen to talk, it's to the conservative hosts just to see what the "other guys" are going off about this week. I could have listened to Air America when it was around, but never did, even though I was very much anti-W.
Has any research been done on conservative and liberal attitudes toward talk radio in general? I seem to run into other Dems/libs who use radio the same way I do, but I know a survey of people one knows carries an inherent, insurmountable bias.
Has any research been done on conservative and liberal attitudes toward talk radio in general? I seem to run into other Dems/libs who use radio the same way I do, but I know a survey of people one knows carries an inherent, insurmountable bias.
You often hear the same comments with regards to certain music formats, like alternative or rock music. With all the rock fans, why isn't rock radio more popular, or available in more cities? Obviously not a problem in Philadelphia, but the people in Atlanta are pretty upset that they can't have more current rock on the radio. Some of that is because rock is no longer a consensus format, but rather a bunch of sub-formats. Some are big enough to attract an audience for radio, some are not. In the case of talk, there are enough people who agree with a single conservative view that it can support a radio format. Plus these hosts are entertainers who've created a narrative that is very much like a music format. There's a certain tempo, a certain instrumentation, a certain lyrical similarity that attracts a consensus. So that's the situation. It's why when it came to this year's election, most people chose KYW instead of any of the talk choices. Same in NYC, where the all-news stations were far more popular than the talk stations.
Except there are demonstrably fewer rock fans now than, say, 30 years ago. Hip-hop and related purely rhythmic genres have become primary listening in mostly white suburbs in a way R&B never did. This is an audience that had been overwhelmingly rock for years. There's never been much crossover interest in rock among African-American listeners, so there's really nowhere for rock to go but down.
However, there aren't fewer Democrats in the US -- among presidential voters, in fact, there are 2 million more of them! So why have attempts to reach them with talk radio been such disasters to the point that no one will even try anymore?
It's not about political party. It's about creating an entertaining format that attracts a core audience. Two different things. And truthfully, conservative talk radio isn't the dominant format it was 10 or 20 years ago. It's become a smaller and older format, and isn't attracting new listeners. That's not good for the future of the format. As we saw with this election, younger people don't necessarily want to talk about politics, regardless of party. They say a pox on both your houses. That's the audience radio wants to reach. Perhaps that's a format for the future.
NPR's research indicates they have about an equal mix of self-described conservative and liberal listeners. Their bias is somewhat contradictory: Pro-corporate and pro-war but politically correct. Enough to annoy most everybody, except for the NPR true believers in denial that NPR ever does anything wrong.
Progressive talk failed because (1) The radio establishment and advertisers did not want it to succeed and (2) They tried to do liberal content with the same approach used by right-wing hosts. To use the music format analogy, that would be like having Top 40 jocks on a classical music station.
Actually it's not just their research. Independent research confirms this.
Huh? Advertisers spent money but didn't want it to succeed? When did that happen? And just who is "the radio establishment?"
The "Radio Establishment" is obviously Clear Channel who eventually stopped flushing money into Air America.
If they didn't want it to succeed they didn't have to clear any of their shows. No one forced them to do it. They had no input in the content of Air America.
Not obvious to me. You can define "radio establishment" however you want. I mean executives of the corporate mega-owners, plus Babbity local station managers, plus advertisers who instructed that their spots not be placed in progressive talk programming which they said was "controversial (while Rush was not). And people like Darryl Parks, the self-appointed "grim reaper" of progressive talk.
Mega-owners decided they could not black out progressive talk completely lest the FCC restore the fairness doctrine, so they can gave it token clearances and hobbled it any way they could so they could crow about the format's failure.
Mega-owners decided they could not black out progressive talk completely lest the FCC restore the fairness doctrine, so they can gave it token clearances and hobbled it any way they could so they could crow about the format's failure.
No one ever said that. I see the instructions advertisers give, and those instructions were never given until Rush Limbaugh's Fluke incident. And obviously that ban hasn't hurt Rush's finances. His contract was just renewed.
As BigA said, the "no controversy" advertiser dictate came after the Limbaugh incident. And it came from agency accounts, not local accounts, local station managers or ownership.
I know of no such dictate during the years of Air America. Nor during the many years of dominance of stations ranging from KGO to WCCO to WSB.
Managers and owners wanted ratings and sales. That's why Clear Channel, the syndicator of Rush, put a signficant number of major market stations on the Air America network. If progressive talk had gotten better numbers, they would likely still be in the format and Air America would not have folded.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
- Status