>First rule of thumb in programming is to realize that not everyone is like yourself.
Thatís not my point. My point is that itís wrong to characterize certain talk hosts as objectively entertaining.
Why is it wrong
? It's what we do in radio everyday. Ratings tell us who is entertaining, and who is not.>Second, the ratings tell a different story of what people find entertaining.
Stats show that hosts like Ed Shultz either beat or are very competitive with Limbaugh and other big name conservatives in areas where they get the opportunity to compete.
Please cite the cases in point. Where is Ed Shultz beating Limbaugh? Is this one or two markets or everywhere that Shultz is up against Limbaugh?
Keep in mind that Limbaugh is the established show...and everyone else is a contender.
stations with crummy signals Ė the ones you like to believe are used because the owners only care about ideology.
I said...the only ideology people owners care about is money.
>She is only "worthy" of being widely heard if she can point to an overwhelming success >story and track record. Can she? Is her show a ratings bonanza anywhere that would >interest/convince more stations to carry it?
Yup. Too bad you donít know that, but you know so much about how progressive talkers are not entertaining.
Please cite where her show is a ratings bonanza.
She is very
entertaining..but she is also not a TSL leader.....and best taken in short doese...which does not spell success for radio.
But if youíre a programmer and a conservative, itíll take A LOT of talking to convince you to try progressive talk, because you have that bias (and because you donít want to listen to progressives on your station). Thatís my point.
the point is that most programmers have no bioas except making money. Most programmers I know have no ideology, and would program the all-fart-format if it brought ratings. (It won't.) I would be hard pressed to tell you the political ideoplogy of the best talk programmers in the country. Their sucess and income is not based on ideology.....even though it seems to comfort you to think there is a big conspiracy.>You mean like the slew that Salem has? Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett or others? >They are all boring and have the same problems that many progressives have.
But they DONíT have the problem of being HEARD!
Well, I can't hear them. Most of America can't hear them. The only reason they are heard anywhere is because Salem bought the stations to run their programs. (Bad move to own stations to run programming that wouldn't be cleared otherwise.)>What second tier ones are you referring to? The ones that are on have/had track >records. They make money. People listen.
How about WCRN? They thought they would be taking Boston by a storm by now. They hardly have a presence in Worcester. WTTT in Boston has flipped to Spanish. WNSH thought conservative talk would be their saving grace. No go.
Well that proves my point that ideology doesn't matter.
>That's anecdotal. Conservatives are screened out too. Sit in a control room of a major >talk host/show and you'll see how they pick callers.
So youíre saying Conservatives are screened on progressive shows?
No, I said conservative callers are screened on conservative shows too. Boring callers are screened out on all successful shows. And you invite me to sit in the control room of a major host. But I thought you were saying that progressive talk is a losing proposition.
I never said progressive talk is a losing proposition. What I said over and over again (and that you cant seem to grasp) is that ideology does not matter.
>Hannity even has a day when he just features people who disagree with him.
How nice of him. Thom Hartman has a policy of putting conservatives, as he says, ďat the front of the lineĒ regularly. Ya see; itís an ideological thing; progressives believe in engaging people from all sides.
Think like a programmer...and not like an idealogue.
I just showed you that Hannity devotes 20% of his broadcasts to people who disagree with him. Are you awake? You seem a little dense as you spout the same conspiracy theories over and over.
Conspiracy theories take root when people feel helpless. You can't seem to understand why the market forces have brout some conservative talkers to the top of the field. HAving conspiracy theories appears to give you comfort. You keep stating as fact, things you would like
>Seeing any broadcaster fail is not "satisfying" to me at all!
All that I meant was that there was much more at play than ideology which kept AAR from getting off the ground. Franken saw that from the start, and he was very doubtful about the whole thing.
But the reason they didn't do virtually anything according to common practice is because they thought their ideology was all they needed. How else do you explain hiring 20 hours/day of talk host who had virtually no experience in radio?>Like I said, they didn't fail because of ideology....but because they thought that's all >they needed.
That is SO not true. Look into it.
It is true. Reminded me of conservative Christians who believe their ideology blesses them to do dumb things.
I don't have to look into it...I know more about their beginnings than you can imagine.