Bos. Herald: Where Have You Gone Air America...

[raccoonradio]

"...The nation hasn’t turned its ears to you." In the heart of Kennedy Country, AAR hasn't really made a dent.

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=158055

 excerpt:

“America is a conservative country,” said Peter Smyth, chief executive and president of Braintree-based Greater Media Inc., which owns 19 radio stations in the Boston, Detroit, New Jersey and Philadelphia markets.
...Conservative talk show hosts, and even whole stations dedicated to right-wing talk, are all over the place. But there doesn’t seem to be much demand for left-of-center radio, said Jason Wolfe, program director for the oft-conservative chatter WRKO-AM (680).

    “There’s an overwhelming amount of conservative talk radio or talk radio that is more to the right than the left,” Wolfe said. “The view of the right . . . provides more of a compelling and entertaining product than what Air America does.”

Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine:
    “Somehow they have created the impression that they are the lone voice of liberalism in a dark sea of conservatism,” Harrison said. “It’s not that they’re liberal, it’s that it’s radio and radio is very, very competitive.”

[raccoonradio]

Will the Democrats/liberals bring back the Fairness Doctrine? (perhaps a topic best suited for off the air board but this does relate to news/talk). Jay Ambrose, syndie columnist, opines:

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=158057

"Then came the presidency of Ronald Reagan, with its understanding of how governmental controls so often diminish us and its trust in a free people to find their way without the instructions of know-it-all bureaucrats. His administration dropped the regulation along with many others, and guess what? Talk radio began to flower.
     You would think believers in our democracy would rejoice in the burst of debate, but many liberals didn’t.
     A chief reason was that the most popular hosts of these shows were conservative"

[FightingIrish]

FYI, the Boston Herald is a very conservative newspaper, on par with the Washington Moonie Times and Pittsburgh Sciafe Tribune Review.

And what's the point of the article anyway? Did it go over so well at Free Republic that you had to bring this drivel here?

[fred flintstone]

Whether you like News Corp (publisher of the Herald) or not, the writer accurately describes about the bases of AAR's problems:

• More concerned with influencing elections than getting listeners and advertisers.
• Celebrities inexperienced in radio.  AAR thought names would draw audiences but names don't necessarily mean good radio.
• Bad Signals.

The quote from the suit at Greater Media also reflects - contrary to the rantings of conservatives - radio is really a right wing medium.  Always has been.  Largely because people who manage and work in radio tend to be conservative-authoritarian, and they think the audience is the same.  When conservatives squawk about left wing media bias, they talk about the elite papers and major networks.  Not radio, which they have in their hip pocket (although they hope nobody will notice).

[Panago]

The Boston Herald ISN'T owned by News Corp. It ISN'T conservative either.

[Phillip Dampier]

FYI, the Boston Herald is a very conservative newspaper, on par with the Washington Moonie Times and Pittsburgh Sciafe Tribune Review.

And what's the point of the article anyway? Did it go over so well at Free Republic that you had to bring this drivel here?

Actually, the issue here isn't the Boston Herald.  It's opinion masquerading as news.  The Ambrose piece, BTW, was a right wing editorial.  Ambrose usually likes to use "lefties" somewhere in his columns, so that largely tells you where he is coming from.  The Noyes piece lasts about three paragraphs before it enters the Speculation Matrix... and stays there.  That America is somehow a conservative country friendly only to right wing talk shows is nonsense - believed perhaps by station program directors who choose a format for their station based on what has been focus group tested and approved in other markets (you didn't really think the Jack format was a case of great minds all thinking alike).  Noyes then decides the best place to get an unbiased feel for the nature of talk radio in Boston is to ask a program director of a conservative talk radio station in the market, who then gives us this logic pretzel:

"The view of the right . . . provides more of a compelling and entertaining product than what Air America does."

Notice he implies the viewpoints the right wing provides are what is somehow "compelling and entertaining" while the "product" Air America produces is not.

There is no evidence it is the viewpoint of right wing talk shows which is what makes them compelling.  It is whether or not the end product is entertaining enough for people to spend time with.  Otherwise, Al Franken wouldn't be kicking Bill O'Reilly's butt in several markets and Bill Bennett's talk show would be burning up the ratings.

Let's put this argument back on the same playing field and make a better conclusion that ultimately, left or right, entertaining your audience is what is key to ratings success, which is why hosts like Jones' Stephanie Miller picked up three new markets this week alone.  Randi Rhodes isn't hurting either.

[raccoonradio]

Herald used to be a Murdoch paper. It's seems conservative (to the right of the Globe certainly) but has its token liberal columnists (Gelzinis?) just as the Globe has token conservatives (Jacoby, etc.). Heck even the Globe carries a couple right- leaning comic strips, Mallard Fillmore and Prickly City.

By law, anything conservative must be drivel; similar liberal things must be gospel 

Ted K tried to force the Herald out of business years ago (dealing with cross-ownership rules), resulting in a memorable call to Jerry Williams on 'RKO at the time. Far be it for a paper that would criticize the Kennedys
to exist. Free speech for me but not for thee.

FF: Right wing talk radio is a reaction to the left wing bias elsewhere.

PD: Ambrose's column was on the editorial page, and it was opinion, which makes sense. Jesse Noyes piece was in the business section and while he may have injected his own conservative opinions, he also quoted
those of Smythe, Wolfe (a radio success story--see WEEI), etc. Not sure if they attempted to contact
anyone at AAR for their opinion. I'll admit that...
"Opinion masquerading as news"---See Rather, Dan ("The Story is true"--National Guard memos)

If the liberals find their Limbaugh, great. Steph Miller might come a lot closer than Stuart Smalley. People may listen to Mr. I'm Smart Enough, I'm Good Enough more because they agree than for the entertainment value;
in Rush's case, many people agree with him (dittos...) AND they like the entertainment value.

[fred flintstone]

The comments from the Greater Media suit explain a lot.

GM had two opportunities to flip their Philadelphia regional AM (with a decent signal at 950) to progressive talk.
They had a long-standing Standards station getting good numbers but with geriatric demos.
In September, 2004 the flipped to Real Oldies and watched both Arbitron and sales numbers decline.
One year later, they flipped to mostly syndicated sports talk and now they have numbers of which even AAR would be ashamed.
Both times, progressive talk was under consideration.  Reportedly AAR was pitching them - especially before the second flip, when AAR had just lost WHAT, which had been clearing Franken and Randi plus local Urban Talk and evening Gospel.  AAR said at the time they were taking to another station in town (guess which).
The founder of Greater Media died a few years ago.  Supposedly the kids don't care about the company but aren't allowed to sell out, so the company flounders.

And that column is almost Maloneyesque.  And neo-cons complain about left-wing bias?

[raccoonradio]

Wasn't there some prog-talk at 1300 in Philly but it bombed?

Lousy numbers for the 950 with sports--is there too much sports in Philly? You already have 610 WIP
and maybe one other station (forget who), plus Phillies games still on 1210 I believe etc.

>>when AAR had just lost WHAT, which had been clearing Franken and Randi plus local Urban Talk and evening Gospel.

Oh OK, that must be the 1300 I was thinking of.

Is it possible prog-talk is too far to the left and they'd do better with a more moderate approach? Something to attract both left and right wing. Instead of Bush lied, Bush is Hitler, vote fraud conspiracy, let's take the Prez
out fishing and pheww (that was Ms. Rhodes talking), corporations are evil (and now let's go to a commercial...
what no advertisers want to buy time here? Oh. OK, let's run another PSA...) talk.

"People want to hear more than
'our country sucks' 24/7"--O'Reilly

>>that column is almost Maloneyesque.

The Ambrose column or the Noyes biz-section piece? If the former, it falls under Opinion. If the latter,
then yes, bias occurs on both ends of the spectrum..though maybe I was paying more attention to
what the radio biz people were saying (in Noyes piece). And note that some, in the latter column, were attributing
AAR's lack of success to poor signals rather than the programming...But if AAR showed promise,
a station like WRKO would run it...and get a 0.7 signal instead of 4.2. THAT is why AAR might be on
"weaker" signals. (And why it has swapped places with sports signals in places like Burl-VT
and Cincy)

[fred flintstone]

Wasn't there some prog-talk at 1300 in Philly but it bombed?

Lousy numbers for the 950 with sports--is there too much sports in Philly? You already have 610 WIP
and maybe one other station (forget who), plus Phillies games still on 1210 I believe etc.

WHAT is at 1340, owned by Inner City Broadcasting, the same company which owns WLIB.

WIP is more appropriately called "guy talk."  They started as sports talk, didn't do all that well and this format evolved.  They currently have among the best numbers in the country in the sports format.  But some sports purists have always complained about WIP and apparently that persuaded Greater Media to try sports.  Philly has six decent AM signals; CBS has three (news, mostly syndicated conservative talk, and WIP), Salem has two (brokered preachers and Salem's social conservative talk network) and Greater Media has one (the aforementioned 2nd sports talk station).  When WPEN was Oldies and Standards, they had the Phillies games (despite a poor nighttime signal); the lost the Phils just before flipping to sports talk.  The station is shut out on professional and major college play by play.

Currently, Philly (the number six market) has one local-live talk show (a conservative tort lawyer turned broadcaster) on weekdays (plus a one hour show filling time between Hannity and Severin and a late night local show).  Ratings are so-so.  Salem's talker has no local content at all and ratings to the right of the decimal point.

Is it possible prog-talk is too far to the left and they'd do better with a more moderate approach? Something to attract both left and right wing. Instead of Bush lied, Bush is Hitler, vote fraud conspiracy, let's take the Prez
out fishing and pheww (that was Ms. Rhodes talking), corporations are evil (and now let's go to a commercial...
what no advertisers want to buy time here? Oh. OK, let's run another PSA...) talk.

I don't think so.  I agree with those who have said personality and entertainment value are more important to getting an audience than ideology. 

But if AAR showed promise, a station like WRKO would run it...and get a 0.7 signal instead of 4.2. THAT is why AAR might be on "weaker" signals. (And why it has swapped places with sports signals in places like Burl-VT
and Cincy)

Sort of a chicken-and-egg dilemma.  AAR's mistake, beyond inexperienced talent, was going for station quantity over quality.  They'd have been better off had they been selective - gotten a few more KPOJs.  With 20 decent stations, in markets showing some potential for the format, they could have shown some good results to the industry.  Part of that would have involved decent talent rather than name recognition (after all, nobody had heard of Rush outside Sacramento when he went national).  AAR was more concerned with their fantasy of influencing elections than building a viable syndication company.  So they ended up giving guys like the Greater Media suit evidence to think they'd been right all along and liberal talk can't work. 

And, similar to what Holland has been saying about fem talk, AAR just copied the approach of Rush and the conservative hosts - and that may not be how most liberals want talk radio presented.