Talk:Talk radio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Politically oriented

The section "Politically oriented talk radio" perpetuates the false left-right dichotomy in the US. There are alternatives! In June 2005 I added "In 2002 an alternative to the progressive / conservative talk radio dichotomy emerged called Free Talk Live. FTL is the only nationally syndicated "freedom" oriented talk radio that I know of... Please edit and expand on this! --User:Brer_Vole

Or, perhaps, delete it. Sorry, "Free Talk Live" is obscure by talk radio standards. The show's own website says it airs on 13 over-air stations. [1] And only two or three of those are in markets of any size, usually on lower-rated or non-rated stations. It looks like it might be an interesting show, but basically, no one can hear it. Wikipedia is not, as far as I can tell, a place to publicize a talk radio show. I've also removed at least two other attempts to put obscure or new shows in the same class as programs anyone who listens to talk radio would know. MPWard 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't much like the characterization of Howard Stern as "libertarian"; when he ran for office, he was a big supporter of public schools, public roads, and many other government programs. He ran as a libertarian because it was easy for him to "take over" the state party by flooding it with his fans. The party later disavowed his candidacy. He certainly is a fan of free speech, though, so I can't fault him there. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Removed description of liberal talk radio as being supported by wealthy backers rather than advertisers, since the same characterization can be made of conservative talk radio, especially during Rush Limbaugh's early unprofitable years. Either the discussion should reflect this, or it should be dropped. I chose to drop it. -- AlanUS (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

the following was removed for POV slant:

Some political talk radio hosts, such as Alan Berg and Michael Savage, deliberately provoke and antagonize their callers, engaging in shouting matches, putting them on mute, interrupting them frequently, and abrupting hanging up on them.

this needs to be reworded badly. Alkivar 20:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the above paragraph is an accurate description to anyone familiar with talk radio, as such it deserves to to be left as-is. It is an abuse of NPOV to remove such an objective description that is not using subjective characterization.

This article is basically a puff piece for a select number of mostly right-wing radio hosts and does not reflect a neutral point of view, nor doe it give accurate information. I'll edit to bring some accuracy and neutrality to it when time allows, but have tagged it as NPOV becuase it is and ask that this tag be let to stand until such time as it can be reworked to meet the standards of neutrality demanded by Wikipedia policy. Calicocat 23:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Please do improve the article, but I must say the strong bias you are detecting is not obvious to me--please clarify the grounds for the NPOV dispute. (I believe it is customary to discuss such objections on the talk page before tagging the article.) The success of conservative or right-wing talk hosts in the US is unmistakable, as is their dominance in the field--isn't it? BTfromLA 00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (from RFC) I'm not exactly sure that I see how the US section is biased, really. Talk radio has been hugely important for the right wing and has mostly been a right wing phenomenon, so it seems fair that most of the attention should focus on right-wing talk hosts like Limbaugh. Also, talk radio IS all about personalities -- it would not be a complete article without some discussion of the most prominent ones. Perhaps there should be more information in there about the right-wing talk radio phenomenon as it has impacted political debates and campaigns in the U.S., though. Katefan0 14:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also from RFC, and I also don't see any prominent POV problems here. My one complaint would be that NPR should have higher placement. At least in my area, NPR affiliates are de facto liberal talk radio for much of the day, although they are much less overt and caustic about it than their right-wing counterparts. Calicocat you're free to add to the section but I don't see any need for the NPOV notice currently. Please name specific problems which you see in the section. Rhobite 19:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I would have no complaint about a mention of NPR, but since it's ratings are quite a bit lower than others, I don't see how it can justifiably be made more prominent.69.6.162.160 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

To the person who likes to write about the reasons for conservative dominance on talk radio, be my guest, but please put forward many different reasons that can be followed up on. The socialist tone needs to be left out as well. I would be happy to give you the opportunity to rethink and rewrite, if you include business reasons, style, idealogical potency etc. If you cannot, let me know and I will begin research on the subject, and write something. Deletion due to tone example is "reasons were not pretty" which is clearly not encyclopedic language. One reason alone cannot stand, even if I agree it should be included in a more broad article portion. 75.153.141.38 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC) OK I HAVE SIGNED IN NOW Jeremy99 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the paragraph which was originally the subject of this discussion. We have talk radio here (called "talkback") in Australia and the behaviours described are certainly typical of talkback hosts here. I'm going to add a modified para:

Talk radio hosts typically engage in extremes of behaviour not found in mainstream radio that can include provoking and antagonizing their callers, engaging in shouting matches, interrupting them frequently, abruptly putting callers on mute or hanging up on them. Atichborne (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Brown

In answer to the question about why I removed Jerry Brown (after I'd added him earlier)--it's because it occured to me that his program may have been only on the Pacifica network, hence not really an attempt to penetrate the commercial talk realm the way Cuomo and Hightower were. I thought there were enough names named to make the point and I didn't wan to take time to dig up the details of Brown's radio show, but if you know the history and you think he's an appropriate addition, I'd have no objection to his name being restored. BTfromLA 23:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Brown's program had a limited commercial syndication run, mainly in Northern California. I know for sure it aired on KSTE/650 in the Sacramento market for some time, and I believe it also ran in the Monterey Bay area. Still, I don't believe he garnered many affiliates, and may have only been a regional phenomenon with little impact outside the Northern California region. I think he went to Pacifica after the commercial stations stopped carrying his show. 69.168.179.150 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

FAIR and NPR's reliance on Republicans

FAIR's own left-wing bias is well documented, and their assertions should not stand to absolve allegations of liberal bias at NPR.

It is not just NPR, there are most U.S. cities like Indianapolis already have more than one commercial AM all-talk stations. -

Anyone who works for NPR, PBS, CBC, BBC is either liberal of a conservative token (sans brain). Just working for a public broadcaster that is not about capital is dancing with socialism. I have little respect for these people. Except for perhaps a few in Canada, as the CRTC gave the only full service news channel to CBC. NEWSNET is getting there now though so my patience for them wears thin. Jeremy99 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservative talk merger

The Conservative talk article seems to me to have an NPOV issue. Rather than rewriting it, it seems to me that it would be more helpful to merge its content into the US-political section here. --chrylis (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the content of the Conservative talk article has some POV. But the phenomenon of conservative talk is big enough to merit is own article. So I think don't merge, and edit the POV away. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrailty and substantiation regarding AirAmerica

I question the fact that the commentary on "liberal talk radio" speaks of how it has been 'attempted, but has resulted in low ratings" without any real substantiation or discussion of some of the factors that might have led to those low ratings (such as ClearChannel's manipulation of many of the stations that carry the AirAmerica programming, etc.") It has been demonstrated that in many markets, shows like "Randi Rhodes" are performing consistently better than the programming it has replaced. In general, I think the section on "liberal radio"/AirAmerica needs to be better researched and substantiated. ChrisStansfield 12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that reflected in the Air America Radio article. Brian Pearson 00:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann does very well in direct competition with Rush Limbaugh. Air America sems to have a lack of coverage in the central region of the country. But you can listen to them online. www.airamerica.com Vasa2 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The common wisdom about AAR and liberal talk radio is not poor audience ratings, but poor sponsorship due to 1) prejudiced radio ownership $ sales staff (in the cases (such as say; Clear Channel) where management runs many (often conservative) stations) and 2) a perception among many advertisers that liberals are less pro-business. (However Limbaugh&Co DID snatch up almost all the powerful "50,000 watt blow torch" and "border-blaster" news stations early on, which does affect ratings.)

For example, here in Fresno, Air America-oriented KFPT had the second highest AM Arbitron ratings in the Fresno area when new ownership converted it to just another sports-talk station in Fresno, —which then earned far lower ratings. But sports-talk has built-in sponsorship. Here is a chart of Fresno's 2006 (pre-conversion) Arbitron ratings.
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Doug Bashford