Axe falls on WRKO news Dept.

[Donna Halper]

it was said--

>Even in very Liberal Massachusetts, liberal slanted talk doesn't seem to get
>any traction...
>
>While we have heard talk radio simply "preaches to the choir"....I wonder if
>that is correct.
>
>Maybe it's the way conservatives and  argue differently...that makes one
>more entertaining than the other.

I have been doing a lot of research on this (I'm trying to get my 
PhD, and talk radio is a subject in my dissertation) and Boston is 
not a market where we can make any valid judgements about  so-called 
liberal talk. (I am not referring to "do we personally like it" or 
"do we personally think it's awful"-- I mean judgements based on how 
many listeners tune in during a given week.)   Basing my own 
assessments on what I hear all over eastern Mass as I drive around, 
there are so many signal problems that plague WXKS and WKOX that we 
don't know who can even hear the stations.  I don't know what's with 
WKOX's night pattern, but after 4.30 yesterday, I had trouble hearing 
them in Needham.  In fact, Buffalo's WWKB was coming in more clearly. 
What I do know is that it's definitely a demographic sell-- Ed 
Schultz, for example, is getting very solid 25-54 numbers.  Stephanie 
Miller's numbers are strong in 18-49.  In some really blue parts of 
the state, like out in Amherst, WHMP has switched over to more and 
more Jones programming-- they now carry both Ed and Stephanie, where 
they used to carry neither, and I am told these two shows are getting 
very good response.  But again, weak signals affect the amount of 
people who can sample.  In the handful of cities where the format is 
on a station with a strong signal and a promotion budget, such as 
Portland OR, Seattle WA and Miami FL, progressive talk has been 
getting both good ratings and some advertiser support.  But again, 
it's individual hosts who do well-- the jury is still out on the 
format as a whole.   And I do agree that liberals and conservatives 
sometimes argue differently, but here again, not all conservative 
hosts are getting the big numbers and not all liberal hosts are being 
rejected.  It took Limbaugh more than 5 years to turn a profit and 
get big numbers.  Fox News lost money for 4 years and Murdoch had to 
keep  bailing it out.  I'm interested in the development of TALENT on 
progressive talk stations.  Hiring a celebrity like Al Franken 
doesn't mean he'll be a good talk host.  It's an art, and I think we 
all agree that Limbaugh, whether we like his politics or not, does 
entertaining radio more often than not.  Liberals came very late to 
using radio and as a result, they haven't developed as many 
entertaining hosts yet.  As I do my research, I am getting very good 
reaction to Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, and Thom 
Hartmann.  Randi Rhodes used to get excellent reaction but lately she 
is perceived as being too much into "endless rant" mode, a disease 
that also afflicts some of the less successful rightie talkers.  If 
stations want to move beyond just preaching to the choir, they need 
to have that entertainment factor-- that is why conservatives listen 
to Ed Schultz and liberals listen to Rush Limbaugh -- they may not 
always agree with the ideology, but they find the show itself 
interesting and entertaining.

Oh and my 2 cents on RKO news-- it's wrong, wrong, wrong not to have 
some local news.  Research shows people want it.  It may not be the 
prime reason they tune in, but it's one more thing they can like 
about your station.