Progressive Talk in Detroit

[Hypestyles]

....Looking for progressive Talk Radio in Detroit, I guess besides the moderate NPR 101.9, I stumbled across WDTW AM 1310 a year or so ago... I notice that it is a Clear Channel owned station.. I go on the website, and I don't see any local on-air personalities, except some weekend stuff that's non-current-events related.. I wonder what gives with this station, why it chooses to pipe in all the daytime talker shows from elsewhere-- Ed Schultz, Alan Colmes, others I've barely or never heard of.. IMO this station would do a lot better if they had someone local on air in one of the prime spots...

[Det_ard]

They tried that with Tony Trupiano, Nancy Skinner, etc. Fail.

[Hermod]

The syndicated shows from right or left come free. The shows have their own commercials pre-bundled and what the local station receives for advertising in the slots left for them is pure profit [[minus the engineer time to run the program). They don't have to have a local "personality" on the payroll.

[fryar]

Hermod, I'll bet you're right on the money.

So now that we are being reluctantly pushed to abandon this player in that legacy medium for sheer lack of relevance, what are people listening to for Detroit-related talk [[of any persuasion)? Ideally, we will end up with some list of stations or [[more likely) shows and podcasts.

There is, of course, the Craig Fahle Show, which does have podcasts.

[Johnlodge]

Hermod, I'll bet you're right on the money.

So now that we are being reluctantly pushed to abandon this player in that legacy medium for sheer lack of relevance, what are people listening to for Detroit-related talk [[of any persuasion)? Ideally, we will end up with some list of stations or [[more likely) shows and podcasts.

There is, of course, the Craig Fahle Show, which does have podcasts.

I find that 97.1 The Ticket actually has more local related talk than most these days. All on-air talent are local guys, and they spend about as much time talking about regular issues as they do sports, even though it's a sports channel. Now, whether there is any intelligence to the discussion or not is a completely different issue, but it gets me through the work day.

[Hermod]

Hermod, I'll bet you're right on the money.

So now that we are being reluctantly pushed to abandon this player in that legacy medium for sheer lack of relevance, what are people listening to for Detroit-related talk [[of any persuasion)? Ideally, we will end up with some list of stations or [[more likely) shows and podcasts.

There is, of course, the Craig Fahle Show, which does have podcasts.

That is the reason for the success of Rush Limbaugh. When he came into the business, AM was dead. All of the music has switched over to FM. Unless you were a 50,000 watter listened to by truck drivers, you were in bad shape. Limbaugh's program came free of charge. All you had to do was broadcast it and sell the time slots you were allotted. He and the program production were paid by the advertisers included in the feed. Pretty soon, AM had listeners again.

[Vic_doucette]

I'm 99 precent positive the local hosts on 1310 are brokered. Thy pay the station for the time, then either sell their own commercials or use the show to promote another business they own. Many stations now do that on the weekends; some, like WPON 1460 in Pontiac, do it all the time.

As for the 'fail" of the earlier prog-talk version of 1310: The station would have done far, far better if Clear Channel had promoted it. Even given the weak signal -- especially at night -- no promotion guarantees no listeners. The same can also be said of the current iteration.

[Baselinepunk]

The "Left" creating a single radio "network" in its early stage was a failed business plan. Rush, et. al. provided the framework of success via syndication using the method mentioned above. IMHO, skirting a bunch of liberal freelancers into a "pure network" was sooooooo 1970's.

It might have looked good on paper during the pitch, but in the end the progressive "talk network" is a case study for what not to do. Remember, this whole network "thing" is post Rush and Howard Stern.

[terryh]

Try Peter Werbe on 101 fm, Sunday night at 11pm.

[fryar]

Here are podcasts for Peter Werbe's show on WRIF. If you google him and look at his website, he also has one that's on 94.7 fm Sundays at 6 AM that I can't find podcasts for off-hand.

[Jimaz]

Coming from Phoenix I can testify that radio can be much worse than what's available in Detroit. I am so grateful for WDTW 1310 AM. Imagine suffering decades of nothing but endlessly looping right-wing propaganda—torture!—save the rare amateur pirate station transmitting Orwell's 1984 in protest.

Yes, local personalities would be a plus but a smaller plus than the great big minus of no alternative at all!

Count your blessings, Detroit. You're not as bad off as you might imagine.

[gnome]

AM 1200 Mildred Ghaddis is the local gossip queen and loves to be the straw that stris the drink. she's on every weekday morning from 6 - 10. The guy following her , 10 - 1pm, Angelo Henderson runs with the same, "did you hear about ..." gossip/opinion and guests. Angelo is all "can you believe ..." slightly fey forehead slapping tales of woe.

at 1pm Al Sharpton takes over with his whole double-processed hair and outraged Don King act.

[FredGarvin]

Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason for the success of Rush et al is due to the content of the programming, and not the business model? As evidence I point to the success of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, relative newcomers to the talk radio format when compared to Rush, yet have claimed number 2 and 3 slots in terms of number of listeners.

Why is it that progressive [[liberal) formats cannot replicate the success of conservative formats? It must be the content since the business model can be replicated regardless of the programming.

The conservative content [[self reliance, small government) resonates with people better than progressive content [[government provided healthcare, new programs and bureacracies ad nausem, meddling in private business). With better resonance comes more listeners, driving more advertisers, and finally a long-term sustainable product.

[Jimaz]

Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason for the success of Rush et al is due to the content of the programming, and not the business model?

Great point. It certainly hasn't anything to do with truth.

[DC48080]

Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason for the success of Rush et al is due to the content of the programming, and not the business model? As evidence I point to the success of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, relative newcomers to the talk radio format when compared to Rush, yet have claimed number 2 and 3 slots in terms of number of listeners.

Why is it that progressive [[liberal) formats cannot replicate the success of conservative formats? It must be the content since the business model can be replicated regardless of the programming.

The conservative content [[self reliance, small government) resonates with people better than progressive content [[government provided healthcare, new programs and bureacracies ad nausem, meddling in private business). With better resonance comes more listeners, driving more advertisers, and finally a long-term sustainable product.

A gold star for FredGarvin's forehead. He gets it. Of course he will now be roundly criticized and belittled for speaking the truth. Liberals always get worked into such a lather when confronted with the truth.

This is a free market society. If there is a demand, in other words if people want it it will endure. Liberal talk radio does not sell except to the fringe elements.

[Jimaz]

Heh. Beat you to the traditional truth lie.

[DC48080]

Great point. It certainly hasn't anything to do with truth.

So, what is the "truth" to you?

[fryar]

Brief disclaimer: Your point about the actual substance of conservative political thinking is completely fair. Private charitable institutions would almost certainly be better at delivering services to citizens than graft-infested government institutions.

That said: Naturally it has occurred to me that the substance and style of the content of Rush's programming is responsible for his success - along with with Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck. I have not taken it as a failure of the left that left-wing or "progressive" equivalents are not nearly as successful; on the contrary, I take it as meritorious.

Are you blind to the offensively divisive style, as well as content, of these talk show hosts? They don't cater to listeners who arrived at a conservative position after weighing the merits and demerits of various approaches to government. They cater to the alienated and angry. The demagoguery failed at Air America, from what I understand, but it's alive and well on the so-called right.

I have trouble picturing many Rockefeller Republicans getting terribly excited about this Mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, or Obama's supposed Islamism, in the face of some loud-mouth barking at them from their TV. I imagine they don't much feel at home anywhere, at best NPR.

[FredGarvin]

Fryar, don't put words in my mouth by posting a disclaimer to MY post. That would be my responsibility.

You have acknowledged that there's demogoguery in both conservative and liberal radio media. Why has it succeeded in conservative versus liberal radio? Again, I must point to the content.

I'm not saying that content, in my opinion is right or wrong on either side of the conservative/progressive spectrum. I'm just saying that all things being equal, conservative content is the differentiator in determining the success or failure of the network.

Thanks for the support Jimaz and DC. Now, let the name calling begin. Fryar already thinks I'm "blind".

[Jimaz]

LOL! Loving this. Mining for morons is what the right does best. Mine it 'til the moron pool is exhausted before the elections, pulease! There's your "base." Hurry up!

[Goose]

A gold star for FredGarvin's forehead. He gets it. Of course he will now be roundly criticized and belittled for speaking the truth. Liberals always get worked into such a lather when confronted with the truth.

more that likely Fred will be labeled a racist......

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Ed Schultz is GREAT. I wish he was on during my drive time here in the Bay Area.

[Goose]

That said: Naturally it has occurred to me that the substance and style of the content of Rush's programming is responsible for his success - along with with Hannity, O'Reilly and Beck. I have not taken it as a failure of the left that left-wing or "progressive" equivalents are not nearly as successful; on the contrary, I take it as meritorious.

even in defeat a liberal is illogical..... failure = meritorious.... well, at least they "tried" and should get a gold star on their forehead for that....

if you can't beat 'em, try and beef up the "fairness" doctrine to suppress them.....

[fryar]

That was meant as a disclaimer to my own post. That wasn't meant to be words being put in your mouth.

What's your point about the content? I'm looking at a transcript of Rush's show from 8/26 right now to just reeducate myself on whether I think he's garbage, or was that maybe an opinion I arrived at in my younger days. It's a bunch of divisive silver-tonguery if you ask me, which is what I arrived at back in the day as well.

So yes, it's content, but that's also a comment on the listeners/viewers who let themselves get involved emotionally in conflicts that not don't need to exist in the first place but are entirely exacerbated by these broadcasts. Of course, that also goes for Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman and whoever else they've got providing insightful commentary on MSNBC these days [[those two names, like the previously mentioned Fox News characters, you'd have to live in a bubble not to know about).

I took, or meant to take [[and I apologize for any straying I did), issue with your explanation that the content of the right-hand version of these shows as somehow superior. You made it all sound plenty reasonable, and it's not, it's simple demagoguery. I find the demagoguery deeply upsetting, but not because the right is winning the ratings war for it.

[fryar]

Yeah, I should probably retract that statement that it's meritorious of the left to lose the ratings war of demagoguery. It's not. It would be meritorious if the left did not engage in it at all.