Progressive Talk in Detroit

[FredGarvin]

Fryar, look at your own disclaimer. I'm having trouble understanding how this is pointed towards your earlier post, and not trying to rewrite mine.

Also, in your post, you presume that all conservative radio listeners are "alienated and angry", and they do not "arrive at a conservative position after weighing the merits and demerits of various approaches to government" I have to take issue with this statement. Again, in a backhanded way, the namecalling is continuing. You're insinuating that conservative radio listeners are equivalent to "mindless drones" who do not logically think about issues but rather blindly follow and mimic the radio hosts they listen to.

This could be very offensive to those individuals [[mind you, individuals, not lumped together as all conservative radio fans) that have the intelligence to think about issues and come to their own opinions and thoughts.

Look, let's not get sidetracked by now criticizing the listeners. That's not the issue here. Don't obfusgate. Conservative content is the differentiator in determining whether a political network is a sustainable business or not.

I will not again allow myself to led astray by side issues and obfusgation. It's the CONTENT.

[fryar]

Fryar, look at your own disclaimer. I'm having trouble understanding how this is pointed towards your earlier post, and not trying to rewrite mine.

The disclaimer was meant to clarify that I didn't intend to attack conservatism as such. As an example, I differentiate between the suggestion that services would be more effectively delivered privately and the suggestion that Baraq [[sp!) Hussein Obama is secretely a Muslim.

Also, in your post, you presume that all conservative radio listeners are "alienated and angry", and they do not "arrive at a conservative position after weighing the merits and demerits of various approaches to government" I have to take issue with this statement. Again, in a backhanded way, the namecalling is continuing. You're insinuating that conservative radio listeners are equivalent to "mindless drones" who do not logically think about issues but rather blindly follow and mimic the radio hosts they listen to.

Otherwise, why are they listening to this pomposity? I'm of the liberal persuasion myself, but I can't stand MSNBC commentators, and Air America was terrible as well. It's all just designed to get you riled up and, well, tuning in. These are not shows to turn to for thoughtful dialogue, and that's not what listeners to these shows are tuning in for. The name calling is not directed at conservatives, it is directed at the demagogues.

This could be very offensive to those individuals [[mind you, individuals, not lumped together as all conservative radio fans) that have the intelligence to think about issues and come to their own opinions and thoughts.

I'm sorry to anyone I offended. I can certainly see how someone can be a conservative and not run around worried that Obama is secretly a Muslim dedicated to undermining America. I also apologize to any readers who do fear this may be the case, and believe I called them a muttonhead or some such.
To those of you to whom it is not yet clear that I am not specifically singling out conservative radio listeners, I'm not.

Look, let's not get sidetracked by now criticizing the listeners. That's not the issue here. Don't obfuscate. Conservative content is the differentiator in determining whether a political network is a sustainable business or not.

In fairness, what is the issue here? Somebody asked for locally produced progressive talk radio, and you launched into an economics lecture on the sustainability and growth potential of conservative radio commentary. Ironically enough, my knee-jerk desire to respond to your seeming defense of this shlock as that I blame for hardening the political fronts and highjacking the political process, as it were, when others may just have let your comment go, contributed to the highjacking of this thread.

I will not again allow myself to led astray by side issues and obfuscation. It's the CONTENT.

And we'll leave it at that. Content is King.

Anyone else have any locally produced or Detroit-centric radio shows or podcasts to suggest?

[dtowncitylover]

Thom Hartmann on 1310 from 12-3 each weekday is from Port Huron, and talks about being from Michigan often and fondly. He's not based here, but he wouldn't bash us. Stephanie Miller is funny. The daughter of Goldwater's running mate in 68, so she comes from a Republican family like Reagan Jr. Ed Schultz is too boisterous for me, he seems to yell everything. lol

[firstandten]

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.

I think you provide a portion of the answer but there's more to it than that
There is an extentive study done by the Center for American Progress on this very issue. quote from the study

"There are many potential explanations for why this gap[[between progressive and conservative talk radio) exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.
Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."


"Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data."

In other words rich conservative white people who own radio stations tend to have conservative talk show hosts. Whether its in the public interest or not they don't really care.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...talk_radio.pdf

[Goose]

In other words rich conservative white people who own radio stations tend to have conservative talk show hosts. Whether its in the public interest or not they don't really care.

SERIOUSLY?? what a bunch of crap....

rich white conservatives would jump on the liberal talk radio band wagon if IT MADE MONEY....

and again, somehow, it has been all brought back to race.....

[fryar]

In other words rich conservative white people who own radio stations tend to have conservative talk show hosts.

There's no denying the content sells itself. You don't have to be a conservative radio station owner to put it on the airwaves. There are probably many station airing this stuff that are owned by corporations, the stock in which is held by the market as a whole, which includes any individual reader's pension fund. Any of us may be that conservative, white owner, so to speak. Meanwhile, the reason it is put on is not to represent ownership's views, but to make a buck off the advertising.

[firstandten]

SERIOUSLY?? what a bunch of crap....

rich white conservatives would jump on the liberal talk radio band wagon if IT MADE MONEY....

and again, somehow, it has been all brought back to race.....

Really, did you take time to read the study.

BTW the study is data driven, so give your subjective thinking a bit of a rest.

[fryar]

The fairness doctrine sounds like a good idea, in theory and at first glance. But it's impossible to give everyone a fair hearing, and so you can't possibly not end up with some form of favoritism. You can try to regulate that, but you will fail, because what, you're just going to think of everything? And we don't need to try in spite of guaranteed failure, because really, there's the internet.

Ownership diversity and public trusteeship are issues that can be or are very relevant to other topics, in my opinion, but I see what that study is promoting as a misuse of high-minded principle for partisan gain.

[firstandten]

There's no denying the content sells itself. You don't have to be a conservative radio station owner to put it on the airwaves. There are probably many station airing this stuff that are owned by corporations, the stock in which is held by the market as a whole, which includes any individual reader's pension fund. Any of us may be that conservative, white owner, so to speak. Meanwhile, the reason it is put on is not to represent ownership's views, but to make a buck off the advertising.

All I'm saying that on the surface it looks like content is driving the wide difference between the programming. But it goes deeper than that. When you have media power like the large radio companies which are mostly white you can shape the view that you want. The "If people wanted it they would broadcast it argument" falls short in that If I controlled the market and I have a message and my hosts are good enough I can to a large extent shape the message and the reaction to that message.

Quote from the study
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more
likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations
The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.
This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs.

[barnesfoto]

The conservative content [[self reliance, small government) resonates with people better

As for American Conservatism having anything to do with self reliance and small government, thanks for the laugh. For the last 30 years we've heard this message again and again, yet the odd species known as Conservocritus Americanus has insisted less regulation for corporations and more regulations for individuals, as well as funding fascism in Central America, Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan [[in the name of anti-communism) and more recently, reckless and disaster ridden invasions of two different countries. Some would call the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan an extreme form of trespassing... [[Whatever you call it, war is never an example of "small government" or "self reliance").
Oddly, since January 2009, the praises for American trespassing abroad have died out and been replaced with shrill shrieking against alleged "trespassers" at home [[The trespassers being people fleeing from countries where conservative social and economic policies [[low taxes, no abortion, weak unions, no welfare, smaller government) are firmly in place).

That's why some of us refer to such cultish yappers as "conservocrites".

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

True, but historically, right wing propaganda sells.

Link: Father Charles Coughlin: Somebody must be blamed

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5111/

Most lefties don't need a "special" program or station to reinforce their ideas. Werbe, though, does have a great show, at least until Clear Channel controls all of the radio stations in America.

[firstandten]

The fairness doctrine sounds like a good idea, in theory and at first glance. But it's impossible to give everyone a fair hearing, and so you can't possibly not end up with some form of favoritism. You can try to regulate that, but you will fail, because what, you're just going to think of everything? And we don't need to try in spite of guaranteed failure, because really, there's the internet.

Ownership diversity and public trusteeship are issues that can be or are very relevant to other topics, in my opinion, but I see what that study is promoting as a misuse of high-minded principle for partisan gain.

I think you are missing the point of the study. The authors are saying that the fairness doctrine like content has little to do with the difference between the types of programming.

The difference is the lack of radio ownership diversity.

[fryar]

All I'm saying that on the surface it looks like content is driving the wide difference between the programming. But it goes deeper than that. When you have media power like the large radio companies which are mostly white you can shape the view that you want. The "If people wanted it they would broadcast it argument" falls short in that If I controlled the market and I have a message and my hosts are good enough I can to a large extent shape the message and the reaction to that message.

Quote from the study
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more
likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations
The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.
This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs.

My problem is with the advocacy that results. What do we do now? Require that the ownership of radio stations be distributed amongst a local ownership in ratios along race and gender lines that approximate the ratios of those population groups in society at large, or in the region? If we did require that, perhaps to accomplish some goal we had decided on as a nation, we could so because of the public nature of the airwaves. But we shouldn't do it just to boot some claptrap off the air in favor of other, more palatable claptrap.

[firstandten]

My problem is with the advocacy that results. What do we do now? Require that the ownership of radio stations be distributed amongst a local ownership in ratios along race and gender lines that approximate the ratios of those population groups in society at large, or in the region? If we did require that, perhaps to accomplish some goal we had decided on as a nation, we could so because of the public nature of the airwaves. But we shouldn't do it just to boot some claptrap off the air in favor of other, more palatable claptrap.

According to the study this is what they advocate

-Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

-Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

-Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

This by the way is not radical. This is how the industry used to work. But like in many areas of business the big guy buys up the small guy. However radio stations are suppose to broadcast material in the public interest. They use to need to prove that to get and keep their licenses.

[fryar]

In order to boot some claptrap off the air in favor of other, more palatable claptrap?

[firstandten]

Another thing, don't you find it ironic that the 50,000 watt blowtorch WJR is right-wing all the time whereas 1310 is wayyyy down the dial plus you can hardly hear it at night.

[firstandten]

In order to boot some claptrap off the air in favor of other, more palatable claptrap?

If the claptrap truly reflects the local community listenership then I'm all for it.

[barnesfoto]

According to the study this is what they advocate

-Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

-Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

-Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

This by the way is not radical. This is how the industry used to work. But like in many areas of business the big guy buys up the small guy. However radio stations are suppose to broadcast material in the public interest. They use to need to prove that to get and keep their licenses.

Isn't it amazing how the same folks who tell us it's easy and simple to invade foreign countries or monitor the reproductive activities of tens of millions of individuals act like these ideas are somehow impossible to attain or hopelessly old fashioned or "too costly"?

[fryar]

Moderator, if possible, please move our "hijacking posts" into a new thread, possibly in the Non-Detroit section. The conversation is an interesting one, but the OP's intent is no longer being addressed at all. Selfishly, I'm also interested in seeing what other suggestions for Detroit-centric listening are made, and so would like this thread to remain "pure."

Oh, and delete this post, I suppose. It will reduce my count of posts, but I suppose once you get past 100, there are no additional status boosters to aim for...

[oldredfordette]

Hypestyles, Peter Werbe has a show at 11pm Sunday nights on WRIF. You can't get more left wing than Werbe. It's only once a week but it's a doozy. Podcasts available at the WRIF site.

[firstandten]

Hypestyles, Peter Werbe has a show at 11pm Sunday nights on WRIF. You can't get more left wing than Werbe. It's only once a week but it's a doozy. Podcasts available at the WRIF site.

Isn't he a CT grad ?

[Hermod]

The fairness doctrine sounds like a good idea, in theory and at first glance. But it's impossible to give everyone a fair hearing, and so you can't possibly not end up with some form of favoritism. You can try to regulate that, but you will fail, because what, you're just going to think of everything? And we don't need to try in spite of guaranteed failure, because really, there's the internet.

Ownership diversity and public trusteeship are issues that can be or are very relevant to other topics, in my opinion, but I see what that study is promoting as a misuse of high-minded principle for partisan gain.

The thing is that nobody on the left gave a rat's ass about content on AM stations until Rush and his imitators made it a success. They relegated AM radio to the "farm report" and sports talk while adding larger speakers for their FM-Stereo "sounds". The left got blind-sided and now they want to change the rules.

In fairness to Clear Channel, when Air America began to broadcast, they gave it an AM signal in most major markets and [[at least here in Florida) gave it some billboard support on the Clear Channel billboards. Yes, Rush & Co are on the "blowtorch" stations, but they earned their way on to those signals with results. Air America couldn't pay its way on the second rate signals and pretty much got closed down.:

[jefferson78]

I enjoy listening to talk radio, when it is informing and not too biased. Unfortunately, unbiased programming is pretty much nonexistent.
I used to enjoy Trupiano and I like Ed Schultz. Thom Hartman puts me to sleep. Stephanie Miller's show is hard to listen to as she and her sidekicks try too hard to be funny and they lose me fast. Some may find this hard to believe but I actually enjoyed Jerry Springer when he was on during the afternoon.
I've tried to listed to the right-wing babble on WJR but most of the time I would rather someone drive an icepick in my ear than listen to Rush, Hannity, Beckman etc.
I think liberal radio would succeed given the right station and strength. It's all about promotion. I think the hosts on WJR were lucky to get on a powerful signal, not because their message resonates with a majority of the people. There are just a lot of "sheep" out there who can't think for themselves and will believe anything someone tells them, true or not. It's what divides us as a country and promotes ignorance.

[Ravine]

Hypestyles, Peter Werbe has a show at 11pm Sunday nights on WRIF. You can't get more left wing than Werbe. It's only once a week but it's a doozy. Podcasts available at the WRIF site.

Hhmm. Not a ringing endorsement, to my ears. Folks who are all the way out on the far edge of either wing are almost always simple-minded.
Ain't too many locals who have been heard over the airwaves for as long as that one, though.

[Detroitej72]

Thom Hartman is one of the most informative voices out there on AM radio. He routinely has guest on with opposing points of views and then debates them. He is always cordial and respectful as he points out the flaws in their arguments. That is something you will never hear on the ditto-head show, or any of his imitations, they just scream louder and hang up on the callers that dare to disagree.

[jefferson78]

Thom Hartman is one of the most informative voices out there on AM radio. He routinely has guest on with opposing points of views and then debates them. He is always cordial and respectful as he points out the flaws in their arguments. That is something you will never hear on the ditto-head show, or any of his imitations, they just scream louder and hang up on the callers that dare to disagree.

I agree, he also likes to quote his sources and appears to be extremely intelligent and well-read.
If he could just work on his delivery, a little deadpan for me.