In Key Markets, AAR's Ratings Melt
Like an ice cream cone left in the hot July sun, Air America Radio's ratings are melting in some key (read: liberal) regions of the country.
Based on fresh ratings data released Thursday evening, the "progressive" radio network has lost strength in three cities where it had previously found the most listener support: Portland, Seattle and Denver.
Representing the spring 2006 Arbitron reporting period, these results provide one of the two most important report cards for the entire year.
A quick rundown:
In Seattle, AAR affiliate KPTK-AM had increasingly been providing a rare bright spot for liberal talk radio, but that wasn't the case this time: it fell from a previously respectable 2.8 share to a bottom-feeding 1.7 among all listeners 12 and older. That had KPTK tied for 23rd place overall.
Up against baseball on rival KOMO- AM, the increasingly left- leaning KIRO- AM also fell, from 4.3 to a 3.9.
Conservative talkers were mixed: KVI- AM dropped from a 3.1 to a 2.5, while competitor KTTH- AM held just about steady, with a 2.8 share.In Portland, KPOJ- AM, which had been Air America's biggest nationwide success story, also took a dive: it dropped from 4.1 to a 3.5 share.
Conservative and other talk formats had better luck in the Rose City, with KXL and KEX-AM both up slightly and far ahead of Franken & Co. Until now, KPOJ's ratings had held fairly steady and it was considered a model for liberal radio's potential future national success.Denver's KKZN-AM had also provided a previous pocket of libtalk support, but that proved to be short- lived. The station finished the spring ratings book with a mere 1.3 share, leaving it near the bottom in the overall market.
From the Radio equilzer (happy Jim)
Friday, July 28, 2006
SUMMERTIME SLIDE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Since neither you nor your souce provide any link to the actual data, I'm going to assume that these particular numbers are cherry-picked and misleading.
And Game, you really shouldn't be copying your source material ver batim without prominent attribution. Brian Maloney may sue you since he has nothing better to do.
link always provided...
Once again in my area of expertize..exactly. I did a show with my viewpoints in a verrrry conservative area and the station went from 9th to 5th with the only change my show being on the air. My theory on why this happened(and it is more than theory, I talked to some prominent people in town)is it succeeded because people were able to hear things they otherwise would have never heard in this verrrry conservative area. They felt like they were better informed. It had something to do with the way I did it and produced it too of course. But the "outside" information was the big thing. This is not as vital in large cities that have much media access. Many said they enjoyed the show even though they often disagreed. This is because it was different! Also, although I am sure you won't believe this I do have many traditional American values(as does Jim) and occasionally some more conservative ones, as in illegal immigration. You just refuse to acknowlege them. They come across far better on the air in a monolouge or a conversation where I can directly question the listener. I could rip Sean"the most phony patriot on the planet" Hannity in about 5 minutes in a face to face. He is the absolute worst from a purely professional radio and debate point of view. His questions and so called points of view are often Hobsons choices instead of any really intelligent thought. Far less capable than Rush. Little Anne wouldn't survive long either cuz she is short on common sense and long on bluster.
Finally, I think part of the reason also is they are not talking to a traditionally talk radio oriented audience. Liberals are far more independant thinkers and are less like likely to eat up every word someone says or even care what someone else has to say. They haven't come up with the right way to do it yet but they will do it eventually, be it in fits and starts. Nobody is willing to give up on this, thank God. By the way, I was on directly against Rush and stole much of his audience.
Commenting on debating Sean or Rush...whichever person was the host would win...its that simple...whomever controls the show will always win the argument because they control the argument, they control when someone gets to talk...I bet you knew that already
"whomever controls the show will always win the argument because they control the argument, they control when someone gets to talk"
This generally is the case. The best talk show hosts deal with contrary calls like this. What usually happens is the caller gets diarrhea of the mouth and won't shut up. They think they're getting their views out, but they merely give the host a chance to make the point he prefers to respond to.
Being direct, clear, and concise would be a better strategy. For example, a Democrat could ask, if Islam is intrinsically bad, what are we doing in Iraq? Period. The host has to resolve the contradiction, either by admitting that Iraq is hopeless, or admitting that Islam is not instrincally evil. If the Democrat asked, if Islam is intrinsically bad, what are we doing in Iraq? This is a PNAC conspiracy to help oil companies, to benefit Israel, and to make CEOs get rich. Capitalism is necessarily imperialist and needs to be managed; Muslims are merely angry about the west's criminal history. We need the government to step in and have more fairness in television and the radio!
Now the host has several things to reply to-- the conpiratorial moonbat attitude, the failures of command economics, the anti-semitism on the left, the benefits of a free press, the moral superiority of liberal democracy, the religious nature of the extremism in the middle east, Israel's right to exist -- all without addressing the initial point.
Game, you are on the money but someone that is on their game(pardon the unintended pun) can trash stupid questions like Hannity or Coulter asks quickly and retort with a question of their own. In essence pointing out the goofyness of the question presented to them. Sean is weak, weak, weak..next time you watch him look for it. If you are able to overcome your biases you will see it.
Ron, since I think we have all done a good job lately in posting, I would respectfully ask you to stop with the kind of talk you resorted to here..."I can't get by my bias"
I am a very intelligent thinker...I don't worship Sean or anyone...though I do LOVE listening to Ann and Rush usually makes GREAT points...
I listen with an open mind...
Here are my opinions: Sean is very good at putting his guest or caller into a corner...he sticks to ONE subject or point...and tries to make the other person look stupid...I see what he is doing, but he is just good at debate...it is a game, and he is playing it...
Ann: Makes arguments like no other..she is the smartest person around in my opinion...she is extreme and says crazy stuff at times, but takes facts and quotes of liberals and past history to prove her points...
Rush: Is the best at making scripted speeches...his points are flawless...not as good with callers or guests...
that is what I think...
Whenever I hear a liberal talker I just think of people in a room with tin foil hats...
Too long of a reply jason..it sounds like a sean hannity retort. nobody is going to follow that. the fewer words the better.
The question is sufficent here:
If the Democrat asked, if Islam is intrinsically bad, what are we doing in Iraq?
My response would be..find the leaders that are common sensical. In short help good leaders get their point out and ignore the bad ones. Islams are only going to follow another Islamist.
Thats easy for our "busy" people to follow and makes sense.
The Repubs have done the 3 word phrases etc to perfection. Unfortunately the have gone to the point of being viscious about it and turning it from common sensical to a war on other americas and many are falling off the bandwagon.
Game said, "Sean is very good at putting his guest or caller into a corner...he sticks to ONE subject or point."
No, Sean is an ambusher. He had Newdow on H&C to talk about "In God We Trust" on currency and then kept attacking him about alimony and child support checks. Totally off subject, totally low blow. Newdow rightly called him on it saying if Hannity wanted to talk family law, he would do that on another program, but that wasn't the current subject.
Hannity does that all the time. He continually repeats things that he knows to be untrue. That makes him a liar. The fact that people call him a "great America" makes me sick to my stomach.
Jim-10-4. Sean in many ways is the most disgusting of a very disgusting bunch and NOT a good debater. He does just the stuff Game chastized me for doing in above comment...only far worse. Game, I have biases and so do you..we all do.
I guess i question your independant thought because it is 99 percent of the time in line with the wingnut screachers. Don't say that I am in line with the liberals to the same extent because #1 that is not true and #2 contrary to what you have been lead to believe liberal though covers a LOT of territory.This country is a liberal democracy. That is why the left is always called not united or no plan etc. Because we have varying points of disagreement on many things. We are able to disagree on things and be united on the big picture. It seems to me that the right..as it is today...must march to almost exactly the same drummer or they are called liberals or some traitor comment. There is a lot more difference between an Evan Bayh and a Dennis Kucinich than there is between Orrin Hatch and Denny Hastert or Jim Boehner.
To preempt your response, yes there are "marginal" people in both parties that lose respect from the majority. Joe Leiberman and Ben Nelson in the Democratic party and Chris Shays and Lincoln Chaffee and once Jim Jeffords on the Repub side.
Ron, I believe the term you are looking for is RINO. It should tell people something that EH uses it frequently.
Post a Comment