195:(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.
31:
224:
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.
344:
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.
269:
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
85:
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. Knowledge is not, as far as I can tell, a place to publicize a talk radio show. I've also removed at least two
223:
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,
202:
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
187:
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
386:
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
260:
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
178:
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
343:
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
291:
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
74:
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
122:
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
239:
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.
234:
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:
261:
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.
112:, 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
368:
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
412:
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.
387:
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
304:
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. --
203:
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.
154:, deliberately provoke and antagonize their callers, engaging in shouting matches, putting them on mute, interrupting them frequently, and abrupting hanging up on them.
338:
270:
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.
213:
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.
348:
271:
225:
214:
323:
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.
378:
362:
241:
82:
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.
76:
332:
168:
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
370:
292:
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)
426:
179:
that this tag be let to stand until such time as it can be reworked to meet the standards of neutrality demanded by
Knowledge policy.
285:
FAIR's own left-wing bias is well documented, and their assertions should not stand to absolve allegations of liberal bias at NPR.
313:
288:
It is not just NPR, there are most U.S. cities like
Indianapolis already have more than one commercial AM all-talk stations. -
280:
132:
90:
274:
418:
86:
other attempts to put obscure or new shows in the same class as programs anyone who listens to talk radio would know.
295:
228:
217:
249:
151:
69:
328:
38:
117:
422:
324:
345:
245:
8:
255:
359:
172:
to remove such an objective description that is not using subjective characterization.
355:
320:
309:
301:
128:
75:"freedom" oriented talk radio that I know of... Please edit and expand on this! --
374:
47:
17:
188:
hosts in the US is unmistakable, as is their dominance in the field--isn't it?
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
180:
262:
196:
189:
105:
83:
305:
204:
159:
137:
97:
401:
124:
113:
109:
101:
87:
413:
147:
414:
Here is a chart of Fresno's 2006 (pre-conversion) Arbitron ratings.
409:
231:
OK I HAVE SIGNED IN NOW Jeremy99 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
405:
169:
104:"; when he ran for office, he was a big supporter of
339:Neutrailty and substantiation regarding AirAmerica
96:I for one don't much like the characterization of
146:Some political talk radio hosts, such as
142:the following was removed for POV slant:
116:, though, so I can't fault him there. --
14:
281:FAIR and NPR's reliance on Republicans
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
25:
354:I didn't see that reflected in the
23:
24:
441:
158:this needs to be reworded badly.
319:I think that the content of the
123:dropped. I chose to drop it. --
29:
400:For example, here in Fresno,
13:
1:
427:20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
333:15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
363:00:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
7:
314:07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
10:
446:
408:had the second highest AM
349:12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
275:00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
229:13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
91:19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
265:23:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
218:02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
207:19:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
199:14:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
192:00:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
183:23:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
162:20:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
379:00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
296:Conservative talk merger
250:07:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
133:16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
42:of past discussions.
70:Politically oriented
389:does affect ratings
118:Lee Daniel Crocker
356:Air America Radio
321:Conservative talk
302:Conservative talk
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
437:
325:Diderot's dreams
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
445:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
346:ChrisStansfield
341:
298:
283:
258:
140:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Talk radio
12:
11:
5:
443:
433:
432:
431:
430:
416:
395:
394:
393:
392:
366:
365:
340:
337:
336:
335:
297:
294:
282:
279:
278:
277:
272:69.168.179.150
257:
254:
253:
252:
220:Brian Pearson
211:
210:
209:
208:
200:
176:
175:
174:
173:
156:
155:
152:Michael Savage
139:
136:
106:public schools
94:
93:
77:User:Brer_Vole
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
442:
429:Doug Bashford
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
364:
361:
360:Brian Pearson
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
293:
289:
286:
276:
273:
268:
267:
266:
264:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
236:
232:
230:
227:
226:75.153.141.38
221:
219:
216:
206:
201:
198:
194:
193:
191:
186:
185:
184:
182:
171:
167:
166:
165:
164:
163:
161:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
135:
134:
130:
126:
120:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
92:
89:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
419:71.138.23.59
388:
367:
342:
299:
290:
287:
284:
259:
233:
222:
215:69.6.162.160
212:
177:
157:
141:
121:
110:public roads
98:Howard Stern
95:
73:
60:
43:
37:
402:Air America
256:Jerry Brown
114:free speech
102:libertarian
36:This is an
404:-oriented
242:Atichborne
358:article.
181:Calicocat
148:Alan Berg
61:Archive 1
410:Arbitron
263:BTfromLA
197:Katefan0
190:BTfromLA
306:chrylis
205:Rhobite
160:Alkivar
39:archive
125:AlanUS
88:MPWard
371:Vasa2
16:<
423:talk
406:KFPT
375:talk
329:talk
310:talk
300:The
246:talk
170:NPOV
150:and
138:NPOV
129:talk
100:as "
425:)
417:--
391:.)
377:)
331:)
312:)
248:)
131:)
108:,
421:(
373:(
327:(
308:(
244:(
127:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.