🚀 go-pugleaf

adg2@ellis.uchicago.edu (andrew david gross) writes:

>In article <CJxE3t.4su@gagme.wwa.com> wdp@gagme.wwa.com (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
>>In article <slide.20.0012905B@interaccess.com>,
>>In this case, he did more poorly than anyone ever thought.  So
>>Evergreen did #2 (so to speak) and dumped His Highness.

>There's no real point in flaming because this whole thread has been played
>out before.  However, I guess I should bring up some of the arguments that
>have been brought up in the past.  

[...]

>As for why Howard did poorly, Howard himself claims that it was because he
>was not on an FM station.  Yes, yes, I know that WLUP-AM can be heard on
>600 different continents and a few other planets, but listening habits are
>listening habits.  

Quite true.  And in Chicago, the listening habits are that people who
desired the type of comedy which Stern provided (along with the other
pseudo-shock jocks) is to tune in to AM 1000.  AM-1000 *was the* place
in Chicago for that sort of entertainment.  

>Even with a strong signal, the demographic groups to
>whom Howard appeals favor FM and would be more likely to flip around the FM
>dial rather than switch over to AM just for Howard.  

If Howard was placed on some random AM station, regardless of signal, I
would agree.  But in this market, AM-1000 was *the* place to tune.
AM-1000 had *the* demographics sewn up.  Nobody else was doing (or
*is* doing) anything resembling WLUP's schtick.  WLUP is known
nationwide for the format they arguably invented, and non-arguably
perfected.  WLUP broke all the rules of mainstream radio and has
continued to succeed at garnering impressive numbers, despite their
constant (and IMO foolish) tinkering with schedules and personnel.

So all this BS about AM versus FM is just that, coverup and BS.  I
agree that FM is traditionally the place where most people look for
programming, but here, untill the change in format, AM-1000 was the
place. 

>Furthermore, I heard WLUP was always cutting up his show.  Supposedly,
>their DJs would talk over him and cut out parts of his show to give
>extended news reports etc.  I'm not 100% sure about this...

Nor am I, but then again, Howard would routinely go 15, 20 or more
minutes overtime and 'cut in' to the midday man's show.  Not a big
deal when the station is just going into day-long classic rock, but in
the case of WLUP, it was cutting into the next 'personality'.  WLUP
hass been said to be a station of 24 hours-a-day of 'morining shows'. 

>>Another reason Stern did so badly is that, unlike Philly and other
>>markets, which have little or no local talent of Stern's genre,

[...]

>What do you call John deBella or Don Imus or the millions of other
>morning guy types that populate morning radio?  

Never heard of John deBella, Don Imus is great, and I seriousl;y doubt
that there are 'millions of morning guys' out there.  Certainly not
syndicated ones.

> Do you really think Howard,
>and Steve and Garry, and Kevin Mathews are the *only* people existing in
>that genre?  

No, of course not.

> Maybe there was no "talent", but there were certainly plenty
>of people at least pretending that they had it.  

I appologize if that was the impression I left.  I was not trying to
compare a nation full of DJ's and air talent, most of whom I have
never heard, I was only comparing Stern to the rest of the WLUP
talent. 

>However, he did not have any of this
>braggadoccio [sp?] when he came on in Chicago.  As I said above, he knew it
>would take longer to build an audience there, and thus was not making the
>same grand predictions he had made for LA.

I disagree, Stern said on numerous occasions that he was going to own
Chicago.

>>On the other hand Limbaugh's feigned egotism is more of a joke, more
>>self abasing and more forgivable since it is done with an aire of

>I wholly disagree on this assessment.  Limbaugh's egotism seems far less
>feigned than Stern's.  Limbaugh comes off as extremely pompous and hardly
>seems tongue-in-cheek.  Rush really thinks what he says is objective truth,
>while when Howard says something idiotic, you know that (a) he doesn't take
>his opinions nearly as seriously as Rush, (b) he doesn't expect anyone else
>to, and (c) Robin will usually call him on it.

Well, Rush has certainly gotten out of hand with his act too.  As I
said, I am not a Rush fan, but I believe the reason he is more popular
than Stern is a combination of the fact that he is seen as reflective
of society's values and (probably more importantly) that his show is
FREE to syndicate, so he is on more stations.


>I would consider Howard far more on the cutting edge simply because if 
>I want entertainment, I love a good exercise in vulgarity and brash humor.

If vulgarity for vulgarity's sake turns you on, then you have every
right in my book to hear it.  I cartainly dont believe that Mr Stern
should be censored.  I just gave up his (IMHO) shallow interpretations
years ago.  

>Howard's detractors are quick to say that he "simply does penis jokes", but
>there really is an art to good vulgarity. Either way, he's far more
>entertaining than Rush.  

I agree that there is 'an art' to vulgarity.  I just disagree that
Stern is the artist.  For instance, I find that "in-your-face" moan
and groan porno does not hold any appeal or 'turn-on' value for me.
But erotic fiction, where the sex is less obvious, and more implied,
is of greater interest.  Same goes for pseudo-shock radio.  If it is
sticking in my face it is not intriguing, if it is a little more
'between the lines' the interest level (for me) is greater.


>If I want intelligent political commentary, the
>last place I'll turn is to Rush.  '

Agreed.

I'll tune into someone who actually has
>guests (much less intelligent guests) and doesn't insult my intelligence...

Guests dont matter to me, but the latter part of that sentence does.
Howard insults my intelligence, so I dont listen to him.

>Of course, no one is forcing me to listen to Rush, so I need not waste time
>bashing him.  

Expressing your opinion is what this net is all about.  I am glad you
did, even if we disagree.

>The only reason I ever brought up Rush is to debunk any
>whoever says "Well, the reason Howard failed in Chicago is because Chicago
>is the only placein the world where intelligent live, and thus we only like
>intelligent radio."  

I dont think I said that.  Also, WLUP is not always 'Intelligent
Radio', but it isa usually 'entertaining' radio.

> Obviously, Rush proves such arguments are less than accurate.

Rush *is* intelligent, but he is repetitive and not all that
entertaining once you get the gist of his one-sided message.  Butmake
no mistake, Rush is no dummy.  I would tend to say that Stern is no
dummy either.  

>andrew

Bill

--


     William Pfeiffer - Moderator/Editor          |     Satellite-106       |
rec.radio.broadcasting - Airwaves Radio Journal   |       *********         |
              - Internet email -                  |    * All The Hits *     |
Article Submission: articles@airwaves.chi.il.us   |    * All The Time *     |
Subscription Desk:  subscribe@airwaves.chi.il.us  |    * All The Same *     |