Talk Radio Bashing

[henryhenry]

Everybody does it. And then they turn it on while stuck in traffic.

This is kinda funny, kinda not.

http://sportsmediaguide.com/announcements/a-new-voice/

 

[BDC99]

I bash it. I don't listen to it. Simple. I used to listen all the time in college, thinking I was learning something about what was going on in the sports world, (wanting to be a sports journalist and all). Then I wised up and just started reading more good reporters. Don't watch TV news much either.

 

[Lieslntx]

I don't bash it. I listen to it.

 

[Turtle Wexler]

I bash it. I don't listen to it. Simple. I used to listen all the time in college, thinking I was learning something about what was going on in the sports world, (wanting to be a sports journalist and all). Then I wised up and just started reading more good reporters. Don't watch TV news much either.

Ditto, all the way around.

 

[flexmaster33]

I don't bash it. I listen to it.

I listen for the entertainment value, but you just don't consider it a form of journalism. It's pure entertainment.

 

[BrianGriffin]

There are decent shows out there. I don't think it's as much of a wasteland as news talk is and to me, that's a horrible statement about society.

But even now, I'll more likely listen to NPR or music (CD player).

 

[HanSenSE]

Agreed with Brian: I avoid national shows (ESPN Radio, Fox Sports, whatever the hell Sporting News Radio is calling itself this week) like the plague, since most hosts seem to get no closer to a stadium/arena than their TV.

 

[Lieslntx]

I don't bash it. I listen to it.

I listen for the entertainment value, but you just don't consider it a form of journalism. It's pure entertainment.

I listen for more than the entertainment value. I only listen to the local sports talk and purely for the local sports talk.

 

[Brian]

Thank God for IPods and Podcasts.

 

[Alma]

I don't bash it. I listen to it.

I listen for the entertainment value, but you just don't consider it a form of journalism. It's pure entertainment.

It's rarely "pure entertainment." If it were, they'd have screenwriters draw up the scripts and actors to deliver it.

 

[Alma]

Like anything else, some sports talk radio is and can be very good. Some break the occasional news, have solid staffs of experienced people with contacts, add the conversation in a useful way.

And many don't. Part of this revolves about corporate ownership have little interest in providing the kind of resources necessary to put on a full-bodied program. And part of it revolves around this notion of "well, we're not really journalists" as if journalism came with a professional license. These shows go to media days. They conduct interviews. They read news items. They just prefer not to be held to a useful standard, so they fall back on the "there is no standard except ratings" entertainment BS.

In my experience, many radio shows are hosted by intelligent, talented people with a comedic sensibility who are stuffed to the brim with narcissism and self-loathing, and use the show as a means of working that out. Unlike an standup audience, which can withhold approval if a comic isn't on his/her game, and talk show host can craft his/her audience with nothing but "sophisticated sycophants" and "idiot detractors." On the rare occasion that a sophisticated detractor sneaks through or a talk show host is suddenly held to a standard, boy, stand back and just wait for the wrath and bloviating to commence.

I know it's harsh and judgmental to say that the radio guy generally has to see himself and be seen as the smartest/funniest guy in the room, but when your audience is that microphone, and the creative process involves some former athlete "yes man" next to you, I can see how and why it happens. The highs and lows of those folks is startling.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think most of the Chicago sports talk is outstanding. Nothing like the Francessa stereotype at all. Very informed. Very smart. Very little cheerleading or gratuitous/uninformed bashing. I consider us lucky.

 

[Turtle Wexler]

I think most of the Chicago sports talk is outstanding. Nothing like the Francessa stereotype at all. Very informed. Very smart. Very little cheerleading or gratuitous/uninformed bashing. I consider us lucky.

I agree, there's a lot of good radio in Chicago.

But there's also ManCow, which tarnishes the city's radio reputation.

 

[Batman]

Agreed with Brian: I avoid national shows (ESPN Radio, Fox Sports, whatever the hell Sporting News Radio is calling itself this week) like the plague, since most hosts seem to get no closer to a stadium/arena than their TV.

On the national level, Steve Czaban and Jim Rome stand out. Their shows are just ... different. Not the same crap you hear on every other channel for 21 hours a day. Just a different vibe to the show.
And, yes, I know Rome falls into the "it's all about me" routine way too often, but at least his show has a little different format.
There's a few other good ones, but you have to really dig through a mountain of turds to find the diamonds.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Like anything else, some sports talk radio is and can be very good. Some break the occasional news, have solid staffs of experienced people with contacts, add the conversation in a useful way.

And many don't. Part of this revolves about corporate ownership have little interest in providing the kind of resources necessary to put on a full-bodied program. And part of it revolves around this notion of "well, we're not really journalists" as if journalism came with a professional license. These shows go to media days. They conduct interviews. They read news items. They just prefer not to be held to a useful standard, so they fall back on the "there is no standard except ratings" entertainment BS.

In my experience, many radio shows are hosted by intelligent, talented people with a comedic sensibility who are stuffed to the brim with narcissism and self-loathing, and use the show as a means of working that out. Unlike an standup audience, which can withhold approval if a comic isn't on his/her game, and talk show host can craft his/her audience with nothing but "sophisticated sycophants" and "idiot detractors." On the rare occasion that a sophisticated detractor sneaks through or a talk show host is suddenly held to a standard, boy, stand back and just wait for the wrath and bloviating to commence.

I know it's harsh and judgmental to say that the radio guy generally has to see himself and be seen as the smartest/funniest guy in the room, but when your audience is that microphone, and the creative process involves some former athlete "yes man" next to you, I can see how and why it happens. The highs and lows of those folks is startling.

Damn . . . lot of truth in that.

 

[playthrough]

Local sports talk in my neck of the woods is just OK, but it still beats the living hell out of Mike & Mike.

 

[Versatile]

I don't listen or bash, unless someone asks me why I don't listen.

 

[Clerk Typist]

I think most of the Chicago sports talk is outstanding. Nothing like the Francessa stereotype at all. Very informed. Very smart. Very little cheerleading or gratuitous/uninformed bashing. I consider us lucky.

I agree, there's a lot of good radio in Chicago.

But there's also ManCow, which tarnishes the city's radio reputation.

Not sure about that. He's on an 760-watt daytimer in the suburbs. That says something positive about the other 50 or so stations, does it not?

 

[BillyT]

See, I like talk radio as long as they are not being lewd or obscene.

Friday morning's David Stern interview made Mike & Mike quite worth listening to.

 

[jr/shotglass]

It's not black and white, of course. Not ALL sports talk radio is bad, non-informational. And some is.