fshorr's blog

Listen to Episode 5 of Smooth JAS recorded from St. Paul, Minnesota! https://soundcloud.com/andrew-battifarano/smooth-jas-episode-5

When Professor Shorr asked me if sports talk radio is more entertainment or journalism at the beginning of class, I had a hard time coming up with an answer. Since I do not listen to sports talk radio often, I thought that it was mainly journalism, with a bit of opinion about certain players, teams, etc. But after hearing our guests Rob Poole and Jim Murray talk, I realized that entertainment is the crux of the profession.

Murray made a point, that Timmy hinted at, that sports talk radio is about entertaining the listeners, even if opinions surface. Murray said he wanted to get into the field because he wanted to make people laugh every day, and he was, in fact, very funny. Murray and Poole admitted to giving their opinion during their broadcasts, which I don’t think is a bad thing.

Sometimes it is nice to hear someones opinion. It would be hard for sports talk radio hosts to talk for four hours without giving some opinion on the topics they are discussing. This is why, now, I think that sports talk radio is more entertainment. We are always taught in journalism, don’t put your opinion in the piece, of course unless it is column writing. It was refreshing to hear Murray and Poole say that giving their opinions was a daily thing, even if the listeners disagreed.

The seminar made me reminisce on times with my dad on long road trips. He would be listening to sports talk radio for hours, arguing back and forth with the speakers, as if they could hear him. He would hate certain things they said, and would call in, just to get hung up on, or he would be dying laughing at a joke.

I never really understood why he loved listening to it when I was growing up, but as I’ve gotten older and have been submerged into the sports journalism/broadcast world, I get it. It’s about being entertained.

Another point I took away from the seminar is that the future of sports talk radio is unclear. This might be a big generalization, but I felt like the majority of our class does not listen to sports talk radio. For me, I go to other sources or outlets to get sports information, whether it’s ESPN or a local news station. Murray discussed the topic, explaining that he wasn’t sure about the future of his profession. Sports journalism/broadcast mediums are always evolving, making changes to how information is delivered to the fans. It would be a sad day if sports talk radio diminished for all the dads out there driving their children, but it does seem less popular.

The biggest lesson I learned from Poole and Murray is that you have to have people love and hate you because, either way, they are talking about you. They made a great point that not everyone is going to love you, and people might disagree with you, but that means people are listening. It was eye-opening when Poole talked about how sometimes you just won’t have thick enough skin to handle some of the listeners rude remarks, and this turned me away from ever wanting a profession in sports talk radio.

I have so much respect for people that can fill-time and handle callers ridiculing you at the same time. It may not be a profession that I ever want to go into, but I hope some of my fellow classmates do. Some of my favorite memories are from my childhood, listening to my dad in the car talk about sports, watching how enthused he got about his favorite teams and athletes. I don’t want those memories for someone else not to happen because sports talk radio faded into the background.

Listening to it or not, I was always thoroughly entertained.

Like a few of my classmates, I do not listen to sports talk radio regularly. And, like Rachel, it reminds me of road trips with my dad. I never really understood why I loved watching games on T.V., in person, and highlights on sports news shows, but had no affinity to sports talk radio.

When Rob Poole spoke about the advertisements his radio show airs and said that their target audience is 18 to 40 year-old males, I began to understand why I never liked sports talk radio. Not only does sports talk radio not give me any sort of news I can’t find somewhere else, faster, but from what it sounds like, they intentionally have a limited audience. Rob and Jim Murray, throughout their visit to our class, referred to callers, other talk show hosts, and employees of the show as “guys”. This may seem a bit nit picky, as I imagine most of the callers are in fact men and the people in this business are overwhelmingly white males. But as a female who has played sports from a young age into college and watched sports religiously with family and friends, it almost felt like with the ads and the vernacular used by Rob and Jim that I wasn’t invited to the table to talk about sports. I wondered what made sports talk radio shows across the country qualified to put their audiences in a box? Language choice can be a very powerful tool, and I just didn’t feel any differently about sports talk radio after class than I did before meeting Rob and Jim. That’s not to say I don’t respect what they do, they’re meant to be entertainers, not activists. But like Rachel said, the future of sports talk radio is unknown and so changes need to happen in order for it to grow and attract an audience. I feel like without changing the vernacular used or the audience targeted, sports talk radio will continue to draw a predominantly white male audience and will lack the diversity I think it needs on the host side as well. It may seem like a good marketing tactic to target the audience who you know listens to your show most frequently, but if sports talk radio wants to survive in the ever-changing world of sports and entertainment, it has to shake up its traditional way of doing things.

When asked about females in the sports talk radio business, both Jim and Rob brought up the same woman. Between the two of them and all of their experience, they could only think of one female who had worked with them. They said either women aren’t interested in the job or aren’t getting hired for the job. In my opinion, I think it’s a mix of both. If you are a female going into a male-dominated industry that caters specifically to males 18-40, you are already at a disadvantage because of your gender. You are taken less seriously and scrutinized more by listeners, and as Jim pointed out, women “get it the worst” when it comes to listeners interacting with hosts on social media. If a female is considering a job in the industry, she is going to be dealing with these issues on a daily basis.

So, to me, hearing Jim and Rob talk gave me a better understanding of why I don’t listen to or want to pursue a career in sports talk radio. I feel as though it is a field that has lacked diversity in all aspects. Perhaps this stagnation is derived from the hosts themselves, who are, at times, older, established males who can be resistant to change. Whatever the case may be, although Jim and Rob allowed me an inside look at sports talk radio, unfortunately my feelings about the field have gone unchanged.

Chalk it up to differences of taste; while I enormously respect what our guests Rob “Hardy” Poole and Jim Murray do (and am tremendously appreciative of the time they spent with us), I simply didn’t find them entertaining.

In fact, while I find the concept of their professions immensely interesting, I left the seminar with this one conclusion, scribbled at the bottom of my notebook: the only difference between the kind of programming Poole and Murray produce and the sort of content created by the wildly popular Top 40 radio station I used to intern for (104.1 KRBE) is that the latter will actually elicit a laugh or two in the morning.

Once again, I emphasize difference of taste. I, myself, have always had a strong aversion to the dry, sarcastic style that Murray particularly enjoyed employing.

Especially when discussing the backlash they receive from angry listeners, the deadpan personalities projected a sort of defensive, tough-guy mentality – one that I understand must be essential (having only briefly tasted criticism of that kind before).

“Some days you don’t have the thick skin for it,” explained Poole in what I felt was, outside of discussing their love of rock music, was one of the few earnest things either of them conveyed. I, personally, wish they would have set aside the act for a little bit longer.

But I won’t harp on their styles. Instead, I’ll focus on their work.

Journalism or no? I have to firmly side with Jake De Vries’ point, and say no – with one caveat.

I don’t believe, based upon his comments before Murray arrived, Poole, would have disputed that claim. He defined his role as “giving an informed opinion,” which, by its very biased nature, rules out most journalistic pursuits.

He then explained that his two greatest concerns were garnering the greatest number of listeners possible, and, subsequently, generating the most advertising revenue. Once again, while these are of interest to publications, allowing content to be dictated by these sorts of influences quite readily conflicts with any sort of “journalistic code.”

I will, however, agree that there was an attempt to convince; in this case, I believe our guests may have beefed up the perception of the work that goes into producing these kinds of shows. I won’t pretend that my four months of work on morning radio give me ultimate authority in making these claims, but, just by observing the above included link of Poole and Felger, it’s clear that there isn’t the kind of stress or rigor to the environment that a beat reporter might experience.

It’s a talent, to be certain. As Poole pointed out, not everyone could speak on end for four hours, five days (or sometimes six) a week. They’re relatable. But part of what makes them relatable is because, at some point, all of us have sat with friends and had the same conversations. In many cases, those of us who have spoken to the athletes themselves may be “more qualified” to do so than a guy like Murray who refuses to.

While I was beginning to consider all of these things, Professor Shorr’s question to me reemerged: Do I listen to sports talk radio in Houston? It’s a rarity. But, strangely enough, my radio is perpetually playing.

To piggyback off of Rachel Blauner’s prognosis for the future of sports talk radio, I firmly believe that, with the exception of a few markets such as Boston (which both men admitted to be uniquely passionate about sports), the end is near.

Murray stated that, despite the eventual dismantlement of radio towers, the format of radio seems to be sustainable. I don’t disagree.

Morning programming like KRBE’s “Roula and Ryan Show,” is pure entertainment. It promises nothing but a distraction from your commute and a dash of pop culture debate. It’s a forum where, quite conceivably, an entire four-hours could be dedicated to Skittles. No one would be disappointed.

But there is real potential for disappointment in sports talk radio. At what point does sports talk radio cease being about sports at all? As was established throughout the course of the seminar, there’s little sense in conveying what happened in a game (or at least dwelling on such a topic). Push notifications have reduced and simplified such a task to a headline. Sports news itself, beyond the radio, has experienced a collision with pop culture. Should a station such as The Sports Hub begin spending increasing amounts of time discussing topics such as Alex Rodriguez’s new girlfriend or Big Papi’s new haircut (to bring back an old argument) like the rest of the mobile sports world, it’s entirely possible that it will find itself, somewhere down the line, much further away from the golden age of AM radio and at the doorstep of a program hosted by 104.1 (which, ironically, is produced by Eric Rowe – a good friend of 98.5’s Rich Shertenlieb).

They discuss JJ Watt’s possible romantic flings, too.

It’s inevitable that the show relies on entertainment. No one tunes in to be bored, but it cannot be at a cost to the sports content.

Which, coincidentally, they are steadily losing a grip on. If I can get my scores from a tab on the right side of my phone (a feature provided to my android via Yahoo! Sports), my analysis from an ESPN app and trending sports news from Bleacher Report, there’s effectively no need for me to turn my radio on except for pure enjoyment.

And I’ll find my jokes elsewhere.

First off, does anyone in our class listen to sports talk radio? After reading through everyone’s comments thus far I am genuinely intrigued in finding out if anyone does.

Like Rachel, I also associate sports talk radio with car rides with my dad because it is ALL he listens to any time he is in the car. Colin Cowherd is the name that immediately comes to mind, and from what I remember, the man literally talked in circles amid sound effects interjecting in the background by his friends/producer/what have you. As Timmy mentioned, more often than not the host is forcefully shouting their own opinions at either the listeners or the callers, and trying to prove their point. For that reason, I also find sports talk radio a tad annoying.

I additionally agree with Jake that sports talk radio isn’t necessarily journalism. Sure you need to have a basic understanding and familiarity with sports, but you’re not breaking news—nor really reporting cold-hard facts, rather you’re giving your opinion in an “entertaining” format, likely arguing with your co-host, or bad mouthing players you’ve never met to fill time. I’m not saying sports talk radio is easy by any means—I would be able to fill four hours of air time. The job undoubtedly takes skill, comedic talent, and a level of bullshitting that the average person doesn’t have.

I’m bummed that I missed last week’s guests, mainly because it sounds like both Rob Poole and Jim Murray were beyond passionate about their professions and wildly entertaining—not that class isn’t usually entertaining Frank.

My main objection to pursuing a career in sports talk radio is that it seems too unstable. As a radio personality you’re expected to be entertaining without being disrespectful and pissing off too many listeners—or rather pissing off the wrong listeners. Again, Colin Cowherd immediately comes to mind. Over his career with ESPN he made some fairly racy comments on air that put him in hot water, but none more disturbing then the comment he made last year that forced ESPN to cut ties with him.

ON AIR, Cowherd said the Dominican Republic “has not been known in my lifetime as having world class academic abilities”, because “a lot of those kids come from rough backgrounds and have not had opportunities academically that other kids from other countries have.” Which however statically sound it may or may not have been, caused backlash from a number of DR baseball players—Jose Bautista to name one—along with backlash from both the MLB Players Association and the MLB itself. ESPN dropped Cowherd the next day.

Striking that right balance seems tricky—almost like paddle boarding through shark infested waters without actually falling in. I praise anyone who has the personality for it, because nothing sounds better than being able to project your opinions onto thousands of listeners while getting paid.

“Feeding the beast”—a phrase we’ve heard multiple times over the course of our sports semester series.

Journalists dread it.

Sports talk radio hosts, I’ve come to realize, revel in it.

We first heard the term “feeding the beast” from MassLive’s Red Sox beat reporter Jen McCaffrey during our second seminar. McCaffrey churns out four to eight stories a day, but they aren’t the kind of long-form pieces she was trained to write as a journalism student at Syracuse. Instead, they’re brief stories—often with a pop-culture focus—that fans want to hear about and that drive page views. McCaffrey struggles daily when it comes to allocating time to write stories she wants to write versus writing stories that will please the average fan.

“My editors would want you to write the story about David Ortiz’s haircut because fans want to see the picture,” she told us.

And what fans want, they get.

Their endless appetites may be a nuisance to McCaffrey and many of her reporter colleagues, but it’s a reality they must accept if they want to keep their jobs.

In the world of sports radio, on the other hand, fans not only get what they want—that is, non-stop “yakety yak” about sports—they also have a say in what they want.
Where else can fans call-in and voice their opinions about the latest happenings in sports? It’s not too often that they get their turn at the microphone, even if it’s just for a few seconds.

Unlike Jen McCaffrey and other sports journalists we’ve listened to this spring, sports talk radio hosts—especially Rob “Hardy” Poole and Jim Murray—live for the notion of feeding the beast, even though they didn’t explicitly admit it last Thursday night. In fact, I believe they force-feed the beast. Why? Because the bigger the beast gets, the more people tune into their shows.

“At end of day what we are doing is continuing to generate discussion,” Rob “Hardy” Poole said last week. It’s all about, as he put it, “feeding the monster….revenues, tickets, ratings.”

“Generat[ing] discussion” is an awfully bland term to describe a profession that involves anything but being dull. Sports talk radio thrives off of yelling contests and heated, profane arguments, but that’s what makes it such a unique medium for sports fans to tune into.

Listeners, Murray told us, tune in not to “get educated,” but to hear “someone’s opinion.” Objectivity is not part of sports talk radio host’s job description. “I got into radio because I wanted to make people laugh. It’s whether or not you are entertaining,” Murray said.

Do you all remember when Doug Kyed, Patriots beat reporter for NESN, told our class to “throw [our] fandom out the window as soon as you get into the business”? That may be the golden rule of sports journalism, but that mentality sure won’t fly in sports radio.

Breaking rules and picking fights is in any sport talk radio hosts’ DNA. Case in point: Poole telling Felger, “Nobody likes you!!” in the video Professor Shorr shared in his post. (As an aside, I agree with Professor Shorr that the video component makes Poole’s and Felger’s banter more listenable—the visual learner in me wants to see their facial expressions.)

“As a kid I always tried to build an army or make enemies. This [Sports radio] gives me that avenue to do that and get paid,” Murray said.

There’s just no way, then, that sports talk radio can be considered journalism.

I’m siding with Rachel, Jake, Vanessa, and Stephanie on this one—Sports radio is entertainment. I like how Stephanie put it: the hosts aren’t “gathering” the news; they’re putting their “flare” on it.

Journalistic skills, such as finding the story of the game and asking thought-provoking questions in an interview, may be necessary in order to be a successful sports talk radio host, but the sports radio business is too subjective to be considered true journalism. After all, sports talk radio shows are called ‘shows’ for a reason.

But every family has its black sheep, right? And that’s a role sports talk radio proudly embraces.

Here’s my take: why does it matter if sports radio is journalism or entertainment? Let’s just enjoy sports radio for what it is—“grown ass men acting like 13 year old girls” in “the land of misfit toys.” Spoken like a true sports talk radio host, Mr. Murray.

“Misfit toys” like Murray and Poole enjoy breaking the rules, and that’s exactly what keeps the “beast” hungry.

Listen to Episode 7 of The Shorr Report!

https://soundcloud.com/user-872962998/the-shorr-report-episode-7

I am a pretty big sports fan, but I have never really listened to sports talk radio. That might have been the case because I never had parents who cared about sports, so I never grew up listening to it like some of my classmates. It might have been because I never really cared for it. I think it’s a little of both. I have never cared for it because I don’t think it has as much value as it once did. Everything I could get from sports radio I can get online or on my phone, hours before it comes out on the radio. And I could care less about others fighting on the air about who is right and wrong about a certain situation. It is great to hear an opinion from a professional on a situation, but I am not going to wait four hours to hear it. Especially when I can read it in a one-page article or a 140-character tweet. Voices and expressions are great, but they don’t mean enough to me and they take up too much time.

However, that does not mean that Jim Murray and Rob Poole didn’t keep me intrigued. They actually made me think about listening to sports talk radio. Murray and Poole not only showed that they love their jobs, but they are their true selves when on the air. If they have an opinion about something, there is nothing that is going to change their minds. Their confidence and love for their jobs is what pushed me to be so intrigued by them. It doesn’t matter if the best player in the league loves you or hates you, you have to stick to your opinion. This was inspiring to me because I feel as if someone like Kobe Bryant hated me, I wouldn’t want to work for the NBA anymore. These guys love their jobs so much that they don’t care what anyone thinks and that is what is so great about them. They are willing to take the hit sometimes so that they can get their opinion out there. Murray even mentioned that a lot of the time, his opinions are just what the fans are thinking. Pooley and Murray showed me that sports radio is not always about what they are thinking, but it’s about what everyone is thinking. Just by sitting in their seats and talking for four hours, they have expressed the opinions of millions of fans.

Another thing that stuck out to me was the way Pooley and Murray talked about how their work helps make people relevant. Murray talked about how no one cared about the Bruins in 2007-2008, but through sports talk radio, they became relevant again. Whether these guys are slamming a team or giving them props, they have the ability to make players or teams relevant again and that is probably the coolest part of their job. How do you take a team like the Philadelphia 76ers and make them relevant again? I don’t know if anyone can, but if sports talk radio can, even a little bit, that is a huge step. These guys showed me that their voices can have a big impact on what is going around in the sports world. They can help bring teams back to life and they have the ability to talk about what they want because a team or player would rather hear bad things about themselves then nothing at all.

“Watching baseball, hockey, or hoops I am taking notes and recording something. I DVR everything,” Murray said. Murray and Pooley continued to stress that you need to know everything if you are going to fill up four hours everyday. They showed me that there is so much preparation that goes into being good at sports talk radio and that there is no room for rest in that four-hour period. That was the most impressive part to me. The amount of information that is needed to fulfill a four-hour conversation almost everyday is kind of ridiculous. You may be able to have a computer and notes in front of you since you are on the radio, but that is still such a ridiculous amount of information that needs to be known. Also, if you don’t have all the information, and you’re lazy, go rely on your callers. “Unless they add value to the convo,” Murray said. These guys proved that this is not an easy job and is something still worth pursuing. If you love it, go out and do it.

Pooley and Murray showed me how much goes into being on sports talk radio and it really opened my eyes. I have a lot more appreciation and respect for the profession. Unfortunately, I don’t think I am going to start tuning in now. It is just not for me.

Tough crowd!

My relationship with sports talk radio is like the one i used to share with cigarettes, and the one i currently share with Cinnamon-Bun ice cream. It may not be good for me, but I can’t get enough.

I agree with professor Shorr that often I’m listening to it for just noise, but sometimes I am thoroughly entertained. I also agree the updates are mostly useless.

I, for one, am SICK of everyone at this school trying to tell me what a journalist really is. The english language, and the definitions of the words within it, are not static. They are fluid. For God’s sake “friend” is now a verb…

Stop limiting yourselves. So just because you’re not sitting in the press box at Fenway, pumping out the same game recap with the same quotes as the other 30 guys in the room, you’re not a journalist? While I certainly believe there’s a higher integrity and value to something intense like war journalism or shrewd hard-news journalism, we’re in sports. We’re not reinventing the wheel.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t try.

People LOVE to say that Barstool isn’t journalism. That sports talk radio isn’t journalism. As far as I’m concerned, they’re using a medium of their choice to present a story and communicate it to their audience with their own voice. To me, that’s journalism.

We can argue about the ethics in play, how smart, feminist, racist, or offensive the parties involved are, or how brutal their writing is…but they’re all making way more money than we are. Anna says no one cares what these guys have to say? Well, maybe we shouldn’t care what they have to say, because most of it is bullshit, but guys like Felger, Collin Cowherd, and Mike/Mike make MILLIONS because people out there care what they have to say.

And, to be quite honest, i find the analysis and takes that I get on sports talk radio unique and refreshing. Sure, their stories and information may not be as well thought out and structured as a featured communist at the globe, but their authenticity and connection with the fan base actually allows, at least to me, for their voices and opinions to ring truer than that of some of the people I read or see on TV.

Like Murray said: “We’re a conduit to the fans.”

So while I disagree with Jake and Anna, and unlike Vanessa I do find these guys funny sometimes, I agree with Timmy that they do need to find a better job of balancing information and entertainment.

At times, they do. While me and Mr. Shorr agree that there mostly isn’t any breaking news, I actually find myself tuning into Felger & Mazz for trade deadline coverage because they do break the news immediately, and provide immediate and entertaining analysis. These situations are few and far between, and we can debate on whether or not anyone should give a damn about the trade deadline, but what’s important is that I believe the format allows for the presentation of real and breaking news.

Is sports talk radio sustainable?

Jim Murray said “What goes up, must come down.” That’s probably true, but peoples thirst and desire to view and consume sports hasn’t changed in century. There will always be a need for sports coverage in some way. It’s just up to us as young, tech-savvy journalists to continue to innovate our profession. You don’t HAVE to do it the way they tell you in school or in the textbooks. Think outside the box.

I think one unexpected factor that is helping talk radio’s future is the emergence of the simulcast.

It seems so stupid. Who would watch radio ON TV?! It’s so ridiculous. But I watch it almost every day. I couldn’t tell you why. Now, I think a lot of that has to do with my personal belief that Felger and Mazz make great television. I never liked Dennis & Callahan’s simulcast, and same goes for Colin Cowherd.

the Simulcast has allowed sports talk radio to find a home throughout the day not just in your car or on your radio, but in your living room or office on the TV. That’s huge. The biggest drawback to radio has always been audio just doesn’t cut it for some people, as professor Shorr said.

What people in the sports radio industry MUST do to capitalize on this, is find a way to make the simulcast more interesting and interactive. It’s usually just the guys sitting there, with pictures occasionally popping up. I wanted to ask the guys at the seminar, but we cut off the questions while i was raising my hand to ask.

Is there a plan, or has there been any discussion of a way to make the radio simulcast more interactive, and is it even practical?

Mike and Mike are able to do it, with various highlights and other segments, because they don’t really have callers. While their show is on the radio, it has far more structure, which I imagine allows them to understand when and where they will insert highlights and other video. Maybe local talk radio needs to dial back the callers, or save them for specific time slots and dedicate other areas for moments of more interactive entertainment.

Also, one more thing. I challenge anyone in the class to do sports talk radio for longer than 15 minutes without feeling totally lost. I also challenge you to admit that even though you were lost, you had an absolute blast doing it.