If sports talk radio listeners paid heed to the 1958 song by the Coasters, it might have never mushroomed into what it is today….A place to go while you’re in your car, a haven for long suffering fans, even somewhere to catch up on a missed interview on your radio DVR (is there even such a term?)…
But talk radio, and sports in particular, has exploded in the last ten years and whether you like it or not, to quote Marshall McLuhan, “The Medium is the Message” (if you should wade through that video, keep in mind, while it was recorded in 1977, McLuhan’s book actually came out in 1964…It’s as authentic today as it did almost a half century ago)…Three years ago Boston had one all sports station…soon we’ll have three…An Inside Radio survey, released earlier this year, says eighty six percent of listeners are men… Ryan Johnston of 98.5 The Sports Hub claims many are unhappy; “Boston is pretty damn miserable, there’s a kinship that comes from that. We all kind of suffer through the same thing. They wanna gripe and they want to hear other people gripe. They want to know they’re not alone in the their misery”…Rick Pitino lives!
Johnston joined Amy Lawrence of ESPN Radio at the latest edition of the Boston University Sports Journalism Seminar Series and the differences between a local show and a national one such as Amy’s were obvious….”When it’s slow, Johnston said, you feel like you’re just beating the same topics into the ground. You hope the audience doesn’t feel that way (though)”…Lawrence was quick to point out that her guideline for topics might be a bit narrower, especially a subject like politics; “We’re trying to appeal and bring in as many people as possible and inevitably you will alienate half of your audience whether it’s intentional or not is a different story”…
ESPN currently has more than four hundred and seventy affiliates nationwide so they must be doing something right…In fact, that same Inside Radio survey says sports talk radio stations have increased by some sixty seven percent in the last ten years, jumping from just over 400 to near 700…That growth spurt has attracted financial investors and if for no other reason, sports talk radio is alive and well…
26 Comments
Nick Hansen posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Sports talk radio may have grown, but it’s not the future of sports audio media. I believe streaming and podcasting are the future. The most listened to person on ESPN isn’t Amy Lawrence, it’s Bill Simmons. And he doesn’t do live radio.
According to an ESPN press release, The BS report (Simmons’ podcast) had over 92 million downloads in 2011. It came in at a little over 700,00 downloads per episode. (He does between 1-5 episodes per week.) It’s routinely one of the top-downloaded podcasts on all of iTunes along with Pardon the Interruption and ESPN’s fantasy football updates.
I may be comparing apples to oranges here, but I don’t think radio has the power to overtake podcasts. I don’t have national radio numbers, but the New York’s ESPN radio had a little over 1.3 million listeners for the entire month of May. That’s about 1.8% of the market share. (And every one of those shows has a podcast element to it.)
I usually don’t listen to sports radio for a variety of reasons. I can’t stand commercials. People also run out of stuff to talk about. In 2011, I lived near Baltimore and occasionally listened to sports talk radio at work. Come the middle of July, those guys had NOTHING to talk about. The Orioles stunk and the Ravens were not in training camp yet. **YAWN** Sports radio can also be depressing. Ryan is right that it kind of attracts miserable people. Check out the preview for the movie Big Fan to see what I’m talking about.
I think podcasts are much more worth my time. I listen to The Basketball Jones almost every day during NBA season. I like it because it gets to the point. I don’t have to sit through a ton of mindless blabber. There are no commercials. And I can see what they are going to be talking about every day before I download it. It’s way more efficient and entertaining.
Sports talk radio has a lot of history and will probably stick around for a while, but I can see it going the way of print newspapers.
Ashley Driscoll posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm
While I’m not much of a sports talk radio listener, this seminar was valuable because radio is still an important medium for bringing sports information to consumers, especially those who regularly listen to the radio on their commutes to and from work.
It’s fitting that this blog referenced Marshall McLuhan, because I was thinking about how he labeled various media as either “hot” or “cool” and radio was classified as a “hot” medium. In this seminar, however, it seems our guests proved to us that radio can, in fact, be a “cool” medium.
I’ve read McLuhan’s book “Understanding Media” and basically he classifies a “cool” medium as one that is high in consumer involvement, giving little detail, leaving the consumer to fill in a great amount of information. A “hot” medium, on the other hand, has low involvement, a great amount of detail, and leaves little to be filled in by the consumer. While McLuhan labeled radio as a “hot” medium, I would argue that it is actually “cool” because listeners are able to react, and interact, by calling in and voicing their opinions.
Sports talk radio, in particular, is “cool” because, as we learned from Ryan Johnston and Amy Lawrence this week, they like getting their listeners fired up to the point where they are involved in the conversation. Amy even admitted to sometimes taking the other side of an issue just to stir things up. Both of our guests voiced a desire to get their listeners sucked in to the show so they can debate and discuss and get involved. The volume of call-ins during a show is one way the host, or hosts, can tell if they’ve struck a nerve with their audience and, ultimately, measure the success of their sports talk radio show.
Kendall Salter posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:13 am
I want to respond to something Nick said before adding a few additional points:
–“Sports talk radio may have grown, but it’s not the future of sports audio media. I believe streaming and podcasting are the future. ”
I think I see what Nick is trying to say. If I am interpreting correctly, he believes that sports consumption, at least from the listener angle, is going to be primarily through podcasts. But I think the future — however hazy of a term that may be — still portends a significant role for sports talk radio. It didn’t suffer like other “traditional” forms of media with the advent of widespread Internet use. If anything, the Internet provides a new platform from which to launch a sports radio brand. I don’t think podcasts and talk radio are mutually exclusive.
But I do see a role for podcasts. I love them. I have started to record 2-3 weekly. I think that it remains a medium with potential. But this seminar showed that the live stuff is still important. As far as talk radio anchors go, it is easy to slip back into the debate of whether or not they are true “journalists,” although I think Amy Lawrence would argue otherwise. What Lawrence made clear during our seminar was that these guys have to work really hard, too, and if the best of them devote time to study and research so that they know what they are talking about. The callers may be stupid, but the anchors shouldn’t be.
I’ve never been a fan of much of sports talk radio, mostly because the callers all sound the same after awhile, and it doesn’t really teach me anything I didn’t already know. But it remains an important part of the industry. It serves as a psychological haven to fans in need of comfort or looking for others to celebrate with. It’s not for me, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
I was surprised by the amount of work that each panelist puts into their job. Talk radio seems like something one can fly by the seat of their pants and make it through a couple of hours unscathed, but talking for that long is a skill. It is clear that both of our panelists are good at their jobs because of the work they put in before the show and their ability to deal with fans at both ends of the joy/despair spectrum.
Paul Ryan posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:25 am
One of my favorite notes from the seminar somewhat unrelated to sports talk radio is how Ryan Johnston is actually a political reporter five days of the week. Johnston proved that much like sports, politics requires preparation, a knowledge of what is going on and an ability to talk on the fly about what just happened. It’s always been engrained in us to be well-versed in everything, but to hear that someone like Johnston is actually working as a political reporter as his full-time job truly shows that you not only need to know every aspect of reporting (radio, print, television), you should also have a strong knowledge of news in general.
Sports radio as we know it has changed and I have to agree with points that have already been made. The advent of podcasts has certainly help make radio broadcasts not only more accessible, but also fit more of a niche. The sports radio of 10-15 years ago, like Mike and the Mad Dog on WFAN, will slowly die off with the rise of Sirius Radio and more advanced technology in cars. Like Johnston said, most people who listen to sports radio are listening for 15-20 minutes in the car on their way to work as a way to get their mind off of things. But even in those 15-20 minutes, there are commercial that make people change the dial or a topic the listener doesn’t want to hear about. These newer options like Sirius or podcasts you can listen to in the car are becoming a much more viable option.
I completely agree with Johnston’s point that what makes sports radio is the misery (or sometimes elation) of the callers, who always have something to say. This could be the one reason that the sports radio we grew up with may never die. People love voicing their opinion, venting their frustration. It’s just the way people are. There’s no skillful reporting that goes into it, but listeners eat it up when the host of a show opens the floor to callers. I find the title of the blog ironic because that’s the main driver behind talk radio; the people who talk back.
I think it would have been great to get both Johnston and someone from WEEI to sit across from one another. While one is moving towards a younger audience, the other is going for the older, 40 or 50-something audience. And as can be seen from the ratings, both are right. There is a younger audience out there listening to 98.5 The Sports Hub that doesn’t want to hear older guys like Dennis and Callahan and can somewhat relate to guys like Felger and Mazz. On the other hand, the 40 or 50-something is the one who actually listens to sports radio more. They grew up with it (somewhat) so targeting them only makes sense.
Sports radio is not what it used to be. In fact, it would not be surprising to see sports radio die off completely fairly soon. However, as long as people have something to complain about and other people are willing to share in their misery, sports radio will likely live on with it.
Jonathan Lemons posted on October 15, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I worked for WEEI.com this summer. Among my responsibilities was to transcribe radio interviews and write up the highlights for the web. Because the interviews could happen at any time, I had to keep the radio playing throughout my six-eight hour shifts.
This summer, you may recall, the Red Sox, umm, struggled. It was not a particularly likeable bunch of players. The manager and the front office were less than adored as well.
Two or three times a week, for as much as eight hours at a time, I would sit and listen to blowhard anchors rile up listeners by tossing out unfounded and unfair accusations about the team, extracting venomous meaning from innocuous quotes or actions, and generally revel in the discord. While the blowhards caught their breath, they would open the phone lines for Mike from Brockton, Tommy from Arlington and Sully from Charlestown to attempt, it seemed, to drown the team in rich, spoiled athlete vs. hard-working blue collar fan clichés.
This, I suppose, is a roundabout way of saying I don’t like sports talk radio.
There are useful pieces of information to be gleaned from the good shows, but the forest of idiocy that must be navigated through to get them is too forbidding for me.
But this may be unfair, because sports talk-radio is not news, nor is it intended to be. It is entertainment. And at its best, it functions much like the op-ed pages in the newspaper. Entertaining and informed hosts offer insight into the day’s news in an enjoyable manner that hopefully encourages you to think differently.
The nature of sports talk radio however, more often encourages something very different. In an effort to fill four hours, five days a week, in a town with just four sports teams (only one of which is currently in season), many of the opinions and stories are re-used, re-stated, recycled, repurposed, repeated and generally driven into the ground mercilessly long after any listener with half a brain has gotten the point.
The repetition of these points works like a wood planer, and each pass through, the opinions grow sharper as any complicating facts are shorn away. Before you know it, conjecture is fact and alleged is affirmed.
What podcasts, such as the aforementioned B.S. Report, are able to do, is capitalize on those aspects of sports talk radio that work best, but are often lost in the pursuit of filling air-time.
Using the B.S. Report as an example, the frequency (1-5 times a week) and the length (generally anywhere from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours) offers the flexibility of allowing the stories to dictate the conversation. If a topic requires 45 minutes of discussion, so be it. An hour? That’s fine too. Slow day for topics? No need for a podcast. With a focused topic, the host can also do a focused preparation beforehand, rather than be subject to the whims of the callers.
What I’m not sure I understand, however, is why radio hosts feel compelled to agitate listeners. While podcasts like the B.S. Report allow the personality of the host to be the draw, talk show hosts use their opinions, in a ‘stir-the-pot’ sort of way. (Both Johnston and Lawrence were explicit about this.)
I don’t know why that’s the case and I don’t know why it works, but obviously it is. As Professor Shorr’s numbers attest, sports radio is growing and perhaps the most influential and highest rated local commentator, Mike Felger, is unquestionably also among the most provocative stirrers of the pot.
Since it seems we are all prognosticating the future of the medium, and I am not blessed with much skill in this area, I’ll leave you with this fairly obvious thought. There will likely be a place for sports talk programming in both terrestrial and streaming radio for years to come. The evolution of the medium however, will take place through podcasts, as the format allows for far more innovation.
Jason Lind posted on October 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Nick, Kendall and Jonathan all discussed the respective impacts of podcasts and sports talk radio. I agree with Kendall’s point that both media can find space in the public eye, and sometimes even the same space: many live sports radio talk shows are cut up into more digestible podcasts when they’re finished. Frequent listeners who missed the show on the radio can catch the highlights on the web.
But I want to play devil’s advocate for live sports talk radio. Amy Lawrence recalled reporting Osama Bin Laden’s death on air as one of her proudest moments. If Bill Simmons did the same on the B.S. Report, the impact would not be the same. Live radio means the opportunity for breaking news. It’s exciting. It’s unpredictable. There’s often an element of surprise. Because news turns over so rapidly, a podcast that only goes up twice a week cannot possibly cover everything that a 5-day radio show can. Even daily live podcasts like The Basketball Jones have a regimented format that isn’t conducive to breaking news. A story may change just a few hours after a podcast goes live, rendering parts of it old news for anyone who wants to listens to it past its expiration hour.
The (non-live) podcast offers an opportunity for more structure, but that isn’t always what listeners want. You can’t cut anything out of a live sports radio broadcast, and not adhering to a strict format can sometimes loosen up the conversations and create a more enjoyable listening experience.
In terms of sustainability, sports radio is mutually profitable for the stations and the advertisers in towns like Reading, Pennsylvania:
http://businessweekly.readingeagle.com/?p=3438
There’s been a lot of shakeup on AM/FM dials in major markets besides Boston (http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/2012/10/09/radio-trends-behind-the-recent-upheaval-on-the-amfm-dial/, look at #3 for a little sports perspective). But sports radio remains profitable on FM.
Full disclosure: I hosted a couple different sports talk shows at the University of Georgia while I was an undergraduate. The shows were on WUOG, a student-run FM radio station. My cohosts and I broadcast once a week from the studio, and during football season we’d move near Sanford Stadium for a weekly pregame show. Those broadcasts were the most invigorating for the audience and for us. I think a live pregame show on the radio reaches an audience and occupies a forum that a podcast still can’t (even if it’s live). We would cut up our shows into podcasts afterward, but there wasn’t much of a market for them. Most people who heard us heard us through the radio, despite the fact our demographic was young and maybe more tech-savvy. Listening to the radio in a car is still king.
I will say this: the podcast format is unique more conducive to sports journalists. I think plenty of freewheeling sports talk hosts are there as much to entertain as they are to inform. Podcasts offer more time for research, reporting and editing, like a news broadcast. Frank Deford’s “Sweetness and Light” series on NPR (http://www.npr.org/series/4499275/sweetness-and-light) is a bite-sized example of this. Broadcast once a week, Deford gets the luxury of time to organize his thoughts more thoroughly.
Taylor Williams posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Hard to disagree with most of what’s been said, but I don’t think we’ve touched on why Ryan and Amy worked as a duo of guests – the juxtaposition of local and national sports talk radio. When you take away both of their tendencies to play Devil’s Advocate and fuel the yammering of fans, you’re left with two somewhat different approaches to debating sports on the radio. Yet both embody key practices for modern sports journalists to master.
Amy works full-time for ESPN. Topics are determined by the latest NFL controversy and anything else currently trending on Twitter, and she’s often un-briefed on who guests will be. She has to keep pace with every major story during time off, exhibit exceptional knowledge of sports, and build her social media presence. Is she still more entertainer than journalist? I think so. But each of those responsibilities is equally essential to sports journalism as it exists today. Furthermore, having the luxury of a national audience and the ability to swap Sully from Charlestown for Steve Young or Trent Dilfer, as ESPN hosts do, can make sports talk radio both SOPHISTICATED and entertaining. But as a national host (and a woman), Amy is a perpetual target for scrutiny. Her premium on accuracy is as enormous as any beat writer’s, especially when she’s covering big stories as they’re breaking, like the Green Bay-Seattle fiasco.
However, when the broadcast is local and the team(s) terrible, sports talk radio is at its worst for potential listeners and its best for hosts like Ryan, who’s success is driven by the aggregate misery of all the Sullys from Charlestown. Jon’s right – much of it is washed-up news re-packaged in an inflammatory hour or two of potshots and bitching. It generally contributes nothing to the larger context, understanding, and advancement of a story. But, using Boston as an example and speaking as an outsider, my God, is it entertaining. As an earlier seminar and discussion demonstrated, the line between journalism and entertainment in sports media is blurring, not crystallizing. Ryan seems to know which side he’s on. And in my opinion, he deserves serious props for marketing his personality, keeping his stuff fresh, and attracting a young audience — to the point of being a key player on a market leader. I consider those skills equally important to today’s sportswriters, the best of whom incorporate their personalities into their writing and online presences.
In my opinion, the best sports talk radio hosts are the ones with the deepest knowledge of the game and the players involved in it, not the ones with the most sarcastically polarizing personalities. But the reality is they’re both important, and attaining the first component usually requires some formal journalistic training and experience. Still, the medium reflects the times. Future sports talk hosts, schooled exclusively in the ways of blogs and social media, may find interviewing skills and in-depth game knowledge to be useless prerequisites. But personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable going on the air without them.
Amy Barry posted on October 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm
My classmates have made solid points in their comments, especially about podcasts possibly taking over and having more listeners than a live show. Perhaps that has a lot to do with society’s need of urgency or like Nick, people just hate commercials. Either way, even with a lot of talk shows moving to FM it seems podcast will be the future for talk radio.
Taylor also made a great point with the debate like stance Ryan Johnston and Amy Lawrence took. Johnston and Lawrence each preach to different audiences, national and local. Lawrence’s show revolves around the NFL and top plays where Lawrence discusses what’s happening in town. It seemed as if our guests were having a debate rather than discussing the same medium – sports talk radio.
What stood out the most for me was the trend from previous seminars — sports journalist as fans, women in sports, media relations and Twitter.
Sports talk radio hosts go through media relations to talk to players on the air.
They use Twitter to gauge what listeners like or dislike about the topic broadcasting.
Although, it’s usually just a four-hour gig the job never stops. It’s a 24-hour job. Lawrence can’t even take a vacation without keeping up with what’s up in sports news.
She is also faced with more criticism’s because of her gender. It took her three years to talk about football.
Each of our guests started out low on the totem poll in towns not a lot of people have heard of, just like a newspaper journalist would.
The only thing that Lawrence and Johnston do that a written sports journalist doesn’t is break the number one rule to sports journalism, ‘No cheering in the press box.’
Whether they join in with the fellowship of the miserable or take the other side of the fence, sports talk radio hosts let the listeners know who they are routing for and why.
Up to this point, radio host were so similar to written journalist, but writers hid their cheers, claps and boos, while radio hosts rant about their favorite or teams they repulse.
Besides being a fan, radio talk show hosts have the same, if not more work cut out for them, before they sign on the air, than journalist of the written word.
Matt DeFonzo posted on October 15, 2012 at 10:48 pm
During last Thursday’s seminar, Ryan Johnston noted that the only thing sports talk radio personalities really do is take “potshots” at people. According to dictionary.com, the term “potshot” means “a random or incidental criticism.” I don’t believe that all sports talk radio personalities just criticize members of the sports world randomly or incidentally. In fact, I even think sports talk radio can sometimes teach listeners more about the world of sports as opposed to just being a bunch of talking heads. Consider the following examples from the sports talk universe:
Case 1: WTBU’s Friday Night Sports Block
Over the last two weeks on Friday Night Sports Block, we’ve argued about, among other things, whether Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera should win the AL MVP. Our arguments may have gotten a little bit tense, but I don’t think anyone made any criticisms that were “random” or made as a tag-along to another argument. The debate over who should be crowned MVP of the American League is one that is currently alive and well in the world of sports media, so it’s probable that nothing that was said was out-of-the-blue. Also, if memory serves me correctly, no insults were made to either of the players, or any other players for that matter, as a result of our presenting evidence in favor of our preferred candidate, meaning that there was nothing that could have been considered “incidental.” So I don’t believe that anyone took any potshots in this case.
Case 2: Ron Jaworski on ESPN’s Mike & Mike in the Morning today
Today on Mike & Mike in the Morning, Ron Jaworski joined the two daily hosts Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg, and the three analysts talked about the NFL, as I found via a podcast on ESPN.com. Among the more specific topics they went over were the end-of-game clock-managing errors made by the Dallas Cowboys in their loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Mike Golic said the team’s clock mismanagement at the end of the game came down to the coach (Jason Garrett) while Ron Jaworski said responsibility fell to both the coach and the quarterback (Tony Romo).
Again, I think there was relatively little in the conversation that could really be called a “potshot.” To me, incidental criticism in this case would have been if any or all of the three personalities had really gone overboard in their analyses in either time or in level of insult. The total time of their conversation about the Cowboys was approximately two minutes and thirty seconds, so they didn’t provide any incidental criticism by harping on the subject of the team’s clock mismanagement for an excessive amount of time.
I think the most controversial thing that was said was Jaworski alluding to Jason Garrett and other NFL coaches as being “brain dead” in game-ending two-minute situations, which probably can be categorized as incidental criticism of NFL coaching that went along with the conversation that was occurring. While this insult may have been a little bit of a “potshot” to coaches at the NFL level since it was a little bit of an unnecessary insult, it was only one instance during the two-and-a-half minutes the trio was talking about the Cowboys, and not representative of their entire conversation.
Also, there’s no way anything really could have been “random,” since Dallas is a very prominent team and their game was not even a day old when this conversation occurred live. Thus, no “potshots” were taken in this manner during this segment of the podcast.
In addition, Jaworski’s statements also helped me understand a little bit more about football. From what he said, it seems like NFL head coaches have the final two minutes of a football game planned out for an incredible number of situations and in minute detail. Prior to listening to that portion of the podcast, I had no idea that NFL coaches had things planned out to that extent. So listening to sports talk radio actually gave me some insight into the workings of football that I hadn’t had before, therefore serving to educate me a little bit more about the world of sports.
Case 3: Herman Edwards on Scott van Pelt and Ryen Russillo’s show on October 12, 2012
Another podcast on ESPN.com is a recording of Herman Edwards discussing Alex Rodriguez’ struggles in the recent Division Series between the Yankees and Orioles. In this case, there was nothing random or incidental about the conversation. It couldn’t have been random since Edwards was only responding to a question he was asked by one of the show’s two hosts. Also, Rodriguez is a very prominent figure in the world of sports who was a hot topic last Friday because he’s a legendary player who wasn’t going to be starting against the Orioles, again meaning there was nothing random at all about Edwards’ statement. And his statement couldn’t have been incidental either, again because he was simply responding to a question that was put to him by one of the hosts he was joining and not making his own comparison or analysis using Rodriguez. So no potshots by Edwards here.
In addition, I think Edwards also made a good point when he said that by benching A-Rod, Joe Girardi was implicitly telling the other players they had to raise their game because their star athlete wasn’t going to be in the game. It seems Edwards believes this to be true because Rodriguez, whom he opined would keep feeling the majority of the media’s criticism when he underperformed, regardless of whether New York won or not, was going to be out of the lineup, meaning the other players would be the ones feeling the heat from the media if the team wasn’t successful. Again, I think this was a valuable insight because it was something I had never thought of before listening to Edwards’ take on the topic.
So again, I have to disagree with what Mr. Johnston said this past Thursday. While sports talk radio personalities may take potshots sometimes, it’s not all they do. Plus, sports talk radio can even be used to help advance people’s sports knowledge.
Greg Picker posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:39 pm
As long as people are driving in cars, there will be sports talk radio. It might not be the same medium of communication it was once in it’s heyday before the internet, but it still is extremely valuable. This might be different in every town, as obviously Boston’s market is increasing. In my opinion, sports talk radio’s influence has been diminished by the advent of online message boards. In the past, calling into a sports talk radio show may have been your only way to vent frustration about a team’s performance or decision-making. Now there are thousands of online message boards in which fans can express their opinions on how they feel their team is performing. But for the older generation that didn’t grow up with the internet, sports talk radio might still be the first place to go with their opinion.
However, sports talk radio still finds its place in the media industry. It has evolved with the times as many of the bigger shows are now on television. For example, when watching Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN2, the viewer is able to feel an even closer connection to the hosts, while the viewer is also capable of reading information that graphics might show. Some shows also have a graphic with what is coming up next. This makes it easier for the viewer to tune in and tune out of the show depending on what he or she is interested in.
There are just so many ways for fans to get involved now that sports talk radio isn’t necessarily the first place to go. It’s also very easy to love or hate a certain sports talk radio host. For example, I’m from New York and there are two major sports talk radio stations in WFAN and ESPN Radio. Ever since Chris Russo left Mike and the Mad Dog, I haven’t been able to listen to Mike Francesa by himself. He competes directly with the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. If I am driving during this time slot, I will listen to the Michael Kay Show. As Ryan Johnston pointed out, his channel has been instructed to reach for the younger demographic. I feel that this is similar for the ESPN vs. WFAN debate. The Michael Kay show uses much more modern sounding intro music than Mike Francesa’s show does. Francesa’s show does produce some quality entertainment though. In just one month, the video of Francesa “falling asleep” while on-the-air has been viewed 700,000 times on Youtube. I guess it’s his way of reaching out to the younger, Youtube viewing demographic.
Mary Gagliardi posted on October 16, 2012 at 9:26 am
A reason I have struggled to connect with sports radio is the lack of visual aspect to the commentary. Visual people, such as myself, thrive off pictures, written words, and imagery. I find it very hard to get and remain hooked on sports radio – let alone talk radio in general.
This seminar proved that an aspect of sports talk radio, specifically the local level, is often very repetitive and centered on very few teams and repeating topics. But, I can see why that would be enjoyable for many. One would get to focus in-depth on their local teams and truly become very knowledgeable with the teams ins and outs. On the otherhand, it is understandable why some work may get boring. Quite often, Ryan Johnston added, it seems like truly no one is listening. Also, if a team is struggling, such as the Red Sox, or there is a NHL lockout going on, a local anchor will have to dig deep for topics.
On the national level, it is clear that there is never a lack of listeners, as this aspect of sports radio has hundreds of affilates all over the country, and touches on all of the major stories in the sports world. Lawerence made it clear that a national sports radio host has to know all of the big news going on in the sports world all over the country. A national host is looking to appeal to many different types of sports fans with many different home teams. On the bright side, it would seem that one would never run out of topics to discuss. But, on the other hand, it seems like it would be overwhelming to have a grasp on so much information before a show.
The one thing I noticed that these two types of sports radio shows have in common – veer away from politics, religion and any controversy that doesn’t deal with the sports world. Not only do the anchors not want to turn away listeners but, Johnston described sports radio as an escape for many people. With all the crap everyone has going on in their everyday lives, most people turn on sports radio as a way to get away from all of that.
Phillip Kisubika posted on October 16, 2012 at 11:14 am
It seems as if sports talk radio is growing because more than any other sports journalism medium, it’s a conversation. The hosts do their research (hopefully), get behind a mic and talk to the listeners. The listeners talk back through calls, texts and tweets, and there’s a real back-and-forth. You really don’t get that in print or TV. You have a journalist communicating information and opinion in more of a one-way format, and it’s only in the past few years have print and television journalists had the ability to really communicate with their audiences through Twitter and other social media. That’s probably a reason so many former writers jump at the chance to host sports radio shows (i.e. Mike Greenberg, Randy Galloway and Mike Felger), not to mention it pays better.
To be good at radio, I got the sense from Johnston and Lawrence that you have to be effective and relatable. From local radio in Boston or national radio at ESPN, you have to be able to connect with your audience, and you’ll be able to tell right away if you’re not doing that. If the calls aren’t coming in (in Ryan’s case) or the texts and tweets aren’t popping up (in Amy’s case), you’re not going to last.
As a lot of people have already said, the sports radio landscape has grown and diversified. If you want to listen to experts talk about the entire NFL for an hour or a guy in his basement talking about Premier League soccer, you can find a podcast for those and many other topics. If you want smart, informed sports talk radio, you can find it. There’s also nothing like listening to your hometown radio hosts overpraise a win or react like the sky is falling after a loss (https://twitter.com/FO_ASchatz/status/257936177859018752).
Overall, the seminar was really informative in showing us two different perspectives on sports talk radio. Even though sometimes it can be a grating medium, it’s not going away. It’s getting bigger.
Nate Weitzer posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:08 pm
In a constantly changing business, talk radio is something of a mainstay in today’s sports discourse. It serves as an opportunity for fans to vent and express their own opinions (what got Jerry Thornton started), it’s an interesting source of different perspectives and breaking news, and most importantly, it functions through the only medium that is available in certain situations.
There is no secret to the success of sports talk radio in metropolitan areas. Half the people waiting on hold to put in their two cents and more than half the people listening are slowly moving through traffic or otherwise absently listening to the broadcast while at work. It’s background noise, a nice change of pace from the classic rock stations, or just happened to be where the dial was turned since you were listening to the Red Sox game the night before.
Regardless of the reasons for their listeners tuning in, radio broadcasters have to provide compelling information on relevant and interesting topics. Obviously there is an ongoing competition for ratings, but there is also a battle to distract or manipulate the listener through content.
In Boston, this is often achieved by inducing anger. Over the past few days discussions on the Patriots have transformed from praise of their efficient offense and stellar running game to an all out invective against an insufficient Belichick-coached defense. People call up to complain how Brady’s years are being wasted by a porous defense, thus sharing the sentiment of frustration experienced amongst the community.
This strategy of sharing pain seems to be effective, and it is partially due to the phenomenon outlined by McLuhan in his lecture on the “medium as the message.” People love to focus on the obvious content, i.e. the “juicy piece of meat” that the media presents to distract the minds of their audience, and in this case that is the week-to-week reactions (often overreactions) to NFL games. This medium thrives so well in this particular region because of people’s affinity towards making sweeping generalizations and asserting overarching claims to what they believe to be occurring in professional sports.
James Fallows, writing for The Atlantic, went one step further in his analysis of why people are drawn to the medium of sports talk radio. He pointed to Noam Chomsky’s philosophy in Understanding Power, which can be paraphrased as: People want to utilize their intelligence on important things, but since they can’t get involved in Politics or anything in a serious way, they put their minds to sports and hope to establish self-confidence that way. See the link below for a more complete quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/on-the-sophistication-of-sports-talk-radio-featuring-noam-chomsky-a
This comes back to the idea that radio is a medium where people seek validation and affirmation of their own theories on sports. They want to hear the broadcasters panic and criticize the Patriots defense, because that is their current sentiment as well. Bobby Valentine’s rough departure from Boston was accompanied by constant discussions on where the Red Sox went wrong, and what they should look for in a future manager, because it was the best way to express the absolute disgust felt by the fan base towards the end of the season.
Some people will search for the columns and features that delve deeper into important issues and dissect the details of a complicated trend in pro sports. However, there will always be a market for the casual fan to listen and gripe along about their favorite teams and how THEY feel those teams could be improved. Everyman is a king in their own castle. Well, in the case of sports talk radio- everyone is a genius in the safe haven of their own car.
Jashvina Shah posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I don’t listen to sports talk radio and I don’t think it’s an important medium to communicate information. Sports talk radio reminds me a lot of tabloid newspapers — it succeeds because it’s sensationalist and entertaining, similar to sports talk radio, which is why I think sports talk radio is so popular and will continue to be popular.
The talk radio excerpt from the readings illustrates how sensationalist sports talk radio is. The article mentions that Glenn Ordway admitted the hosts try to yell over each other because “the average fan” will “shout and yell over their friends to get their point heard.” I don’t think that’s the case, but this demonstrates how sports talk radio is trying to appeal with gimmicks as opposed to facts. The article Thoughts on 98.5 FM – One Week In also discussed more tactics used to make sports talk radio entertaining. It said that Felger makes dumb comments “just to be a contrarian,” even if those comments aren’t intelligent.
The only time I’ve ever listened to sports talk radio was when I interned for WEEI over the summer because it was a part of my duties. I just don’t see anything beneficial that comes out of listening to people complain and argue about sports teams while yelling over each other. I also have a sports talk radio show on WTBU (Monday Night Sports Block) that I’ve been on since I was a freshmen. I love being on air, but I don’t find anything great out of listening.
Even though I don’t think sports talk radio is vital, I don’t think it’s going away.
Amy Lawrence and Ryan Johnston did a good job of pointing out why sports talk radio is successful right now — fans like to call in and gripe about their teams on a local level and Lawrence said she always talks about what the fans want to hear.
Those factors aren’t going to go away. Fans are always going to like complaining about their teams, and calling into the radio to complain is more effective in getting your message out than commenting on a blog.
Some of my classmates argued that podcasts will overtake sports talk radio because you can skip commercials, it’s faster and you can listen to it when you please, but I don’t agree. Podcasts lack interactivity. Interactivity is what drives sports talk radio. People want to talk to others about their opinions, which is why they wait a long time to be on air. Podcasts don’t offer that.
Sports talk radio may not be insightful, but it’s entertaining and sensationalist, and that’s what fans like hearing. It’s why CBS and ESPN are expanding their sports talk radio stations. (http://fangsbites.com/2012/10/cbs-radio-purchases-new-york-fm-station-plans-to-put-wfan-on-signal/)
Patrick Thomas posted on October 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm
At my first internship with WJOX 94.5 FM, The Opening Drive, I saw firsthand why sports radio could be impactful. For those who do not know, Birmingham, Alabama is a hotbed for discussion on college football. Two of the hosts on the show, Jay Barker and Al Del Greco, were former college football players for Alabama and Auburn. The other one, Tony Kurre, is a disc jockey that has worked almost thirty years as a DJ.
First, sports radio is a forum that empowers its listeners and is applicable to their daily lives. Like Ryan Johnston said, “It is a kinship of misery.” People called into the show because those listeners eat, sleep and breathe Alabama & Auburn football. Often when Tony, Jay and Al spoke about those teams, the phones would blow up. Regardless of Jay and Al’s athletic experience, fans and listeners felt equally or more qualified to make opinions known on air. Tony was also a controversial host at times, which drew more callers. Controversy brings in great ratings. Producers like that.
Second, sport talk radio can often be highly explanatory. Jay and Al broke the down 2010 national championship game which many callers e-mailed and called the station to thank. Plus, WJOX 94.5 often invited several guests such as Ivan Maisel ( a writer for ESPN) onto the show with real reporting expertise. That most certainly brought credibility to the show since a person actually involved in journalism gave a validated opinion. http://images.radcity.net/5018/5104658.mp3
Another thing the show did was inviting current and former athletes along with coaches onto the show. Those athletes or coaches gave great analysis of current sports issues. Mike and Mike do the same thing on the national level. http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8490861&categoryid=2850689
My greatest lesson I learned as a journalist from the hosts was that you maintain certain etiquette when asking questions. If a scandal is happening or the team is in the middle of a bad season, you ask a question that elicits the answer listeners want without crossing lines.
Third, sports radio on FM channels is still FREE. Now many people may not see the relevance, but an elderly listener or broke college kid may not want to pay $200 a year for Sirius radio. It may eventually affect sports radio on the FM dial but that could take a while. http://www.siriusxm.com/ourmostpopularpackages-sirius
Fourth, sports radio is embracing twitter. Look at Amy Lawrence, who tweets constantly and has almost 6,200 followers. She realizes how important that is to sports. Her work makes a strong case for women in sports.
Fifth, podcasts are HUGE. From my experience, many people who could not listen at work or during their morning commute needed an option to listen later. Also when I had to upload the podcasts, we often cut out the commercial breaks. That is great for listeners who get to hear unimpeded sports talk.
Now as you noticed, I never mentioned that any of the hosts did any hard news reporting. All three have interviewed guests on-air and Tony has interviewed many people in-person, but it was all for radio. Does that make it less respected? Not to me. They never asked ridiculous questions like Ordway either. The beauty of sports radio is that it has no particular socioeconomic class it broadcasts to on-air. Albeit local or national. As my Athletic Director in college said, “Sports is the great equalizer.” For sports radio, that appeal might be true. It sure as heck seems to be the reason for why it may not be going anywhere.
Bobby LeBlanc posted on October 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm
On very rare occasions do I actually listen to sports talk radio, but I do see it as an important topic for discussion. As Ryan Johnston and Amy Lawrence both agreed, there are jobs out there for young sports journalists in radio. Whether we are interested in radio or not, it might be an option to consider at the very least.
Personally, I have to agree with Nick and say that I would much rather listen to a podcast than the radio. I would prefer to find a podcast on a topic that I enjoy instead of listening Felger and Mazz blabber for an hour while taking calls from unintelligent Boston sports fans. Though I might find this entertaining when I drive home to Maine, I would never sit down and listen to it otherwise. I don’t find much value in listening to sports talk radio. If I were ever to turn to the radio to get sports news, however, I would most likely turn to ESPN or a national station.
The only good example of sports talk radio I can think of is Mike and Mike on ESPN. I can only say that I’ve heard them because I’ve watched the show on ESPN before. They are always very well prepared, they have solid guests, and they always have good dialogue. Mike and Mike is one radio show that I think works very well, and I actually would turn to it on the radio for sports talk and news.
One thing that did stick out to me from the seminar is the way in which Lawrence and Johnston approach breaking news. Although they might not be breaking the news themselves, they have to be ready to talk about it. I do have a great respect for sports talk radio hosts in a sense that they are able to stay on an issue for a long amount of time. They also have to be extremely knowledgeable about everything in sports so they are prepared when there is breaking news to turn to. Like all good journalists, it is important to be prepared no matter what the situation is. Journalists have to be on the ball, be prepared to ask questions, and be knowledgeable about the subject. This is no different in sports talk radio. Although I may not listen to sports talk radio, I do admire those like Johnston and Lawrence because they are very good at what they do.
Like Professor Shorr said, sports talk radio is alive and well, and the facts show that it is. Jobs are available for us right out of college in radio, so I think it is something to at least consider. You never know where that first job is going to take you and the contacts that might help you down the road. Sports talk radio may not be the career all of us want, but maybe it’s a place to start.
Greg Huntoon posted on October 17, 2012 at 11:06 am
I found it very interesting that when Prof Shorr polled the class, only a few of us listen to sports talk radio anymore. I am one of the few who seems to listen to it at all, and I listen a lot. I have it on at work, when I go to sleep at night and when I wake up in the morning (I actually have it on right now). I think what allows sports talk radio to be successful is the different types: national and local. And there is a place for both.
A lot of the comments have talked about how we don’t like to hear the ramblings of angry fans for four hours, which is true. But national radio doesn’t revolve around that (a lot of the comments have also alluded to this fact). The ESPN Radio shows they often have different voices from experts around the country. Mr. DeFonzo mentioned about a few of the guests on some ESPN Radio shows, and in an earlier blog I commented about how Colin Cowherd gets writers and reporters from the cities involved with the big stories to give their insight. I am able to hear a lot of different opinions and facts from people who have done the research.
Live radio also gives you information right away. Yesterday I heard about the Eagles firing Juan Castillo as it was being reported. On Monday mornings I can hear Mike and Mike talk with Ron Jaworski about yesterday’s NFL games at 8:00 in the morning, instead of having to wait for a podcast to be recorded and released. And it is always on. At any point I can turn on the radio and listen for as long as I want.
Local radio has its place too. It gives us a chance to hear about our teams. I am from Michigan, and when I’m home I love listening to the local sports shows because it’s all about the Michigan sports teams. Do I enjoy the ramblings of the enraged fans? Not particularly, the points are not usually made well, but I love the passion in it. Local radio voices the views of the fans. Are the shows ridiculous sometimes? Yes, but that’s because the fans are as well. There is no better example than the Paul Finebaum show in Alabama, which literally takes in calls for hours from Alabama and Auburn fans taking shots at each other (the Roll Tide/War Eagle documentary has a lot of great sounds bites, including this famous nugget from Toomer’s Corner poisoner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyc7lcGCMI0.)
When it comes to podcasts, I listen to them as well. I think our class tends to enjoy those more because they fit the lifestyle of a student better (we are not in cars/listening to radios all that often) and given our choice in education, we look for more in depth content that a podcast can offer. But as long as there are sports fans out there, and radios to listen to, sports talk radio is here to stay.
Andrew posted on October 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Coming into this seminar I was very excited. Sports talk radio is why I chose communications at BU and it is ultimately why I chose broadcast journalism as a major. I still love to talk, love to talk about sports and love to talk about it on the radio. In my opinion sports talk radio was the first and definitely loudest form of fan interaction with the sports world in particular the athletes and team executives.
I think its only human nature to believe in the saying “misery enjoys company”. And for people, some in this class, who aren’t the ferocious sports fan that I am…you probably won’t ever understand.
Below is a link of how sports radio should sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_8AQwk4gY
Below is a link of how sports radio shouldn’t sound:
http://audio.weei.com/a/62156279/bobby-v-wants-to-punch-out-glenn-ordway.htm#q=bobby+v+ordway
You see I understand exactly how Russo feels. To come so close to winning only to have your beloved team to steal defeat from the jaws absolutely sucks! A true fan just riddled with legitimate anguish over the woes of his sports team. Chris Russo’s infamous San Francisco Giants rant is a hilarious, appropriate, and respectful rant about a situation that is antagonizing not just him but the guy sitting in his car listening. With truthfulness and respect comes the ratings. That’s sports radio.
What Ordway did to Bobby V isn’t true sports radio. Sports radio at its finest is about respectful criticism and the host mediating the brash not becoming one. There is a fine line, Russo and Francesa knew that line and ratings were always up…Ordway’s attempt for ratings shows where they actually are.
No matter what your opinion is of sports radio, for myself and many others, sports radio is the best depiction of the average fan. Sports radio actually gives a voice to the voiceless. Joe D from Brooklyn is crazy but he is my kind of crazy. It isn’t crazy honestly, it’s just sports.
Patrick Thomas posted on October 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm
I think many people have made great distinctions between national and local. Greg and I had a discussion about local sports radio last Friday when we were leaving Walter Brown Arena after the Women’s Hockey game. He and I both talked about how it was hard for us to pull for teams in Boston. He is a Jets fan while I clearly am a Braves and diehard Auburn fan. For me, it is hard to listen to WEEI or any of the other networks because I was not brought up in the tradition of rooting for the Pats, Sox, Celtics or Bruins. Local radio is amazing but only if it is relative to your sports history.
National Radio, on the other hand, covers so many different topics it seems to always have a relevance to sports fans across the country at some point in a week one way or the other. I found this clip of Amy Lawrence and she gave great insight into the Linsanity craze, the British Open and SEC Media Days in Birmingham. That covers three different areas that make for polarizing discussion. Not only did Linsanity get big in New York, it was massive across the nation. Golf fans are scattered everywhere in the U.S. as well. The only discussion that might be geared toward a particular geographic region is the SEC Media Days. Honestly though, the SEC has become so dominant that college football fans everywhere may want to hear if a team can make it seven national championships in a row for the conference.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8176146
Local sports radio will always have an audience because the hometown fans will always enjoy the banter between hosts and callers. I just don’t think I will call into any of the local sports radio networks anytime soon.
National draws a wider audience and the discussion can go much farther in-depth than people expect. Really it comes down to what city or market you live in as a listener. That might be the difference in how much local or national radio you listen to on a daily basis.
Kaleigh Fratkin posted on October 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm
For me, sports talk radio is light. It’s another means of communication. I don’t think it’s the most intellectual form of communication, but it’s entertaining and opinionated.
Prof Shorr mentioned that talk radio has exploded in the past 10 years and I think that it’s a precise representation of how much communications has become an important means in our lives. Talk radio has become an interactive outlet allowing people to voice their opinion differently than online outlets such as blogs, comment sections from articles etc. Most importantly for sports fans, sports talk radio has become a hit because it allows sports fanatics to talk about sports… to express their passion and interest for the game.
Amy Lawrence and Ryan Johnston informed us that as sports talk radio hosts, your goal is to appeal and bring an audience in, and if that means that sometimes you need to talk both sides of an issue to get people to debate, so be it. Yes, there is a side to sports talk radio that involves stirring the pot, but I think that takes place in all forms of media today. When someone posts a blog, they are usually writing an opinion, therefore there are going to be people who disagree with that person’s point of view and in turn, write their thoughts. This interactivity creates a form of debate… sports talk radio does the same thing and what I learned about this week’s seminar is that sports talk radio is another outlet for people to express their passion and opinion for sports other than typing it behind a computer. For example, in 2010 Lebron James decided on Miami as his new team, a large uproar was created because people weighed in with their opinions. Sports talk radio provided a vocal forum for people to express their opinion, rather than tweeting 140 characters about the James decision.
Not only is sports talk radio a means to debate and stir the pot, it is also a place to hear the news. Not everyone has constant connections to television, the newspaper and social media throughout their day, so sports talk radio acts as one of those connections to communicate updated news in the world of sports whether it is reporting games, announcing trades or discussing team records. Ryan pointed out in the seminar that the last thing people want to hear is a heavy topic, and I agree. I think sports talk radio is the light topic people are looking for because it’s not only entertaining and enjoyable it is also a diversion from the daily realities most people experience.
Having Amy and Ryan as guest speakers made me realize that sports talk radio is important because, as I alluded to above, it’s an escape. I think a lot of times people get caught up in the fact that sports talk radio should always be a place to discuss intellectual thoughts on sports but sometimes it’s not. And I’m not saying that sports talk radio shouldn’t do this, but generally it’s entertainment. I’m going beyond and touching on the point that people are simply expressing their passion for sports, not whether their opinions are right or wrong.
Sandeep Chandrasekhar posted on October 17, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of sports talk radio. I have found many of the people who host radio shows really do not know what they are talking about. The radio personalities, such as the people who host sports talk shows in my hometown of San Francisco, have never played, coached, covered, or participated in many of the sports they like to talk about. I’ve never understood why we should take the opinions of those people so seriously.
In local radio stations (like Ryan Johnston in 98.5 The Sports Hub), these hosts are predominantly glorified fans. They do not attend most of the games they talk about. There is very little interaction between these talk show hosts and athletes/coaches/executives, yet their sole job is to rant about information they do not see in person. Thus, their opinions are no more valuable or credible than any casual fans who talk about a certain topic. Just because they run radio stations does not mean they are any experts in what they are talking about. They are just fans who interact their thoughts with the public.
Yes, I certainly understand that radio stations, especially local ones, are a way to create a forum to bring fans together. Sports fans can collectively rant on air about why a player or the team in general is succeeding or failing. However, I don’t know why people would hold for an hour on the phone just to get a 10-second air time on a radio show. Additionally, since these sports talk shows hosts really have no direct or consistent interaction with any team they are covering, I don’t think any fans would obtain any new knowledge, thoughts, or information regarding a specific team.
However, the one time sports talk radio shows can be effective is when they actually interview credible guests who cover a specific team on a regular basis. People can actually get an idea of a certain athlete or coach through direct interaction with them, and an on-air interview with a beat reporter can give fans insight into a specific team. Even then though, I don’t understand why any athlete or coach would provide any new information to radio talk show personalities, when they are not regularly around the team.
While a specific group of fans can actually come together in local radio stations, I’ve never understood why people listen to national radio stations. With all due respect to personalities like Amy Lawrence, I don’t understand why anyone would take anything these people seriously. National radio talk show hosts try an appeal to a wider audience, yet they do not have any real insider access to what they are talking about. Personally, I believe they are just fans who cover more national topics. Similar to local stations, I do not receive any new information listening to national talk show hosts.
Because sports talk show personalities are often no different from casual fans watching sporting events, I’ve never enjoyed listening to sports talk radio. It is just people discussing their opinions without any insider access to a specific team.
Nate Boroyan posted on October 17, 2012 at 7:17 pm
After listening to both Amy and Ryan discuss what drives their stations content and examining their own views with that of Marshall Mcluhan’s lecture an interesting thought crossed my mind. Mcluhan says that “tv people” or the medium of television in general is almost completely subjective. Automatically, I realized just how subjective sports actually are.
That seems painfully obvious, I know. But in many ways, sports are perhaps the greatest form of action entertainment that an audience has. Unlike movies or tv shows, or even the news, there (in theory) is no script. At any point during any athletic contest there is the possibility that the audience might witness something that has never been achieved before. That is why people watch.
Certainly in game commentary and analysis add to the experience, but I have always viewed these practices more as aesthetic value. I believe this is why sportscenter can air virtually around the clock. Surely, most people have favorite anchor or personality, but it is the highlights that drive the program. ESPN knows this. Thats why there is a top 10 plays at the end of the show.
With that said, it almost seems natural that the sports radio market continues to remain a utilized medium. People see a remarkable play unfold or a captivating game conclude and they immediately want to talk about it. It is a super sized version of water cooler talk.
Mcluhan also adds that printed word and literacy is objective and that it provides a person a way of stepping back and observing their surroundings. Simply put, most people can’t see the world through the eyes of a Tom Brady or Lebron James because very few share their abilities. People may marvel at them and idolize them but the way they are presented to viewers through television does not allow one to “walk in their shoes” so to speak.
Through literature or printed word however, readers are allowed to create how he or she envisions a character or a particular scene.
Because one can’t necessarily step back and objectively view what has just happened on the playing field, the only thing left to do is talk. Radio as a medium provides this. It is a way to be heard. Given this, I was surprised to hear that both Ryan and Amy seemed to find callers “crazy” for holding for hours just to speak on the radio. I would contend that this in some ways is the easiet way for a person to get their “15 minutes” if compelling enough.
Sure, a good caller may only be on a max of two minutes, but the conversation he or she sparked may last another 15 or 20. As a fan of sports talk radio, I see this from an objective point of view like printed word.
Frequent callers that have developed a minor following or personality become non-visial characters. Listeners are given the freedom to create this character in their minds and run with it.
Tim Larew posted on October 17, 2012 at 8:15 pm
It was great to hear from Ryan Johnston and Amy Lawrence last week on the topic of sports talk radio. It was quite clear that both of them absolutely love what they do and could literally talk about any topic for hours on end no matter if there are five or 500,000 people listening and interacting.
Sports talk radio is actually an interesting topic. When you polled the class and asked how many of us listen to sports talk radio, very few of us responded that we still do – whether on a regular basis or even sporadically. I said that it was more of a routinic thing for me in high school. I would get into my dad’s or one of my friend’s parents’ cars on the way to school, and sports talk radio would be coming out of the speakers. I got used to hearing the same shows, the same voices, and in many cases, the same topics, day after day. I was an active listener – not to the point where I was calling in – but in the sense that I was genuinely entertained by the hosts and never had any problem listening to it in the car.
However, I certainly didn’t miss it when those routines that had me listening to sports talk radio in the first place drew to a close. I went off to college, and since then, I think my only exposure to sports talk radio is when I would make occasional appearances on Friday Night Sports Block with Feldman, Nate Lowenthal and Fran Brown.
What made me become less interested? I’m not even sure that’s what it was. It’s not like I had an affinity towards it in high school that disappeared, it was more that it was a temporary part of my life that I didn’t long for once it faded out naturally. Why is that the case?
Well, after hearing Ryan talk about why he thinks sports fans spend so much time listening to their local stations and sports talk radio in their own cities, I think it’s because I grew up in a state with no professional sports team. Whereas Ryan grew up in Philly and still to this day will go home and turn on local radio just to hear banter about the Eagles, I go back to Connecticut and the closest professional sports teams are from the city I was just going to school in – Boston. I’ve never had a real allegiance to any team – I’m a big time fan of the Yankees, but I don’t feel a blood connection, so to speak, because I live two and a half hours away from the stadium.
I always enjoyed that national sports talk radio coverage, but the local shows weren’t even really ever an option for me. Hearing a few classmates talking about growing up listening to WEEI was cool. I bet if I was in their shoes, I might still be listening to sports talk radio as well. But for me, the internet really provides everything I need. I wake up in the morning, scroll up and down Twitter, and collect all my major sports headlines in a matter of minutes from the comfort of my bed, eyes not even fully open. If I want to be enlightened with details beyond the headlines? Click a link and scan a story. If I want unprofessional, entertaining banter from non-professionals? Scroll down to the bottom of that story until I get to the comments section, then read and laugh away.
For me, comments on internet publications have taken the place of whatever sports talk radio was for me earlier in my life. That’s different for a lot of people who have a home where local sports talk radio could’ve hit, but in my case, my lack of hometown allegiance makes replacing that fairly painless.
I don’t see the industry of sports talk radio going anywhere in the near future. However, I think it will become a lot more customizable as our generation grows older and raises kids of our own, as we’re already seeing with podcasts and things of that nature. Where our parents might know nothing but to get in the car and flip on a station, we can hook up our iPods and have music, news, etc. tailored to our own desires with speed and ease. We’ll have to see how that changes sports talk radio, but for now, it’s going nowhere.
Caitlin Donohue posted on October 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm
I was very entertained by not only what Amy and Ryan had to say about their individual jobs, but also how they disagreed with each other on a lot of issues. Their viewpoints showed the substantial differences between local and national radio, as well as from local and national media. Even though they both primarily focus on sports during their programs, they have very different motives. Ryan has to connect with the Greater Boston community, so he often focuses on Boston’s teams. He even went as far as to call the Red Sox’s horrible season somewhat of an entertainment gold mine for his program. Amy, on the other hand, has to cover any and all teams for her ESPN show. She has a lot wider of a spectrum to cover, but as a result, she is also given more freedom in what she can talk about. Personally, I would prefer Amy’s path to Ryan’s because as Professor Shorr said, I wouldn’t want to feel like I was “beating the same topics into the ground.”
I still believe that despite its continued growth, sports radio cannot compare to any other form of sports entertainment because it is somewhat outdated. Television and the Internet are so frequently preferred nowadays that no matter how rapidly the radio industry is growing, it is playing constant catch-up to the other mediums. Also, as Mary said, the visual aspect of sports news and entertainment is so vital in keeping audiences engaged. Even Amy emphasized the role the Internet plays in maintaining her radio audience when she described Tweeting as “a full-time job.”
Prior to our guests’ arrival, a majority of the class stated that they do not listen to sports talk radio; however, many agreed that their parents are religious listeners. While a large portion of the middle-aged demographic may still tune in, I have a hard time imagining that future generations will become secure audiences of sports radio. These up-and-coming generations will grow up on television and the Internet, not sports radio. So, along the same lines of what Paul said, I would not be shocked if sports radio did not survive in the long-run, but for right now, it definitely serves its purpose: to create a sense of community and entertain people in the process.
http://www.theticker.tc/story/national-radio-day-local-players-say-celebrate
Stephanie Jarvis posted on October 17, 2012 at 9:47 pm
When our class was presented with the question of whether we prefer to listen to national versus local sports talk radio, I think I’m one of the few who favored national outlets. One reason could be because I’ve only lived in Boston for a year, so I’m not one of the “miserable Boston sports fans”. And while I don’t think this is 100 percent the reason why I’m not as tuned into the local channels on a daily basis, I do remember my first experience with Boston sports talk radio. I was visiting BU in the fall of 2010, and I remember finding the sports station in my car rental. I listened to rant after rant about the Patriots, who at the time were 7-2. Coming from Ohio, my friends that are Browns fans would be thinking Super Bowl at 7-2. But callers and the hosts were talking about this and that going wrong, and overall it was just pure frustration among unhappy people.
Fast forward a year, and although most of the time I will still tune into national sports talk during my one hour commute to and from work, I’ve kind of come to appreciate the local side a little more. I’m still not a fan of the call ins, but I think there is something special about hearing directly from players or coaches versus just hearing soundbites from open locker room on the local tv stations. Part of my job requires me to transcribe and pick out sound bites when Coach Belichick and/or players join WEEI on Monday at Gillette. I’ve noticed that the coach is asked a lot of the same questions that are asked at his press conferences, but sometimes he’ll give some additional information during his radio interview.
Just as an example, after the Buffalo game he was asked about his confidence in Stephen Gostkowski. He completely shifted gears and went on to tell a really interesting story about Devin McCourty, after commenting that last week everyone was asking about his confidence in the defensive back.
So, what’s my point in all of this? I think local sports talk radio is definitely geared toward entertaining, but it’s the added factor of informing the audience that is sometimes missing. It’s the allure of breaking news or hearing about how Vince Wilfork still thinks that Baltimore’s field goal was wide right that will keep listeners like me tuning in every now and then. But for now, my radio intake will continue to consist of about 70% national and 30% local. In any case, numbers prove that the radio market is growing, and as Ryan Johnston pointed out, some fans do really enjoy being miserable together. I’m just not one of them.
Davis VanOpdorp posted on October 17, 2012 at 10:00 pm
A lot of people have touched on the statistical data of podcasts, so I won’t go too much into it. I would just like to add to Nick Hanson’s statistics above to say that the B.S. Report, Best of Mike and Mike, and PTI podcasts are all in the top 40 overall. To me, that’s remarkable considering they have to compete with NPR, the BBC, and NBC shows.
Also, I’d like to reiterate and expand on something that I mentioned in class. “The Best of…” shows have done wonders in expanding the market for Sports Talk Radio. Now, instead of listening to four hours of show with commercial and long uninteresting tangents, you can hear the best of the show in an hour, and listen it whenever you want. This allows sports talk radio to always have a market.
For another observation on the sports talk radio market, I turn to an interesting point Ryan Johnston made. The radio market is shrinking with Pandora Radio and their own music. Just look at the new FM stations for WEEI and the Sports Hub. The Sports Hub took over Mix 98.5, an 80’s, 90’s, 2000’s radio show who moved to 104.1. As Mr. Johnston mentioned, WEEI had to catch up, so they took over 93.7 after Mike FM, a radio station that played random music. It is also telling that Kiss 108 Radio, or 107.9, has had to advertise on television, after being a dominant force in the greater Boston area for years.
I think that was one of the major points of the seminar, and why it was so important to have it. Sports talk radio, in my opinion, is a market that is growing, and there are a lot of jobs in that field. I would be surprised if sports radio personalities become as big, if not bigger, than the personalities you see on TV.