fshorr's blog

My first memories of sports talk radio are from childhood. I’m not sure when my older brother first started sleeping and listening to 610 WIP, but I learned quickly to adapt to sleeping through the static and loud voices from down the hall. When he moved away to school, I turned on the radio myself for a few weeks, so I could fall asleep.

Maybe you are not familiar with Paul Jolovitz or Big Daddy Graham. And maybe you’ve never listened to WIP. But I’m sure that most of us can recall a memory or several memories of listening to the radio. For me, besides have to sleep through the static, a trip to a Phillies or Flyers game wasn’t complete without listening to the post-game show on WIP on the car ride home.

The point that I’m trying to make by sharing these stories echoes what Tony Massarotti said in this week’s seminar. Massarotti described radio as the “background noise of the listeners’ lives.” It serves as the perfect outlet, and fulfills that psychological need for fans. I cannot remember a trip home from Philadelphia after a big win or upsetting loss that we didn’t listen to the radio to share in the excitement and misery with other fans.

Radio’s significance is eminent in the lives of sports fans everywhere. Whether you are in the car or even listening while you sleep, radio continues to provide its listeners with entertainment and opinion. It is the one medium, as Massarotti said, that he doesn’t see fading out in the near future.

I admire the optimism expressed by a professional broadcaster such as Tony Massarotti for the future of radio. Last Thursday, Tony commented, “I don’t think radio is ever going to die.” If my memory serves me right, his reasoning was that even after the emergence of television, radio still continued to exist even against a medium that could give both video and audio, instead of one or the other.

Matt makes a good point about the adaptability and versatility of broadcast journalism to adjust to the industry in the 21st century format. Digital and satellite radio (i.e. Sirius XM) have helped a number of radio personalities and prominent figures get back on the air including sports broadcasters and commentators, but not limited to them either. Straight talk show personalities and “shock jocks,” such as Howard Stern, have gotten back their careers back due to broadcasting through satellite transmission, which has permitted them to broadcast their opinions uncensored. Furthermore, I cite WTBU, or at least the sports department of the station I work in personally, as an example of the flexibility and versatility of radio. Within the last couple of years, the sports department has maintained an active website and blog, used live blogging or “Cover It Live” during games (a twitter equivalent), shot ESPN style video reads, and utilized online broadcasting alternatives in addition to just doing regular broadcasts for live coverage of sports. As a transfer student, I’ve been amazed at the extensive coverage the sports station alone has done. On the other hand, the WTBU sports staff ranges from about 25-40 people, who are volunteers and not paid. A regular station may not be able to provide sufficient pay checks for a sports staff this big or that does this much work.

Molly’s point about a sports fan’s admiration for radio is also a salient one. I believe there is a sizable demographic of dedicated sports fans, who do enjoy listening to certain broadcasters or following the games on the radio as opposed to TV or online. I myself first got interested in sports broadcasting by listening to New York Rangers games on ESPN 1050 AM New York. The play-by-play announcer, Kenny Albert, and color commentator, Dave Maloney, both inspired me personally to go into the radio side of broadcasting as opposed to another medium such as television. I remember the excitement when I was still in high school of listening to their voices and analyses of each game live like it was yesterday. Radio has had a profound impact on my life and I would consider it a part of my identity too.

I also have many friends who enjoy the radio for live sports in particular situations as opposed to watching it on TV. One of these friends, likes to watch bootleg streams of Rangers games online and then mute the commentary and turn on the radio commentary while the video streams on his computer simultaneously. In addition, last year, I had a roommate, who listened to Red Sox games on the radio simply because he did not own a TV.

Bootleg streams? Don’t own TV’s? Listening to sports broadcasts on the radio? Music to my ears! Radio will definitely for be around for awhile. However, I’m skeptical if this trend will hold true permanently.

I’m a bit of a pessimist myself about all the media forms of the 20th century carrying over for the next 90 years. My freshman year (Fall 2007), I was asked in an introductory, communications course final exam whether newspapers would survive in the future. I answered yes, saying that the public would prefer on an everyday basis to have a hard copy of its news when going into work in the morning and grabbing a cup of coffee. Fast forward to about a year ago and well… the New York Times is debating whether to sell the Boston Globe or fold the operation all together. Fortunately it didn’t, but current journalists seem to be forming a growing consensus that news papers are done for, or kaput.

However, newspapers are a much older medium than radio, but who says the public won’t let it disappear? Many live radio broadcasts of sports are free (especially online) in the United States, which points to the fact that stations and broadcasters aren’t making a lot of money if this is the case. Television stations are now making their games available online, but for a charge. “NHL GameCenter Live” currently costs $159.00 for a season’s worth of games. Who wants to pay when they could save money and get audio alone free? That’s good and dandy for sports radio broadcasters, but economically speaking it might actually be hurting their paychecks and quality of living.

Increasing technology and digitization spells promise for radio to keep up with TV, but I’m skeptical of how much longer it can compete with an increasing access for people to such things as computers (more visuals) and television sets in cars (drivers can’t watch, but everyone else could theoretically). At the end of the day, the blue collar worker wants to sit back, have a beer, and (key word coming) WATCH the game over listening to it.

That aside, I did enjoy listening to Tony and John discuss their jobs because the sports talk format is something I’m interested in as a possibility for myself. As Tony explained, you have a lot more time available to yourself and your family if you’re in his shoes as opposed to the beat reporter, who is always busy. Family and free time are things I value and hope to see in my future as a broadcaster or journalist.

I think personality makes a drastic difference in the appeal of radio for an audience, especially with sports. A lot of the time, sports analysis on TV or radio can be too cut and dry. Just the facts, plays, strategies, and “X’s” and “O’s”. Or one might encounter a show in which the panelists, broadcasters, or hosts attempt to be funny, but are simply not. The model for all talk show radio programs (sports or otherwise) should follow the movie, “Good Morning Vietnam,” about shock jock, Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams), who broadcasted a comedy talk show, which made fun of serious news events and issues and played controversial music, to GI’s on duty during the Vietnam War. Cronauer broadcasted on his terms and not those of the army. One can’t go to the extreme always as taking as many liberties as Cronauer did, but the movie makes a vital point about what the public likes: comedy. If one combines this with giving them the straight news and facts in an honest fashion up front, then they should comeback for more.

Sports are supposed to be entertaining and I think that’s what guys in the talk show format, such as Tony, try to do for their public. It’s a necessity, if the sports media market wants to expand its audience demographic.

I think that sports talk radio is a very interesting element to the sports media scene. I agree with Tony Massarotti and everyone who posted before me that talk radio will always have a place in sports media. Like Molly, my memories of sports talk radio go way back as well. I can remember listening to WFAN (do-do-do!) before I understood baseball, whether it was on the way to or from a game or just whenever I was in the car with my father. It was a nice break from NPR’s Sunday Morning Baroque, which was usually the other thing that was on when in the car with my father. But as I got older and started actually listening more, I came to enjoy sports talk radio and it would spark engaging conversations between my father, my brother and I about sports. To this day, my dad and I will listen to any sports talk radio station when we’re in the car driving anywhere, and usually it will branch off into another conversation or in most cases, an argument.

I was very interested by our hosts and their views on how much yelling needs to be done on a sports talk radio show. From my experience, the best discussions are created by disagreements. And if you have two people, or more, who are very passionate about the topic at hand, the discussion is bound to feature some yelling. I don’t think this is a bad thing, necessarily, as long as what is being yelled is correct and relevant. It is interesting how much thought goes behind balancing a radio show with someone who will get heated up and someone who will counter that person, like Tony said. But I do think that this yelling argument comes up in sports a lot, simply because people are very passionate about their teams. Tony said that you have to just accept this, because if there is a hot, developing story, you’re bound to hit somebody’s button, and somebody is going to have something to say about it.

I read an article on Blackboard that did not support the yelling aspect of sports talk radio, saying that “actual sports talk is replaced with endless debates filled with fake passion about the same subjects over and over again.” I don’t really think that sports talk radio has a lot of fake passion. As our hosts said, sometimes it gets difficult to repeat the same question and subjects over and over again for a four hour show, just because the turnover rate of listeners is very high (the average listener tunes in for just 1 to 1 1/2 hours per week). But the intriguing thing about talk radio is that you have so many perspectives, so many people calling in who all have so many different opinions. That is where the passion comes from. I’m sure the hosts care about the local teams, but the real passion and heated debate is going to come from the listeners. That’s also why I think that sports radio will never die. It is way too difficult to express your passion, frustration, excitement over the Internet in a comment or a blog post. I think that the real-time element of sports talk radio and the immediate satisfaction or dissatisfaction it gives to the listeners will keep them listening, discussing and arguing.

It may evolve, and there may be more competition for certain stations, but I think that is a good thing. With XM radio and radio on the Internet you can tune into these shows when you’re not just in the car. If I move to Colorado but still want to listen to Mike Francesa cutting people off before they get their question out, I can! I can also choose a different station if I want to hear callers who will actually get to ask questions. The Internet may ultimately kill newspapers, but I think it will help radio in the long run.

I agree with Brad that it’s amazing that some people can listen to sports radio all day, because I’m amazed at myself that I tune in on drives from Boston to New Jersey, or listening for hours on end when I delivered pizza.

But I think sports radio gets a bad rap. Yes I wonder why I subjected myself to endless LeBron speculation, but it runs in to the same problem as all radio- it’s hard to keep a listener entertained for hours on end. Rush Limbaugh ranting about the Ground Zero Mosque or the same Top 40 songs played on Kiss 108 create the same monotony that a full sports radio show does. Even watching ESPN all day gets boring. But if listened to for a short drive, like a half-hour commute to work, radio is entertaining, and for sports fans, sports radio adds unique perspective and analysis that you can’t find in other formats. Radio shows need to repeat themselves a lot because they’re targeting their audience which only listens for a short time.

Plus, the new competition breaks up the monotony. Switching back and forth between Sports Hub and EEI offers more perspective and often different subjects. As Tony said, some hosts specialize in certain sports, so perhaps when EEI has a show where the hosts specialize in baseball, Sports Hub has football hosts on. So if you switch, you’ll hear different stories. For example, in New York, Michael Kay and Mike Francesa are on at the same timee. Kay knows the most about the Yankees and Francesa knows the most about the Giants (even if they let their biases show), so if I want to hear about one of those teams, I know which one to tune to for the better coverage.

Competition will raise the bar in sports radio just like any form of competition.

Competition makes any product better, and sports radio is no exception. WEEI will step up its game with the Sports Hub threatening to take over just like NESN has had to be on their toes since Comcast Sports Net became a player in the Boston sports media market.

The way in which Boston sports radio will improve is less easy to predict. I’m not so sure there will be much less yelling, because that is such a staple of what sports radio is whether you love it or hate it. It will definitely give fans a choice in terms of which teams they’d like to hear about though. Just as Celtics fans can rely on Comcast, Pats fans who want to listen to all Patriots coverage all day can tune in to WEEI’s Patriots Friday or Patriots Monday. So the competition in radio will improve the product for fans who want to listen to coverage on the teams they really care about, but the yelling will always be a staple of sports radio – especially in this city.

Brad and Adam’s comments brought up an interesting debate about sports radio. I totally see why people like Brad could be turned off by the yelling. I can’t handle more than about half an hour of listening, but I don’t think the stations intend for listeners to commit any more than that – Tony touched on that in the seminar.

I love radio programs like “Only A Game” that do longer and more thoughtful pieces than the sports talk stations. I’ve worked there as an intern since the past summer and I like that they keep their content interesting by mixing in packages about stories off the beaten path while mixing in analysis from really strong reporters like Pat Forde and Tim Kurkjian.

But the one big advantage sports talk radio has over programs like Only A Game and Pardon the Interruption is listener input.

Adam brought up the fact that sports radio is one of the only mediums that allows the listener to directly get involved in the conversation and really feel like they’re an important part of the program. Nothing else can top that, even if it does lead to shouting battles and stupid debates about whether Jason Varitek should be in the Hall of Fame.

That’s what sports talk radio relies on, and that’s the reason the shouting will always be there – even if it causes the 90% of us who don’t call in to turn the dial to something new.

A few people have touched on the nostalgia that comes with listening to sports talk radio. Like Molly, I grew up on 610 WIP out of Philadelphia. I would listen when in the car with my parents, and it would keep my attention even though half the time I didn’t even know what they were talking about. When people ask how I can listen to sports talk radio for so long its hard for me to give them an answer. To me, the appeal of sports talk radio isn’t something that can be easily explained to people who don’t like it. Its like talking about sports with your friends. The same way I can talk for hours about sports and not even realize it, I can listen to sports talk radio for hours and not realize it. They share the same appeal.

They also have a huge advantage over sports on tv and in print, they can feature the same topic for hours and constantly have new material. Because callers can contribute, and anyone can advance a discussion, it doesn’t get stale. You never really know where the conversation will end up going. I interned at 97.5 the Fanatic (Philadelphia’s other sports talk radio station) over the summer. Before the show the producers and hosts would come and tell the interns what they wanted to talk about that day. 9 times out of 10, whatever they told us at the start of the show was pretty much out the window a few hours in. That’s why people can listen for hours and not get bored with it. You can’t do that with TV. You obviously can’t do that with newspapers. Maybe online you can update an article every few hours, but it still can’t come near to matching sports talk radio.

Unlike Brad, I don’t think the sports talk format translates well to tv. Its too scripted. They have clear topics lined out, they’re arguments aren’t natural because they’re too thought out. That might seem like kind of an odd thing to say, but sports discussions don’t have near the same appeal when you can just through stats out there to make your argument.

As far as competition goes, competition in sports talk radio, like in all things forces everyone to step up their game. When you have a competitor, you can only survive on reputation alone for so long. The problem is, as we discussed in class, the rivalries tend to split the city into factions. You will have organizations (both sports team, and sports new outlets) that will definitely be closer with one station than another. I know in Philadelphia, one GM refuses to go on with a certain afternoon host after a bad experience. This can create a bad relationship when it comes to how close you want to get to the thing your covering. It creates a bias issue that stations are still trying to reconcile.

Sports talk radio and sports television should not be compared. It’s like apples and oranges. So let’s do ourselves a favor and stop comparing them. Think about the means through which both mediums are conveying information: if I’m at home watching PTI, I’m probably relaxing, focusing and listening intently on what’s being said, and am more receptive to the analysis being offered by the hosts. If I’m in the car listening to 98.5, or WFAN back home, it’s more about the entertainment factor than it is the substance.

Tony mentioned how, before he came into the industry, he really wasn’t controversial and he wasn’t that outspoken. Now, although he’s admittedly move level-headed than his co-host Michael Felger, he’s expected to spark some debate on each and every show. He mentioned that, over time, radio hosts develop into permanent “characters” that listeners affiliate them with, and they expect those traits and personalities to shine during every broadcast they tune into. And as Rish said, the only way you can cut ties with that character completely is by a total makeover–either by leaving the industry or going to a different market.

Back at home, I think WFAN has cemented this notion for good. The morning show is comprised of ex-NFL quarter back Boomer Esiason and the outgoing Syracuse graduate Craig Carton. Esiason is the voice of reason on the show, while Carton makes outrageous statements, bashes teams and athletes in the area, and to be quite honest, comes across as a bit immature. The midday show pairs the much more likable pair of Joe Beningo and Evan Roberts together, and the two define the typical Mets/Jets/Nets fan combination, so most of their shows are spent making fun of themselves and their own teams, while callers join in and do the same. And then there’s the tyrant, Mike Francesa, who will only let you speak if you’re a fan of the Yankees or Giants, will call you a “moron” or worse if he disagrees with you, and cuts you off before you get a chance to defend yourself. But the anger that he incites draws more listeners and callers. Why? Because it’s entertaining! That’s what the industry is about at this point.

Brad made a point in saying that he can’t believe how people can listen to extended periods of sports talk radio. I don’t disagree with him in that it become excessive, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s meant to be listened to for long periods of time. It’s for people in their cars, during morning and afternoon commutes, or for those fans wanting to vent or gloat on the way home from a game. Yes, fans now have the means of making the hosts look like fools if they don’t have know their stuff, but at the same time, that has made the hosts better, that has made the programs more entertaining, that has made the competition between local outlets more intense, and thus, has made the industry better.

I, like Molly, have fond memories of listening to news and sports radio with my father. I always liked how the hosts butted heads and seemed to disagree more than agree with each other; however, I was never a fan of the yelling. It made me anxious and there never really seemed to be a point. Who cares whether a host likes one player better than the other. It’s his opinion.

Today, when I’m in the car, I do not even deal with talk radio. I get enough opinion from local sports casts and ESPN to keep me informed. WIth radio the audience is always changing. Most people are in their car for only a few moments, and for those moments they are fiddling with their pre-sets. Even with music radio, stations only play the same 10 or so songs over and over, so it makes me wonder how the people that do listen, can stand to hear the same things over and over again.

John also mentioned that he did not think that radio was dying. As weird as that sounds, it is true. While, the form of media is not experiencing attention like it did back in the 1970’s, according to Nielsen, persons aged 25-54 listened to the radio an average of 24 hours and 23 minutes each week during the spring survey. Those include households with cell-phones, which were once thought to cut a persons radio time. Radio is not dying, but that only makes me wonder how it will change….

One of the comments that I found most interesting in this seminar is when Tony Massarotti made the comment about sports talk radio being entertainment first, and information second. “It’s called a show for a reason,” he said. I completely agree with that statement. To me, it sometimes feels like the radio personalities are trying too hard to be entertaining, and then a whole show can spiral down like a bad episode of “The Real World.” I think this is the reason I shy away from most sports talk programming. I get annoyed very easily, like Brad said, with the yelling and the drama and the cheesy jokes.

I think John Rish made an excellent point when he said you “have to walk the line between personality and credibility.” If you are constantly yelling or cracking jokes, it is harder for a listener to take you seriously in terms of your knowledge. If I listen to sports talk radio, I often feel like I walk away without having learned any new, quality information.

An area in which I do think sports radio thrives though, is for game coverage. There have been many times when I’ve had to travel (drive more specifically) while one of my teams was playing an important game. Listening to the game on the radio is far more interesting than just looking up the scores on my blackberry. It is also with pregame, halftime, and postgame commentary that sports radio can shine. Just like those Phillies fans said, whenever I went to a Bills game we had the radio on the the whole drive to the stadium, in the parking lot during our tailgate, and especially post game while trying to get out of the there.

Concentrating on the post-game coverage, I think radio often does an awesome job. The host provides their insights to what went on during the game, and fans have an opportunity to call in and share their observations. This kind of format can open up an engaging discussion and reveal viewpoints on the game that maybe you hadn’t thought of yourself. It’s much more analysis than you would get from a typical midday or evening sports talk radio “show.”

The radio post-game coverage also has a couple advantages that television can’t always provide. (Sorry Chris, I’m making the comparison.) TV is on a very tight schedule, and if a game runs long, the post-game coverage will usually get cut short because they have to get to their next “regularly scheduled program” while radio typically can go on for however long they need to. I’m not sure how other markets run it, but usually the Buffalo/Rochester sports radio stations will broadcast the complete post-game press conferences with the Bills players and coaches. This is another advantage because you get to hear a full, detailed response as opposed to a 12 second TV soundbite. The other benefit of post-game is exactly what John does – hear from the fans themselves! Sports is something that people can instantly bond over, and love talking about. Post-game sports radio gives fans an opportunity to interact with other people just like them. They can now share their praise or express their disgust over a game from anywhere.

Plain and simple, people love sports and they love talking about or giving their opinions on sports. So not only is sports talk radio far from dying, I would argue that it’s even expanding. These days it’s not just a static AM station in your car that you have. There’s HD radio or satellite radio available. You can live stream your favorite stations online from anywhere in the country. Podcast versions of shows are available for download all over the place. And like Professor Shorr said, with all the competition and options out there, stations will be forced to stay on their toes and keep moving in a progressive direction with their programming.