Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Revolution Boston Radio: WTF?

By

Boston’s progressive radio station (Revolution Boston – WWZN 1510AM) started their new lineup today, and it excludes the two shows that, IMO, were the only reasons to tune in: Stephanie Miller (they only aired two out of three hours) and Ed Schultz.

These two are big names in progressive talk, with Miller simulcast on Current TV and touring with the successful Sexy Liberal Tour (just in Boston on Saturday), while Schultz is, of course, in the 8pm slot on MSNBC weeknights.

I’m not sure why they made the change, but given that I can listen to those shows other ways (Internet, Current), they just lost this listener.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Perhaps the licensing fees to have those shows were too expensive to justify signing them for those hours. That’s what I’d guess.

    • No need to “perhaps”. Click the linkie I had in my original post. Except for Jeff “No Doubt” Santos, it’s all syndicated shows.

  3. I can’t resist having a little fun with this. I don’t mind a little speculation, but for all the times you jump down my throat for not researching before I comment (about for example whether licensing fees really were a factor) this is the height of irony coming from you:)

    • First of all, when I ‘jump down your throat’ it’s generally when you present opinions as if they were facts. I didn’t do that here, making it more than clear I was speculating.

      I recommend you try that the next time you post on something you don’t know anything about.

      Secondly, you typically refuse to defend your opinions-as-if-they-were-facts, saying you have no time/capability/etc., not even willing to refer to an article you read or doing a simple Google search.

      I won’t do that here.

      The reason why I didn’t go on length about how chances were high the cost was greater ($) than the reward (ratings) was because it seemed obvious. The station wouldn’t have cut the shows loose if the money was delivering the ratings.

      Note the fact that I’m expressing an opinion here, with words such as “chances are high” and “seemed obvious.” I recommend it.

      Now, moving on. It’s no secret that syndicating big names usually comes at a very high cost, sometimes so much so that the cost outweighs the benefits.

      In fact, I just read this article a couple days ago about how losing Oprah’s syndicated show on TV has cost huge ratings for her former stations, but not necessarily huge dollars — because the costs of Oprah were so high.

      But “Oprah” was also exceedingly expensive for stations. For WABC, ad revenue for the 4 p.m. hour sometimes barely covered the license fee for the show, Mr. Davis said. Now, with a lower-rated local newscast, the station makes a profit at that hour, he said. But there are fewer viewers over all.

      TV and radio stations have to make these decisions about syndicated programming all the time. Searching Google (I highly recommend that!), I can even find articles weighing the pros-and-cons going all the way back to 1987. So, not a new problem, and not a new type of story I’ve read about given my love of pop culture and news junkie ways.

      I kind of feel bad, Christopher. No doubt someday I’ll put something up that does exactly as you say, but this wasn’t the one. You picked a terrible opportunity to gloat.

  4. I also thought I often hedged with phrases like “it’s my understanding…”

Archives