article by ed sherman in Crains

won't post it all but he gets comments from sports media about wscr and sports radio. coppick sucks up to north(big surprise ) and of course has to tout that the score tried to make him the first hire and he turned them down. lost a lot on that one chester.

here are some snippets:

Chet Coppock hosted a popular sports talk show on WMAQ-AM 670 during the '80s:

The Good: I remain very proud that I was the first guy the Score tried to hire (Mr. Coppock decided to stay at WMAQ). You have to salute them for what they've accomplished. Personally, I think (SCR afternoon host Dan Bernstein) is atrocious, but obviously there are people who are crazy about his act. I'll always wonder if WSCR would have become so successful if it hadn't had Mike North. He was the first guy who generated a buzz. Mike took the train down a different track.

The Bad: There is less emphasis on truly digging into a story. When I was doing (“Coppock on Sports”), I felt obligated to truly inform as well as entertain. We busted stories at least four times a week. For the most part, sports talk radio has become "guy talk." That's where the North factor kicks in. Right now, I don't see any one sports guy who really has this town galvanized. Most of these guys couldn't be identified in a police lineup. But, what the hell, apparently advertisers are buying into what's being offered.



Chuck Swirsky hosted sports talk shows at WGN-AM 720 in the '80s and a popular sports talk show in Toronto before returning to Chicago as the Bulls' radio voice:

The Good: Variety. The combination of satellite radio ( ESPN, Fox, Sporting News) has created a platform for a national perspective when local topics become stale and saturated with redundancy. Hosts have been forced to do their homework because competition is at a high level daily. There are excellent reporters in the field today at both ESPN 1000 and the Score. Their coverage of sports teams is built on passion and attention to detail. Producers are a vital element to the success of a show. The ability to feel the pulse of a sports story and react immediately makes conversation compelling if it's driven correctly.

The Bad: Do we really need to hear profanity, vulgarity, sexual innuendos and sophomoric lingo? Never in my wildest dreams did I think "guy talk" consisted of lowering one's self to a degree of immaturity which equates to the lowest of broadcast standards. You can constructively criticize and entertain without this nonsense. There's too much negativity; not enough credit is given for what's right instead of what's wrong. I am not from the school of "When I was your age . . ." The culture has changed. Sports communication and social networking is radically driving the engine. That's all well in good but professionalism is the key.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Please die in a fire.

He's got a little Holmes in him, huh?

_________________

Holmes would never let this happen...

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Please die in a fire.

Intersting to read the old timers bring up professionalism.
It would be easy to argue that what constituted "professionalism" in the late 80s/early 90s has been drastically reduced.

_________________
@audioidkid

Agree Doug. It's actually the reason I've given up listening to Sports Talk. Way too much negativity, and I was just getting angry by the time I turned the radio off.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Sorry Deacon Blues, but I am going to post the whole thing....I just read it all, and I pretty much took the Good/Bad segments as "What you hate about Boers and Bernstein?"






I am the answer to only one relevant trivia question: Who was the first guest on WSCR?


When WSCR went on the air for the first time on Jan. 2, 1992, the big news was the controversy in the college football polls. Bleary-eyed after covering the Orange Bowl late into the night before, I was sitting in a Miami hotel room when host Tom Shaer called to get my view at the top of the show.


Other guests that morning included Mayor Richard M. Daley and John Madden. But I was No. 1.


Fortunately, it was uphill from there for WSCR. Now 20 years and three frequencies later, the Score and its rival, WMVP-AM 1000, have made sports talk a dominant force in Chicago radio.


Back in 1992, an all-sports station was viewed as a risky proposition. Daniel Dorfman does a terrific job documenting the history of WSCR in a six-part series on the station's website. It's fun recollection, reliving the early days on 820, the improbable rise of Mike North and details of a few controversies along the way.


There's also a must-see clip of John Drummond reporting from WSCR on the day the Bears fired Mike Ditka in 1993. A classic report from “The Bulldog.”


When WSCR first flipped the switch, five years after WFAN launched in New York in 1987, nobody could have anticipated how sports talk radio would transform coverage of the local teams and beyond. Sports talk radio stations, now numbering more than 500 in the country, gave sports fans a voice they never had before, often giving players, coaches and team executives a headache they never had before.


Said Jeff Smuylan, the founder of WFAN and chairman of Emmis Communications Corp. in Indianapolis: “What sports talk radio did was open up 24-hour portals. Before, an athlete only would get ripped in the paper. Now he walks out of the ballpark, turns on the radio, and he listens to himself getting ripped all day long.”


On the occasion of WSCR's 20th anniversary, I asked some folks in sports media to give their view of the impact of sports talk radio under the categories of “The Good” and “The Bad.”


I'll start with my view: (Note: I co-host “The Scorecard” on WSCR during golf season.)


The Good: No matter how some athletes and sports executives might feel, I think the constant talk has greatly fueled the obsession for sports in the U.S. TV ratings and attendance are way up compared to the early '90s. In Chicago, the chatter keeps the White Sox, Cubs, Bears, Bulls, Blackhawks and everyone else front and center every minute of the day. It's 24/7 advertising. That has to translate to fans becoming more invested in following their teams.


The Bad: I don't mind the guy talk as much as the annoying tangents when the hosts veer off sports. If I wanted to hear about movies, politics, bad first date stories, I would tune into another station. Too often I find myself yelling at the radio, “Hey, would you please talk some sports.” Don't lose track of the agenda.


Tom Shaer, former morning host of WSCR:


The Good: It has given the fans a lobbying group: themselves. Think about it. For decades — especially in Chicago — owners knew people were loyal to their teams and wouldn't complain too loudly. Since 1992 here, the collective voice is so loud that teams know when they've pushed fans to the limit. Player salaries, and thus tickets, parking and concession prices, are obscenely high. Fans now have a big-picture way to stand up as consumers.


The Bad: Too much attention is paid to trivial matters or misconceptions so they are then elevated in importance. The seriousness of Jay Cutler's NFC title game injury and his being ripped on Twitter by other NFL players was important — it was news. But Cutler not smiling? Not constantly sitting next to Caleb Hanie? That was talked about way too much and it became a runaway train. Tom Ricketts has a voice similar to Michael McCaskey's? So what.


Chuck Swirsky hosted sports talk shows at WGN-AM 720 in the '80s and a popular sports talk show in Toronto before returning to Chicago as the Bulls' radio voice:


The Good: Variety. The combination of satellite radio ( ESPN, Fox, Sporting News) has created a platform for a national perspective when local topics become stale and saturated with redundancy. Hosts have been forced to do their homework because competition is at a high level daily. There are excellent reporters in the field today at both ESPN 1000 and the Score. Their coverage of sports teams is built on passion and attention to detail. Producers are a vital element to the success of a show. The ability to feel the pulse of a sports story and react immediately makes conversation compelling if it's driven correctly.


The Bad: Do we really need to hear profanity, vulgarity, sexual innuendos and sophomoric lingo? Never in my wildest dreams did I think "guy talk" consisted of lowering one's self to a degree of immaturity which equates to the lowest of broadcast standards. You can constructively criticize and entertain without this nonsense. There's too much negativity; not enough credit is given for what's right instead of what's wrong. I am not from the school of "When I was your age . . ." The culture has changed. Sports communication and social networking is radically driving the engine. That's all well in good but professionalism is the key.


Chet Coppock hosted a popular sports talk show on WMAQ-AM 670 during the '80s:


The Good: I remain very proud that I was the first guy the Score tried to hire (Mr. Coppock decided to stay at WMAQ). You have to salute them for what they've accomplished. Personally, I think (SCR afternoon host Dan Bernstein) is atrocious, but obviously there are people who are crazy about his act. I'll always wonder if WSCR would have become so successful if it hadn't had Mike North. He was the first guy who generated a buzz. Mike took the train down a different track.


The Bad: There is less emphasis on truly digging into a story. When I was doing (“Coppock on Sports”), I felt obligated to truly inform as well as entertain. We busted stories at least four times a week. For the most part, sports talk radio has become "guy talk." That's where the North factor kicks in. Right now, I don't see any one sports guy who really has this town galvanized. Most of these guys couldn't be identified in a police lineup. But, what the hell, apparently advertisers are buying into what's being offered.


Dan McGrath, former sports editor of the Chicago Tribune:


The Good: I found talk radio to be pretty useful as a measure of what sports fans were talking about, but some of the talkers can get carried away with their own importance. A really big ratings number for them is roughly equivalent to the Daily Southtown's circulation. It can be entertaining at times, no doubt, depending on the hosts, but it can also be needlessly mean-spirited. I don't get as much of that from some of the fresher voices. Jason Goff is very good, Barry Rozner and Matt Spiegel do a nice job and Matt Bowen is great on the NFL.


The Bad: There are several hosts whom I have never seen at a live sporting event, which leads me to believe they're dependent on the newspapers and other media outlets for their information. But they will tear into the newspapers and those other outlets at the drop of a disagreement, which is sort of like biting the hand that feeds you. I generally have talk radio on when I'm in the car. If the topic is interesting and the hosts are driving good conversation, I'll stay with it. If not, I'm hitting another button.


Bob Snyder, former general manager of WMVP:


The Good: It was and still is a social network before there were social networks. Same principles: A community of sorts which ebbs and flows with the happenings of the community's common interest.


The Bad: Has become a pulpit for callers and hosts alike who need to hear themselves speak. Makes for horrible content too much of the time. The more pulpits (of which there are so many these days), the lesser the overall quality. Like the NHL, sports radio is a great candidate now for consolidation. Not enough talent to go around.


Ken Valdiserri, former Bears PR director and former executive with WMVP:


The Good: From an advertiser's POV, sports radio is ideal for the core 25-54 male demo. The format is no longer homogenized as it was in its infancy, with media personalities becoming higher profile and more savvy and diverse. In a city with so much sports passion, the format enables the hard core fan to become further emotionally vested 24/7 with their team and the passive fan to pick and choose between vanilla and chocolate.


The Bad: Sports radio can be unprofessionally toxic at times and cross the fine line between being constructively critical to volatile character assassinations. At the same time, for those in competitive sports markets fighting for "mind share," it can transcend irrelevancy to relevancy particularly for those requiring an outlet to target a sports fan audience and involved in tertiary sports entertainment. Relevancy is always better than the alternative.

_________________

I suppose...but not all shows are like that. Are B&B any more negative than Steve and Gary were? I know it's not the same type of talk show, but before the Score it was Loop listening for talk radio. At least for me.

_________________
@audioidkid

I dont care what anyone says about the Score as long as Mully is yelling at me every morning, Hanley is cracking terrible jokes, Mac is talking about men's asses, Spiegs is trying to be confrontational, Terry is stammering, Dan is on his soapbox and LoHo is knocking mfers out. To me that is must listen radio from 5AM to 10PM.

_________________

Thank you for posting this.

Ah... ah, ah, ah, ah. Indeed. The ol' negativity canard. And yes, while I am most assuredly less idukated than these fine journalism pros, I am familiar with the word canard, and, I also know one when I see one.

The "it's too negative!" criticism (and even someone as un-skooled as me can recognize the irony in that critique) is the lazy fallback of a coward. Although it's funny, you don't find much cowardice in media today..........................

Where shall I start? Well, how about here. A common trait among the negativity complaints is a noticeable absence of cited examples. Although, guess what, we do have a rare exception in this article! That being, the Score's alleged criticism of Cutler's behavior after his (alleged) injury in last year's Packer's game. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but, there is a problem here. Yup. Yeah, see, it was the national media making asses of themselves on that front. The hosts on the Score were defending Cutler. Eeesh. You know, one would think accuracy would be something these journalism pros would be conscious of. So, duly noted that they sorta failed here.

Another interesting argument could be made that, as media members, the hosts of the Score have a role to fill, that being the role of watchdog. Isn't some "negativity" inherent in that role? Is Roger Ebert too negative? Are the TV and radio hard-news reporters too negative (oh lots of easy partisan shots to be taken here, but I won't digress. Which reminds me of another word my uneddukated mind knows - digress. My sentence exemplifies proper use of that word. Twice in the past week, I heard journalism pros use the word incorrectly, in place of the proper regress, i.e. "[insert player name] was great last year, but he digressed this year". tsk tsk and another tsk, you pencil pushing humps.

I'll continue this in another post, but for now I'll just say (and I say this at the risk of sounding negative!), take your jejune (now there's a ten-cent word for you journo-grads!), worn-out negativity complaints, and shove them up the ol' shoot. I learned that phrase when I was busy not going to collidge.

I don't listen the Score anymore because I think Bernstein has taken it in a bad direction with PSU and Tebow. I think they've run their corse once in awhile i'll turn it on when I get in the shower but really I just don't like anyone who works there or at ESPN1000. I have no idea why people enjoy listening to that crap but I do check in here now and then to read rumors.

HEAR HEAR!!!!

thanks for the new signature, sir!

edit: or wait... you know... seeing as i have a pyramid blaster avatar and i'm kind of on a hellaciously artistic kick like aceyalone just DM'd me to get to work on my raps and holla..... i've gotta stick with the jackson pollock quote. but seriously, that quote you had up there is definitely sigworthy and might be used at another juncture. i have to give you your props for this one.

_________________