A disqualifying start to the article:

"Considering that most news/talk radio stations are targeted towards men, what are the dudes doing outside of work and family lives?

I asked ChatGPT..."

It isn't the topic that matters fully but the compelling nature (or lack thereof) of the content. If the topic has to be golf or fishing, have a really well known or intelligent guest who leaves me, the listener, with something possibly new - a new technique to try on the course or while trolling for muskie. Same principle with anything, including politics. Lean in with something new and innovative. Explore apparent contradictions - really lean in and probe. Take matters a step further. Explore a divide. Discuss shortcomings or some other aspect of both sides without necessarily taking sides. And, most importantly, relate your content and your topic to what your target market has on its mind. Also, promotion. Have teasers in advance of the show aired during the shows preceding in, say, the previous few hours and also 24 hours prior...

Binson Echorec wrote:

The Toronto market lacks variety and personality. No shows are allowed to breathe and it feels like every segment has to have some guest or "expert" on to tell me why life is sucky right now.

BINGO!! Too much political opinion, no variety of topics, too negative, and no fun allowed.  All this makes for boring talk radio.  

Chrisphen wrote:

It's inappropriate to refer to stations such as 1010 and 640 as 'news/talk'. They are bordellos for Public Relations professionals and seem to be defiantly proud of it. 

Correct, that and all card-carrying members of the Conservative party.

I always liked the late John Micheal's approach. Unlike today, where a new topic of discussion is introduced every 15 minutes., If John had a topic that was of great interest to his listeners he would discuss it for the entire show if necessary..

ckg927 wrote:

Pardon my bluntness, but it has to be said:

Talk radio(with the possible exception in this area being CBC Radio 1)appeals most to those who have one foot in the grave and the other one is itching to join them. Young people do not listen to talk radio...or, in general, radio at all. Also: It is WAY more cost-effective for a station to pay for, or get via barter, a syndicated show off the satellite than to hire a host, producer, call-screener, etc.

And in the case of Talk, "Younger" doesn't mean people in their 20s and 30s. In the 55-64 demo, CFRB has a 1.1 and 640 has a 0.8. CBC has a 16.3
 

Chrisphen wrote:

It's inappropriate to refer to stations such as 1010 and 640 as 'news/talk'. They are bordellos for Public Relations professionals and seem to be defiantly proud of it. 

Yes - if I have to hear Laura Babcock on one more Bell show, often multiple times in one day... 
 

paterson1 wrote:

Binson Echorec wrote:

The Toronto market lacks variety and personality. No shows are allowed to breathe and it feels like every segment has to have some guest or "expert" on to tell me why life is sucky right now.

BINGO!! Too much political opinion, no variety of topics, too negative, and no fun allowed.  All this makes for boring talk radio.  

This article addresses this very topic and argues the format hasn't aged well. Or rather, has aged too much. 

"Everything from the variety of topics to how the hosts approach and deliver them, to news updates, traffic reports, liners, imaging, promos, and more — are we doing our part to make our content appealing to a new generation? And while there’s no doubt that our content is naturally more likely to be of interest to a slightly older demographic than sports, it doesn’t necessarily need to have the perception gap that exists between the two formats."

Why News/Talk Radio Needs Its Own Old School vs. New School Debate