On Friday, Salem Radio Network morning host Chris Stigall announced that he’s leaving the network and show to run for Congress.
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) announced last week he will not seek re-election for his seat representing Missouri’s 6th Congressional District. He has held the position since 2001.
The district represents the northern third of Missouri, including cities like Kirksville, Maryville, and St. Joseph, among others.
That area is where Chris Stigall calls home. And on Friday morning, he announced his intention to seek the seat previously held by Graves.
“This was very sudden news, and so is what I’m about to say, as well,” Stigall said. “For 25 years, I’ve had the blessing of talking with you about the issues that face our nation a whole lot together. But in the last few years, we’ve watched a government that became completely out of control.”
Following the announcement, many of Stigall’s colleagues both at Salem Radio Network and in the news media reacted to the news. Many shared their support of the host and wished him well in the endeavor.
Godspeed and good luck to my friend and colleague as he runs for Congress! Tune in NOW to hear how this affects our morning radio routine for the transition period: https://t.co/30aaqQpFTyhttps://t.co/xvuXgxBxHS
Chris Stigall apparently is leaving the morning radio slot on Salem after a year to run for Congress in Missouri to replace the retiring Sam Graves. https://t.co/0ijVAzTthx
🚨Breaking political news in Missouri – Salem Radio Host @ChrisStigall jumping in to MO-06 congressional race vacated by Sam Graves. Great colleague & patriot! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 https://t.co/ZFCvjncjnN
I’m really looking forward to my fellow Salem colleagues heading to Congress.@ChrisStigall is one of the good ones. Support his candidacy. https://t.co/sbeij1ehg9
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
iHeartMedia’s Q104.3 New York’ Rock is embarking on a new era. The legendary “Jim Kerr Rock & Roll Morning Show” is adding Christin Marks and Trevor Marden as co-hosts alongside beloved host Jim Kerr. Marks and Marden will add fresh energy, personality and perspective to New York’s longest-running morning show.
A New York radio institution, the “Jim Kerr Rock & Roll Morning Show” has entertained generations of listeners with its signature mix of classic rock, humor, celebrity interviews and tri-state area conversations. The show was voted #1 in its category in Barrett Media’s Top 20 series each of the past two years.
“I’m thrilled to launch the next era of the ‘Jim Kerr Rock & Roll Morning Show,’ ” said Eric Wellman, Program Director for Q104.3. “You’ve got a legend like Jim Kerr paired with the sharp, Brooklyn semi-hipster, news anchor and rocker Christin Marks and Trevor Marden, a heavy-metalloving suburban New Jersey dad. That mix brings serious personality, humor and edge to mornings in New York. It’s fresh energy for Q104.3, and I can’t wait to hear what happens when these three hit the air together.”
Marden and Marks’ promotions add a new layer to the show while maintaining the tradition listeners have loved for decades.
Marks specifically brings extensive music knowledge, on-air news experience, and a sharp, relatable voice. Marden meanwhile has served as executive producer of the morning show for the past six years. He takes on a larger role, adding his dynamic personality and passion for music, sports and pop culture.
Kerr remains the centerpiece of the broadcast. His tenure and familiarity with the audience provides continuity during the transition. At the same time, Marks and Marden’s additions signal a shift toward evolving audience expectations.
Jim Kerr spent 49 years on-air working alongside Shelli Sonstein. The popular pair enjoyed decades of success together before Sonstein announced her retirement in January 2026.
Listeners can hear the “Jim Kerr Rock & Roll Morning Show” weekday mornings on Q104.3 from 5a-9a. The show is available on-air, online and on the iHeartRadio app. For more information, visit Q1043.com.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
I celebrated turning 52 on Friday. That means I’m three years away from leaving sports media’s 25-54 demo. As you get older, your habits and interests change. You become closer to your family, focus more on your career, get smarter with your money, and value the quiet times. Consuming content is still important, but you become more selective.
For instance, in 1996, I quit a second job in the middle of the night to drive to Yankees stadium to sleep on the line to buy tickets to Game 2 of the World Series. No way I’d do that today. Now, I watch the Yankees in clip form and occasionally watch games on TV. I still love the team and follow them, but spending 3-4 hours each night watching baseball isn’t happening. Fortunately, I’m not on the air hosting a show every day. If I was, my responsibilities would be different.
Big Personalities, Bigger Sports Focus
Who you are at 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 is very different. You value different things as a listener, viewer, and fan. I grew up on Mike and the Mad Dog and consider it the greatest show in sports radio history. Nobody will convince me otherwise. I listened for hours each day, watched on YES, and viewed Mike and Chris as rock stars. Their chemistry, passion for sports, big opinions, caller interactions, and ability to hold teams, players, and front offices accountable was second to none.
Just like Mike and Chris, the sports format had hosts like Angelo Cataldi, Howard Eskin, Glenn Ordway, Mike North, Ralph Barbieri, Bob McCown and others who built their foundation on sports passion, opinion, caller interactions, knowledge, guests, and personality. Each were larger than life characters. Today, there’s less sports radio characters, especially among hosts 40 and under. Some of that is due to younger talent creating their own digital identities, and some is the result of companies prioritizing the brand, control, and serving play-by-play partners and advertisers over showcasing stars.
Sports radio remains very important but in years past, it felt like the format had greater influence. Brands revolved around hosts, and teams had less input in programming decisions. They also reacted more when hearing the pulse of their fan bases on local airwaves. Sports television felt bigger too. Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann’s chemistry, quick wit and interviews on SportsCenter become a nightly viewing destination. Being informed, challenged, and entertained was a simple formula for connecting with sports fans. Aspiring broadcasters knew that strong sports knowledge was a prerequisite for working at ESPN, WFAN or another reputable outlet. Having a voice like you were a member of The Sopranos didn’t hurt either.
Times Have Changed
But content options were less back then, and nobody kept score on personalities like they do today. If they did, they’d have crushed Chris Russo for wanting the Yankees to sign Albert Belle over Bernie Williams. They’d have called out Mike Francesa for expecting little from the 1990’s Reds team that won the World Series.
If you’re over 45-50 and working in sports media, chances are you identify with Howard Eskin, Angelo Cataldi, and Joe Benigno and their remarks about things not being as good as they once were. But there’s no right or wrong answer to that. It’s strictly an opinion. Younger people have less attachment to the brands older professionals grew up admiring. That doesn’t mean they won’t listen to them, watch them, be inspired by them, or love them, it just means brands can’t assume future generations will support them just because past generations did.
My son is 24. His connection to New York sports radio is nonexistent even though he lives in New York and loves sports. He consumes Jomboy Media, the WWE and Barstool’s content like I did WFAN’s. He also likes ESPN but consumes the brand through social media. If he watches ESPN television it’s for live games. Others his age are doing the same. I see it when I speak at colleges or talk to younger people on Zoom.
Years ago, we treated the words and opinions of the format’s top stars as gospel. Today, social media accounts like Funhouse and Freezing Cold Takes expose commentaries regardless of professional success. Clips showcase moments that can make smart hosts look dumb. People also consume more content now but for shorter amounts of time. They’re more likely to watch 10 pieces of content in an hour than listen or watch 1 or 2 segments.
Because time is short and we’re bombarded by content, watching clips has become enough for many. Our prep for discussing topics has morphed from having a complete grasp on what happened to reacting to key highlights and remarks. Podcasts, social media, apps to hear songs and YouTube videos didn’t compete for our time in prior years. Attention spans weren’t trained on 140 character posts and videos under 2:20. Substance was demanded and the audience trusted hosts because only a select few represented credible brands. Now, everyone has an opinion and outlet.
Many content creators today prioritize moments over relationships. Generating views, downloads, streams, and Twitter reactions has littered our social media feeds with drama and conflict. Algorithms reward content that produces engagement, which is why outrage and controversy are frequently pushed. So if that’s what it takes to retain attention, you can understand why personalities prioritize creating buzz over imparting knowledge.
Do Listeners Care?
Over the past two weeks, we’ve seen spats involving Howard Eskin and Angelo Cataldi vs. WIP, Brandon Tierney vs. Gregg Giannotti, Stephen A. Smith vs. Jason Whitlock and more. The fixation on conflict doesn’t make an audience smarter, but it does create noise and clicks. All involved have benefitted from it.
And that begs the question, is that a good thing?
I spoke with Pat Paxton who oversees programming for Saga Communications. With his permission, I’m sharing what he told me about these issues.
Listeners don’t care about these issues as much the industry does. Some of these guys have moved on. Sports radio listeners do too. They had great careers and helped create the format. But todays listeners don’t care what they think. I’ve seen this over and over (I’m old too).
Mike Joseph created one of the first top 40 formats based on playing 30-50 songs. It was a different world. No YouTube, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, etc.. No one thought that listeners would embrace this type of repetition. Until they did. Yet in todays world with todays competition it would fail miserably.
Fred Jacobs created the original classic rock format which was enormously successful. Yet if those same successful stations kept that same winning playlist, without embracing the 80’s and now some 90’s, they would be called oldies stations. And we all know where oldies stations stand. Not long ago many AC stations refused to embrace the newer upcoming artists (Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Ed Sheran, Pink, etc.). They are now afterthoughts.
Appealing to consumers beyond the radio show has moved from a “nice” to a “must”. Some of these hosts never had to do that. The demands on todays talent far exceed what the “old school” talent were required to do. I don’t say that to demean the impact, talent, and success of the originators of the format. But life moves forward. The business evolves and that means todays talent need to be more than a “radio” talent. They need to be multi-platform, multimedia stars.
As the head of programming for Audacy for 22 years and now heading programming for Saga Communications I’ve seen a thing or two. As a preemptive move I want to point out that Angelo, Howard and maybe others will rant and rail that they’ve never heard of me and that I’m a nobody. Partly true. I’ve never inserted myself in between local management and these guys. That type of interference never ends well. I’ve met and engaged with them and they were always pleasant and polite but it’s dangerous to undermine local GM’s and PD’s. It’s something I was and am always conscious of.
My point is that our world evolves. Not everyone evolves with it. And that’s ok. Those who move on should be respected for all their accomplishments. So should those who are following in their footsteps.
Is Sports Not Enough?
Pat makes some excellent points especially about modern day talent responsibilities. I did tell him that these dramas though do produce more interest than some might think. I see the web traffic when we write about them. However, those gains are temporary. It’s like when Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield’s ear. We all looked and reacted, so it did create noise, but it was a momentary story. You can’t exactly do that the next day and day after that. These dramas are no different.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good debate between high profile hosts just like the next person. But why do we assume that sports listeners and viewers only care about media beefs? When did we decide that talking about sports wasn’t sexy enough? Suddenly discussing games and players, interacting with the audience, sharing personal stories, and interviewing guests isn’t valuable? Check the Sports Podcast category on Spotify or Apple or the top shows on YouTube. They’re filled with shows featuring guests, and many of the qualities I just mentioned. Better yet, Mike Felger and Mike Valenti host two of sports radio’s top performing shows. Both create plenty of interest by offering strong, sports content. The notion that sports isn’t enough is nonsense.
If you say that sports talk doesn’t work, I’ll show you an average host with little depth and weak opinions. Suggest that guests don’t work, I’ll question your ability to book important people and ask good questions. Tell me that sports stations should only talk sports, and I’ll ask ‘who hosted mornings during WFAN’s rise to prominence?’. I’ll also ask ‘how are Barstool and Pat McAfee doing these days?’
There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Offer variety and let the audience decide. Given how many content options exist, you can’t just operate in one lane.
What is a Win?
While I’m supportive of delivering choice to the audience, I also think substance should be required. If I enter your studio tomorrow, grab the mic, and call out a popular host or go on a 5-minute rant about why Soccer is more popular than the NFL, it’ll light up the phones and text line, and produce a viral video clip. But that doesn’t make me a talented or successful talk show host. It makes me good at creating momentary outrage. Is that a win? What do I do the next day? Do I insult management and declare the NHL more relevant than MLB? What about on days 3, 4 and 5?
I rarely disagree with my crew publicly but I read John Mamola’s column last week. It pointed out some data wins from generating noise and there were parts of it that were spot on. But a few key questions were missing. What exactly is a win? Who decides? Are we creating a strategy to win long-term or to own a 24-hour news cycle?
If we’re going to lean in to noise, what exactly is the goal? Is it about producing a short-term ratings spike? Boosting engagement on social media for the day? Elevating revenue? Do we want our shows and talent known for temporary moments or for building consistent trust and business? What do we tell groups who don’t subscribe to Nielsen? What is their win? Should those who subscribe pay talent bonuses for ratings wins when competitors aren’t participating? Will retweets, comments and likes make any difference for the sales department?
Many programmers and talent make the mistake of thinking that it’s all about the ratings. It’s not. I consult a number of sports/news talk stations and the focus in 2026 is less on numbers. It’s about revenue, revenue, revenue and digital, content, and ideas. Numbers may boost your ego, be used as an excuse to fire you, or help support a sales pitch, but they don’t provide job security. Revenue does. Click the video above and listen to Mojo of Channel 95.5 in Detroit. He gets it.
Closing Comments
Dan Sileo said recently that talent today don’t value the listener. In some cases he is right. The industry puts greater focus today on revenue. Clicks, views, and chatter may generate noise, momentarily lift ratings, and help you trend on X, but they don’t define success. It’s about trust, consistency, substance, how much you make, and what type of revenue you generate. Less up top care about ratings and whether you’re a sports talk host or entertainer. What they want most are talent who can deliver dollars.
The old guard and new guard have different preferences and that’s a positive. But if there’s one thing they should be able to agree on it’s that substance should matter if you’re a host. Brandon Tierney can prefer sports talk and Gregg Giannotti and Craig Carton can favor entertainment. Both styles work. When people suggest otherwise it’s foolish. Unless you study every market, host, and situation, you’re just talking out your ass to defend your personal tastes.
Another key point to understand is that clients aren’t buying moments. They’re buying brands, trust, relationships, and consistency. With those investments comes an expectation that results will follow and headaches will be minimal. Stephen A. Smith and Jason Whitlock will boost views, Brandon Tierney will grow subscribers, and Gregg Giannotti will earn a ratings spike over calling each other out. People do stop to see the car crash. But it’s their content beyond these momentary feuds that explains why they’re successful.
You can chase moments and noise, and at times, they’ll provide momentary validation. Just remember, as quickly as they come, they’re just as easily forgotten.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Christine Travaglini didn’t climb the ladder in radio — she built her own rungs. As President of Katz Radio Group — one of the most powerful national spot radio representation firms in the country — Travaglini leads an organization that connects advertisers with radio audiences across hundreds of markets.
Her ascent to the top of the media sales world is a story of relentless drive, sharp instincts, and a genuine passion for the medium.
Travaglini spent decades mastering the art media sales. Rising through the ranks at Katz, she developed a reputation as both a fierce negotiator and a collaborative leader — someone who could close a deal and build a team in the same breath.
Christine Travaglini became President of Katz Radio Group in March 2018. She served as President of Christal Radio, a division inside Katz, since 2008. She later was elevated to the role of President of Katz Partnerships.
Today, Christine Travaglini stands at the helm of an industry institution. Katz Radio Group has more than a dozen regional offices and is partnered with more than 3,000 stations.
In this Q&A with Christine Travaglini, the Katz Radio Group President shares who has inspired her, why she puts an emphasis on mentorship, and why “work/life balance” needs to be reexamined.
Garrett Searight: When did you know that you wanted to be in this business?
Christine Travaglini: From childhood through adulthood, I have always been an avid radio listener– how else would a Long Island native know when the Princeton Ski Sale was on? Upon graduation from college, I was very focused on finding my way into this business. I had some ad sales experience in both high school and college, and my first job after graduation was at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, doing print ad support.
From there, I started sending my resume to every radio local sales manager and general sales manager in the market as I truly believed in the power of the medium for advertisers and I knew it was the place for me to learn and grow. I was so grateful to have earned many interviews which led to my first role at Katz Radio in a sales assistant position.
That role taught me so much about broadcasting and sales, gave me a strong foundation and reinforced how important trust and relationships are in this industry.
GS: Who were some of the people who influenced you throughout your career?
CT: Many people have influenced me at different stages of my career, but a few stand out as especially impactful.
First and foremost, Tucker Flood. Just before I became a new sales manager in 1996, Tucker challenged me—then a senior seller—to think long-term about what I really wanted. He asked a simple but powerful question: did I want to keep selling, or did I want to move into management and one day run a company?
I still wonder: if he hadn’t asked me that at 28, would I have believed it was possible? Tucker mentored and challenged me for the next 20 years, and I’m deeply grateful for both his guidance and our friendship.
As I continued to grow and set new goals for myself, I leaned into mentors and friends like Ginny Hubbard, Kim Guthrie, and Julie Talbott. These women truly shattered glass ceilings and helped pave the way for women in our industry.
As my career progressed at Katz and at the start of the millennium (2000) I had the privilege of working with Mark Gray, when he was President of Katz Radio. Mark has had an incredible impact on my career—he’s trusted me, challenged me, and continually encouraged me to keep learning and growing. I’m very grateful for all the friends and mentors that have impacted my career.
GS: How important is it to you to be a mentor to other future leaders?
CT: Mentorship is deeply important to me—I’ve benefited from it throughout my career and feel a real responsibility to pay it forward, both within Katz and across the broader industry.
At Katz, my door is always open. I genuinely enjoy spending time with interns, new hires, and seasoned professionals alike—talking through goals, sharing perspective, and helping them stretch and grow both personally and professionally.
Beyond Katz, I serve on the AWM Foundation Board, where I have the opportunity to mentor and support the next generation of talent. Through the NAB, I also work with the BEA, engaging with college students—answering questions, offering guidance, and helping them better understand the industry.
And perhaps one of my favorite (and most unexpected) roles is being the “career whisperer” to my daughters’ friends—always happy to make time to help young people navigate those early career decisions with a bit more clarity and confidence.
GS: Many view media and the advertising realm as a male-dominated space. Yet, there are several female CEOs and other executives holding top positions. Why do you think there has been a shift to so many female leaders?
CT: I believe the shift has been driven by both merit and opportunity. As more women consistently delivered strong, meaningful business results, it built confidence—and created more pathways—for women to step into senior roles. Visibility has played a critical role as well. When you can see it, you can more easily envision it for yourself. Equally important is the way women are supporting one another.
At a time when leadership seats felt scarce, it may have been harder to fully champion each other.
Today, I see far more intentional support and sponsorship—and that collective lift has helped accelerate real, positive change.
GS: What’s the best part of your job?
CT: The best part of my job is the opportunity to build a culture grounded in trust and strong relationships—while attracting, developing, and retaining great talent.
I love being surrounded by people who are genuinely passionate about the industry and committed to raising the bar together.
GS: What would you say to aspiring female leaders in the media and advertising space?
CT: Stay curious and keep learning. Growth tends to follow when you consistently look for ways to add value. Seek out opportunities to make an impact. Raise your hand for new challenges. Build relationships with people who will both support you and push you further.
And as you advance, make it a priority to mentor someone coming up behind you. Helping others find their footing not only strengthens the industry, it also keeps you grounded in what matters most.
GS: Anything else you’d like to include or share that I didn’t ask?
CT: One question that often comes up — especially for women — is around family and “balance.” And I think the framing is off. It assumes there’s a constant tradeoff. As if you have to choose between being committed to your career or your family. In reality, it’s not that black and white.
What matters more is how you define success for yourself in different seasons, being intentional with your time, and building a support system that allows you to show up where it matters most.
There will be times when one needs more attention than the other—and that’s ok. It’s not about perfect “balance,” it’s about alignment, priorities, and giving yourself the flexibility and grace to navigate both.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Don Lemon made headlines recently when he criticized CNN’s decision to present Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper in a stripped-down, podcast-style format. His comments drew plenty of attention. They also missed the point, in my view.
To be fair, Lemon’s surface-level critique has some merit. He’s not wrong that television news has long thrived on a certain kind of theater. The glowing sets, the polished anchors, the dramatic music — it all signals authority. It signals importance. And for decades, that formula worked.
Here’s what Lemon actually said, and it’s worth reading in full:
“To me, it’s cringe,” Lemon said of the alterations. “Because the reason people watch CNN is for the credibility of Jake (Tapper), and Anderson (Cooper), and Erin (Burnett). And there is sort of this illusion — if you want to put it that way — about television news. It’s larger than life. The colors are brighter than in real life. It’s big fancy sets that glow. That’s what it is.”
“But ultimately, that’s eye candy. What people tune in for is the editorial. It is whatever the network is, the tone and tenor of their news, and for credibility. It’s not because someone is speaking into a podcast mic with their sleeves rolled up. And I would lean into it,” Lemon continued. “We’re (expletive) CNN! Yeah, we look great, but also we’re going to have a backbone. And we’re going to have some teeth into our editorial. We’re going to hold this administration accountable. And we’re not going to put on election deniers. We’re not going to put on people who come on just to lie.”
That sounds compelling. It really does. But there’s a massive flaw baked right into Lemon’s argument.
If viewers were tuning in simply because it’s CNN — or simply because Tapper, Cooper, or Burnett were anchoring — they’d already be watching. They’re not. Ratings have told that story loudly and repeatedly for years. So the argument that CNN should double down on its brand identity assumes that brand identity still carries weight with the average American viewer. That’s a shaky assumption at best.
Here’s the reality: trust in legacy media is at historic lows. Polls consistently show that a significant portion of the American public views traditional television news with deep skepticism. That distrust doesn’t disappear because a network has a nicer set or a more confident on-air posture. In fact, for many viewers, those very production flourishes now read as slick, corporate, and disconnected from real life.
The podcast generation didn’t accidentally start preferring lo-fi presentation. They gravitated toward it because it feels honest. It feels unfiltered. A host speaking directly into a mic with rolled-up sleeves signals accessibility — not weakness. That’s an important distinction Lemon seems to be glossing over entirely.
CNN isn’t abandoning its editorial credibility by experimenting with its presentation. It’s trying to lower the drawbridge. The network is essentially acknowledging that the shiny fortress it built may actually be keeping viewers out rather than drawing them in.
Does the experiment work perfectly? Maybe not. Experimentation rarely does on the first try. But the willingness to try something different — to admit that the old formula isn’t converting skeptical viewers — is actually the smart play here.
Lemon’s instinct to “lean in” to CNN’s brand sounds bold. In practice, though, it’s a strategy that’s already been tried and has consistently produced declining audiences. Shouting “We’re CNN!” louder doesn’t rebuild trust with people who’ve already walked away. It just echoes in an empty room.
Furthermore, Don Lemon himself no longer works at CNN. That’s not a cheap shot — it’s relevant context. The network’s current leadership isn’t obligated to defend a presentation style that existed during a period of significant audience erosion. They’re trying something new. That’s their job.
There’s nothing wrong with valuing CNN’s institutional credibility. Tapper and Cooper have genuinely earned their reputations. But credibility has to meet viewers where they are. Right now, many viewers are sitting in front of a laptop, watching someone talk directly into a camera without a glowing skyline behind them.
CNN’s experiment might fail. However, at least it’s an honest attempt to reconnect. Don Lemon’s critique, while well-intentioned, is ultimately a defense of a model that’s already lost.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Last week, as my favorite sporting event of the year — the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament — kicked off, I wrote a column about embracing some madness for your station, not just in March but all year round. Now, if you know me, you are probably aware that a big part of my love for the tournament is driven by being a Michigan State basketball fan. But imagine my surprise when I was poring over various post-game interviews with Michigan State Head Coach Tom Izzo after the first two rounds of the tournament and came across a clip of him talking about how much value he places in his longstanding tradition of regular one-on-one meetings with players.
Do you realize what this means? Tom Izzo does airchecks!
As someone who has touted the value of coaching sessions with hosts throughout my career, I couldn’t have been more excited to find out that my favorite coach feels exactly the same way.
And it turns out college basketball players are a lot like air talent — outwardly it might seem like they don’t appreciate the opportunity for feedback, but for many it really means a lot to them. In his comments, Izzo mentioned two former Spartans now playing in the NBA, Garry Harris and Jase Richardson. “First thing when they leave, [they say] I don’t have to have any more meetings. And they get in the league, and nobody talks to them. They say, ‘Hey, call me, give me a meeting over the phone.'”
Izzo also knows that not every aircheck — I mean player meeting — is about fixing things in the moment. Sometimes it’s about planting seeds for the future. “Those meetings, to me, are priceless, because what they do is they lead to things later on in life,” says Izzo.
When I dug deeper looking for more about Izzo’s meetings with players, I found additional wisdom from the coach that every Program Director should take note of. In a video posted to Coaches Insider, Izzo talks about how, at any level, building relationships with players is key to success and that developing those relationships takes time. He adds that honesty, trust, and listening are the main building blocks, saying, “If you can’t be honest with someone, you’re a used car salesman.”
He adds that it’s important for a coach not to be afraid of face-to-face meetings. Also, he explains that he has a table in his staff room where any important meeting — with a student, parent, or staffer — always takes place so that he can sit a few feet away and look them in the eye.
He also says in another interview that the benefit of his coaching style and direct honesty is that players always know where they stand. There may be things they don’t want to hear, but they understand what he expects from them — something I hear air talent complain about frequently: not really understanding what station management is looking for.
In fact, all of Izzo’s methods mirror best practices for Program Directors. Replace driving ratings with winning championships and he’s trying to accomplish the same things we are. Being willing to provide honest, constructive feedback to the players on the floor — or hosts on the air — is incredibly valuable.
Unfortunately, in my experience, many Program Directors are either intimidated by the idea of providing feedback, struggle to deliver hard news, or simply fail to make spending time with talent a priority because they have so many other things to do. It’s a real problem, because from what I’ve seen, as the radio industry gets tougher to navigate successfully, investments made in relationships, trust, and communication are often what sets great stations apart from their competitors.
Go Green!
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Sports fans are simple people. They love their teams, players, and the escape that sports provides. It’s a simple concept. Come home, have a meal, and watch their team. Sports’ greatest attribute is entertainment. Without question, there are more options for entertainment today than ever before. That is why streaming platforms have found so much success in providing content that cable companies or networks could never offer.
However, sports are different. They have historically been a cable or network television property. I remember WGN carrying nearly every Chicago Cubs game when I was a child. Every time I would go see my grandfather and he’d watch a game, he’d yell from the other room, “Put on channel 9.”
That’s what sports are forgetting. Games are entertainment, and history matters. Sports educated generations of fans on where they’ll be, how they’re presented, and how much they cost. In the last six months, sports have forgotten that, and it’s beginning to cost them, especially with so many other entertainment options now available.
Last Thursday was Major League Baseball’s Opening Day, following a much-promoted, hyped, and overproduced evening debut on Netflix. What better way to celebrate the start of a new season than asking baseball fans to pay additional money to watch it?
Then came the morning. The breeze in the air signaled that spring had finally arrived. The boys of summer were about to begin their 162-game journey toward postseason glory. The rosters set, and stadiums across the country were ready to open their gates. Yet one question remained: Where do I watch the games?
As of the morning of Opening Day, Major League Baseball had yet to inform fans in a majority of its markets where to watch games. For nearly a month, teams under MLB’s umbrella told fans to buy (insert team name here).tv so they wouldn’t miss a second of the action. However, that messaging failed to include cable, satellite, and internet TV providers that had yet to be announced.
In the end, MLB spring games were not watched nearly as much as in the past for many fans. At the two spring games I attended the weekend before the season started, countless fans I spoke with had no idea how to watch their team on Opening Day. Outside of paying more money, that seemed to be the only option. Many said it wasn’t right to pay for a service and then pay extra to watch something they had always known how to access.
Then Opening Day arrived, and MLB released a news article while teams announced their local distribution. That’s it. No tweet, Instagram post or information posted on any of the MLB social media accounts. Just a lot of games on MLB.tv.
For me, that meant finding a channel simply labeled RAYS on my cable guide, with a different channel number than in previous seasons. I spent most of my morning trying to figure it out. With 14 of 30 teams announcing this information on Opening Day, MLB dropped the ball.
How can baseball spend an entire spring training delivering one message, then assume fans will wait for last-minute instructions on Opening Day? The messaging had been clear since pitchers and catchers reported: buy this so you don’t miss it. Now, some who paid discovered a free viewing option at first pitch, forcing MLB to absorb refund costs.
It was sloppy, misguided, and wrong. Again, sports fans are simple people. MLB put those 14 teams in a difficult middleman position. Those teams took heat from fans on radio, at stadiums, and on social media. That’s not fair.
MLB did a disservice to a large portion of its fan base that still consumes games through traditional cable or satellite providers by waiting until Opening Day to share that information.
However, the larger point remains. Even with heavy streaming promotion during spring training from nearly half the league, fans were left confused about what to do and how to do it.
Technology continues to move at a pace faster than many sports fans are willing—or able—to keep up with.
Another example came with the rollout of ESPN’s direct-to-consumer app. When ESPN introduced its revamped app, confusion spread about who needed to pay and what content came with it. Did pay TV subscribers who already had ESPN need to pay an additional $29.99 per month for access?
That question came to a head with WWE’s partnership with ESPN, as wrestling fans asked the same thing—myself included. There were numerous hoops and gaps in information. CNBC’s Alex Sherman even attempted to explain it with a step-by-step guide outlining what fans had to pay for and what they could access.
Needless to say, why was that level of explanation necessary in the first place?
Currently, a lawsuit has been filed against WWE by fans over access to premium live events, with complaints centered on that very confusion. ESPN has since filed a motion to intervene in the case, though not as a defendant.
Class action lawsuit filed against WWE, seeking refunds for customers who paid for ESPN Unlimited while already getting ESPN channels through a TV provider.https://t.co/qEAs7TGES6
Again, technology continues to move faster than many sports fans can reasonably keep up with.
This week, the NFL will discuss allowing individual teams to sell preseason broadcast rights to streaming platforms as soon as next season. What has long been an opportunity for local fans to watch games and learn where to find them may now shift to streaming services.
This is another way for NFL teams to increase revenue, potentially at the consumer’s expense. Living in Tampa Bay, I’ve always watched Buccaneers preseason games on my local NBC affiliate. It’s a major marketing opportunity for the station and a valuable revenue driver. What better addition to an advertising package than an NFL team logo?
That could disappear if games move to platforms like Peacock. Instead of a simple, familiar destination, fans may have to pay extra to watch exhibition football, where more than half the players won’t make the roster. That’s a tough sell. Charging fans for games where the stars don’t play and the top broadcast teams aren’t involved.
The @NFL is reportedly considering franchises the ability to sell their preseason broadcasts to streaming platformshttps://t.co/5KDUp59snC
How confusing will this be for sports fans across the country? It’s yet another example of technology moving faster than audiences can comfortably follow.
At some point, someone in these leagues and boardrooms has to ask a very simple question: who is this all for? If the answer is the fan, then the current model isn’t just flawed—it’s backwards.
Sports should not be this complicated. You didn’t need a flowchart, a password reset, or three subscriptions to find your team. You needed a channel number, a remote, and a routine. That simplicity built generational loyalty. It turned afternoons with your grandfather into lifelong fandom. It made sports accessible, communal, and constant in a world that rarely is.
Now, that simplicity is being replaced with fragmentation, confusion, and added cost—all in the name of progress.
Progress is fine. Evolution is necessary. But not at the expense of the very people who made sports matter in the first place.
Here’s the truth: fans won’t chase the product forever, no matter how inflated “viewership figures” become.
If sports becomes too hard to find, too expensive to follow, or too confusing to understand, they’ll do what they’ve never done before—they’ll find something else. In a world overflowing with entertainment options, that’s not a risk leagues should be willing to take.
Sports don’t need to reinvent how they’re delivered. They need to remember why people showed up in the first place. Make it easy, clear, and fair. Because sports fans are simple people.
And that’s not a weakness—it’s the foundation everything was built on.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Fridays are always inspiring for music fans with new tunes and full releases dropping. This past Friday, I was inspired when two incredible women in active rock landed in my inbox—on one song. The new Eva Under Fire release drops July 10. It’s called Villainous with a title track delivers a double vocal assault. The collaboration formed by Eva frontwoman Amanda Lyberg joined by metal goddess Maria Brink from In This Moment.
Eva Under Fire is the epitome of a hardworking heavy rock band with major success within reach.
The group was formed in 2015 by Amanda Lyberg and Rob Lyberg. Their presence in active rock—along with collaborations with Ice Nine Kills, Funeral Portrait, and others —set a foundation. Add in their roll-up-your-sleeves, get-it-done work ethic and the output has become one of my favorite new bands of the past decade.
I have a great deal of respect for Lyberg (a.k.a. Eva Firebrand), who brings a superpower to her role as the band’s vocalist. She truly puts the “fire” in Eva Under Fire with her vision and voice.
Her “Eva” alter ego was born at the merch booth more than a decade ago while meeting fans and navigating growing notoriety. However, this record is more Amanda and less “Eva.”
Amanda comes from a unique place as an artist and writer. She’s also a licensed therapist who has spent years unpacking the lives of those around her. Now, it’s her turn with the band’s deeply personal upcoming release.
I caught up with Lyberg this past week for a conversation. We discussed the meaning behind Villainous, leaving the “Eva” alter ego behind, and how 2026 is shaping up to be a banner year for her band. With a new album, a massive tour with metal superstars Five Finger Death Punch, and renewed energy in the months ahead.
*Editor’s Note: Answers have been edited for clarity and length.*
Terrie Carr – We’re here during Women’s History Month. When I heard that you were doing interviews, I had to line up an interview before the month concluded. It’s incredible to have you on at the beginning of what I think will be such an amazing year and run for you. This is going to be your year.
Amanda Lyberg – Thank you so much for having me here, friend. I truly appreciate it. All of the positivity is what we’ve been needing, right? We are coming off a really long writing cycle. To get this busy this quickly, I feel like something is happening this year.
TC – You’ve got a new record coming on July 10 called Villainous. I get the impression that it’s going to be heavier and darker from what I’ve heard so far. I love the journey on this record because a lot of different people contributed to making it. So, it feels like there’s going to be some unpredictability.
Talk to me about putting this record together and making it a mission that’s a little different from your past experiences.
AL – The whole concept revolves around the world-building we’re doing behind Villainous as an album. Villainous as a single is a lot of self-discovery. It’s a story about self-empowerment and taps into all the different emotions you experience when you go through hard times.
You change things, and process them differently because of what you’ve been through. You experience new information. So, it takes you through a journey.
All of these songs, in my brain, are locations of self-discovery. Each song is its own conversation about what that particular moment felt like. There’s a lot of hurt, heartbreak, and ferocity. That’s where Villainous comes in.
What a cool thing to talk about during Women’s History Month. I think a lot of women could use this kind of self-empowerment message. As humans and people, we are not built to live in a box.
The human experience is so much more complex than what people think—“Well, it’s this way or it’s that way.” No. Depending on the circumstance, it could be a million different ways. But as soon as something happens and someone changes to say, “I’ve got to have healthy boundaries, and I’ve got to do something different because I’m looking out for myself.” The person on the other side quickly says you’re the problem.
“You’re no longer serving what I need,” right? So, Villainous is basically saying, “You can call me a villain all you want. It doesn’t mean I am one. If that’s what you want me to be, that’s who I am.”
TC – You and Maria [Brink] on this new album. Wow. She’s a G.O.A.T. (Greatest of All Time) who has traveled many years and paths. She’s worked through different management and record labels, with people always trying to put her in different boxes. She said this is my lane, and this is what I’m doing. It’s not always easy to say that as an artist.
AL – The grind is real, especially as a woman in any business. There are career women out there who want their vision to be heard. I think Maria [Brink] is very much about that. The vision and the artistry behind it are amazing, and I had to compliment her on that.
The last time we did a show together was at Soaring Eagle Casino. She told me my voice was so unique, but also was my vision and world I build around myself. I loved that we got a chance to be on a track together—especially this one. It meant everything to me.
TC – When’s your “baby being born?” I talk to artists all the time about this. It’s like a baby being born. Then once it arrives, there’s almost a sense of sadness. Because of all the buildup, especially with a record you’re so proud of.
As people start discovering the tracks, you’re not just jumping in a van and doing one-offs. You’re heading out on a major tour with Five Finger Death Punch. That long tour starts in July and runs through November.
So, who calls you? When do you find out this is the next step in building this record?
AL – You’re right. The whole van situation—we have a 12-passenger van. That’s what we were used to. And we’ve been writing for so long. Doing stuff from my bedroom doesn’t feel real. We’re a band that loves playing live, so we need that component. It does get exhausting. It’s expensive to be out there, and there are a lot of hang-ups. It’s a grind.
We were feeling a little discouraged because it had been such a long process to get here. I was celebrating a friend’s birthday—our sound guy’s birthday—in Las Vegas. We didn’t know what was coming next.
We were trying to stay encouraged and focused, but it’s tough when you don’t know what’s next.
I was standing in line because my key card wasn’t working. Then I got the call that we landed the Five Finger Death Punch tour and I started crying. This is the level we’ve been working toward, hoping for, and grinding for—for years.
To get on amphitheater stages with one of the biggest bands in hard rock and heavy metal—are you kidding me? I get to play my hometown amphitheater, where I attended my first concert ever.
What a feeling. It was crazy. I was in tears.
For more on my conversation with Amanda Lyberg, check out my Carr Stereo Podcast on YouTube.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
Major League Baseball opened the season last week and while I could write a column decrying Netflix’s opening night coverage (Dancers? Paraphrasing Tom Hanks: “There’s no dancers in baseball!”). Instead, let’s discuss the media’s favorite pastime: complaining about Nielsen.
After all, isn’t Nielsen the umpire? And who likes umpires?
The genesis for this column came from two pieces published in the past week: one for video and one for audio.
Evan Shapiro has a Substack called Media War and Peace, and I’m a paid subscriber. Evan has strong opinions, and he plays a unique role as the “media cartographer” with excellent charts that let you visualize different aspects of the media business.
But if you think my comments are occasionally “in your face,” Evan appears to subscribe to a comment made to me long ago by a media research colleague about another — since passed-on — media research colleague: “Some people call a spade a spade. He calls a spade a f—ing shovel.”
Putting Blame on Nielsen
Nielsen produces a monthly report called The Gauge. It may be the only data in existence that gives the media business an understanding of how much viewing goes to various sources, including streaming, broadcast, cable, etc. The problem is that Nielsen has had to delay the latest report twice.
According to an article in Variety on March 20, the latest delay came about “after some clients became alarmed by a downturn in streaming audiences” after Nielsen started using different data. This may have been caused by a methodological change using the new DASH universe estimates released by the Advertising Research Foundation. I could explain it to you, but I’d prefer you read the rest of this column.
Evan placed much of the blame on the Media Rating Council, an organization that has been discussed here in the past. The MRC accredits — or chooses not to accredit — audience measurement services that apply for their “blessing” and meet MRC standards after rigorous auditing.
Some Nielsen services are accredited. Evan’s hyperbole is “burn it all down,” meaning let’s get rid of the MRC, as he doesn’t feel the group is truly holding Nielsen’s feet to the fire.
The reality is more complicated. Media companies and researchers want the best possible outcomes for their companies, which means more viewing, listening, hits, clicks, whatever.
Unfortunately, that goal can conflict with good research. And in an age with an infinite number of media options, measurement has become increasingly complicated to the point that very few people understand how the system works.
George Ivie, the CEO and Executive Director of the MRC, spoke to my class at Western Kentucky earlier this semester and told the students about how incredibly complicated it is to measure online behavior.
Understanding the Data
That brings me to the second complaint.
Barrett Media’s own John Mamola published a piece last week titled “Why Sports Radio Should Lead the Fight for Nielsen Ratings Reform.” Based on my decades of experience in radio audience measurement, his opening line is not unique: “For over my two decades in sports radio, I never truly understood how Nielsen Ratings work.”
I can’t tell you how many people in the business share John’s plight. They know shares, rankers, and trends — in other words, did my station or stations do better this month, quarter, or year than last? That’s it.
John’s point was that radio/audio needs what video already has, which is big data. As a sports guy, he cited record-high audiences for various sports events in the past year, some of which is also due to the use of PPM in the national data. On behalf of the radio industry, I’d like to say, “You’re welcome,” to our video brethren who are enjoying the fruits of our industry’s investment.
John has a point, but where do you find the online data for audio? Triton has a system, but no demos. Perhaps that’s an unwillingness to invest, or perhaps it’s due to a Nielsen patent on modeling demographics for audio streaming. John noted — and I’ve also pointed out — Nielsen’s penchant for filing patent infringement lawsuits, whether valid or not.
Xperi’s DTS AutoStage is out there and growing, with a methodology for retrieving data from car infotainment systems. It looks promising, but the number of cars with DTS AutoStage is still small relative to the number on American roads, and there are some other methodological concerns as well.
Meanwhile, Nielsen and Cumulus are still locked in a courtroom battle, even if Cumulus’ latest bankruptcy threw a spanner into the works.
I’ll keep saying it: the radio industry and Nielsen need to come together for everyone’s good and build a better mousetrap. We need all listening included, we need it in one place, we need big data, and while many people still won’t understand how the numbers are calculated, the estimates should end up bigger — and that means better.
Forget the silos, forget the “I’m bigger than you so I get my way,” and Nielsen’s PE overlords need to understand that a healthy radio business means more profit for them and their investors at exit time.
Sorry, Evan, but the MRC needs to continue — and John, you’re right.
Let’s meet again next week.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
A federal judge has temporarily halted the merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA, throwing the $6.2 billion broadcast deal into uncertainty just days after regulators approved it.
U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley issued a temporary restraining order Friday evening after siding with DirecTV, which filed suit to block the transaction on antitrust grounds. The ruling prevents Nexstar Media Group from integrating TEGNA’s operations for at least 14 days while the court considers further action.
DirecTV argues the merger would give the combined company excessive leverage in retransmission consent negotiations with distributors. The satellite provider says higher fees would ultimately be passed on to consumers.
Nunley wrote that DirecTV demonstrated “a likelihood of success on the merits” of its claim. He also determined that allowing the transaction to proceed immediately could create “irreparable harm.” Those findings are key legal standards for granting a temporary restraining order.
The decision means TEGNA must continue operating independently while the case proceeds. Nunley ordered Nexstar to maintain TEGNA as “a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit.”
Under the order, TEGNA must retain its own management structure and continue operating under pre-closing practices. The judge said the company must remain an “economically viable and active competitor” during the court process.
Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, who has opposed the merger as well said in an article on Newsmax’s website: “The federal court took the unusual step of stopping this merger because Brendan Carr rubber-stamped the most massive TV consolidation in history using a kangaroo process.”
A hearing is scheduled for April 7. At that time, Nunley will consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction that could extend the pause on the merger.
The ruling comes shortly after both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice approved the deal. Nexstar announced the transaction had closed soon after receiving regulatory clearance.
Nexstar has argued the acquisition is necessary to compete in a rapidly changing media environment. The company says declining local advertising and competition from major technology platforms have pressured broadcast revenues. Executives also contend the combined company would have greater resources to invest in local journalism.
Opponents remain skeptical. DirecTV and several state attorneys general, including those from California and New York, argue the merger would concentrate too much power in local television markets.
Additional legal challenges remain pending. Newsmax, DirecTV, and several cable and broadband groups are also contesting the FCC’s approval of the merger in federal appellate court in Washington.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
