Discussing or Being - Talk Radio

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There is a certain amount of angst and bitterness in the electrons some days. Maybe we lose track of: In this FORUM... are we TALKING about Talk Radio.... or are we BEING talk radio?

In the current national climate, is it even possible to talk ABOUT this genre of radio programming as bystanders?

Is the term TALK RADIO now a description used exclusively and only for partisan political talk?

Are there any "home town" smaller market stations that today still have local people talking about this weekend's garden show and the fund-raiser for the fireman injured in last week's big fire, and interviewing the County Manager about the construction progress on the new Court House.

Does that kind of radio have a new name and designation that is not part of Talk Radio?

 

[Avid Listener]

Well, using clickbait topics in order to attract posters is a lot like "being" news/talk radio. And of course, there are three forums dedicated to spoken word radio (ie. "talk" radio). There's not much to discuss about isolated examples of non news/talk stations in the national news/talk forum. If some home town small market station has a non-news/talk station talking about garden shows and fund-raisers for firemen, that isn't national news/talk anyway. That's grist for discussion on the sub-forums dedicated to that small market city, or else one of the state forums if the city is too small for a city forum.

If you're going to lament and kvetch about the national news/talk forum containing talk about the news component of what news/talk radio talks about, fine. But if you want to steer the discussion to talking about strictly the radio aspect of national news/talk, then shouldn't you be launching a thread about that?

I'd also note that you are among the people who keep referring to this forum as "talk radio". This is the NEWS/TALK forum. It's about talk radio dedicated to tall about the things that are in the news. If you want to discuss other types of talk radio, there is a forum dedicated to sports radio, which includes sports talk and hot talk. If you feel the need to discuss any other sort of talk radio besides those three, shouldn't you be petitioning the board management to create a new forum for "happy talk" or some other description of spoken word programming that isn't one of the three spoken word format forums that they already have? Or, if you want to talk about local talk, why not discuss it in the appropriate local forum?

 

[TheBigA]

That's why I try to bring my discussion around to the role of talk radio in the news process. As I did yesterday with the role two national talk show hosts played in the Virginia election. The point being that news talk hosts have become part of the story. If you read All The President's Men, that was one of the issues itself, that Woodward & Bernstein had become part of the story, and did that create a problem in their role as journalists. Then again, as we've discussed, talk radio hosts aren't journalists, but entertainers, so it's not an issue. But then the question has to do with perception, rather than reality.

 

[flybynight]

There is a certain amount of angst and bitterness in the electrons some days. Maybe we lose track of: In this FORUM... are we TALKING about Talk Radio.... or are we BEING talk radio?

In the current national climate, is it even possible to talk ABOUT this genre of radio programming as bystanders?

Is the term TALK RADIO now a description used exclusively and only for partisan political talk?

Are there any "home town" smaller market stations that today still have local people talking about this weekend's garden show and the fund-raiser for the fireman injured in last week's big fire, and interviewing the County Manager about the construction progress on the new Court House.

Does that kind of radio have a new name and designation that is not part of Talk Radio?

Great observation.

If you'll notice in this section of the forums, many posters, like myself, have tried repeatedly to discuss the foolish over-saturation of the format with far-right-wing ideological politics. It has become a format that repels many people who used to enjoy current events-oriented talkradio.

Unfortunately, some right-wing ideologues on this board have decided that this is just an attack on conservatism, instead of understanding that it's really just about the foolish programming decisions that have driven the format in a ditch without any real hope of recovering. I even repeatedly emphasized that I personally like certain conservative hosts, so it's not about ideology per se, but JUST LIKE IN TALKRADIO, the ideologues hear what they want to hear and tune everything else you say out.

So yes, Virginia, this board often does resemble talkradio itself, for the exact same reasons: Hyper-partisans thinking everything is ideologically motivated because they think everybody else is also hyper-partisan. Trying to snap them out of that habit is like trying to get your dog to stop licking it's arse.

 

[JeffM]

There is a certain amount of angst and bitterness in the electrons some days. Maybe we lose track of: In this FORUM... are we TALKING about Talk Radio.... or are we BEING talk radio?

The proof is self-evident. Look at any of the recently "hot" talk threads. Not a one is now even remotely connected to their original topics! The one on political centrism is now all about illegal immigration (though I guess one of the regulars might insist the term is illegal alienation?) And one that started out being about Tom Leykis ended up being (mea culpa here) about Bing Crosby! As for AL's remarks on the kind of "home-town" talk you mentioned being "too small" to bother with...well, check out WCCO-AM sometime. That's exactly what they do, and they are a powerhouse.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Are there any "home town" smaller market stations that today still have local people talking about this weekend's garden show and the fund-raiser for the fireman injured in last week's big fire, and interviewing the County Manager about the construction progress on the new Court House.

Yes. The answer is yes. There are a lot of them. Next question.

 

[JeffM]

Yes. The answer is yes. There are a lot of them. Next question.

As Rocky the flying squirrel would say, "Thank you, Mister Know-It-All!!"

 

[Small Market Guy]

That's why I try to bring my discussion around to the role of talk radio in the news process. As I did yesterday with the role two national talk show hosts played in the Virginia election. The point being that news talk hosts have become part of the story. If you read All The President's Men, that was one of the issues itself, that Woodward & Bernstein had become part of the story, and did that create a problem in their role as journalists. Then again, as we've discussed, talk radio hosts aren't journalists, but entertainers, so it's not an issue. But then the question has to do with perception, rather than reality.

I know Levin and some others are claiming to be responsible, but I have a feeling that's more self promotion than anything.

 

[TheBigA]

I know Levin and some others are claiming to be responsible, but I have a feeling that's more self promotion than anything.

Fox News is reporting it as fact. They're all taking credit for bringing down the Majority Leader.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Fox News is reporting it as fact. They're all taking credit for bringing down the Majority Leader.

It's possible. Still reeks of self promotion to me. If I had to guess, the hosts were probably tagging along with the movement. I just don't see any of them having that kind of influence anymore. They're followers, not leaders.

And by "Fox News" you mean the opinion shows on Fox News. Let's be clear about that before someone gets all in a tizzy because someone mentioned Fox.

 

[TheBigA]

And by "Fox News" you mean the opinion shows on Fox News.

No I'm talking about Brett Bair's Special Report. Brett's a news man.

 

[flybynight]

Fox News is reporting it as fact. They're all taking credit for bringing down the Majority Leader.

This is precisely why I have said repeatedly that wingnut talkradio has hurt the nation's discourse and ability to govern effectively.

While many disregard these irresponsible reckless hosts as no-big-deal, since they only get a small percentage of listeners overall, you have to realize that their listeners are VERY active and VERY vocal. This translates into votes and momentum.

After having seen some representatives walk back statements so as not to anger some hosts, and recognizing that these hosts are acknowledged at the highest levels of government, you cannot just disregard their misinformation campaigns as harmless. They scare people with their crazy rhetoric. And those people vote.

Whether these listeners are incorrect in assuming that these hosts are journalists is irrelevant. The fact is, after having built credibility for decades, many newstalk stations now allow these liars to cash in on that credibility, which they are granted just because their voices go out over the same airwaves.

It doesn't matter if the listeners are wrong for believing their garbage. The point is, they DO. They make little distinction between Limbaugh and the guy doing the news at the top of the hour. That's bad for America.

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't matter if the listeners are wrong for believing their garbage. The point is, they DO. They make little distinction between Limbaugh and the guy doing the news at the top of the hour. That's bad for America.

I once had a chance to interview Mike Deaver, who was a longtime Reagan aid, going back to the California Governor's office. He was a genius marketing guy, and was really the inspiration behind what we see now with Roger Ailes. It's not news, it's marketing. And it's very effective marketing, as most marketing can be when professionals are involved. And let's not assume that it's only a Republican thing. It's not. Marketing isn't restricted to any party. My point is the heritage goes back a long way, to Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan. There was some marketing behind the mythology of Roosevelt, with Fireside Chats, and that kind of thing, but those people were living in the stone age. We are all being fed the news we want to see and none of it is good for the country. That's not the point of it.

 

[boombox4]

This is precisely why I have said repeatedly that wingnut talkradio has hurt the nation's discourse and ability to govern effectively.

While many disregard these irresponsible reckless hosts as no-big-deal, since they only get a small percentage of listeners overall, you have to realize that their listeners are VERY active and VERY vocal. This translates into votes and momentum.

After having seen some representatives walk back statements so as not to anger some hosts, and recognizing that these hosts are acknowledged at the highest levels of government, you cannot just disregard their misinformation campaigns as harmless. They scare people with their crazy rhetoric. And those people vote.

Whether these listeners are incorrect in assuming that these hosts are journalists is irrelevant. The fact is, after having built credibility for decades, many newstalk stations now allow these liars to cash in on that credibility, which they are granted just because their voices go out over the same airwaves.

It doesn't matter if the listeners are wrong for believing their garbage. The point is, they DO. They make little distinction between Limbaugh and the guy doing the news at the top of the hour. That's bad for America.

You make some valid points, but I don't think conservative talk radio has quite as much power as some people think it does.

Rush Limbaugh had a huge audience in the 1990's (I think at his peak they said around 20 million listeners) -- yet he couldn't keep Bill Clinton from being re-elected. He couldn't stop us from going into Bosnia, or getting involved in Kosovo (two things I recall Limbaugh was against, as I used to listen to the guy back then).

President Obama was not only elected, but re-elected -- both times, by decent margins. Conservative talk radio couldn't keep that from happening. Conservative talk radio couldn't keep the Democrats from taking Congress in 2006.

The ACA was passed into Federal law in March, 2010, and even though conservative talk radio was referring to it in terms of "socialism" and "death panels" -- they couldn't stop that from happening.

It's possible that the Republicans taking the House in 2010 would have happened anyway, conservative talk radio or no conservative talk radio.

Obviously, conservative talk radio galvanises the right wing, but are they really as effective in the big picture as they are often made out to be?

You look at elections, there are a lot more voters than conservative talk listeners.

Does conservative talk radio have 47% of the American voting public (the percentage who voted against President Obama last election) listening to them every day? From what you guys in the know say about the conservative talk ratings numbers, it doesn't seem that conservative talk radio has 47% of the listeners.

 

[umfan]

On what exact show did Fox News report as 'fact' that they were responsible for the Cantor primary defeat? Can you recall the words used?

Regarding how talk radio couldn't influence an election, of course that's true, but could the broader, more liberal media, prevent GW Bush from being elected twice, the Congressional change of 1994 or the Democrats losing the House in 2010? It's not a very salient sentiment to equate those events as somehow indicating the influence of a particular medium.

 

[Avid Listener]

How is it that the liberals can differentiate between newscasts and opinion/analysis programs on their favorite liberal news networks, but they cannot do the same simple thing when watching Fox?

 

[TheBigA]

On what exact show did Fox News report as 'fact' that they were responsible for the Cantor primary defeat? Can you recall the words used?

As I said in post #11, Brett Baer's Special Report.

Also this is in today's Radio Ink Buzz Stream:

Over the last several years there have been many pundits, both inside the radio industry and outside, that have declared talk radio dead and gone. This week some of those same folks are saying the biggest political upset of the year should be credited to talk radio, specically Laura Ingraham. A Politico story says Dave Brat, who defeated Eric Cantor in a primary, "didn’t have much money, staff or name recognition — but he did have Laura Ingraham." And Ingraham willingly took the credit

Ingraham said, “I helped shine a light on a race where the establishment was vulnerable. I helped give Brat a platform that he was not getting through any other media outlet. The national media wasn’t giving him his due and national tea party groups weren’t lifting a finger to help him. … I knew that if he had a little bit of a boost, he would make a really good run at this.” Ingraham credited Ann Coulter and Mickey Kaus, as well as the conservative news sites Daily Caller and Breitbart News, with paying attention to Brat’s campaign. And both Glenn Beck and Mark Levin had Brat on their programs. If you were wondering about the number one talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, he does not get involved in primary campaigns so he did not take a side in that race.

Politico admits Brat’s surprise victory is a powerful reminder of the immense influence talk radio has over conservative politics.

 

[wadio]

There are plenty of races that prove or disprove the immense influence of talk radio and talk TV, depending on the outcome. Exactly what happened in the Virginia primary is probably yet to be determined.

 

[radiophiler]

The problem with the Radio Ink and other articles noting Laura Ingraham's attention to the Cantor candidacy is that there's no way to prove that what was said on talk radio was the deciding factor in this race.
Ingraham talked about Cantor. Cantor lost. That's a correlation. It's not a proven cause and effect.
I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not saying it's true either. I'm saying that, given what we know, we can't tell.
The argument that will follow my statement is this: Well, what else could it have been?
Here's one thing I've read: Democrats crossing over to get rid of Cantor to give their otherwise weak candidate a shot in the general election. Can I prove this? Nope. But you can't prove Ingraham or anyone else helped defeat Cantor.

My big point: Talk radio has taken credit for many things over the years. Some things they did influence. Some things they did not. Talk radio has taken too much credit for having an actual effect on politics and elections, particularly since the 1990s.

 

[Small Market Guy]

So Bret had a talk show host that gave herself credit for the election on his show and it's his doing?

Ingraham would have to have listeners to have some kind of effect. We can't have it both ways. We can't say no one is listening to these hosts, especially second tier ones like Laura, then claim they're ruining our election system because they have too much effect on too many people.