"I can see reading your past posts from all over the board you're a pretty big lib. Okay- that's fine. "
Irrelevant to this discussion--I am focusing on programming strategies. I don't dispute that there are some obstacles to successfully programming progressive talk, as there are with all formats. I do believe that there is a widespread and unfounded industry bias against this format. When properly executed, it achieves something comparable to the sports talk format--it doesn't necessarily attain the highest cume, but it does get a demographically desirable audience (about ten years on average younger than conservative talk formats), and it draws an upscale listenership.
"WPTT may have had some conservative shows, but they were not in good time slots or were in tape delay at 7 a.m. Not the recipe for success."
My point exactly--it was not a progressive station.
'WPTT's bread and butter was its liberal listeners."
And you know this how? Let me get this straight--Laura Ingraham in morning drive--the most important daypart for any radio station--especially an AM spoken-word station--and its bread and butter was its liberal listeners? Then why not Bill Press, or preferably Lynn Cullen in morning drive? Understand this--by no reasonable industry standard could WPTT be labeled a "liberal" or for that matter a "conservative" station. It was a mish-mash, which explains why it has failed. WDVE would cease to be a rock station if it began mixing in Tim McGraw and Faith Hill (and I like them both). I don't pretend to be enlightening anyone here--this is Radio 101!
"I read somewhere, though I can't remember where, that people who vote conservative tend to enjoy listening to someone they can agree with on the radio, so conservative talk radio can get OK ratings. The article went on to say that liberals don't really enjoy listening to talk radio at all, even when they agree with the hosts, but they're twice as likely to listen to a music format radio station than conservatives are. It also said that most sports talk fans don't give a damn about politics."
You may have stumbled on to some truth here. There is considerable evidence that many conservatives have a strong need to hear their points of view reaffirmed in the mass media. I can't prove it, but my personal belief is that many of these people are very averse to and frightened of the inevitability of progressive social change, and need a lifeline to their past and traditions. For whatever reason, progressives seem to have less of a need for affirmation in talk radio and other media, which is why it's always been my belief that progressive talk can't simply be the "flip side" of conservative talk--it should avoid preachiness, emphasize humor and satire, and it need not always be afraid to delve into some sophisticated NPR-like depth. Thom Hartmann, who has been carried on WPTT, and who is beating Rush Limbaugh in certain major markets, has demonstrated that such a show can work.
We must not lose sight of the fact that 11 million people tune into NPR's Morning edition each weekday--many of these people once listened to commercial radio--which esentially left them. That's a large poaching ground for progressive forms of talk.
