25 Years for Limbaugh

[boombox]

When many of us say something less than complimentary about Rush, we are probably saying we don't like the way he made "disrespect for people you disagree with"... a respected form of political discussion.

It has taken Rush 25 years to make the "disrespect" concept a significant part of our political discourse. It will be interesting to see how long it takes us to get the poison and venom our of our political discussions. I'm guessing 100 years.

Disrespecting those who don't agree with you -- and disrespect as an accepted part of political discourse -- both existed long before Rush Limbaugh became a national talk host. I distinctly remember hearing what a lot of detractors had to say about President Reagan -- both on the radio, and off the radio -- much of it various forms of insults.

Aside from that, I think the increasing popularity of disrespect has more to do with the internet age, when anybody with internet access can set up a blog, or comment on a news story -- and they can get away with being as poisonous or as extreme in tone as they want to be. And others will cheer them on and agree with them. The more politically biased the 'news' site, the more extreme the commentary, from readers as well as the commentators.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Disrespecting those who don't agree with you -- and disrespect as an accepted part of political discourse -- both existed long before Rush Limbaugh became a national talk host.

What we are seeing (and hearing) today is totally unlike what we have seen in the past.

I did Talk Radio in the 60s... in the middle of the Civil Rights most inflammatory days, in the middle of the John Birch Society zenith of its presence and influence.

Later I would do some lobbying in our state legislature and made a couple of political persuasion trips to Washington.

I have tracked down people who were "players" in that era and pointedly asked them: I don't remember things back when you and I were bumping into each other being quite like they are today." The response is always: "No, you've got it right. Today is different." And I have yet to come across one who will tell you that the way we do it today is better than what we used to do.

Now and then I connect up via Facebook with someone we used to socialize with or go to church with in the 1970s. I have to ignore their posts, or "unfriend" some of them. They are posting "political discourse" (a.k.a. Political Trash Talk) like NOTHING they ever said to me back then.

Maybe Talking Heads have some kind of special authorization to disrespect us. But my boss or my co-worker or my Sunday School teacher or my doctor's receptionist have NO authorization to disrespect me and my politics. But they are convinced that Rush and friends have ordained them to heap disrespect any time of the day or night.

That is NOT the way to build and maintain a great civilization.

 

[mr_arbitron]

Yeah, I remember buying an LPFM kit box from Radio Shack 40 years ago. Nothing has changed

 

[FredLeonard]

Sorry, I can't agree that today is different. Before Rush, there was Morton Downey, Joe Pyne, Bob Grant and going back to Fulton Lewis and Father Coughlin. Radio has always been fertile ground for demagogues. Add to hosts, politicians who effectively used radio to stir up the mob.

Before radio, politics got especially heated. Violence on the floor of the house of representatives. Duels. If there is a political name-calling now, it may be because most people don't go around packing heat. When people are carrying guns, there is a great incentive for formal politeness.

"25 Years for Limbaugh" Too bad that's not a sentence. ;D

 

[ronald54321]

Judging from this board, liberals hate all dissent from their views, and would love to outlaw it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Judging from this board, liberals hate all dissent from their views, and would love to outlaw it.

I guess I look at this thread and and come to different conclusions that what you do. I see conservatives who have differing views with each other about Rush and about the nature of political conversation in a free society. I see liberals who have differing views with each other about whether "dissent talk" today is different than it used to be, or is it a different breed of conversation than we have known in the past?

My guess is that what liberals DISLIKE is a combination of things which result in the "oxygen being sucked out of the room" when it comes to having discussion. Whether it is in Congress where the system mechanics of the legislative process make it impossible for too many bills to now even be called for a vote.

Your use of the word HATE in referring to how liberals would like to handle dissent is probably a bit over the top. Now, to bring all of this back to Rush and his 25 years, there are those of us who feel that Rush has been a "permission-giver" who grants to conservatives the frame-of-mind that it is o.k. to HATE certain groups of our fellow citizens. It's o.k. to disagree. It is o.k. to campaign and battle over issues... but HATE is a word that should not be parft of this conversation.



I didn't quite figure out in Fred Leonard's post when he was making a point, and when he was being a bit sarcastic. ;D I guess I need to find some of the old recordings of Fulton Lewis Jr and Joe Pyne and others and listen again to them now that I am older.... have seen what we see and hear today. I just don't remember the people in your list of "past bad-boys?" ever having the impact that today's talkers have achieve. The system and the society pretty well pulled the rug out from under Father Coughlin. Or should I say the broadcast industry came to its senses and said "This Coughlin guy is not good for our civilization. Let's not nurture him!" Media left the scene of the Father Coughlin scenario with a reputation of being good guys, proper guardians of health information flow.

Today, we are waiting for the media to deal with current Talk Radio situation and Rush in particular with some maturity. Not censorship and just shut them down... but some self imposed guidelines which say: "This is the civilized way in which our people converse with one another, and this NOT the civilized way in which our people converse with one another."

 

[FredLeonard]

GRC: The Vatican ordered Father Coughlin stop his broadcasts. Not the media.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And you would discount the speculation that maybe the broadcast industry turned to their most church-connected broadcast owner who might have taken his favorite Cardinal to lunch and asked for a favor.... please deliver this plea to The Vatican on our behalf.

It wouldn't have hurt anything if that broadcaster's family had just made a significant donation the the endowment of some Catholic University. ;D

You might want to take notice of the fact that in the years following the "bottle rocket career" of Father Coughlin as a broadcaster, this country went through a generation where broadcasters through the NAB developed a plan where generous amounts of time were donated to community based religious associations while basically refusing to sell religious time to people outside the community based religious associations. When I got into the business, I recall some verbiage in the "NAB Code of Ethics" or whatever it was called that made it clear that you could not be a code member if you were wheeling and dealing with wild-card religious programs. "NAB Cod of Ethics" was a 'merit badge you wanted on your sash' in that era when you filed your license renewal application with the FCC. And it was a merit bade you wanted on your letterhead when you went calling on the big, national advertising agencies.

There was a religious cartel in this country that cut a deal with the broadcast industry that was pretty well oiled in the 1950's. In that era I was aligned with a different faction of 'the church' than I am today. I was with the group that was figuring out how to kick down the doors of radio stations to get OUR programs on the air. Which in turn gave rise in the 1960's to the All-Religion or Religion-Only stations who had not interest in posting an NAB Code of Ethics agreement.

 

[FredLeonard]

And what church-connected broadcast owner are you talking about? Sarnoff and Paley were Jewish.

CBS did pull the plug on Coughlin in 1931. Couglin and WJR owner G.A. Richards then lined up an ad-hoc network to carry him. Richards, was the force behind Coughlin's broadcast, and was a virulent right-winger, who used his stations programs and news broadcasts to spread his views. He was about to have his licenses revoked years later when he died and his successors made a deal with the FCC to keep the stations.

Right-wingers like to say right-wing talk (and no progressive talk) is just business, that broadcasters are only concerned with what's good business and not any political agenda. Richards is proof that sometimes this is not the case.

 

[stevensonair]

One thing that makes today's divisive radio louder than in past years is deregulation. Rapid consolidation allowed the major broadcast companies to achieve scale for these types of programming, and their budgetary requirements being public companies, carrying massive debt, made it much easier to replace the local hosts with the national lineup of these often much more aggressive hosts.

Compare a WLS lineup when they first started carrying Rush Limbaugh to the current lineup. I recall listening when you had a morning show comprised of a conservative and his liberal wife, Rush, a night time liberal host, weekend local hosts of various political positions, etc. Now most lineups are more akin to "conservative, Rush, libertarian, conservative."

Many of the major talkers now that are comprised of strictly conservative hosts, at one point, had liberals in the lineup. WSB had room for Boortz (libertarian) Clark Howard (financial) and Mike Malloy (liberal.)

Consolidation made the rollout of national, party-line programming more attractive for financial reasons.

A major cultural difference since the "shock radio" of old is simply the advancement of social media.

Like what Rush says? Rand Paul fan? Subscribe to the Twitter feeds of your PAC of choice or candidate, talk host or columnist, and repeat it with one click. Have your circle of likeminded friends verify to you what you already believe. Talk radio for the most part is a closed circuit. It doesn't exist to sway people's positions by logic or rational debate with the opposing side.

Talk radio (with a very few exceptions) exists to make people feel better and agreed with or provide them with talking points to express their viewpoints. It's a social club for a certain type of listener.

 

[TheBigA]

One thing that makes today's divisive radio louder than in past years is deregulation.

Absolutely not true. Before deregulation, radio networks and syndicators had as much access to local programming as radio owners themselves have today. In fact, had deregulation not happened, the only difference would be the connection between syndicators and owned stations. The Larry King Show had as many as 550 affiliates in its heyday before deregulation. And the fact is that Rush's show was launched before deregulation, and was popular long before radio consolidation. Yes, there are more conservatives on the radio today, but it has nothing to do with deregulation.

 

[stevensonair]

It's absolutely related.

Compare the lineups.

When Rush launched nationally, he was often an addition or a boost to an existing local lineup.

More of those local shows were replaced when the major broadcast companies bought these existing talk stations and wanted to clear more of their ideologically similar programs (in CC's case, from the syndicator they owned.)

And many of the independents thought the answer was "more shows that think like Rush." Which leads to the echo chamber talk radio is today. You can't tell me CC didn't welcome the chance to clear some of those local (and perhaps more moderate to left leaning hosts) off the expense sheet.

 

[TheBigA]

You can't tell me CC didn't welcome the chance to clear some of those local (and perhaps more moderate to left leaning hosts) off the expense sheet.

At the same time, that same company was running competing stations that carried Air America. However, that network failed. And that same company also has local talk hosts on their payroll in markets like NY, LA, Houston, Miami, Cincinnati, and lots of other places.

The local shows left as the hosts retired or lost ratings battles with other hosts. It's all about the ratings. Name one highly rated progressive host who was fired or replaced strictly for ideological reasons. There's no question that conservative talk gets higher ratings. The only exceptions are San Francisco and DC.

Meanwhile, on another board, there's a guy who really believes advertisers aren't supporting alternative rock stations because of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He's wrong too. Radio is a business. The only ideology is money. If stations could make more money running Democracy Now, they'd do it.

 

[stevensonair]

The competing Air America stations were on inferior signals, with the exception of Madison, WI and Buffalo, NY.

My point however is not that the hosts were fired for ideology or that "progressive" radio is an across the board success.

My point is that Rush's success combined with consolidation made it much more logical for CC and other large owners to push for similar shows to "what already worked" while cutting back on the local salaries - libertarian, liberal, or conservative. The timing created a "perfect storm."

Rising star + rising consolidation + ownership of the syndicator helped push nationalized conservative radio to levels that would not have been seen otherwise.

 

[TheBigA]

The competing Air America stations were on inferior signals, with the exception of Madison, WI and Buffalo, NY.

They were on inferior signals because the programming got inferior ratings. Not the other way around. My point is if the company had a political ideology, it would not have carried the network at all.

My point is that Rush's success combined with consolidation made it much more logical for CC and other large owners to push for similar shows to "what already worked" while cutting back on the local salaries - libertarian, liberal, or conservative. The timing created a "perfect storm."

The reason the pushed for "similar shows" is because they got ratings. And they also pushed for similar shows because of a growing polarization in this country, as evidenced by the last five elections. Conservative Talk is its own format. You don't combine country music and rap on the same stations, and for the same reason you don't combine ideologies on the same station. It doesn't work. It's bad programming. As for cutting back on local salaries, as I said it has nothing to do with consolidation. It has to do with the economies of running radio stations today regardless of ownership. If CC didn't own a syndicator, they'd carry shows from an outside company, and as I said lots of CC talk stations are filled with local talk hosts. Rush's success pre-dates consolidation, and his show still appears on stations that compete against CC owned stations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And what church-connected broadcast owner are you talking about? Sarnoff and Paley were Jewish.

That was a speculative comment on my part. I have no knowledge of any one broadcaster who actually did exactly what I suggested. I once ran an Evangelical religious station for a Jewish owner. I have no hesitation in speculating that even a Jewish broadcast owner might have noticed that what was going on with Rev. Coughlin was not healthy for our civilization. Since part of Coughlin's message was anti-semitic, why wouldn't even a pragmatic and personable Jewish broadcaster look up his nearby outgoing Catholic archbishop or cardinal and lobby him to speak to the Vatican. Why wouldn't a prominent Jewish broadcaster visit with some nationally prominent Catholic broadcaster he had met through NAB meetings, and encourage the Catholic broadcaster to be the messenger to the Vatican?

Did it really happen that way? We are all doing some guessing about who said what to whom. I simply offer what I believe is a very possible scenario.

All the fallderall about local councils of churches and the National Council of Churches becoming something of a clearing house on who got the free time donated by broadcasters who had agreed to not SELL religious time... that is not WILD speculation. That is a rather tangible happening.

I talked with people who had gone from the South to Michigan to organize Evangelical churches in Detroit. The Council of Churches had a relationship with the city zoning people. If the Council of Churches didn't see and opening, a need for a NEW church in a neighborhood they felt was already reasonable populated by places of worship, the city would not issue a permit to construct a new church. Just getting an occupancy permit to begin a new church in a store front was as hassle back in the 1950s.

 

[FredLeonard]

We are talking about the 30s, before political correctness. This is a time when antisemitism was Catholic (and evangelical) doctrine - Jews were "Christ-killers."

And in what alternate universe did stations not sell time to churches? Sunday morning was all god; all the time. Nobody else wanted the time and stations sold blocks to local churches and national religious broadcasters at premium rates (which they were dumb enough, and rich enough to pay).

 

[del_griffith]

Throughout the history of radio there have been demagogues. The current crop are just top of mind.

But I do agree that the constant drip, drip, drip of this stuff does nothing to advance our culture, society and civilization and probably sets us back.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And in what alternate universe did stations not sell time to churches? Sunday morning was all god; all the time. Nobody else wanted the time and stations sold blocks to local churches and national religious broadcasters at premium rates (which they were dumb enough, and rich enough to pay).

O.K. I made a couple of posts based on my memories and understandings of the relationship between broadcasters and reglion broadcasting. In response to your "shot across the bow" quoted above, I went searching. Looked through the fabulous archives available on-line courtesy of our friend David Eduardo who is a prolific poster in these forums.

In my general on-line search if found excerpts from this book: Religious Television: Controversies and Conclusions
edited by Robert Abelman, Stewart M. Hoover Hopefully this short, short quote will fall into the area of "Fair Use" and can be posted here:

In 1960, the tradition of sustaining time was dealt a blow by a new interpretation of broadcast regulations by the FCC. (Federal Communications Commission Reports, 1960, p. 2315)

If you look up the book on-line, they only display selected pages. (They want you and me to buy the book!) Look for page 77.



I worked in the industry at the time. Because I had attended what I refer to as "a preacher factory college" I was pretty observant of issues and policies of the FCC and issues and policies of stations related to the ability and opportunity of "the church" to access broadcasting.

If you will go back through Broadcasting magazine copies (thanks to David Eduardo) and search for additional books on line, I think you will find a side of broadcasting practice and policy from some time in the 1930s through 1960 that will amuse and amaze you.

I'm not arguing that we ought to go back to it. I'm not arguing that for the era it was the right thing to do. I'm just suggesting that there is a part of history about broadcasting and the church that may well predate your "intimate knowledge" of the industry.

Happy reading. Some of it will make you laugh. Some of it will make you grit your teeth and/or cry.

 

[RadioTalker101]

O.K. I made a couple of posts based on my memories and understandings of the relationship between broadcasters and reglion broadcasting.

Incorrectly.