And In The Category Of Repetition...

[Those RRRRs]

Of all the talk show hosts, who is the most repetitive in his/her discussions, opinions, or perspective(s)?

My vote goes to Hannity. I like his show, and agree with many of his conclusions, but his show is constantly about the war and the democrats' undermining of the war and our troops. That point alone is the main focus of his show for almost all of it everyday.

While I agree with him on that point, how many ways and how many times must he say it? It seems all the other hosts have a variety of topics on their shows, but Hannity is like a broken record everyday.

I'd like to get the ball rolling on this topic, but not in a political or partisan way. Politics aside, am I the only one who has noticed this?

And is there another host on the air who you would like to nominate as even more repetitive than Hannity, or do you disagree entirely with my perspective about his show?

 

[Steven21]

Repetitive?

Are you kidding?

Do you mean in the way that MOST conservative talk hosts CONSTANTLY repeat not only WHAT Rush Limbaugh says, but the arguments he makes to justify his opinion?
THAT kind of repetitiveness is why younger listeners won't even give AM radio a chance.

 

[evnlee]

Glenn Beck has become unlistenable since he relocated to NYC, and started his CNN gig.

What used to be a funny, middle of the road show ( or as Holland would spell it middle-of-the-road ) is now 'get ready for the apocalypse'. It's depressing.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Do you mean in the way that MOST conservative talk hosts CONSTANTLY repeat not only WHAT Rush Limbaugh says, but the arguments he makes to justify his opinion?

Which is sort of like when four or five meteorologists all look at the same data, and then all come up with similar weather forecast "opinions", right?

If 2 + 2 = 4, then why should anyone be surprised if all the people who add 2 + 2 come up with the same answer? Unless, of course, one was taught "new math", where the answers don't matter as much as how you feel about the process of combining numbers.

THAT kind of repetitiveness is why younger listeners won't even give AM radio a chance.

THAT kind of faulty logic is why so few people can handle listening to liberal talk radio, on either frequency band.

 

[Steven21]

Do you mean in the way that MOST conservative talk hosts CONSTANTLY repeat not only WHAT Rush Limbaugh says, but the arguments he makes to justify his opinion?

Which is sort of like when four or five meteorologists all look at the same data, and then all come up with similar weather forecast "opinions", right?

If 2 + 2 = 4, then why should anyone be surprised if all the people who add 2 + 2 come up with the same answer? Unless, of course, one was taught "new math", where the answers don't matter as much as how you feel about the process of combining numbers.

THAT kind of repetitiveness is why younger listeners won't even give AM radio a chance.

THAT kind of faulty logic is why so few people can handle listening to liberal talk radio, on either frequency band.

Your rather specious reasoning using the weatherman analogy certainly illustrates your inability to see past your own bias.

If you don't believe that many conservative hosts look to Limbaugh for guidance as to how to approach and handle many issues, you're a bigger and more naive fool than I already suspected.

And what you refer to as "faulty logic" is actually quite true. You, no doubt, have your head so far up your arse on this subject, that you, along with the other kool-aid drinkers, would never, ever recognize why many under 35 avoid the format like the plague.

What a surprise.

 

[Radio_Realist]

ever recognize why many under 35 avoid the format like the plague.

Actually, I recognize why so few under 35's listen to news/talk radio. I've posted on that issue in other threads several time. Focus group research shows that most listeners under the age of 35 prefer listening to music over all spoken word formats. Those few under 35's who do enjoy spoken word formats prefer sports talk over news/talk by a margin of 3.5 to 1. They prefer Howard Stern-style "hot" talk over news/talk by 4.7 to 1. Bottom line, the disinterest of under 35's has nothing to do with the content of current news/talk programs. It has everything to do with their preference for listening to music, sports, or discussions of lesbians' breast implants.

That same research shows that listeners who are liberal in their own personal political outlook, and who vote for liberal candidates, also prefer listening to music format programming over any sort of talk format, including liberal biased political talk shows by an overwhelming margin.

 

[Steven21]

ever recognize why many under 35 avoid the format like the plague.

Actually, I recognize why so few under 35's listen to news/talk radio. I've posted on that issue in other threads several time. Focus group research shows that most listeners under the age of 35 prefer listening to music over all spoken word formats. Those few under 35's who do enjoy spoken word formats prefer sports talk over news/talk by a margin of 3.5 to 1. They prefer Howard Stern-style "hot" talk over news/talk by 4.7 to 1. Bottom line, the disinterest of under 35's has nothing to do with the content of current news/talk programs. It has everything to do with their preference for listening to music, sports, or discussions of lesbians' breast implants.

That same research shows that listeners who are liberal in their own personal political outlook, and who vote for liberal candidates, also prefer listening to music format programming over any sort of talk format, including liberal biased political talk shows by an overwhelming margin.

So MUCH to cover, so little time:

First, focus group results are only as good as the quality and pointedness of the questions asked. A GREAT DEAL of the current talk format is devoted to issues that are catering to 35+. Lib-talk, for various flawed reasons, basically sticks to countering conservative political chatter. This underlines my point about WHY younger listeners aren't very interested in the format.

Also, The vast majority of ESTABLISHED talk ststions decided to lean conservative when all those UNCREATIVE and LAZY programmers went for the fad: RUSH LIMBAUGH CONSERVATISM. You cannot counter that with a lib-talk station tucked away on a crappy second or third tier signal--especially when the hosts are chosen based on political slant rather than effectivenss as radio entertainers. Lib-talk had several MAJAOR factors going against it, and NONE of those factors had anything to do with a lack of like-minded potential listeners. The whole thing has been poorly executed in an unaware and non-receptive market. You can chalk that up to the industry establishment at this point.

 

[Radio_Realist]

First, focus group results are only as good as the quality and pointedness of the questions asked.

Let me guess. You also post in music format boards and lecture everyone on how unreliable auditorium testing is in determining format playlists.

 

[Steven21]

First, focus group results are only as good as the quality and pointedness of the questions asked.

Let me guess. You also post in music format boards and lecture everyone on how unreliable auditorium testing is in determining format playlists.

Guess again. Haven't worked music for decades.

 

[evnlee]

Lib-talk, for various flawed reasons, basically sticks to countering conservative political chatter. This underlines my point about WHY younger listeners aren't very interested in the format.

Also, The vast majority of ESTABLISHED talk ststions decided to lean conservative when all those UNCREATIVE and LAZY programmers went for the fad: RUSH LIMBAUGH CONSERVATISM. You cannot counter that with a lib-talk station tucked away on a crappy second or third tier signal--especially when the hosts are chosen based on political slant rather than effectivenss as radio entertainers. Lib-talk had several MAJAOR factors going against it, and NONE of those factors had anything to do with a lack of like-minded potential listeners. The whole thing has been poorly executed in an unaware and non-receptive market.

The problem is that Liberal outlooks are too 'spread out' or 'nuanced' to be able to form a cohesive national radio platform.

Fans of Schulz dont agree ( in many cases, even like ) with Franken or Malloy. Those that relish Rhodes Micheal Savage-esque ranting probably wont go in for a more subtle approach like Stephanie Miller. Mention the term 'Isreal' or 'taxes' on any of those programs, and buckle up.

However, fans of Rush, Hannity and Beck ( the top 3 conservo-talkers) can agree: Isreal good, taxes bad.

Also, I would be willing to bet that those that listen to liberal talk also listen to neo-con talk, but I doubt many neo con listeners do the same. I have no hard data, just a w.a.g.

Much to the wailing and moaning, this is what one can assume today:

It is very true that the under 35 demo doesn't care much for any talk programming outside of 'hot talk'

Those that do care for news/talk programming ( albeit a small fraction ) go with the big dogs.

Those that dont ( an even smaller fraction ) that enjoy 'progressive talk' can only agree on one thing: Bush=bad. Anything else gets them at each others throats~ as evidenced daily in Daily Kos, HuffPo, etc...

And~ after failing to compete with the big dogs, the following excuses are always at the ready:

the owner of the station that flips is evil, stupid, or greedy.

the programming never could succeed due to it's placement and signal strength

not enough 'promotion' :

 

[Radio_Realist]

First, focus group results are only as good as the quality and pointedness of the questions asked.

Let me guess. You also post in music format boards and lecture everyone on how unreliable auditorium testing is in determining format playlists.

Guess again. Haven't worked music for decades.

What does one have to do with the other? I didn't say you worked in music, I speculated that you might post in music format boards. The former is not a requirement for the latter.

The thing is, the research I referred to was conducted by a company I worked with very closely to determine which media were the most cost-effective for getting an effective sales message to a potential customer. Discovering who listened to what radio formats and why was secondary. But, the results from that research, when applied to advertising products, proved to be very accurate.

You mention other factors, like lower powered stations, etc., but the simple truth is that those are merely secondary reasons. One could put liberal political talk on the strongest, clearest FM stations in almost any market in the nation, and promote them until a huge promotion budget is depleted, and that wouldn't change the fact that most people who vote liberal don't want to listen to political talk radio. Period.

Rant and rave all you want about trivia and side issues, that won't change that simple and fundamental fact.

To be a political liberal, one trusts one's feelings over one's intellect. People who are ruled by their feelings instead of their minds tend to prefer entertainment that touches their feelings (music) over entertainment that touches their minds (spoken word formats, regardless of subject topic or bias).

 

[Steven21]

You said:
"People who are ruled by their feelings instead of their minds tend to prefer entertainment that touches their feelings (music) over entertainment that touches their minds (spoken word formats, regardless of subject topic or bias)."


THAT is the FUNNIEST comment you've made yet!

Conservative talk shows are FILLED with people who make judgements and commentaries based on their FEELINGS rather than intellect.

Of course YOU probably believe that all of those wacked out ideas espoused by HAnnity and his ilk are born of sheer *intellect*.

Again, you are too biased to have a reasonable conversation.

P.S. You obviously CANNOT make sense of the simple point that all because YOU have some experience with a focus group environment, DOES NOT mean that research indicating WHY a lib-talk format can't work was done properly and not tainted with leading or loaded questions. Don't be a fool.

 

[moderator7]

Some posts in this topic have been moved to Take It Outside.

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=67021.0

 

[justareporter]

To be a political liberal, one trusts one's feelings over one's intellect. People who are ruled by their feelings instead of their minds tend to prefer entertainment that touches their feelings (music) over entertainment that touches their minds (spoken word formats, regardless of subject topic or bias).

This would be funny if someone didn't actually believe it. Actually most liberals I know (of which I am produly one) would be happy to listen to anyone who has an original thought. Most conservative talk shows are all about fear and how to sell it to the listening public. I have no time nor intellectual patience to listen to that kind of drivel. Give me someone who thinks and I'm happy to listen and I could care less if that individual is liberal, conservative or a druid. Unfortunately (as I have already indicated and hate to repeat myself) most conservative talk show are all about appealing to fear...fear of your taxes going up, fear of hordes of foreigners invading our shores, fear of tomorrow. It is a pretty pitful one-note samba.

That is why many liberals don't listen to talk radio....no substance.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Actually most liberals I know (of which I am produly one) would be happy to listen to anyone who has an original thought.

Which only proves that you tend to hang out with people whose attitudes are similar to your own. Actual market research testing has demonstrated that the majority of people who identify themselves as "liberal" also score higher on tests that indicate a higher reliance on emotional arguments over logical argumants. The same research indicates that people who place a higher reliance on emotion over logic tend to prefer music or other non-political talk radio programming.

And, there is also market testing that proves "birds of a kind flock together", so even though your taste in radio programming shows you belong to a minority within the liberal community, it also indicates that it's no surprise that the people you know are also members of that same minority.

 

[evnlee]

This would be funny if someone didn't actually believe it. Actually most liberals I know (of which I am produly one) would be happy to listen to anyone who has an original thought. Most conservative talk shows are all about fear and how to sell it to the listening public. I have no time nor intellectual patience to listen to that kind of drivel. Give me someone who thinks and I'm happy to listen and I could care less if that individual is liberal, conservative or a druid. Unfortunately (as I have already indicated and hate to repeat myself) most conservative talk show are all about appealing to fear...fear of your taxes going up, fear of hordes of foreigners invading our shores, fear of tomorrow. It is a pretty pitful one-note samba.

That is why many liberals don't listen to talk radio....no substance.

so, why dont liberals listen to 'substance filled ' liberal talkers in the numbers that Limbaugh gets?

and, please dont trot out these well worn strawman arguments:

1 no signal
2 no promotion
3 evil station owner

another well meaning but misguided poster offered this:

"If you don't believe that many conservative hosts look to Limbaugh for guidance"

if anything, most nationally syndicated hosts ( besides Hannity ) are trying to 'distance' themselves from Rush. That's why Beck ( the 3rd banana ) says 'it's not about left or right, it's about right and wrong'. That's why BOR proclaims he's an 'independant'. That's why Boortz calls himself 'libertarian'. That's why Savage screams " I'm not a republican!".

Rush doesn't hide the fact that he is carrying the water for the GOP.

Arguments can be made that this is a red herring, but there is no denying how they describe thier shows. If anything, these hosts want to sound less like Limbaugh then the current 'Big Dog' on the left, Ed Schultz, who is the best of the lot in 'progressive mimicry'. Take the politics out of the mix, and the cadence, the boisterousness, and the inflection of these to ( IMHO) sound the same.

 

[justareporter]

Actual market research testing has demonstrated that the majority of people who identify themselves as "liberal" also score higher on tests that indicate a higher reliance on emotional arguments over logical argumants.

We'll ignore the spelling for a moment and just go with the substance of the argument. Which "market testing?" By whom and for whom? When?

Simply indicating there was some testing doesn't validate the so-called "findings."

Liberals not listening to liberal talk is easy. Most of it isn't truly "liberal" talk but liberal entertainment. Once again, I'd kill for a real interview in one of these so called "talk shows." Ask real questions, think before you ask the next one.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Which "market testing?" By whom and for whom? When?

By companies I used to work for, conducted in various large metropolitan centers, mostly in the late 1990's, with some in the early 2000's. And, I might add, at considerable expense. If you'd like to purchase copies of the reports, let me know. Be prepared to write a very large check. The details are proprietary information.

This was not research on specific talk show hosts. The main thrust of the research was to test listener recall of details of what was broadcast on music format and talk format radio stations. Secondary baseline research revealed who was likely to tune in to different types of radio programs.

 

[justareporter]

At the risk of pointing out that you have unsucessfully dodged the question...you have tried but failed.. I didn't aks for the research, I asked who did it and for whom.

So far you have only told me that you did it and that it costs a lot of money. Hiding behind the mask of "proprietary" is laughable.

So I repeat the simple question: what company did the research and for whom?

Then I'll add: for what purpose?

I shouldn't need my checkbook for that.

 

[evnlee]

At the risk of pointing out that you have unsucessfully dodged the question...you have tried but failed.. I didn't aks for the research, I asked who did it and for whom.

So far you have only told me that you did it and that it costs a lot of money. Hiding behind the mask of "proprietary" is laughable.

So I repeat the simple question: what company did the research and for whom?

Then I'll add: for what purpose?

I shouldn't need my checkbook for that.

If he were to go on a OMB and give out the names of the company and the client it would damage him, liability.

however, it does seem kind of a 'dodge'. The way I see it, RR can back it up, IM him and he can give you the info to 'purchase' this research .' As a reporter' you should be able to cover the cost, right? I mean, it's not like all those ads pay the bills, right? Write it off, and prove us all wrong!