Ask Phil: Can Progressive Talk Work?

[Phil Boyce]

I commend Evnlee for identifying the strategy long before most did. Nobody at CC told me this...I just know it...and I have no problem with what they did. CC had some under performing AMs that needed a makeover. AA was perfect for those stations, but said at the time I felt AA was doomed to fail for two reasons: 1) They were on bad sticks and 2) they were started with the wrong MO.

The wrong MO is that they were started specifically to provide liberal talking points...not to do great radio. Conservative stations in general were not started to carry out a politcal agenda. Conservative stations were started to win...get good ratings...make money. You may not like the politics coming out of the speaker, but their MO was pure. In the process they went out and found the best and most entertaining hosts they could find.

To answer Fred's question....yes I do think progressive talk could work...even though I feel AA is doomed. Hosts like Big Ed started out the natural way and grew organically. He started on a local station, using good radio basisc, got ratings, and was rewarded with a national platform. I was quoted early on in the Dallas News as saying they were "doomed to fail" and Big Ed confronted me in the lobby of a Washington Hotel, mad as hell. I explained to him that I was talking about AA, not about him specifically.

So far, the audience for conservative political talk has far outweighed the audience for liberal political talk. But election results and polls and surveys suggest the liberal demo and the conservative demo should be of comparable size. Is liberal talk like Oldies - a format stations can't sell (regardless of ratings)?

They could sell it if they get ratings. It is all a game of numbers. But keep in mind one of the true reasons Conservative talk works. It is the underdog. It may not seem that way to YOU because of your politics, but you should understand that most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press. They despise the NY times...and the TV networks. Talk Radio becomes their safe haven, where THEIR side is presented. Finally, somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling. It is what made Rush explode. Word of mouth grew, because the conservative listeners found in Rush a champion for their own beliefs.

It is also why conservative leaning stations like WABC, KVI, KSFO etc. succeeded in mostly liberal markets. Conservative listeners in THOSE markets felt overwhelmed and outnumbered, so when Rush et al came along, they found a champion fighting for their side. Rush was saying what they were thinking. Remember, you don't need MOST of the listeners in a market to win. If you get a 5 share you win, and that means 95% are not listening to you.

Some had said that station owners and managers are themselves conservative and either shun liberal talk because of their own views (not for business reasons) or their own political views cause them to assume that the audience is not there. Yes/No? Agree/Disagee?

I don’t agree. Radio management in general just wants to win, and if you show them a format that will work, they will support it.

AAR put themselves on some bad signals. And they put out a lot of bad product. But setting aside inept management and programming, could progressive talk work? If Sheldon Drobny handed you a bag of gold, could you make it work?

I am not sure if I could make it work, but I do believe somebody could make it work if you were able to create a really solid lineup of radio pro’s…if you stopped trying to use the network to extend your own political beliefs, if you understood it is all about entertainment, if you followed good sound radio 101 practices, and if you really had a strong programmer who was able to generate the respect of the staff and instill a will to win.

I for one hope they do surive for the same reason CC did. It gives me cover in New York when somebody complains that I am one-sided. I ask them if they call AA and ask them why they have no conservative hosts. I have probably hired more liberals on WABC than any PD in history. Most of them have failed because of “organ transplant rejection.” My listeners just will not buy it. However when I paired Ron Kuby with Curtis, my listeners like the give-and-take, as long as it was entertaining.

Pb

 

[fred flintstone]

Real, you make some strong points and I agree with most of what you said.

My one issue is where you call this a liberal-conservative thing.

As you say, this is about someone using radio as their own personal jukebox or megaphone, someone programming for themselves and their own agenda - not the audience. This is an issue of ego, not politics. And I've seen conservative owners and managers get bitten by this bug - even worked for a few. It's not just liberals. When somebody with the money to do so - whether it's Sheldon Drobny, or some local car dealer, beer wholesaler or billboard magnate - buys into radio to preach to the mob or change the world, the result is the same. If that's not why he buys in but later is seduced by the Dark Side into thinking he has the power to influence public opinion and save the world, the result is the still the same.

 

[fred flintstone]

I commend Evnlee for identifying the strategy long before most did. Nobody at CC told me this...I just know it...and I have no problem with what they did. CC had some under performing AMs that needed a makeover. AA was perfect for those stations, but said at the time I felt AA was doomed to fail for two reasons: 1) They were on bad sticks and 2) they were started with the wrong MO.

The wrong MO is that they were started specifically to provide liberal talking points...not to do great radio. Conservative stations in general were not started to carry out a politcal agenda. Conservative stations were started to win...get good ratings...make money. You may not like the politics coming out of the speaker, but their MO was pure. In the process they went out and found the best and most entertaining hosts they could find.

To answer Fred's question....yes I do think progressive talk could work...even though I feel AA is doomed. Hosts like Big Ed started out the natural way and grew organically. He started on a local station, using good radio basisc, got ratings, and was rewarded with a national platform. I was quoted early on in the Dallas News as saying they were "doomed to fail" and Big Ed confronted me in the lobby of a Washington Hotel, mad as hell. I explained to him that I was talking about AA, not about him specifically.

So far, the audience for conservative political talk has far outweighed the audience for liberal political talk. But election results and polls and surveys suggest the liberal demo and the conservative demo should be of comparable size. Is liberal talk like Oldies - a format stations can't sell (regardless of ratings)?

They could sell it if they get ratings. It is all a game of numbers. But keep in mind one of the true reasons Conservative talk works. It is the underdog. It may not seem that way to YOU because of your politics, but you should understand that most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press. They despise the NY times...and the TV networks. Talk Radio becomes their safe haven, where THEIR side is presented. Finally, somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling. It is what made Rush explode. Word of mouth grew, because the conservative listeners found in Rush a champion for their own beliefs.

It is also why conservative leaning stations like WABC, KVI, KSFO etc. succeeded in mostly liberal markets. Conservative listeners in THOSE markets felt overwhelmed and outnumbered, so when Rush et al came along, they found a champion fighting for their side. Rush was saying what they were thinking. Remember, you don't need MOST of the listeners in a market to win. If you get a 5 share you win, and that means 95% are not listening to you.

Some had said that station owners and managers are themselves conservative and either shun liberal talk because of their own views (not for business reasons) or their own political views cause them to assume that the audience is not there. Yes/No? Agree/Disagee?

I don’t agree. Radio management in general just wants to win, and if you show them a format that will work, they will support it.

AAR put themselves on some bad signals. And they put out a lot of bad product. But setting aside inept management and programming, could progressive talk work? If Sheldon Drobny handed you a bag of gold, could you make it work?

I am not sure if I could make it work, but I do believe somebody could make it work if you were able to create a really solid lineup of radio pro’s…if you stopped trying to use the network to extend your own political beliefs, if you understood it is all about entertainment, if you followed good sound radio 101 practices, and if you really had a strong programmer who was able to generate the respect of the staff and instill a will to win.

I for one hope they do surive for the same reason CC did. It gives me cover in New York when somebody complains that I am one-sided. I ask them if they call AA and ask them why they have no conservative hosts. I have probably hired more liberals on WABC than any PD in history. Most of them have failed because of “organ transplant rejection.” My listeners just will not buy it. However when I paired Ron Kuby with Curtis, my listeners like the give-and-take, as long as it was entertaining.

Pb

Pb, thanks for your reply. You'd be entitled to send a bill for consulting to some progressive talk programmers if they acted on any of what you said, but most don't seen capable of paying attention to radio horse sense.

I agree that the Curtis-Kuby interaction is great radio. I know it took the station several attempts to get the right pairing but this result seems worth it. The aforementioned WDEL has teamed Rick Jensen and Jerry Fulcher who are headed toward achieving that kind of liberal-conservative, Siskel-Ebert, Huntley-Brinkley, sweet and sour kind of chemistry.

An historical note: That kind of dynamic tension that can occur between two strong personalities (but often does not) has been "the big thing" in New York radio going back to Ed and Pegeen Fitzgerald on WOR c 1930. It was a winning formula then and still is - if/when you can pull it off.

 

[Scott in DE]

I agree that the Curtis-Kuby interaction is great radio. I know it took the station several attempts to get the right pairing but this result seems worth it. The aforementioned WDEL has teamed Rick Jensen and Jerry Fulcher who are headed toward achieving that kind of liberal-conservative, Siskel-Ebert, Huntley-Brinkley, sweet and sour kind of chemistry.

An historical note: That kind of dynamic tension that can occur between two strong personalities (but often does not) has been "the big thing" in New York radio going back to Ed and Pegeen Fitzgerald on WOR c 1930. It was a winning formula then and still is - if/when you can pull it off.

Fred, I think you are putting too much stock in that dueling personality scenario. I think it is very rare that you will find that winning combination. I put more stock in Phil’s statement here:

But keep in mind one of the true reasons Conservative talk works. It is the underdog. It may not seem that way to YOU because of your politics, but you should understand that most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press. They despise the NY times...and the TV networks. Talk Radio becomes their safe haven, where THEIR side is presented. Finally, somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling. It is what made Rush explode. Word of mouth grew, because the conservative listeners found in Rush a champion for their own beliefs.

I think Phil is exactly right! I said something similar here:

… there are very few other places for conservatives to get news and information in a manner they feel are unbiased. Therefore, when they turn on the radio and hear people saying things they believe, they stay tuned in.

Liberal bias is EVERYWHERE except most conservative talk radio. It’s in our schools! My son’s teachers are constantly making Bush jokes! It’s in our TV sitcoms! It’s on wire services whose news is read at the top of the hour on most radio programs, including Rush’s! If you look at Mark Levin’s official blog, you will see a Headline News section, which is straight from ABC News. Guess what? Right! Liberal bias news on a conservative host’s website!

I repeat, Liberal bias is EVERYWHERE!

That is why conservatives listen to conservative talk radio in such large numbers. Liberals feed their addictions everywhere, so they have no need to seek out talk radio. Like it or not, Fred, that’s just the way it is!

 

[fred flintstone]

Fred, I think you are putting too much stock in that dueling personality scenario. I think it is very rare that you will find that winning combination. I put more stock in Phil’s statement here:

But keep in mind one of the true reasons Conservative talk works. It is the underdog. It may not seem that way to YOU because of your politics, but you should understand that most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press. They despise the NY times...and the TV networks. Talk Radio becomes their safe haven, where THEIR side is presented. Finally, somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling. It is what made Rush explode. Word of mouth grew, because the conservative listeners found in Rush a champion for their own beliefs.

I think Phil is exactly right! I said something similar here:

… there are very few other places for conservatives to get news and information in a manner they feel are unbiased. Therefore, when they turn on the radio and hear people saying things they believe, they stay tuned in.

Liberal bias is EVERYWHERE except most conservative talk radio. It’s in our schools! My son’s teachers are constantly making Bush jokes! It’s in our TV sitcoms! It’s on wire services whose news is read at the top of the hour on most radio programs, including Rush’s! If you look at Mark Levin’s official blog, you will see a Headline News section, which is straight from ABC News. Guess what? Right! Liberal bias news on a conservative host’s website!

I repeat, Liberal bias is EVERYWHERE!

That is why conservatives listen to conservative talk radio in such large numbers. Liberals feed their addictions everywhere, so they have no need to seek out talk radio. Like it or not, Fred, that’s just the way it is!

Scott, I am not a believer in the superstition "is." Perception is reality. But I do understand your viewpoints and I think it has some basis in fact. We do find political correctness in a lot of places. I also think people on your side often over-estimate "bias" and dismiss anything that does not fit how they want to see things, how they want things to be or which is not good for their side as "bias."

I do agree with your safe heaven theory. It was shown a long time ago that people (liberal, conservative or anything else) go to the mass media for confirmation, not information. People look for what they want to see, see what they want to see and remember what they want to remember, and what people look for, see and remember is content that supports their existing views. (Selective attention, selective perception and selective recall.)

About Curtis and Kuby: Please re-read what I wrote. I was talking about specific programs. As I said, lightning does not always strike but when it does, it's great radio. Also note that what Phil (Realist and others) said about progressive talk. It applies equally to conservative talk or any kind of radio. It's all about entertainment. I understand that you think it's about political agreement (or saying the "right" things) but people won't listen to a personality just because they agree with him. On the other hand, people will listen to a personality if he's entertaining (even if they disagree with him). Remember the scene with the program director and the research director in Howard Stern's Private Parts. Number one reason people who like Howard listen: I can't wait to hear what he'll say next. Number one reason people who don't like Howard listen (and listened for a longer period of time): I can't wait to hear what he'll say next.

 

[Radio_Realist]

And I've seen conservative owners and managers get bitten by this bug - even worked for a few.

As Phil so accurately pointed out, "If you get a 5 share you win, and that means 95% are not listening to you." In an industry based on gross trends, and margins of victory between a winning station and losing station in ratings of only a few points, and where no station ever gets 100% or 0% of the audience, it should go without having to be meticulously explained every time someone makes an accurate general statement that there will always be a handful of exceptions. If every time anyone says anything to you that is an accurate general statement that is usually true in most cases, you have to respond with pointing out a few off-the-wall exceptions, then attempting to engage in conversation with you is pointless.

So, I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

 

[fred flintstone]

And I've seen conservative owners and managers get bitten by this bug - even worked for a few.

If every time anyone says anything to you that is an accurate general statement that is usually true in most cases, you have to respond with pointing out a few off-the-wall exceptions, then attempting to engage in conversation with you is pointless.

So, I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

Don't go away mad.

In my experience these people may be off-the-wall but they are not exceptional.
Political zealots are all pretty much the same kind of personality.

 

[Scott in DE]

I do agree with your safe heaven theory. It was shown a long time ago that people (liberal, conservative or anything else) go to the mass media for confirmation, not information. People look for what they want to see, see what they want to see and remember what they want to remember, and what people look for, see and remember is content that supports their existing views. (Selective attention, selective perception and selective recall.)

Calling it a "heaven theory" tells me you just don't get it, but that's OK. I don't want to beat this point to death. Others will understand.

Also note that what Phil (Realist and others) said about progressive talk. It applies equally to conservative talk or any kind of radio. It's all about entertainment. I understand that you think it's about political agreement (or saying the "right" things) but people won't listen to a personality just because they agree with him.

Oh, I agree there are boring conservative host, too! I would never suggest that all one needs to become a good host is to have a conservative ideology. But, for conservative listeners, that is a prerequisite!

On the other hand, people will listen to a personality if he's entertaining (even if they disagree with him). Remember the scene with the program director and the research director in Howard Stern's Private Parts. Number one reason people who like Howard listen: I can't wait to hear what he'll say next. Number one reason people who don't like Howard listen (and listened for a longer period of time): I can't wait to hear what he'll say next.

Although I've never seen Howard Stern's Private Parts, thank you very much, I must agree with your point! If you've ever listened to the Mark Levin Show, you would know that he has many liberal listeners! Mark says he takes their calls for the "entertainment" aspect! LOL! And it is indeed entertaining when he ends one of their calls with his signature phrase, "Get off the phone, ya big dope!" It's a riot! ;D

 

[fred flintstone]

Calling it a "heaven theory" tells me you just don't get it, but that's OK. I don't want to beat this point to death. Others will understand.

"Heaven" was a typo. I meant to say "safe haven." And the phrase came from Phil making a similar point to yours. Sorry for the confusion.

"Get off the phone, ya big dope" isn't exactly may idea of entertaining but I guess it works for Levin. I guess people's idea of humor has changed. I heard Steve Allen (my idea of entertaining) talk about this a few years ago. He said comedians don't tell jokes anymore. They take shots. And audiences don't laugh any more, they groan (and sometimes applaud).

 

[Scott in DE]

"Get off the phone, ya big dope" isn't exactly may idea of entertaining but I guess it works for Levin. I guess people's idea of humor has changed. I heard Steve Allen (my idea of entertaining) talk about this a few years ago. He said comedians don't tell jokes anymore. They take shots. And audiences don't laugh any more, they groan (and sometimes applaud).

You'll just have to listen to the show.

 

[fred flintstone]

You'll just have to listen to the show.

Tell you what: I'll listen to Levin, if you'll listen to Stephanie Miller:
Listen Live: The Stephanie Miller Show 9am-12pm ET Mon-Fri
She's funny.
She's hot.
Her old man was Barry Goldwater's running mate.

 

[Scott in DE]

You'll just have to listen to the show.

Tell you what: I'll listen to Levin, if you'll listen to Stephanie Miller:
Listen Live: The Stephanie Miller Show 9am-12pm ET Mon-Fri
She's funny.
She's hot.
Her old man was Barry Goldwater's running mate.

I will make an attempt! :-\ Progressive talk radio!

 

[kaufcom]

Conservative stations in general were not started to carry out a politcal agenda.  Conservative stations were started to win...get good ratings...make money.  You may not like the politics coming out of the speaker,  but their MO was pure.  In the process they went out and found the best and most entertaining hosts they could find.

That's interesting.  Then how do explain that the Republican party and White House talking points wind up on Rush's, Sean's, and other conservative hosts every day?  How do you explain so-called "radio days" at the White House and the Pentagon, where only right wing hosts are invited? How do explain why Cheney has no time to appear on CNN or MSNBC, but makes himself available to Rush?  How do explain why Rush said "he's not going carry the water" for Bush and Republicans "any more." 

Please explain to me how liberal talk is any more wedded to so-called "talking points" than conservartive talk radio.

Hosts like Big Ed started out the natural way and grew organically.  He started on a local station,  using good radio basisc,  got ratings, and was rewarded with a national platform. 

You've gotta be kidding.  Ed would still be yakking in Fargo if it wasn't for AAR's successful launch in April, 2004.  Besides, it was Ed who did the deal with Democracy Radio which was little more than a front for the Democratic Party. 

most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press.  They despise the NY times...and the TV networks.  Talk Radio becomes their safe haven,  where THEIR side is presented.  Finally,  somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling.

Your new to this board, but this nonsense doesn't work here.  Right now there is one liberal host on cable TV shows -- Keith Olbermann.  The last time I counted there were at least seven conservative hosts with their own shows. Your boy Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Neil Cavuto, Joe Scarborough, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck. Also, more people in NY put down two bits for the Post than shell out a buck for the Times.  Finally, I wouldn't characterize Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, or Rush's big fan Brian Williams as flaming liberals.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Then how do explain that the Republican party and White House talking points wind up on Rush's, Sean's, and other conservative hosts every day?

Great minds think alike.

Finally, I wouldn't characterize Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, or Rush's big fan Brian Williams as flaming liberals.

No, you wouldn't. But conservative radio listeners do, and it is their opinion that shapes what they listen to, not yours.

Please explain to me how liberal talk is any more wedded to so-called "talking points" than conservartive talk radio.

Generally speaking, conservative hosts will break ranks with the administration any time the administration strays from the conservative agenda. Even the hosts who appear to be totally committed to the current administration speak out against the President's immigration policy (or lack thereof). The thing is, the liberal political side, at this point in history, doesn't have any significant talking points other than knee-jerk opposition to the President. That makes it tough for liberal hosts to be for anything, since the current liberal agenda is nothing but opposition to the status quo, with no clear positive message about anything. The conservative agenda, on the other hand, is well articulated and agreed upon by most conservatives.

It's not a question of marching in step with a leader, it's more an issue of the conservatives independently deciding to head in the same direction. If it should come to pass that a single leader emerged from the liberal pack to articulate a clear, unambiguous and positive message (as happens from time to time) and/or the conservative side fragments in 2008 when attempting to select a replacement candidate for the President (which could happen), then the situation would reverse.

But it's not 2008, it's January of 2007. And like it or not, things are the way they are right now.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Radio Realist did a great job answering Barooosk, but let me attempt to weight in and help explain how this works. I am going to try to educate you. Whether or not you want to learn is up to you. If I happen to shatter your theories here, it would be more likely YOUR theories were wrong, than I am. That is because I do this for a living, and I know what I say is true based on fact and actual experience. What I say here is NOT just theory. What I say is how the world works. I hope you listen to me this time.

That's interesting. Then how do explain that the Republican party and White House talking points wind up on Rush's, Sean's, and other conservative hosts every day?

You need to look back at what I said. I said that conservative stations were not started to carry out a political agenda. They were started to do great radio, get ratings, and make money. I did not say that some hosts don´t support the Bush administration. I said there was not an agenda on the part of the owners to do so. Most hosts like those you mentioned have access to everybody´s talking points. They do tons of show prep. Then they form their opinions. But I can promise you without any fear of contradiction, those hosts you mentioned, and those on my radio station are NOT given those talking points, and are NOT told what to say. Those hosts understand that they exist to get ratings. THAT is their agenda. And as Radio Realist says, they do depart from the Bush agenda when they need to do so.

How do you explain so-called "radio days" at the White House and the Pentagon, where only right wing hosts are invited?

That is smart PR by the White House, thanking those hosts who have been supportive, and encouraging them to stay on board. Frankly it does not make me that comfortable either, but it is NOT part of a company agenda.

How do explain why Cheney has no time to appear on CNN or MSNBC, but makes himself available to Rush?

If you were Cheney, what show would you go on? Again, what I said was...the stations were not started with a conservative agenda to carry out, not that Rush would not decide to interview Cheney. If you were Rush, wouldn´t you do it?

How do explain why Rush said "he's not going carry the water" for Bush and Republicans "any more."

Bingo...you just proved my point better than I could, and I am so glad you thought of that. Doesn´t that blow your theory out of the water...that the stations were started to carry out some agenda? Did Rush ask anybody if he could take that stand? Of course not...so I guess the station owners, and syndicators ARE NOT controlling the talking points. Rush is....which is as it should be.

Maybe you were trying to say that Rush was TOLD to¨carry the water, and finally got fed up and refused to do it anymore. Think about that for just a second. I really want to educate you, although you may just be a hopeless loser. Can you imagine anybody telling Rush what to do or say? I mean really....who would that be? That person does not exist. If Rush WAS carrying the water, he was doing so of his own free will...and if Rush decided to stop carrying the water, he did that of his own free will, based on his own decision. If there is somebody out their pulling his strings, I really want to meet that person. Trust me...that person does not exist....never did.

Please explain to me how liberal talk is any more wedded to so-called "talking points" than conservartive talk radio.

Again, I did not say that...so don´t put words in my mouth. If you will go back and read what I said I was talking about the difference in how the two got started. Conservative Talk began naturally, filling a void. Progressive Talk was bank'rolled by huge Democratic investors, who wanted to carry out a liberal agenda, and almost admitted that publicly. If you can´t see the difference, I am wasting my time.


Quote
Hosts like Big Ed started out the natural way and grew organically. He started on a local station, using good radio basisc, got ratings, and was rewarded with a national platform.

You've gotta be kidding. Ed would still be yakking in Fargo if it wasn't for AAR's successful launch in April, 2004. Besides, it was Ed who did the deal with Democracy Radio which was little more than a front for the Democratic Party.

What successful launch are you talking about. The confrontation with Big Ed I talked about in the lobby of that hotel in Washington occurred in March of 2004, at the Talk Radio Seminar in Dc. It was well before AA went on the air. Ed was syndicated seperately, and before AA went on the air....so his being picked up and taken nationally was NOT a result of AA´s successful launch. By the way, I did not see a successful launch. They had one good month...April of 2004....and lost half their listeners by the next month and never got them back. There was a huge curiosity factor at the start...but listeners gave them a shot, and then left. I don´t see that as success. I am in this for the long haul.


Quote
most listeners of conservative talk stations feel they are outnumbered by the liberal mainstream liberal press. They despise the NY times...and the TV networks. Talk Radio becomes their safe haven, where THEIR side is presented. Finally, somebody is saying the same thing they are feeling.

Your new to this board, but this nonsense doesn't work here. Right now there is one liberal host on cable TV shows -- Keith Olbermann. The last time I counted there were at least seven conservative hosts with their own shows. Your boy Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Neil Cavuto, Joe Scarborough, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck. Also, more people in NY put down two bits for the Post than shell out a buck for the Times. Finally, I wouldn't characterize Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, or Rush's big fan Brian Williams as flaming liberals.

I am new on this board...so I don´t give a crap what some losers here say to justify their own positions. You are talking to somebody who actually DOES this for a living, and you can believe me or ignore me. I could care less. If you look at my quote again (you can read, right) you will see I am talking about what conservative listeners feel. I make my living knowing and understanding these people. I make a damn good living, so I guess I know more than you in my little finger. Not to be insulting, but I happen to SEE research. I am not in this for a personal agenda...I am in this for business reasons...to win. Since I have success, I obviously know what I am talking about.

Now, to your point. I don´t deny that there was a sea change in Cable TV about 10 years ago when Fox News Channel went on the air. But again, you do a masterful job of proving I am right. You just won´t listen to me. You want to cover up your ears and sing la'la'la. Conservative Talk Radio boomed in 1987 with the repeal of the fairness doctrine and the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Somebody smart figured out that if there was a hole on radio for this...there was a hole on TV. Those hosts you mentioned....ALL started after 1996. Wake up kid, you can´t be this slow. I am explaining to you how and why conservative talk radio works...and also TV. Or, are you like that guy in that Jack Nicholson movie...and ¨You can´t handle the truth.¨ In that case, why are you here on a message board discussing this topic? Do you just want to spout your own talking points, or do you want to learn something?

pb

 

[fred flintstone]

Conservative Talk Radio boomed in 1987 with the repeal of the fairness doctrine and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.
pb

Pb, I am with you on most of your post. But I think the impact of the repeal of the fairness doctrine is generally overrated. Ideology-driven talk radio was going strong in major markets since the early 60s: Wally George, Joe Pyne, Bob Grant and others. But the talk format was mostly limited to a relatively small number of large market stations due to economics and technology. Local-live talk is a relatively expensive format and few stations outside larger markets were in a position to try it. Technology made satellite syndication economically feasible. Technology improved the audio quality of long distance calls and made 800 call in numbers feasible. Syndication allowed more stations in smaller markets to adopt the talk format. If the fairness doctrine came back tomorrow, you might have to tweak things a bit, but you and your hosts would still be in business.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Good ANSWERS. Wrong QUESTION?

Can POLITICAL Talk work?

This conservative vs. Progressive discussion is useful, but describes a sub-sub-set of what-matters-to-Homer-and-Marge Diarykeeper.

Day after day after day, many Talk hosts talk about the same thing, as yesterday, and as-each-other.
Alright already.

Don't get me wrong.
Talk radio sure oughtta be the watering hole.
'Good place to vet the never-ending conversation about public policy.

But the relentlessness of "I'm-right-you're-wrong-and-that-makes-you-a-bad-person" radio fundamentally works-against how-Arbitron-works. The ratings are a memory test. On Wednesdays, diarykeepers are often thinking-as-far-back as Thursday. If Tuesday's show was the same as Monday's show, you just won't get all the listening credit you deserve.

And the anger that passes for "passion" is wearying.
The-later-in-the-day, the more-so.
At the risk of mixing cartoon metaphors: By afternoon drive, the listener is Dilbert.
The LAST thing he/she needs is a scolding voice.

Try this, as the litmus test for political topics: How likely is THE CONSEQUENCE OF the-matter-at-hand to:
a.) block Homer/Marge's path today?
b.) threaten Homer/Marge's wallet?
c.) threaten Lisa/Bart/Maggie?

If topic du jour can't connect those dots, it might not be a topic.
To "real people" keeping diaries, same-thing-every-day political talk is talk-about-something-somewhere-else.

When I hear a host say the word "partisan," I am likely listening to someone who has over-estimated the listener's appetite for politics.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[kaufcom]

I am not going to follow your MO of intensely micromanaging posts and saying in 1,000 words what you could say in 100 words. However, I note that you always have to remind all us peons how lucky we are to have you give us your opinion. You said.

let me attempt to weight in and help explain how this works. I am going to try to educate you. Whether or not you want to learn is up to you...because I do this for a living, and I know what I say is true based on fact and actual experience. What I say here is NOT just theory. What I say is how the world works. I hope you listen to me this time...You are talking to somebody who actually DOES this for a living, and you can believe me or ignore me. I could care less.

Nor am going to try to insult you like you have done to posters on this board. (Most of these insults have been deleted by moderators,) but you managed to put a few zingers in your response to my post.

I am new on this board...so I don´t give a crap what some losers here say to justify their own positions...I know more than you in my little finger...Wake up kid, you can´t be this slow.

Now I will respond to some of your comments

When I said that conservative talkers were just as guilty as liberal talkers to picking up on so-called talking points, you said.

I can promise you without any fear of contradiction, those hosts you mentioned, and those on my radio station are NOT given those talking points, and are NOT told what to say. Those hosts understand that they exist to get ratings.

In other words, your postion is trust me, I "promise" that my hosts are not doing this.

When I referenced the policy of the White House and Pentagon to host radio days (at taxpayer expense) only attended by conservative talkers you said

That is smart PR by the White House, thanking those hosts who have been supportive, and encouraging them to stay on board. Frankly it does not make me that comfortable either, but it is NOT part of a company agenda.

What one guy calls "smart PR" another guy could call this "blatant partisanship."

When I cited the example of Cheney only doing interviews with Rush and Fox News you said

If you were Cheney, what show would you go on?...If you were Rush, wouldn´t you do it?

Because Cheney, (who in veep of all the people) choses safe harbors to vent his views, seems to support my contention that the right wing media is following talking points.

When I cited Rush's statement that he will "no longer carry water for those who don't deserve it," you said

Did Rush ask anybody if he could take that stand? Of course not...so I guess the station owners, and syndicators ARE NOT controlling the talking points. Rush is....which is as it should be.

What! I never accused the station managers and syndicators of taking talking points...Only the hosts. And Rush confirmed that with his statement. Right?

Then you went on to make some kind of philosophical statement

If Rush WAS carrying the water, he was doing so of his own free will...and if Rush decided to stop carrying the water, he did that of his own free will, based on his own decision.

Yeah, whatever

Then you made some comments about Progressive radio that were patently untrue. You said

Progressive Talk was bank'rolled by huge Democratic investors, who wanted to carry out a liberal agenda, and almost admitted that publicly.

Not true. The original investors in Air America Radio, were certainly liberals, e.g. Sheldon Drobny, Evan Cohen, Doug Kreeger, but they hardly could be characterized as "huge Democratic investors." The so-called huge Democratic investors backed your favorite lib talker Ed Schultz, who was backed by Democracy radio.

When I said that Ed Schultz would still by yakking in Fargo, without the successful AAR launch here's what you

What successful launch are you talking about... Ed was syndicated seperately, and before AA went on the air....so his being picked up and taken nationally was NOT a result of AA´s successful launch. By the way, I did not see a successful launch. They had one good month...April of 2004....and lost half their listeners by the next month and never got them back. There was a huge curiosity factor at the start...but listeners gave them a shot, and then left. I don´t see that as success.

What are talking about. Are you making things up as you go along. First, before AAR launnced the only station that Amy Bolton was able to secure for Schultz was KTOX in Needles, CA. It wasn't until AAR had ratings successes in Portland, OR, San Diego, Denver and other markets, that Schultz took off by jumping on the bandwagon. How could they have one good month when the Arbitron book measures three months. In fact, in April, 2004, AAR barely showed up in Arbitrends. Lib talk ratings since that time have grown faster conservative talk ratings.

When I countered your claim that consevative talk radio took off to counter the so-called liberal media by pointing that there are seven openly conservative commentators on the cable news channels to one liberal commentator you said.

I don´t deny that there was a sea change in Cable TV about 10 years ago when Fox News Channel went on the air. But again, you do a masterful job of proving I am right. You just won´t listen to me. You want to cover up your ears and sing la'la'la. Conservative Talk Radio boomed in 1987 with the repeal of the fairness doctrine and the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Somebody smart figured out that if there was a hole on radio for this...there was a hole on TV. Those hosts you mentioned....ALL started after 1996. Wake up kid, you can´t be this slow. I am explaining to you how and why conservative talk radio works...and also TV.

So what you are saying is that media "seachange" which in your opinion started after 1996 (presumably after Clinton signed the TV and radio deregulation act.) that conservatives were able take their rightful dominant position, especially after the launch of Fox News. So you agreeing with me. There is no liberal media now. (If there ever was one.) and that the argument that conservatives need to dominate talk radio because of the liberal dominance in television and print is now moot.

Please feel free to share more of your wisdom, if you chose to reply to this post.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

"No good deed goes unpunished," eh Phil?

 

[evnlee]

Not true. The original investors in Air America Radio, were certainly liberals, e.g. Sheldon Drobny, Evan Cohen, Doug Kreeger, but they hardly could be characterized as "huge Democratic investors."

Baroosk,

Do you actually think about the stuff your putting up here, or are you just typing 'stream on unconsciousness?' I mean, really~ this statement is so factually untrue and absurd it almost defies belief.

Are you really going to say Drobny is not a 'huge Democratic investor'? Evan Cohen, the crook, is an 'investor'? Wow.