BRUCE WILLIAMS WANTS MORE LIBERAL TALKERS

[ABQTom]

Today, Thursday Oct 10, Bruce Williams said that he wants to see more liberal talk hosts. He discussed the imbalance among syndicated talk hosts, with more conservative hosts than liberal ones, and an audience of mostly conservative listeners.

But then Bruce said that he didn't like Al Franken on Air America, because Bruce says that Franken "has no talent (as a talk host on the radio)" ... although Bruce also complemented Franken, Bruce said that hosts like Franken ... those who have no talent ... are "bad for the whole industry."

And, Bruce also somewhat knocked syndication as a concept, stating that when someone gets 400 stations, then 400 local hosts lose their jobs.

Interesting to hear an old timer discuss the imbalance. I'd also like to hear what Bruce's financial advice colleague Bob Brinker would have to say ... given that Bob sides with moderate Democrats 90 percent of the time ... Bob and Bruce are lone, independent voices in a storm of radical talkers from both sides.

 

[raccoonradio]

there is indeed a need for good local hosts and the "best of the best" syndies. The reason there are
so many syndie hosts is that they're cheap to run (just feed off the bird...whether conservative or
liberal--or sports, just run all syndie all the time or mostly syndie)

>>and an audience of mostly conservative listeners.

Could be the more liberal ones prefer NPR, OR they're younger and prefer music stations/their mp3 players.
Talk radio listeners tend to be older, and many people drift Right with age.

While we're at the idea of adding more liberal talk hosts, let's put more conservative professors in
college, more conservative documentary film-makers, more rock bands who lean conservative,
more newspapers with a tilt to the right, more cable TV stations that tilt to the right...sorry,
couldn't resist However the success of conservative talk radio could be that it's a reaction
to the more liberal-leaning media elsewhere. A response.

but hey if libs can do compelling talk radio and make money, then great. It may take time...

 

[4dude]

Good for him!

I have liked bruce for along time

 

[smedge2006]

Bruce Williams is no "wishy washy" lefty and he's certainly not anti-capitalist. I think he sees a business opportunity that has been blown by Air America and ignored by everyone else. That doesn't mean it's down forever. Pioneers get arrows in their back -- but they're usually never the last word.

 

[raykroc]

Most left-wing talkers are boring and lacking schtick. Savage, Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin all have it. Franken was boring, and Randi Rhodes is an obnoxious Yenta. Trying to find a liberal with
savoir-faire is like trying to find [EDIT]


[EDIT-vulgar content]

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Most left-wing talkers are boring and lacking schtick. Savage, Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin all have it.

If one wanted to start an argument, one might say: "Most right-wing talkers are all schtick and short on wisdom and understanding."

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Most left-wing talkers are boring and lacking schtick. Savage, Hannity, Rush, and Mark Levin all have it.

If one wanted to start an argument, one might say: "Most right-wing talkers are all schtick and short on wisdom and understanding."

Stephanie Miller has lots of schtick. As for savoir-faire, how does the kroc think Ed Schultz gets the father of modern conservatism, Richard Viguerie, on his show regularly?

And for the benefit of those who haven't seen the latest audience information from Talkers magazine:

Ed Schultz and Bill O'Reilly are tied with 3.25 million listeners.

Steph, Thom Hartmann (Franken's replacement), Lionel and Randi Rhodes (the obnoxious Yenta as the kroc describes her) each have 1.5 million listeners.

The audience numbers rose while the number of progressive talk stations dropped.

If you put Alan Colmes in the mix (also at 1.5 million listeners)...with 39 talkers on the list of those having listenership of 1 million or more, 1 of every 6.5 talkers on the list is a progressive. Considering the limited number of progressive talkers as opposed to the myriad of conservative talkers, that's not bad for a format less than five years old.

But the telltale numbers are in the listenership per station. If you divide Rush's audience by the number of stations where his show airs, and you do the same for Ed Schultz, you're bound to get a shock to the system.

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

 

[kaufcom]

And for the benefit of those who haven't seen the latest audience information from Talkers magazine:
Ed Schultz and Bill O'Reilly are tied with 3.25 million listeners.
Steph, Thom Hartmann (Franken's replacement), Lionel and Randi Rhodes (the obnoxious Yenta as the kroc describes her) each have 1.5 million listeners.The audience numbers rose while the number of progressive talk stations dropped.

There is absolutely no way that Schultz has more than twice as many listeners as Randi, Steph, and Thom. There's also no way that listenership among the top four lib talkers is up 8% to 20% (since the fall Arbitron survey) for the following reasons

• 22 stations have dropped the format in the ensuing six months
• overall lib talk ratings (on the remained stations) is down 12%
• AAR is still trying to regroup following the devatation of a bankuptcy

Schultz was not the number talker during the Spring. He came in third according to the Talking Radio survey.

 

[Gnarlodious]

Graffiti...

Bruce Williams may see the writing on the wall. Conservative talkers have had a 25 year post-Reagan run of it and all they have accomplished a corporate-media monopoly. At this point, conservative talkers don't have anything new to say except for attacking liberas on everyday issues. The absolute panic I hear among conservative talkers is a dead giveaway. Their "True Believer" format is doomed, and they need to learn a new gimmick. Look at Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann, who feature well-behaved sensibel political debate. That is what conservatives need to cultivate.

In all fairness, Michael Savage occasionally has a liberal guest, who he treats with the utmost respect. But he has ulterior motives even then.

 

[smedge2006]

Their "True Believer" format is doomed,

I think the way it goes out is not a disappearance of audience, but an aging of the hardcore listeners out of prime demos. Many of the AM conservatalkers that are moving to FM find they haven't done anything but move their existing audience (or a chunk of their existing audience) to the new band. They aren't finding new listeners.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

And for the benefit of those who haven't seen the latest audience information from Talkers magazine:
Ed Schultz and Bill O'Reilly are tied with 3.25 million listeners.
Steph, Thom Hartmann (Franken's replacement), Lionel and Randi Rhodes (the obnoxious Yenta as the kroc describes her) each have 1.5 million listeners.The audience numbers rose while the number of progressive talk stations dropped.

There is absolutely no way that Schultz has more than twice as many listeners as Randi, Steph, and Thom. There's also no way that listenership among the top four lib talkers is up 8% to 20% (since the fall Arbitron survey) for the following reasons

• 22 stations have dropped the format in the ensuing six months
• overall lib talk ratings (on the remained stations) is down 12%
• AAR is still trying to regroup following the devatation of a bankuptcy

Schultz was not the number talker during the Spring. He came in third according to the Talking Radio survey.

Baroosk...we're on the same side here. Talkers magazine has been around for a while. The numbers may disagree with the research posted on your blog, but progressive talkers apparently have done something miraculous by increasing the audience with a decreasing number of affiliates.

You can't win arguments if you oppose the people trying to give you ammunition. If you wish to challenge Talkers magazine, then e-mail Talkers magazine. But don't kill the fellow progressive messenger.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

Not all lib talkers are on liberal talk formatted stations either. For example, WJNO in West Palm Beach runs Beck, Rush, Hannity, Schultz and Rhodes.

 

[kaufcom]

Baroosk...we're on the same side here. Talkers magazine has been around for a while. The numbers may disagree with the research posted on your blog, but progressive talkers apparently have done something miraculous by increasing the audience with a decreasing number of affiliates.You can't win arguments if you oppose the people trying to give you ammunition. If you wish to challenge Talkers magazine, then e-mail Talkers magazine. But don't kill the fellow progressive messenger.

Really, you think Talkers Magazine is some kind messenger for cause of liberal talk radio. I subscribe to Talkers and here's what I have been subjected to over the past eight months.

• Regular columns penned by conservative talkers like Mike Gallagher, Lars Larsen, Darrell Ankarlo, and Phil Valentine, who spend most their time dumping on lib talk and pushing right-wing talk issues. They never run columns by left wing talkers.
  
• A story about the benefits of political activism to talk radio including quotes from 22 quotes right wing talkers and conservative talk stations PDs. Yes they had one quote from lib talker Randi Rhodes to balance things out.
  
• Articles blasting MSNBC and CBS for dumping Don Imus after the talker's infamous “nappy headed hos” comment and criticizing politicians for allegedly supporting the Fairness Doctrine.
  
• Two cover stories defending the Israeli government, which were financed by a Zionist organization called “America’s Voices for Israel,” which pays talk radio hosts to go to Israel. Question, what does this have to do with talk radio in America? Talkers Publisher, Michael Harrison, is on the board of directors of AVI
  
• An article by right-wing talk show host, John Ziegler, with KFI in Los Angeles' about how he (with the help of Michelle Malkin and Matt Drudge) was responsible for disclosing the gaffe (actually a poorly delivered joke) made by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), about how young people could get “stuck in Iraq” unless they finished their education.
  
• A puff piece on “White House Media Day” where only right wing talk hosts were invited to interview Bush administration spokesman like former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld and former Bush Sr. Advisor Karl Rove.

And then there's the ubiquitous Harrison, the publisher of Talkers, who when he is not releasing bogus rankings of talk radio hosts, is always available to make a comment to the media. Here are a few that he has made about lib talk.

“[They] continue to be presenting themselves as some sort of political campaign."

"I don't think they have as much of a chance if their political agenda supersedes their business agenda,"

“There aren’t that many successful liberals in radio because there aren’t that many good ones. That’s all it is.”

There is no way that I am going to email Talkers, with my criticism about their ratings system. The chances that they would publish such a comment are “slim” and “none.”

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Baroosk...we're on the same side here. Talkers magazine has been around for a while. The numbers may disagree with the research posted on your blog, but progressive talkers apparently have done something miraculous by increasing the audience with a decreasing number of affiliates.You can't win arguments if you oppose the people trying to give you ammunition. If you wish to challenge Talkers magazine, then e-mail Talkers magazine. But don't kill the fellow progressive messenger.

Really, you think Talkers Magazine is some kind messenger for cause of liberal talk radio. I subscribe to Talkers and here's what I have been subjected to over the past eight months.

• Regular columns penned by conservative talkers like Mike Gallagher, Lars Larsen, Darrell Ankarlo, and Phil Valentine, who spend most their time dumping on lib talk and pushing right-wing talk issues. They never run columns by left wing talkers.
  
• A story about the benefits of political activism to talk radio including quotes from 22 quotes right wing talkers and conservative talk stations PDs. Yes they had one quote from lib talker Randi Rhodes to balance things out.
  
• Articles blasting MSNBC and CBS for dumping Don Imus after the talker's infamous “nappy headed hos” comment and criticizing politicians for allegedly supporting the Fairness Doctrine.
  
• Two cover stories defending the Israeli government, which were financed by a Zionist organization called “America’s Voices for Israel,” which pays talk radio hosts to go to Israel. Question, what does this have to do with talk radio in America? Talkers Publisher, Michael Harrison, is on the board of directors of AVI
  
• An article by right-wing talk show host, John Ziegler, with KFI in Los Angeles' about how he (with the help of Michelle Malkin and Matt Drudge) was responsible for disclosing the gaffe (actually a poorly delivered joke) made by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), about how young people could get “stuck in Iraq” unless they finished their education.
  
• A puff piece on “White House Media Day” where only right wing talk hosts were invited to interview Bush administration spokesman like former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld and former Bush Sr. Advisor Karl Rove.

And then there's the ubiquitous Harrison, the publisher of Talkers, who when he is not releasing bogus rankings of talk radio hosts, is always available to make a comment to the media. Here are a few that he has made about lib talk.

“[They] continue to be presenting themselves as some sort of political campaign."

"I don't think they have as much of a chance if their political agenda supersedes their business agenda,"

“There aren’t that many successful liberals in radio because there aren’t that many good ones. That’s all it is.”

There is no way that I am going to email Talkers, with my criticism about their ratings system. The chances that they would publish such a comment are “slim” and “none.”

When I was referring to the fellow progressive messenger, I was referring to yours truly.

Your commentary is one reason why I have been at odds with some of the leaders of Ohio Majority Radio in the past.

As more and more radio listeners turn left of center (which definitely describes me), alienating the people who are gradually coming to your corner is not the way to launch a ground swell against the radical right.

If you wish to channel your anger in a way that unifies lefties, may I suggest you take out your frustrations here. I can use some help:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,82924.20.html

 

[mred]

Williams sounds like Deputy Dog in the cartoons

 

[ABQTom]

"Two cover stories defending the Israeli government, which were financed by a Zionist organization called “America’s Voices for Israel,” which pays talk radio hosts to go to Israel. Question, what does this have to do with talk radio in America? Talkers Publisher, Michael Harrison, is on the board of directors of AVI"

Don't answer these questions on the board, but consider:

What in the world does this have to do with Bruce Williams and his comments on liberal talk radio?

OK, so some talk hosts visited Israel, what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with being a Zionist? What is wrong with being a Jew? What is wrong with being a Zionist Jew?

These conspiracies that Zionist Jews are behind everything are ridiculous. Listen to John Rothmann on KGO in San Francisco, a Liberal Zionist Jew who wants a peaceful solution to all the Middle East issues. I doubt that the talk hosts that went to Israel, who are probably conservative, want to refrain from using nukes over there.

 

[Don62]

Not all lib talkers are on liberal talk formatted stations either. For example, WJNO in West Palm Beach runs Beck, Rush, Hannity, Schultz and Rhodes.

I think that's a good mix. Nothing wrong with mixing it up a little, much like a music station ( say, oldies ) running a Beatles rocker (She Loves You) in one song, then a ballad by Elvis (Love Me Tender), then a Beach Boys midtempo song (Wouldn't It Be Nice), then a pop ditty by the Supremes (Come See About Me), an early 70s pop-rocker (Creedance or Ride Captain Ride), then Chuck Berry (Sweet Little Sixteen), then a an oldie sgem by the Temptations (My Girl), then a Bobby Darin ballad (Beyond The Sea), followed by a lesser-known side, such as Itchycoo Park by the Small Face, etc.

Or a "lite hits" station running a syndicated oldies show on Saturday nights or early Sunday a.m.

Hearing Gordon Elliot ("mate") after Rush's show was done didn't make me change to a music station, unless the station went to sports talk (how boring) in the afternoon.

I didn't also cringe when I heard Bob Lassiter at nights on WLS.

Or Ken Hamblin during the 1980s when he was more left of center.

 

[Don62]

Williams sounds like Deputy Dog in the cartoons

That's an incredibly low blow and unfair attack on one of the pioneers of syndicated talk radio, fella.

 

[Gnarlodious]

• Two cover stories defending the Israeli government, which were financed by a Zionist organization called “America’s Voices for Israel,” which pays talk radio hosts to go to Israel. Question, what does this have to do with talk radio in America? Talkers Publisher, Michael Harrison, is on the board of directors of AVI

Somehow that grassroots campaign seems irrelevant compared to the billions of petrodollars spent on anti-Israel propaganda. Oh and did I mention that those petrodollars come out of what you are paying to fill your tank?

But what really surprises me is the general sentiment towards Michael Harrison. You are complainng that he is conservative and anti-liberal. I recently had a threat to delete the Wikipedia article on Michael Harrison. It seems the article was vandalized by conservatives who accuse him of being liberal. In my opinion, he is an independent thinker, and an objective talk radio reporter.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

• Two cover stories defending the Israeli government, which were financed by a Zionist organization called “America’s Voices for Israel,” which pays talk radio hosts to go to Israel. Question, what does this have to do with talk radio in America? Talkers Publisher, Michael Harrison, is on the board of directors of AVI

Somehow that grassroots campaign seems irrelevant compared to the billions of petrodollars spent on anti-Israel propaganda. Oh and did I mention that those petrodollars come out of what you are paying to fill your tank?

But what really surprises me is the general sentiment towards Michael Harrison. You are complainng that he is conservative and anti-liberal. I recently had a threat to delete the Wikipedia article on Michael Harrison. It seems the article was vandalized by conservatives who accuse him of being liberal. In my opinion, he is an independent thinker, and an objective talk radio reporter.

For the record, the comments on Michael Harrison aren't mine. I never knew who the guy was until the response from baroosk.