can Thom Hartmann save Air America?

[Al Johnson]

In my observation there has been very little of the "advance their own political views". Marx (Karl, not Groucho) and Lenin (not Lennon) each commented about the stereotypical capitalist who would sell the rope with which to hang him. A radio station is a substantial investment, relative to its marketplace, and not something to be used frivolously these days, one would think.

I am sure that managers who use a station to advance their political views do not think they are being frivolous. Maybe they consider this "public service." Maybe they believe the audience agrees with and supports their views (in all likelihood most local advertisers do). You might find Quall and Martin, "Broadcast Management" interesting for its "profiles" of people in station management.

The studies suggesting "news media leaning to the left" apply to reporters and editors of major newspapers and networks. The findings don't apply to owners and publishers or to local stations and newspapers. Even on major papers, often the editorial policy of the paper differs from the views of its reporters. It is human nature for people to label as bias news which does not fit their existing views. Because many leading journalists may hold liberal views, it is not necessarily true that those views cause these reporters to slant their reporting. If there is any bias at work, it is reporters' belief that bringing down a politician make a good story.

I see that every day, not just in the radio business. My left-leaning friends wouldn't think of reading a right-leaning political blog; my right-leaning friends wouldn't think of reading a left-leaning political blog. It's so easy to reinforce preconceived notions by staying insulated from other points of view. Sad but true.

I think the sad part is not that people who follow politics tend to be committed in their political views and seek information which will reinforce those views. The sad part is that most of the population doesn't care much about politics and doesn't may much attention, and they are the people who decide elections and policy (often casting uninformed votes for the most superficial of reasons).

I'm sure you realize that "number two non-music station in the [Madison] market" isn't enough to be considered a success. That station, in a left-leaning college town and a state capital, generally has half the 12+ share of the number one non-music station and with no demo pattern to brag about.

My recollection of the Portland situation is that it was a flash in the pan and that the station has settled far back in the pack. I don't know which San Diego station it is, but agree with you that that is "a traditionally conservative area". To do well there would certainly be swimming against the tide. Which station is it, and how has it done?

I know many people think the 12+ AQH "beauty contest" numbers matter. Beyond "bragging rights," they don't. That's why Arbitron makes them available for free.

The only true indicator of success is profit. A full service news/talk station may have a larger audience, may have higher sales revenue and still be less profitable because of higher operating costs. Liberal talkers and 2nd tier conservative talkers generally have smaller audiences, and less sales revenue but they are generally cheap to run and therefore can be profitable.

The progressive talk station in San Diego is KLSD. They generally get around a two share.

Yes, turning audience numbers into revenue numbers is a function of the sales department. Profitability would be good to measure but, as you note, we probably cannot do so here.

I did an online search. The Library of Congress has the BIA reports. If anybody is close to DC and wants to go look them up ...

And yes, the demo picture is key. But if you would agree that the age spread of any two talk stations would be more similar than different, we could simply look at the 12+ numbers which we are apparently allowed to quote here. On that basis, can you name even three markets where a left-oriented talk station consistently beats the leading right-oriented talk station?

To say that the left-leaning one can "have ratings comparable to (and sometimes beat) the #2 or #3 right-leaning one almost seems like an argument in support of right-leaning radio: "There are three of them and only one of us, and yet we are about as good as their second- or third-best."

What do you consider the leading "right-oriented" talk station? The full-service 50kw news-talk station which carries one or two syndicated conservative hosts among types of programming? Or the all or mostly syndicated political talker with a full schedule of right-wing hosts (which is much more equivalent to what liberal talk stations offer). People keep wanting to compare Air America to Rush. Apples and oranges. Air America is comparable to Salem.

The dominant full service news-talk stations are NOT all ideology, all the time. The comparison you are trying to make it not a valid one. In addition to a strong signal and format consistency (people have been listening all their lives), these stations often have a non-ideological blockbuster, local institution morning show. Morning drive is where a station makes money (or doesn't). Morning drive (with the largest audiences) has a disproportionate influence on average ratings (which cover the entire day, weekdays and weekends). Daypart ratings and not made public but Hartmann or Schultz could beat Rush and the averages would not necessarily show it (because, with a few "isolated" exceptions, morning drive is where liberal talk is weakest).

Yes, it is easier -- not necessarily better, just easier -- to follow someone else's proven path than to figure out one's own. But my curiosity is this: What tells you that there is "an appetite in the market for liberal talk [radio]"? Is it possible that the leanings to the left are already well-served?

Not in radio. Of course, some like to argue that other media and technologies are now available. But these same people often can't understand why fewer people are listening to radio (and those who continue to listen, listen less). The reason is market segments radio does not serve go away.

By the same logic, right-wingers should stop complaining about perceived "bias" in TV news since they are being so well-served in radio (and on their very own right-wing "fair and balanced" cable network).

 

[JbeJay]

Thanks, Al. I should perhaps rephrase my questions and ask again.

You might find Quall and Martin, "Broadcast Management" interesting for its "profiles" of people in station management.

I was looking for one or more specific, quantifiable studies which would support your contention about the political beliefs of station management, given that that is one of your central points.

In a way, this would parallel your request for another participant to point to Missoula audience ratings. It is better to have numbers, if available, than anecdotes; wouldn't you agree?

I know many people think the 12+ AQH "beauty contest" numbers matter.

I am not one of those people, by the way, but was simply offering what we have available in an effort to support your point or to refute it. What -- presumably to support your point -- would you suggest?

What do you consider the leading "right-oriented" talk station?

I thought you were the one who said that there may be a ratio of two or three to one. (I hope my reading isn't distorting what you were saying. Please re-quote yourself if you think it is.)

I am looking for examples of where a left-leaning station -- whether Air America or not, and whether one competitor or two or more -- is consistently winning the talk battle. To say that a left-leaning station does better than the second- or third-rated right-leaning station still falls short of a success.

I would be willing to accept historical examples, incidentally, if there is any reason why this may have happened five or ten years ago but is not happening today.

Thanks!

Jay

 

[Al Johnson]

Dear Jay,

I am not sure what you are looking for here. You already said it seems likely that people in station management, as business people, would tend to be Republican. And I cited a specific quantifiable study (even though from your earlier comment you do not dispute this issue).

I don't know what the ratings are in Missoula. I do know that in 23 other markets (rated by Arbitron) my statement holds. Evn claims I am wrong and wants me to buy the Missoula books to make his case. I mentioned a book which your public library can get, if it doesn't have it (no charge). The other studies I read in grad school would also be cited in text books (apparently you don't want to consider those).

Historical examples? Liberal talk radio was not around five or ten years ago.

You insist on wanting comparisons between a liberal talk stations and heritage, blow-torch, full service news/talk stations. That is not a valid comparison.

You keep coming back to simplistic statements like "winning the talk battle." Your logic seems to be if a recently-established, lower power liberal, all or mostly syndicated political talk station can't get higher 12+ numbers than a heritage, 50kw full service news/talk station with local personalities and ballgames then liberal talk is a failure. By your standard, sports talk is a failure in the "talk battle" because no sports talker beats the heritage, flame-thrower full service stations either. Neither does any "hot talk" station. Nor advice/lifestyle talk. Nor, for that matter, do the full-time conservative political talk stations.

I stated my view. You can accept it or not. I am not going to spend the weekend doing a research report to provide you with footnotes. If you want to explore the subject further, I recommend a graduate level course in Sociology of Mass Communication (or some similar title). But possibly, like a lot of managers, you already know what you think and you think progressive talk radio can't work. But just to make sure, in case some stations do come along an in a relatively short period of time (talk radio audiences take years to build) do carve out an audience for themselves and start to make money, you will still claim that station is an "isolated example" or a "failure" because it didn't beat WGN, KGO, WLW, etc. Sorry, Jay. Political talk radio is not a horse race, or even an election. Liberal political talk is not in competition with conservative political talk because they don't appeal to and try to reach the same listeners (just like Country stations are not in competition with Urban stations).

In your view, why can't liberal talk "win the talk wars?"
And what is your standard for "winning the talk wars?"

 

[JbeJay]

I am not sure what you are looking for here. ... I stated my view. You can accept it or not.

No problem, Al. I understand. Thanks anyway.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You and others claim liberal talk can't work.

Wrong. I (and others) claim liberal talk won't work on a nationwide basis in the majority of markets. I (and others) claim that liberal talk will never amount to being more than a niche product with limited appeal in limited markets. If you're going to refute what I (and others) claim, refute what we claim, not some erroneous misstatement (aka "a lie") about our position.

You say liberals don't listen to liberal talk.

No, I say that not enough liberals want to listen to liberal talk nationwide to constitute anything approaching a "mass market". Again, refute what I say, not something I didn't.

Guess what, most conservatives are listening to music, too.

Also correct. But, the segment of conservatives who prefer conservative talk to music, though not a majority, is still a large enough group to constitute a significant, nationwide market niche large enough to be profitable for broadcasters.

Do you understand the difference between a market segment large enough to be profitable and a market segment too small to be profitable? Do you understand the concept of "profitable"?

 

[Al Johnson]

Wrong. I (and others) claim liberal talk won't work on a nationwide basis in the majority of markets. I (and others) claim that liberal talk will never amount to being more than a niche product with limited appeal in limited markets. If you're going to refute what I (and others) claim, refute what we claim, not some erroneous misstatement (aka "a lie") about our position.

A "nationwide basis" is the frame of reference you keep using and within that frame of reference it has been your position that liberal talk won't work.

No, I say that not enough liberals want to listen to liberal talk nationwide to constitute anything approaching a "mass market". Again, refute what I say, not something I didn't.

You are picking nits. And you have made the general statement (which I took as a generalization) that liberals listen to music.

The segment of conservatives who prefer conservative talk to music, though not a majority, is still a large enough group to constitute a significant, nationwide market niche large enough to be profitable for broadcasters.

Do you understand the difference between a market segment large enough to be profitable and a market segment too small to be profitable? Do you understand the concept of "profitable"?

I say radio, like politics, is local. Stations are profitable or not profitable, not formats. I cite markets where liberal talk has worked and you call those examples "isolated."

Who cares if liberal talk works in a "majority of markets?" Half of the population in the Arbitron universe is in the top 25 markets. I recall a line a columnist wrote that Richard Nixon was the president of those parts of the US without bookstores. Liberals tend to be concentrated in those parts of the US with bookstores, good schools, selective colleges and universities and the kinds of businesses that grow up around them, better than average mass transit, mseums, legitimate theater, Szechuan, Hunan and Cantonese restaurants (not Chinese restaurants which use MSG and serve chop suey), where people say "white wine" (and not "chablis" unless they specifically mean chardonnay from the Chablis region), Trader Joe's or Whole Foods markets, and nobody would be caught dead at Wal-Mart. Notice the Blue areas on the map tend to be concentrated around such cosmopolitan cities and college towns. That is liberal talk's natural home and there it can be profitable if given a chance and done well.

Urban doesn't work in farm towns. Hispanic doesn't work along the Canadian border. Country doesn't work in New York. And there are places where liberal talk doesn't work, and places where it does except for management's blind spots about it.

The fact that so many people on this board keep talking about liberal talk, keep looking for evidence of liberal talk's failure (locally or nationally) and keep gloating when they think they have found it shows a deep and embedded hostility to the progressive talk format.

That's what I've gotten from your comments. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

And you have made the general statement (which I took as a generalization) that liberals listen to music.

I was alluding to an earlier series of posts that I made in which I went into great detail to explain the fact that marketing research showed that people who vote liberal tend to prefer music format radio. This research is one of the reasons why liberal politicians pick music format stations to place their campaign ands. I don't plan on re-posting multi-paragraph posts to bring someone who came to this forum recently with deep background on all that has been said before he showed up.

It is one thing to post a lengthy, thoughtful and detailed series of posts that carefully explain a position. It is another to have to do it all over again for some Johnson-come-lately.

Who cares if liberal talk works in a "majority of markets?"

The people who want to run a successful, nationally syndicated liberal talk network in the majority of markets nationwide care. This is a thread about "Air America", which was (and is) a business venture attempting to achieve success as a network with a profitable presence in a "majority of markets".

That's what I've gotten from your comments.

No, that's what you believed before I made any comments. Anything you read would have confirmed your preconceived notions, no matter what it was.

 

[Al Johnson]

And you have made the general statement (which I took as a generalization) that liberals listen to music.

I was alluding to an earlier series of posts that I made in which I went into great detail to explain the fact that marketing research showed that people who vote liberal tend to prefer music format radio. This research is one of the reasons why liberal politicians pick music format stations to place their campaign ands. I don't plan on re-posting multi-paragraph posts to bring someone who came to this forum recently with deep background on all that has been said before he showed up.

It is one thing to post a lengthy, thoughtful and detailed series of posts that carefully explain a position. It is another to have to do it all over again for some Johnson-come-lately.

Who cares if liberal talk works in a "majority of markets?"

The people who want to run a successful, nationally syndicated liberal talk network in the majority of markets nationwide care. This is a thread about "Air America", which was (and is) a business venture attempting to achieve success as a network with a profitable presence in a "majority of markets".

That's what I've gotten from your comments.

No, that's what you believed before I made any comments. Anything you read would have confirmed your preconceived notions, no matter what it was.

Jeez, RR, why do you keep wanting to (nit) pick a fight? ??? Save the arguments for a political board. Some of us just want to talk about radio. No winner. No losers. Nobody has to change anybody's mind.

There are 5 pages and 24 posts in this thread (plus all the other posts and all the other threads on similar topics). Sorry, I don't remember everything you've ever said.

A syndicated show does not need "a majority of markets" (your standard, not Air America's) to be profitable. And most of those make do with fewer than 150 stations (Arbitron rates 299 markets).

Why do I get the feeling you keep changing the frame of reference to whatever helps you win an argument? And you set the standards for success and failure the same way to make sure liberal talk can never win. Of course, that's pretty much how a lot of people in radio operate.

And then burden is on you as the writer to communicate clearly, not on the reader to figure out what you meant (certainly not to figure out what you meant based on something you posted three months ago). As a "professional communicator," you should know that.

 

[Radio_Realist]

There are 5 pages and 24 posts in this thread

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a short attention span was a prerequisite for participation in here.

Some of us just want to talk about radio.

So, do you have an Atwater-Kent, a Philco, or a Motorola? Do you prefer digital frequency displays or a vernier tuner?

 

[Al Johnson]

So, do you have an Atwater-Kent, a Philco, or a Motorola? Do you prefer digital frequency displays or a vernier tuner?

I said I wanted to talk about "radio," not "radios." But, what the heck...

I have CC Radio Plus and a Superadio 3.

I used have a Zenith C725 table-top tube radio like this which I loved.

I have never had an Atwater-Kent radio but I like their museum.

 

[Al Johnson]

[EDIT-inflammatory]

Sean, as I said, I am not here to pick a fight with RR or anyone. I mostly enjoy my exchanges with RR, whether we agree or disagree. I don't care much what he did or how long ago he did it. I respond to the points he makes. If I think a point is valid, I don't care about the resume of the person who posted it (same if I don't think it's valid). Apparently he is in Pittsburgh and that adds come context to some of his remarks. Beyond that, I don't much care.

Truth is radio is a business where nobody really knows anything. It's all a gamble. There is no winning formula, no magic bullet. He makes predictions about liberal talk based on his information and experience. So do I. So does everybody. Then we will see what happens. It's like discussing horse racing, except nobody here puts their money where their mouth is.

As I see it, on political boards you have people opposed to each other. But people are here because we care about radio and want to talk about it. Maybe you meant well, but if you want to make personal comments about anyone please include me out.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If I think a point is valid, I don't care about the resume of the person who posted it (same if I don't think it's valid).

That's also my philosophy regarding what is posted. However, I have an extreme bias against anyone who posts opinions and speculations that do not make sense but who expects them to be accepted simply because of his credentials. That's often very much like David Hasselhoff expecting people to accept his advice to actors about dramatic characterizations based on his experiences on Knight Rider and Baywatch.

But people are here because we care about radio and want to talk about it.

People might find this hard to believe, but I want terrestrial radio to succeed. I've watched radio slowly dying for decades because of too many people following the conventional wisdom that hasn't worked, and therefore tend to speak out against those who can't see that radio needs a change of direction if it is to thrive in the future.

 

[dampier]

If I think a point is valid, I don't care about the resume of the person who posted it (same if I don't think it's valid).

However, I have an extreme bias against anyone who posts opinions and speculations that do not make sense but who expects them to be accepted simply because of his credentials. That's often very much like David Hasselhoff expecting people to accept his advice to actors about dramatic characterizations based on his experiences on Knight Rider and Baywatch.

People might find this hard to believe, but I want terrestrial radio to succeed. I've watched radio slowly dying for decades because of too many people following the conventional wisdom that hasn't worked, and therefore tend to speak out against those who can't see that radio needs a change of direction if it is to thrive in the future.

You -do- have an extreme bias. For those of us who've been in this forum for quite awhile, it's patently obvious. You are one of those folks who has an odd obsession against Air America Radio. For some people on this board, the very existence of AAR is like some sort of allergic rash - the fact it exists just drives them crazy. There are failed radio talk show hosts who have tried to restart their careers running blog sites that pretend to be objective industry news sources, but in fact only exist to trumpet negative news about the format of liberal talk (Air America in particular) and obfuscate the positive. If that means running anti-semitic imagery when Al Franken was still with AAR, so be it. If that means falsely reporting that Randi Rhodes was being investigated by the Secret Service, so be that. If it means running false reports about criminal financial scandals involving non-profit organizations that gets you face time on Fox News, that's game as well.

It's nice to know that little changes around here among the anti-AAR crowd. "Ratti Rhodes?" Stations that flip formats away from libtalk who drop in the ratings have residual taint from Air America and are failing because they once ran the format? It's like we've relocated to the Atlantic City Boardwalk and we're watching champion taffy-pulling!

What is amusing to me is testimony from you about how you want radio to succeed and to break out of its conventions, yet when some stations attempt that by launching left-leaning talk, the ridiculing from you is endless. You can't get more conventional wisdom than the supposition that any talking-points-reading conservative talk show host is going to be a bigger success than anything from the other side of the political spectrum. I heard this before Air America and during Air America from PD's who launched the second and third-tier "barely network" conservative talk shows to compete against a dominant talker in the market and their ratings bombed in the process. I made this very point with WROC-AM in Rochester when they were running the leftovers and sloppy second B hosts that WHAM had no interest in (before AAR signed on). How about running something to counter-program against WHAM? There wasn't really anything political (except perhaps Leykis on a good day at the time) to run from the left, but there was always more lifestyle-talk. But those shows were all unproven, except perhaps on weekends (Ralph Snodsmith anyone?), and the only alternative would be business talk, and if that meant the Dolans, kill me now.

Most stations just seemed to have trouble dealing with mixed politics talk. Politics with the Shrink of the Airwaves they could cope with, but not in politics. That's still largely true - just look at the press kits for Alan Colmes on Fox Radio - it's sold to a CONSERVATIVE audience, not a liberal one. Now your listeners can play Sean Hannity Mini-Me and call up and harangue Alan on the radio just like Sean does on TV! The only saving grace for Alan Colmes are the bewildered liberals in the wilderness of the "red states that love Fox talk radio" who can't figure out why their local station is letting on a guy who isn't reading the daily e-mailed RNC talking points in between phone calls. ;D

When a complete lineup of libtalk became available through Air America, they signed up affiliates who now didn't have to run Randi Rhodes followed by Jerry Doyle. WROC signed and their ratings have stayed basically steady, and station management has made it clear they're happy with the format. It could stand some promotion and local talent, but they're making money with the ratings they've got.

What has consistently been the reality of this industry is that there are VERY FEW trailblazers. If it doesn't have a history, it doesn't get a chance. And when someone does manage to get something new that suggests potential success, most stations cookie cutter copy it to death and inevitably kill it off. 80's, Jack... you know the routine.

When Air America launched, it received an amazing response from my friends on the right who have told us for years radio is about business and not politics, right up until Al Franken's first day on the air when many of these same people considered the very presence of Air America to be an incursion and a threat. At all costs, Air America needed to be removed. Before it even signed on, we were told that nobody wants to listen to liberal talk (a grade Z local right wing host in Philadelphia had the nerve to say that to Randi Rhodes on Paula Zahn's show, while he was number 18 in the raings in his market and she was number one in hers, which she pointed out). And that kind of non-fact-based nonsense has been the staple of Air America attacks ever since.

Now whether it's Brian Baloney, who cannot withstand even the simplest of fact-checking, Matt Drudge and his allegations about Secret Service investigations which were completely false, or the occasional anti-AAR nonsense that claims to be part of intelligent and rational discussion of news/talk radio in this forum, it's the same song over and over again.

It's a mistake to make sweeping statements about the validity of liberal talk radio based on management decisions at radio stations that were towards the bottom of the ratings heap when they flipped. A lot of the stations leaped on like lemmings when Clear Channel flipped a bunch of stations and leaped out when some of those stations moved on to the next best thing. Most of these stations have management which seem committed to running turnkey operations that don't involve a whole lot of work. How many of these stations went from turnkey Air America to turnkey sports or paid "variety" programming? And how many of these stations enjoyed huge surges in the ratings as a result? I've not seen any.

So when the anti-AAR crowd finally realizes that liberal talk is here to stay, and will likely improve as more talent gets into the business and shakes out some of the less-entertaining hosts, perhaps we can get back to more rational discussion in here. To most listeners, they could care less whether it's Air America or Jones running Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller, as a full network or an a-la carte menu to pick and choose from. There is room for talk radio of -ALL- kinds and views.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Ed Schultz cited the following numbers when speaking at the Talkers Magazine New Media forum this past weekend. These are from a May 2007 study by the Center for American Progress.

Conservative talk--89.01 percent of political talk radio, 2549 hours and 57 minutes
Progressive talk--10.99 percent, 315 hours

The study also cited 50 percent of NPR listeners are conservative.

Listen to Big Eddie, and draw your own conclusions.

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/061107ShowOpen.mp3

 

[Radio_Realist]

The study also cited 50 percent of NPR listeners are conservative.

That makes sense. I'd wager at least 50% of NPR's programming is apolitical. One need not be liberal or conservative to appreciate Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers. And even though NPR slants their coverage of the news, they do a very good job of actually reporting news -- something that almost none of the commercial news/talk stations or networks do very well.

The thing is, NPR has ove 90 programs listed on their website. Would you care to tell me what the political content of these programs are? Which ones are "liberal"?

A Chef's Table
A Prairie Home Companion
All Songs Considered
Broadway Revisited
Car Talk
Classical 24
Creators at Carnegie
Echoes
Hearts of Space
Jazz Profiles
JazzSet with Dee Dee Bridgewater
Lost and Found Sound
Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz
Minnesota Orchestra
Performance Today®
Radio Diaries
Radio Expeditions
Radio Reader
Sacred Classics
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra
Saint Paul Sunday
Selected Shorts
Sound & Spirit
Speaking of Faith
Splendid Table
Studio 360
Sunday Baroque
SymphonyCast
Talking Plants
The Annoying Music Show
The Thistle & Shamrock®
The Weather Notebook
Theme and Variations
Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
Whad'ya Know?
World Cafe
World of Opera
You Bet Your Garden
Zorba Paster On Your Health

 

[evnlee]

Ed Schultz cited the following numbers when speaking at the Talkers Magazine New Media forum this past weekend. These are from a May 2007 study by the Center for American Progress.

Conservative talk--89.01 percent of political talk radio, 2549 hours and 57 minutes
Progressive talk--10.99 percent, 315 hours

The study also cited 50 percent of NPR listeners are conservative.

Listen to Big Eddie, and draw your own conclusions.

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/061107ShowOpen.mp3

ahhh yes, the Center for American Progress.....Surely they must be non partisian..Uh huh.

Why is it if someone uses a Heritage Foundation study, or a Kato study~ progressive types dismiss it out of hand? But if it comes from the CAP (run by John Podesta, Clinton's former chief of staff ), it's gold.

Same thing with media matters. If the liar David Brooks says it, it must be true: but if Brent Bozell says it, it's a damn lie.

Question the source.

 

[kaufcom]

Ed Schultz cited the following numbers when speaking at the Talkers Magazine New Media forum this past weekend. These are from a May 2007 study by the Center for American Progress.
Conservative talk--89.01 percent of political talk radio, 2549 hours and 57 minutes
Progressive talk--10.99 percent, 315 hours

Evnlee said

ahhh yes, the Center for American Progress.....Surely they must be non partisian..Uh huh.

So you don't think that conservative talk radio has a 10-1 advantage over liberal talk radio. You are right about that. They have 13-1 advantage.

 

[Al Johnson]

The study also cited 50 percent of NPR listeners are conservative.

That makes sense. I'd wager at least 50% of NPR's programming is apolitical. One need not be liberal or conservative to appreciate Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers. And even though NPR slants their coverage of the news, they do a very good job of actually reporting news -- something that almost none of the commercial news/talk stations or networks do very well.

The thing is, NPR has ove 90 programs listed on their website. Would you care to tell me what the political content of these programs are? Which ones are "liberal"?

A Chef's Table
A Prairie Home Companion
All Songs Considered
Broadway Revisited
Car Talk
Classical 24
Creators at Carnegie
Echoes
Hearts of Space
Jazz Profiles
JazzSet with Dee Dee Bridgewater
Lost and Found Sound
Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz
Minnesota Orchestra
Performance Today®
Radio Diaries
Radio Expeditions
Radio Reader
Sacred Classics
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra
Saint Paul Sunday
Selected Shorts
Sound & Spirit
Speaking of Faith
Splendid Table
Studio 360
Sunday Baroque
SymphonyCast
Talking Plants
The Annoying Music Show
The Thistle & Shamrock®
The Weather Notebook
Theme and Variations
Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
Whad'ya Know?
World Cafe
World of Opera
You Bet Your Garden
Zorba Paster On Your Health

The following shows on the above list are not NPR programs:

American Public Media
A Prairie Home Companion
Minnesota Orchestra
Performance Today®
Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra
Saint Paul Sunday
Splendid Table
SymphonyCast

Public Radio International
Classical 24
Echoes
Zorba Paster On Your Health

 

[Gnarlodious]

You -do- have an extreme bias. For those of us who've been in this forum for quite awhile, it's patently obvious. You are one of those folks who has an odd obsession against Air America Radio. For some people on this board, the very existence of AAR is like some sort of allergic rash - the fact it exists just drives them crazy.

Impressive essay, Philip. Thenk you!

 

[evnlee]

You -do- have an extreme bias. For those of us who've been in this forum for quite awhile, it's patently obvious. You are one of those folks who has an odd obsession against Air America Radio. For some people on this board, the very existence of AAR is like some sort of allergic rash - the fact it exists just drives them crazy.

Impressive essay, Philip. Thenk you!

Of course, Phillip, 'queen of the frontier' has no agenda. :

Plenty of folks on this board (like myself) enjoy GOOD libtalkers ( S Miller, Colmes ) but cannot stand the arrogant, untalented talent that AAR hired. Franken was an unqualified disaster, and in the end was forced to do his show in front of an audience because he couldn't get it done in the booth, and Springer's presence dashed the last hopes of a once proud liberal entity. The only one that showed promise was Ratsy, and that was because she earned her chops the old fashioned way. If she can get out of her contract, and move to Jones, she should ASAP.


Now we got 'on again, off again 9-11 nut' Lionel ( snooooore ) and Green's brother in the mix. Brilliant!

The hype running up to the launch and the subsequent fiscal and programming mismanagement destroyed the inertia that hard working Jones talkers had built. AAR hurt 'progressive talk ' way more then it has helped.