-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Change is Coming to Conservative Talk Radio
- Thread starter microbob
- Start date
brian65 said:
So what on Comedy Central is liberal? If you're going to say Jon Stewart, then I will call you on that since he goes after both sides.
The whole "liberal media" argument is dated in these modern times due to all of the choices out there. Actually it was Roger Ailes that perfected that term when he was media consultant to Nixon and his paranoia continued when he began Fox News. Even folks like Bill Kristol have admitted the "liberal media" excuse is used when conservatives lose. But there are those out there convinced the big three network anchors have a meeting every afternoon on how they will corrupt our morality during the evening news. But the network evening news no longer has the audience it once had because of the choices.
Speaking of lack of audience, that is an issue with conservative talk radio. When Rush started his network show he brought listeners back to AM, specifically the coveted 25-54 demo. However, the growth stopped for Rush and others like him and those very 25-54 listeners over twenty years ago are now approaching 50 and beyond, a demo no longer desired by agencies. Then there is the delivery system, AM radio, that have few using the band under the age of 45. Besides, Rush was unique 25 years ago. Now thanks to the internet he's no longer unique.
Finally the Republicans suffer the same issue CBS television had around 1970, they did well in rural areas and not so well with city folks. The Southern Strategy, another Roger Ailes production, no longer works as beating theses social issues into the ground has done damage.
When and if the Republican party is no longer lead by the likes of Rush, Newt or the gathering of Jesus Generals then it might have a chance. But as long as they do the Republicans will continue to live up to Poe's Law when it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.
radiorob2.0 said:
The "liberal media" excuse is scoffed by the very people who make it the truth. I am not in radio, but have worked in newspapers in central Ohio for most of the past 12 years and had/have way more blatantly left-wing colleagues than I care to count. It's the "I'm an idealist and want to change the world with journalism" naivete cycle that repeats itself ad nauseum.
Now while most of the left-wingers in journalism are on the news side, most of the sports people (like me) are either moderate or to the right. Odd how it works.
http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/audio-how-far-will-digital-go/audio-by-the-numbers/
Older listeners make up the biggest cohort of news/talk/information’s audience of more than 58 million people.
Listening to a radio broadcast or logging onto a radio website is the way 51% of Americans say they get their local news, according to a survey from Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The medium falls behind local television news (74%) and word-of-mouth (55%). Most often, adults between ages 30-65 turn to local radio.
Older listeners make up the biggest cohort of news/talk/information’s audience of more than 58 million people.
Listening to a radio broadcast or logging onto a radio website is the way 51% of Americans say they get their local news, according to a survey from Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The medium falls behind local television news (74%) and word-of-mouth (55%). Most often, adults between ages 30-65 turn to local radio.
What I never hear on Conservative Talk Radio is a discussion about the fact that gasoline prices around the world rise and fall in unison. To say that whoever is elected president will cause $2.50 a gallon gasoline prices (Newt Gingrich's promise)or $5.00 a gallon gasoline prices (what "Radio" said we will be paying if we re-elect Mr. Obama.)
It is interesting to note that without changing Presidents we have gone from the eye-popping gasoline prices of the season when the early primary elections were being fought out to the $3.11 I paid for my last purchase. Maybe $2.50 gasoline is around the corner after all? ;D
But "economists" love charts and if you can locate one of the charts that shows the rise and fall of gasoline prices over time and have a line on the chart to show the average price of gasoline in the U.S. over time and ALSO charts the price of gasoline in Europe, in the middle-east, in the far-east, in Africa and elsewhere, the lines on the chart will look like they were produced by some pantograph mechanical device we used to use before we had CAD to do our drawings.
Change has to come to Conservative Talk Radio. In it's present form it never discusses how "who is the U.S. president" affects the price of gasoline in London and Cairo and Ankara and Hong Kong.
Conservative Talk Radio was invented to bring the American people the truth, the "real skinny", the un-tarnished facts. I was doing Conservative Talk in the late 1960's and there was this wild-eyed idealism at work. We were the vehicle to save the world! Somewhere the train jumped the track. In the 1960s we were boldly revealing all the mis-truths, half-truths and lies that the Communists had been foisting on us.
Today it seems we need a new wave of young people full of idealism who will today reveal the mis-truths, half-truths and lies that Conservative Talk Radio serves up daily like a plate full of Tasty-Creme donuts.
Hopefully, change is coming to Conservative Talk Radio.
It is interesting to note that without changing Presidents we have gone from the eye-popping gasoline prices of the season when the early primary elections were being fought out to the $3.11 I paid for my last purchase. Maybe $2.50 gasoline is around the corner after all? ;D
But "economists" love charts and if you can locate one of the charts that shows the rise and fall of gasoline prices over time and have a line on the chart to show the average price of gasoline in the U.S. over time and ALSO charts the price of gasoline in Europe, in the middle-east, in the far-east, in Africa and elsewhere, the lines on the chart will look like they were produced by some pantograph mechanical device we used to use before we had CAD to do our drawings.
Change has to come to Conservative Talk Radio. In it's present form it never discusses how "who is the U.S. president" affects the price of gasoline in London and Cairo and Ankara and Hong Kong.
Conservative Talk Radio was invented to bring the American people the truth, the "real skinny", the un-tarnished facts. I was doing Conservative Talk in the late 1960's and there was this wild-eyed idealism at work. We were the vehicle to save the world! Somewhere the train jumped the track. In the 1960s we were boldly revealing all the mis-truths, half-truths and lies that the Communists had been foisting on us.
Today it seems we need a new wave of young people full of idealism who will today reveal the mis-truths, half-truths and lies that Conservative Talk Radio serves up daily like a plate full of Tasty-Creme donuts.
Hopefully, change is coming to Conservative Talk Radio.
From NYC to Los Amgeles & all inbetween
Conservative STAYS - Goes nowhere
Its the only Talk Radio that has ratings
Ratings = $$$$$$$$$$$$
Ain't goin ----- NoWhere bubba
Conservative STAYS - Goes nowhere
Its the only Talk Radio that has ratings
Ratings = $$$$$$$$$$$$
Ain't goin ----- NoWhere bubba
The point of this thread was that talk radio is aging and that it needs to attract a younger more diverse audience in order to survive. Just look at all the sports radio coming on in the new year. Advertisers are more comfortable with that format than they are with shock political talk shows which attract white males over 50 years old.
Radio Fish Heads said:
What you have stated is rather well accepted as "conventional wisdom". You will not find me suggesting that Liberal Talk and Neutered Talk is going to take center stage and push Conservative Talk Radio off into the orchestra pit.
But the question I do ponder is this: Has Conservative Talk Radio so pandered to the exremists of Conservative thinking to the point that it will begin losing ratings, but more importantly, losing the acceptance of today's advertisers. I am not advocating that the day is coming where the other partisans will push Conservatives to the side... I am seriously asking: Are we close to the day that "the marketplace".... audience, broadcast ownership, and advertisers will all say: "enough already!!! Our 230 year old experiment in self-government requires a bit more in the way of mutual respect among it's citizens... or it can't survive. Good self-government does not mean that only the people of ONE DOMINANT PART get to call all the shots. Good self-government means we all sit down around the table and work out something that works.
The surveys on the popularity of "Congress" tells us what we have isn't working. If we "double-down" on what we have... will we have something worse than "what we have isn't working".
Broadcasters.... even though in these discussion forums we like to question their intelligence and sanity now and then... are smart enough to realize that the "smart people" who know how to create a music-mix that works tend to work a bit cheaper than do the kind of people who can sit behind golden talk microphones. A good general knows which battles are not worth fighting so they withdraw from the battlefield. The question on the table: Is Conservative Talk Radio... as we know it today... a battle that is worth fighting? I think all three stake-holders.... broadcasters, advertisers and audience are smart enough to recognize when a battle has become too disastrous to continue going forward.
I don't see how you can call the schmuck that passes as "conservative radio" is really "conservative" in any way, apart from brainwashing people to protect the interests of major corporate bigwigs who don't want the lawy to make them install devices to keep their toilet paper mills from fouling more rivers and lakes. And to go against their own populist instincts by confusing their emotions and muddying up their brains. Kinda like what the one-party Soviet media did, and what you still get in China and N Korea.
"Conservative" thinking did not used to go out of its way to make enemies of everyone else - gentlemen could disagree, and even take colorful potshots at one another while doing so, but end the day sharing a drink with their colleagues who shared different views and represented different constituencies, but knew they were all part of a process that they shared. But this stuff that AM radio had dished out for the past 20 years, as Bill O'Reilley himself finally admitted, is just a bunch of highly paid actors saying the lines they are told to say by the public relations team at Heritage Foundation and the like, who themsleves get paid handsomely by billionaires like the Koch Brothers. It's a top-down scheme to rile people up and pull a few fast ones, and to get their daily talking point agendas out over a vast array of outlets that serve to enhance their bottom line and would make their John Birch founding daddy proud.
I don't recall any actual "Communists" ever having a voice in the American media, apart from some book-based idealism among a few of the Black Panthers and a few college types, who certainly never got a national dailly talk show. But the stuff you still hear coming out of the dozens of right wing cheerleaders echoes directly from the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and their pals. And some of their pal$$, like their allegiance, is not in the USA.
"Conservative" thinking did not used to go out of its way to make enemies of everyone else - gentlemen could disagree, and even take colorful potshots at one another while doing so, but end the day sharing a drink with their colleagues who shared different views and represented different constituencies, but knew they were all part of a process that they shared. But this stuff that AM radio had dished out for the past 20 years, as Bill O'Reilley himself finally admitted, is just a bunch of highly paid actors saying the lines they are told to say by the public relations team at Heritage Foundation and the like, who themsleves get paid handsomely by billionaires like the Koch Brothers. It's a top-down scheme to rile people up and pull a few fast ones, and to get their daily talking point agendas out over a vast array of outlets that serve to enhance their bottom line and would make their John Birch founding daddy proud.
I don't recall any actual "Communists" ever having a voice in the American media, apart from some book-based idealism among a few of the Black Panthers and a few college types, who certainly never got a national dailly talk show. But the stuff you still hear coming out of the dozens of right wing cheerleaders echoes directly from the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and their pals. And some of their pal$$, like their allegiance, is not in the USA.
Exactly, Schmave.
And that's one of the reasons I believe WHIO continues to be successful as other stations struggle. Many of them, and their owners, have cut their news operations to various degrees. It's the first thing most bean counters try to cut, because it's the easiest thing to do. And, IMHO, it's a big mistake to just take a financial machete to them. (Now, to be honest, I'm sure our bean counters are also looking at savings right and left. But, at least from what I've seen on my side of the fence, it seems like there's at least some desire to "protect the product".)
Years back, why did WING eventually go down the tubes? Yes, there was stiff competition from FM, no argument there. But the real, final slide (and I was there) happened when they dismantled the news department and took it down to one person on AM, one person on FM. For AM stations especially, I've always had a personal belief that those stations were "information" stations that played music between the commercials or when they had no information to impart. Take the news element away and there's no competitive advantage between AM and FM. And FM will always win.
Here in Dayton, WAVI had years when they were an 8 share station, and years when they were at a 3. (I have the numbers, so don't try to spin it, ok?)
If you could take the "politics" out of this format for a minute, and simply look at it as "product", like any format, newstalk will have good times and not so good times. It's a pendulum that always swings back. It's easy, if all you want to do is be partisan to look at the election returns and chortle, "Well, that rich, fat slob Limbaugh's gonna get his now!" But, those who do forget that long ago, in 1971, Rush, for instance, was a DJ who I would expect was making about $125 a week living on Campbell's Soup and Mac N Cheese. (I started in the biz professionally 3 years later at $80 a week, by the way.) He's still a performer. And many of you who look at this only from left/right forget that. Don't count any of them out yet.
Will "change come to conservative talk radio"? Absolutely. Those of you who don't work in it might be interested to know change happens all the time in it. And, lest you forget, the Rush's and Hannity's of the world get their best ratings when they have a liberal foil to rant against.
I've also read a number of articles lately that talk about a growing group of young, college aged conservatives. Could the next Limbaugh come from their ranks? It's possible.
Will the discussion change in some manner? I would expect so. It's the natural progression of things.
There will always be two sides to such discussions in America. That's what we're about. And talk radio will be there to talk about it...on AM AND FM. (Not to mention satellite and the internet. And radio will be there, too...unless I miss my guess.)
And that's one of the reasons I believe WHIO continues to be successful as other stations struggle. Many of them, and their owners, have cut their news operations to various degrees. It's the first thing most bean counters try to cut, because it's the easiest thing to do. And, IMHO, it's a big mistake to just take a financial machete to them. (Now, to be honest, I'm sure our bean counters are also looking at savings right and left. But, at least from what I've seen on my side of the fence, it seems like there's at least some desire to "protect the product".)
Years back, why did WING eventually go down the tubes? Yes, there was stiff competition from FM, no argument there. But the real, final slide (and I was there) happened when they dismantled the news department and took it down to one person on AM, one person on FM. For AM stations especially, I've always had a personal belief that those stations were "information" stations that played music between the commercials or when they had no information to impart. Take the news element away and there's no competitive advantage between AM and FM. And FM will always win.
Here in Dayton, WAVI had years when they were an 8 share station, and years when they were at a 3. (I have the numbers, so don't try to spin it, ok?)
If you could take the "politics" out of this format for a minute, and simply look at it as "product", like any format, newstalk will have good times and not so good times. It's a pendulum that always swings back. It's easy, if all you want to do is be partisan to look at the election returns and chortle, "Well, that rich, fat slob Limbaugh's gonna get his now!" But, those who do forget that long ago, in 1971, Rush, for instance, was a DJ who I would expect was making about $125 a week living on Campbell's Soup and Mac N Cheese. (I started in the biz professionally 3 years later at $80 a week, by the way.) He's still a performer. And many of you who look at this only from left/right forget that. Don't count any of them out yet.
Will "change come to conservative talk radio"? Absolutely. Those of you who don't work in it might be interested to know change happens all the time in it. And, lest you forget, the Rush's and Hannity's of the world get their best ratings when they have a liberal foil to rant against.
I've also read a number of articles lately that talk about a growing group of young, college aged conservatives. Could the next Limbaugh come from their ranks? It's possible.
Will the discussion change in some manner? I would expect so. It's the natural progression of things.
There will always be two sides to such discussions in America. That's what we're about. And talk radio will be there to talk about it...on AM AND FM. (Not to mention satellite and the internet. And radio will be there, too...unless I miss my guess.)
secondchoice said:
No wonder Broo keeps hyping that he is on Twitter. He also reads emails & tweets on air.
Is talk radio actually headed back to the '30's when announcers read letters aloud? How do you do that and keep people interested?
I forgot were the post was but someone posted that Hanity & Rush took it easy on Romney because of his ties with Bain which still has a great deal of influence with CC. I hope that is not true.
KeithE4 said:
I'm sorry I was not clear. I was thinking during the primaries. I seemed both Rush and Hannity brushed over that the Mass. health plan was the bases for the Demo's plan. So when Romney stated he would stop healthcare reform: The President had a debate point why would Romney stop his "own" plan.
IMHO Rick Santorum as VP would have done better. Herman Cain had he not have the scandal would have been President in January.
- Status