• 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

CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO HELPS K-O MIERS

M

mwebster

Guest
From Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz:
<blockquote>Conservative Pundits Packed a Real Punch
Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn't sink the Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the debate and provided the passion that undermined her case...

This time, no one can blame the liberal media. And what made the right's revolt all the more remarkable was that its opinion-mongering wing didn't simply stand in polite opposition to Miers. Its troops hit the trenches, attacked Miers as unqualified, ripped President Bush for cronyism and in some cases raised money to defeat the nomination.</blockquote>
Click Here for Full Article

Kurtz' article says conservative talk radio hosts, including Laura Ingraham (TRN) and Rush Limbaugh (Premiere Radio), along with Fox News and various newspaper columnists served to galvanize and rally conservative opposition to Harriet Miers' nomination.

Observations:
<ul>
[*]Conservative talk radio continues to show its political clout - its ability to rally the troops. Conservative talk radio may only be "preaching to the choir," but it gets the choir to sing.
[*]Bush can not count on the support of the religious right and of populist conservatives. He is not one of them. In effect, they hired him to advance their agendas, but their support is for the agenda, not for him. When push comes to shove, they trust and identify with conservative talk radio and other conservative pundits more than Dubya.
[*]Progressive talk radio has not shown a corresponding ability to call its core constituency to action. If the two main providers of progressive talk programming were founded to advance the liberal political agenda, they have done little so far to demonstrate an ability to influence the political process and justify the faith (and donations) of those who bankrolled them.
[/list]
 
> Conservative talk radio continues to show its political
> clout - its ability to rally the troops. Conservative talk
> radio may only be "preaching to the choir," but it gets the
> choir to sing.

Most of the "opposition" acknowledged by those insider pundits indicates the opposition to Miers came from right wing columnists, not talk radio. Will, Krauthammer, Kristol and others are not talk show hosts. That right wing talk shows would have them on as guests or played clips isn't the same thing. Further, pundits can't have it both ways. They told us that the Miers controversy wasn't much of a scandal outside of the beltway and a lot of those supporting her (and a LOT of elected officials) indicated their phone lines were hardly burning up with anti-Miers calls.

Further, the ultimate reason of her demise is far more local - her inability to gain the confidence of the GOP members of the Senate. After her do-over homework and several flubs in how the entire thing was handled, it was decided to pull the nomination (especially after Frist warned the White House the nomination was going down like the Titanic.)

> Bush can not count on the support of the religious right and
> of populist conservatives. He is not one of them. In
> effect, they hired him to advance their agendas, but their
> support is for the agenda, not for him. When push comes to
> shove, they trust and identify with conservative talk radio
> and other conservative pundits more than Dubya.

That -may- reflect the views of a portion of the base, but there are still a ton of supporters that would support this guy even if he ran over their kids. A lot of this "rage" came from a select few columnists and psuedo-Christians that made a lot of noise.

> Progressive talk radio has not shown a corresponding ability
> to call its core constituency to action. If the two main
> providers of progressive talk programming were founded to
> advance the liberal political agenda, they have done little
> so far to demonstrate an ability to influence the political
> process and justify the faith (and donations) of those who
> bankrolled them.

This is too cute by half. We are expected to sit back and simply accept the flawed assertion that blue collar Limbaugh-type listeners burned down this nomination by supposedly pelting their senators with phone calls against her. Then it turns out the heart of the opposition was more closely aligned with the National Review subscription list, which is hardly a majority.

How many anti-Miers letters have people seen from John Q. Public in local papers? I'd venture not a whole huge number. Katrina or Miers. Energy prices or Miers. Plamegate or Miers.

As to the effect of progressive talk radio, for something around a year old, I'm not sure what people expect, but I can give you one name - Cindy Sheehan. Her movement would have gone nowhere without the coordination of protests and regular appearances by Sheehan on Air America and Jones talk shows. I can also say the recent moveon.org 2,000 dead in Iraq protest drew plenty of protestors in cities across the country, in part organized by talk radio shows.

Since you are a perennial critic of Air America, your conclusions are hardly breathtaking.
 
>
> Since you are a perennial critic of Air America, your
> conclusions are hardly breathtaking.
>
By that logic, since you are a perennial apologist for AAR, then your conclusions must not be breathtaking either.

My comments applied to AAR, Democracy Radio and various local hosts. Keep in mind I am not critic of DR (although lately, IMHO, they have been taking their time in "developing" any additional progressive talk radio programming).
<ul>
[*]Progressive talk did not appear to make much of a difference in the 2004 election.
[*]Progressive talk has not triggered massive letter writing campaigns or protests.
[*]Cindy Sheehan's "camp in" was already well underway and getting substantial news media attention before progressive talk radio (DR's Ed Schultz first, then AAR rather belatedly) woke up and joined the party.
[*]Progressive talk radio has yet to have anything remotely approaching Mike Siegal's "tea party."
[/list]
Reality does not always conform to your wishes or mine. I wish progressive talk radio had had a "tea party" event. The "tea party" protest - even more than Rush - put conservative talk radio on the map as a social and political force. They need to offer more than smart ass comments. They need to engage their listeners in a way that captures the attention of and speaks to the great middle. So far, they've only gotten attention through mismanagement.

Progressive talk radio has problems: Business problems. Programming problems. And impact problems. You have to decide whether you want to score debating points with conservatives who can't stand the idea of a diversity of viewpoints in radio (or anywhere else) or have progressive talk radio get its act together and succeed.
 
There's an interesting angle to this that neither my neighbor Mr. Dampier or Mr. Webster has touched on, which is the relationship between ratings and influence.

If you accept mwebster's assertion that conservative talk radio played a role in the failure of the Miers nomination, I think you have to accept that the shows that were most responsible (Laura Ingraham seems to be the name most in play here) were the ones on the relatively low-rated Salem talk lineup, not the heavier ratings hitters like Limbaugh and Hannity.

(Limbaugh, as best I can make out, initially panned the Miers nomination as "disappointing," then allowed the administration to present its side of the issue; we don't get the Salem lineup here, so I can't claim any firsthand observation of its hosts.)

But if the Salem talkers did have an influence on the nomination, it was from a platform with ratings as low as (and in some markets, even lower than) the numbers progressive talk's been posting, and in most cases with signals just as bad or worse. In the case of Washington itself, there's no outlet at all for the Salem talk lineup, which is only marginally worse than the miserable signal the progressive talker, WWRC 1260, puts over a portion of the market.

That, in turn, raises an interesting question: if those talkers can have an influence out of proportion to their minuscule ratings, can progressive talk do the same?

(All that said, I do tend to agree with Phil that the real political pressure from the right against the Miers nomination came far more from the print columnists and the bloggers than from radio.)<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
> There's an interesting angle to this that neither my
> neighbor Mr. Dampier or Mr. Webster has touched on, which is
> the relationship between ratings and influence.
>
> If you accept mwebster's assertion that conservative talk
> radio played a role in the failure of the Miers nomination,
> I think you have to accept that the shows that were most
> responsible (Laura Ingraham seems to be the name most in
> play here) were the ones on the relatively low-rated Salem
> talk lineup, not the heavier ratings hitters like Limbaugh
> and Hannity.

BUT! (ignoring for the moment that Ingraham's not a Salem host, but appears on Salem stations, as well as some CC stations), the anti-Miers cannot be as clear-cut as you state: Salem's Hugh Hewitt was one of Miers' biggest backers.

And I think this is where ideology and party gets mixed up--Salem has religious undertones in its talk programming, but the hosts are pretty Republican Party-line. Not necessarily conservative: Hewitt and Bennett tend to side with the Party to sustain the Party and its majority. Cf. Limbaugh, who has no problem raking Bush over the coals for non-conservative principles, like the glut of federal spending. Limbaugh is anti-liberal, but not necessarily pro-Republican.

As Dampier mentioned, National Review was pretty much dead-set against her, as were others in the conservative movement, like Bill Kristol, Will, Chuck Krauthammer.

But the supposed conservative base (religious) *were* behind the nomination--see James Dobson's advice, and Miers' own evangelical beliefs being touted.

The problem is that the Republicans have not one "base" but several, who at any given moment may be opposed to one another: the conservatives (social and economic), the evangelicals (social only--they're pretty pro-spending), the war-hawks (deficit spending), the fiscalists (restraint, see, e.g., Cornyn, Voinovich, et al.), and the libertarians (strict fiscal, lax social).

The problem we run into is when Bush tries too hard to appease one of these bases over another--e.g., the evangelicals with Miers. All the other groups WANT to support the President, but he let them down. And when you can't even get the PARTY (an amalgam of all the above groups) to agree, that's problematic.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but I thought it was an important point to make.
 
> There's an interesting angle to this that neither my
> neighbor Mr. Dampier or Mr. Webster has touched on, which is
> the relationship between ratings and influence.
>
> If you accept mwebster's assertion that conservative talk
> radio played a role in the failure of the Miers nomination,
> I think you have to accept that the shows that were most
> responsible (Laura Ingraham seems to be the name most in
> play here) were the ones on the relatively low-rated Salem
> talk lineup, not the heavier ratings hitters like Limbaugh
> and Hannity.
>
> (Limbaugh, as best I can make out, initially panned the
> Miers nomination as "disappointing," then allowed the
> administration to present its side of the issue; we don't
> get the Salem lineup here, so I can't claim any firsthand
> observation of its hosts.)
>
> But if the Salem talkers did have an influence on the
> nomination, it was from a platform with ratings as low as
> (and in some markets, even lower than) the numbers
> progressive talk's been posting, and in most cases with
> signals just as bad or worse. In the case of Washington
> itself, there's no outlet at all for the Salem talk lineup,
> which is only marginally worse than the miserable signal the
> progressive talker, WWRC 1260, puts over a portion of the
> market.

Salem's Janet Parshall is on religious WAVA 105.1 in Washington. It's her originating station, IIRC.

>
> That, in turn, raises an interesting question: if those
> talkers can have an influence out of proportion to their
> minuscule ratings, can progressive talk do the same?
>
> (All that said, I do tend to agree with Phil that the real
> political pressure from the right against the Miers
> nomination came far more from the print columnists and the
> bloggers than from radio.)
>

IMO, print media and the Internet have far more impact on grassroots campaigns and elections than talk radio from both sides of the political spectrum. Radio doesn't pick up on anything until it's already gathered a significant head of steam.
 
> we don't
> get the Salem lineup here, so I can't claim any firsthand
> observation of its hosts.)

If only we could all be so lucky.

> But if the Salem talkers did have an influence on the
> nomination, it was from a platform with ratings as low as
> (and in some markets, even lower than) the numbers
> progressive talk's been posting, and in most cases with
> signals just as bad or worse. In the case of Washington
> itself, there's no outlet at all for the Salem talk lineup,
> which is only marginally worse than the miserable signal the
> progressive talker, WWRC 1260, puts over a portion of the
> market.

I'd disagree in that Salem can afford to buy its way in - even as libtalk has experienced some bumps in the road getting on, imagine the glut of failure Salem would have if it actually tried to clear SRN shows to separate operators. No one would put that rubbish on. This means that AAR/DR has to take whatever it can get for the most part; whereas Salem can make multimillion dollar investments in signals as real estate.

> That, in turn, raises an interesting question: if those
> talkers can have an influence out of proportion to their
> minuscule ratings, can progressive talk do the same?

You're great Scott, but what station owner cares if its listeners are getting bills passed and circulating petitions in Vons parking lots?
 
> > There's an interesting angle to this that neither my
> > neighbor Mr. Dampier or Mr. Webster has touched on, which
> is
> > the relationship between ratings and influence.
> >
> > If you accept mwebster's assertion that conservative talk
> > radio played a role in the failure of the Miers
> nomination,
> > I think you have to accept that the shows that were most
> > responsible (Laura Ingraham seems to be the name most in
> > play here) were the ones on the relatively low-rated
> Salem
> > talk lineup, not the heavier ratings hitters like Limbaugh
>
> > and Hannity.
>
> BUT! (ignoring for the moment that Ingraham's not a Salem
> host, but appears on Salem stations, as well as some CC
> stations), the anti-Miers cannot be as clear-cut as you
> state: Salem's Hugh Hewitt was one of Miers' biggest
> backers.
>
> And I think this is where ideology and party gets mixed
> up--Salem has religious undertones in its talk programming,
> but the hosts are pretty Republican Party-line. Not
> necessarily conservative: Hewitt and Bennett tend to side
> with the Party to sustain the Party and its majority. Cf.
> Limbaugh, who has no problem raking Bush over the coals for
> non-conservative principles, like the glut of federal
> spending. Limbaugh is anti-liberal, but not necessarily
> pro-Republican.
>
> As Dampier mentioned, National Review was pretty much
> dead-set against her, as were others in the conservative
> movement, like Bill Kristol, Will, Chuck Krauthammer.
>
> But the supposed conservative base (religious) *were* behind
> the nomination--see James Dobson's advice, and Miers' own
> evangelical beliefs being touted.
>
> The problem is that the Republicans have not one "base" but
> several, who at any given moment may be opposed to one
> another: the conservatives (social and economic), the
> evangelicals (social only--they're pretty pro-spending), the
> war-hawks (deficit spending), the fiscalists (restraint,
> see, e.g., Cornyn, Voinovich, et al.), and the libertarians
> (strict fiscal, lax social).
>
> The problem we run into is when Bush tries too hard to
> appease one of these bases over another--e.g., the
> evangelicals with Miers. All the other groups WANT to
> support the President, but he let them down. And when you
> can't even get the PARTY (an amalgam of all the above
> groups) to agree, that's problematic.
>
> Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but I thought it was an
> important point to make.
>


The big problem with Miers was that she lacked the credentials necessary for any of those groups to support her 100%. John Roberts was not only within tolerable limits for all of them, he was also eminently qualified. He could play coy with the committee about his future rulings, she couldn't because no one besides Bush himself knew squat about her.

And these unwieldy coalitions are part of having a two-party system. If anything, there should be at least 4 parties: the religious/neo-con element (who pretty much always agree on foreign policy and spending and can negotiate within limits on social issues), the fiscal conservatives and isolationists (for whom economic affairs are priority 1 and everything else takes a back seat.), the hardcore progressives (who are definitely fiscal liberals, but aren't socially liberal anywhere but the bedroom), and the more status-quo oriented liberals (those who don't want to smash capitalism but instead work within it).

You can even see these dichotomies in talk radio (Gee, I bet you thought this wasn't getting back on topic):

AAR (with the possible exception of Franken) is definitely going for the more hardcore progressive audience, whereas DR seems to lean more status quo. Fox and Premier tend to lean neo-con, whereas TRN and Westwood One are geared more to the fiscal conservative/isolationist crowd.

Salem is generally balanced between the two conservative positions. They don't want to be seen as a purely religious network, yet they also know which side their bread is buttered on.
 
> I'd disagree in that Salem can afford to buy its way in -
> even as libtalk has experienced some bumps in the road
> getting on, imagine the glut of failure Salem would have if
> it actually tried to clear SRN shows to separate operators.
> No one would put that rubbish on. This means that AAR/DR has
> to take whatever it can get for the most part; whereas Salem
> can make multimillion dollar investments in signals as real
> estate.

I wonder if Salem could go the route that Family Radio et al., have managed in hijacking the non-commercial FM band with thousands of translators providing "local service" (which means a touch tone followed by a legal ID and MAYBE a recorded weather forecast) satellite delivered Christian stuff all over. Then they do the kinds of begathons that the libtalk people are accused of doing to pay for it. I suppose the problem is how political they can be and still be a part of the non-commercial dial. I don't know the law on that.

Libtalk hosts showing up on a wall-to-wall conservative talker is rare, which is probably why AAR wanted a full service format to offer to stations anyway.

I always discount Alan Colmes from this because his show is targeted to conservative audiences - it's obvious from his promos and liners - "think Alan is crazy? Call and tell him." "Want to give Alan a piece of your mind? Call toll free."
 
Can't anyone admit she was the worst candidate in the first place?

> From Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz:
> Conservative Pundits Packed a Real Punch
> Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura
> Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn't sink the
> Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a
> news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the
> debate and provided the passion that undermined her case...
>
> This time, no one can blame the liberal media. And what made
> the right's revolt all the more remarkable was that its
> opinion-mongering wing didn't simply stand in polite
> opposition to Miers. Its troops hit the trenches, attacked
> Miers as unqualified, ripped President Bush for cronyism and
> in some cases raised money to defeat the nomination.
> Click Here for Full Article
>
> Kurtz' article says conservative talk radio hosts, including
> Laura Ingraham (TRN) and Rush Limbaugh (Premiere Radio),
> along with Fox News and various newspaper columnists served
> to galvanize and rally conservative opposition to Harriet
> Miers' nomination.
>
> Observations:
>
> Conservative talk radio continues to show its political
> clout - its ability to rally the troops. Conservative talk
> radio may only be "preaching to the choir," but it gets the
> choir to sing.
> Bush can not count on the support of the religious right and
> of populist conservatives. He is not one of them. In
> effect, they hired him to advance their agendas, but their
> support is for the agenda, not for him. When push comes to
> shove, they trust and identify with conservative talk radio
> and other conservative pundits more than Dubya.
> Progressive talk radio has not shown a corresponding ability
> to call its core constituency to action. If the two main
> providers of progressive talk programming were founded to
> advance the liberal political agenda, they have done little
> so far to demonstrate an ability to influence the political
> process and justify the faith (and donations) of those who
> bankrolled them.
>
 
>
> And these unwieldy coalitions are part of having a two-party
> system. If anything, there should be at least 4 parties:
> the religious/neo-con element (who pretty much always agree
> on foreign policy and spending and can negotiate within
> limits on social issues), the fiscal conservatives and
> isolationists (for whom economic affairs are priority 1 and
> everything else takes a back seat.), the hardcore
> progressives (who are definitely fiscal liberals, but aren't
> socially liberal anywhere but the bedroom), and the more
> status-quo oriented liberals (those who don't want to smash
> capitalism but instead work within it).
>
> You can even see these dichotomies in talk radio (Gee, I bet
> you thought this wasn't getting back on topic):
>
> AAR (with the possible exception of Franken) is definitely
> going for the more hardcore progressive audience, whereas DR
> seems to lean more status quo. Fox and Premier tend to lean
> neo-con, whereas TRN and Westwood One are geared more to the
> fiscal conservative/isolationist crowd.
>
> Salem is generally balanced between the two conservative
> positions. They don't want to be seen as a purely religious
> network, yet they also know which side their bread is
> buttered on.
>

Stop stealing my blog material! (j/k)


Seriously, I couldn't have broken that down any better if I had a political science degree and fifteen years radio experience under my belt. You must, like, read or something, dude.
<P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
Outsized Influence Of Talk Radio

> (Limbaugh, as best I can make out, initially panned the
> Miers nomination as "disappointing," then allowed the
> administration to present its side of the issue; we don't
> get the Salem lineup here, so I can't claim any firsthand
> observation of its hosts.)

Lucky you, my friend. Though I will say this - the Salem talk lineup generally alleviates the need to go down to the local Walgreen's and pick up sleeping medicine.

> That, in turn, raises an interesting question: if those
> talkers can have an influence out of proportion to their
> minuscule ratings, can progressive talk do the same?

I've talked about this a hundred times, and in this case, it shows and shows clearly.

It's not whatever ratings Ms. Ingraham et al. get, it's their influence as "voices" on their end of the political spectrum. It's not that Joe and Jane Average listen to these folks, it's that the people in power on the right end of the political debate listen to them.

Furthermore, they do at least motivate some of their listener base to call and write these decision makers. Laura Ingraham's audience may be a fraction of Rush Limbaugh's, but Rush generally doesn't prompt people in a "call to action". I don't know if Ms. Ingraham did in this case or not (or the Salem talkers), but their views were clear, where Rush basically expressed his concerns over the nomination, but had Vice President Cheney on his show the day after it was announced, attempting to "calm the troops" as it were.

> (All that said, I do tend to agree with Phil that the real
> political pressure from the right against the Miers
> nomination came far more from the print columnists and the
> bloggers than from radio.)

True, though many of those are one and the same - Ms. Ingraham, I believe, is just one of the folks doing all three. But it's as I said above, it's the same deal with the radio hosts, the bloggers and the print columnists. It's not that they have massive audiences...it's that they have massive influence inside the power base of that part of the political universe. The power brokers believe that their voters/supporters listen to political talk radio hosts, and that gives them power beyond the actual audience for their shows.

Are the libtalkers anywhere near this? Of course not, and a good part of that is that they're still getting their feet wet being RADIO hosts, let alone being catalysts for activists on the left side of the political spectrum. One big reason is that liberal talk's "big name", Al Franken, is pretty detached and not involved in spearheading "causes" on the left. (I'm presuming that he's saving that for his rumored Senate campaign. :D)

Even Rush, who hasn't exactly given out senators' phone numbers on his show, is seen as more "involved" in stirring up listeners, politically.

But assuming liberal talk sticks around on commercial radio as it is now, they'll develop political "influence" as well...the right-leaning talkers have been at it for many more years. For now, Democratic and left-leaning power brokers seem still surprised to realize that they can "turn" to like-minded talk radio hosts.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
> Salem's Janet Parshall is on religious WAVA 105.1 in
> Washington. It's her originating station, IIRC.

Parshall is an odd bird. Her show airs mostly on Salem's religious stations, not its conservatalkers. (Here, it airs on Salem's Christian WKHW/1220, though oddly enough, only late nights on delay. It does NOT air on sister conservatalker WHK/1420.)

Yet, she's certainly taken quite a few stabs at political subjects. She was recently seen on cable TV debating liberal talk firebrand Randi Rhodes.

Other than Ms. Parshall, Salem's "secular" talk lineup is not heard in Washington, DC, unless you count listening through static to the company's Baltimore AM conservative talk station.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
> Parshall is an odd bird. Her show airs mostly on Salem's
> religious stations, not its conservatalkers. (Here, it airs
> on Salem's Christian WKHW/1220, though oddly enough, only
> late nights on delay. It does NOT air on sister
> conservatalker WHK/1420.)

Parshall is the morals-crowd talk show on the Salem Witch Trials Network. She sits in a studio and passes judgment over just about every issue and then the sheep callers phone in and agree. It's hardly compelling stuff.

> Yet, she's certainly taken quite a few stabs at political
> subjects. She was recently seen on cable TV debating
> liberal talk firebrand Randi Rhodes.

And lost.

And stuck her fingers in her ears to boot, which is now a popular t-shirt too.

> Other than Ms. Parshall, Salem's "secular" talk lineup is
> not heard in Washington, DC, unless you count listening
> through static to the company's Baltimore AM conservative
> talk station.

Salem would probably work with the same crowd that listens to the non-commercial religious band polluters with a billion translators, especially in red states. They have a problem in that we've seen a saturation of conservative talk in most markets already - one mainline news/talk station that carries the Limbaugh and maybe Hannity and Savage, and then the secondary 1/5kw outlet carrying 24/7 satellite-delivered leftover conservative talk. Some markets even have the nutbar anti-Zionist new world order conspiracy patriot station which is just crrrazy. Now there has to be room for the morals crowd talk from the Salem Witch Trials people too? Their ratings seem to demonstrate otherwise.
 
Re: Outsized Influence Of Talk Radio

> It's not whatever ratings Ms. Ingraham et al. get, it's
> their influence as "voices" on their end of the political
> spectrum. It's not that Joe and Jane Average listen to
> these folks, it's that the people in power on the right end
> of the political debate listen to them.

Interesting take on this, OA, but this also leads into how the GOP/Right Wing uses talk radio....normally these people are used as an extension of the right to disseminate talking points....thus amplifying a message to the populace..s

> Furthermore, they do at least motivate some of their
> listener base to call and write these decision makers.
> Laura Ingraham's audience may be a fraction of Rush
> Limbaugh's, but Rush generally doesn't prompt people in a
> "call to action".

Rush doesn't mount "calls to action" but he is a "defacto" news resource so the people that listen to him as their only news source absorb his points as if they were the trend, the accurate way to look at an issue, or the truth....remember over 50% of those who listened to Rush get their "news" from Rush..so in a way ...a call to action piggy backs on his show being delivered to those that listen to him regularly...



>
One
> big reason is that liberal talk's "big name", Al Franken, is
> pretty detached and not involved in spearheading "causes" on
> the left. (I'm presuming that he's saving that for his
> rumored Senate campaign. :D)

OA, I must correct you here. Al Franken is a very active person in the political arena. He spends many weeks of the year attending fundraisers and stumping for candidates. Does he use his show to announce causes, probably not as much as many true believers would like, but I think the more vocal "caller to action" is Randi Rhodes. She expends a lot of energy trying to huddle the masses and regularly encourages listeners to take action in the grassroots, by contacting politicians, or other methods to be effective in making issues heard...


> Even Rush, who hasn't exactly given out senators' phone
> numbers on his show, is seen as more "involved" in stirring
> up listeners, politically.

Again, doubt it.

>
> But assuming liberal talk sticks around on commercial radio
> as it is now, they'll develop political "influence" as
> well...the right-leaning talkers have been at it for many
> more years. For now, Democratic and left-leaning power
> brokers seem still surprised to realize that they can "turn"
> to like-minded talk radio hosts.
>

Right with you here....Liberal Radio/Progressive radio is still trying to be heard in some locations.....this is a very good point.....but i disagree that Democratic/Liberal/left-leaning resources are not looking to talk radio...they realized that a few years ago but the platform to rely on is still in the "under construction" phase.
 
> And stuck her fingers in her ears to boot, which is now a
> popular t-shirt too.

Really? Where?

I'd love to pick up one of these...<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
> Other than Ms. Parshall, Salem's "secular" talk lineup is
> not heard in Washington, DC, unless you count listening
> through static to the company's Baltimore AM conservative
> talk station.

I don't think you can hear WITH in Baltimore.
 
Re: Outsized Influence Of Talk Radio

> Rush doesn't mount "calls to action" but he is a "defacto"
> news resource so the people that listen to him as their only
> news source absorb his points as if they were the trend, the
> accurate way to look at an issue, or the truth....remember
> over 50% of those who listened to Rush get their "news" from
> Rush..so in a way ...a call to action piggy backs on his
> show being delivered to those that listen to him
> regularly...

In effect, Rush is a more passive host, but feeds the large number of hosts who look to him as a "guide". Rush may not "rally the troops" to actually do things, but the other hosts who follow him do.

> OA, I must correct you here. Al Franken is a very active
> person in the political arena. He spends many weeks of the
> year attending fundraisers and stumping for candidates. Does
> he use his show to announce causes, probably not as much as
> many true believers would like, but I think the more vocal
> "caller to action" is Randi Rhodes.

You're basically coming back to my point here. Al doesn't really do any of that. He's not nearly as vocal *on his show* as Randi is on hers, as far as stirring up activists. The off-air contributions and fundraisers and stumping wasn't what I was talking about...I was talking about on-air, where he's a dry, droll comedian who interviews lots of folks like magazine/newspaper writers, think tank regulars, etc.

His political activity is virtually separate from his show.

Even Stephanie Miller, a self-proclaimed radio comedienne and "keeper of the fart jokes", occasionally attends Democratic party events, particularly in the L.A. region.

> Right with you here....Liberal Radio/Progressive radio is
> still trying to be heard in some locations.....this is a
> very good point.....but i disagree that
> Democratic/Liberal/left-leaning resources are not looking to
> talk radio...they realized that a few years ago but the
> platform to rely on is still in the "under construction"
> phase.

Oh, they're looking, alright, they just seem surprised as heck when they're on the air on various shows. And some of these hosts and shows have to bug these folks, where on the right side of the political spectrum, Vice President Cheney nearly broke a knee running to the phone to call Rush Limbaugh the day after the now-dead Miers nomination. And it's not the first time he's done this, either, or not the first time Rush's show has been used by other high-level Republican officials to "talk to their base".

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Salem's Saturated Markets

> Now there
> has to be room for the morals crowd talk from the Salem
> Witch Trials people too? Their ratings seem to demonstrate
> otherwise.

Salem's problem is simple - not only is there no room for their lineup in most markets, but most of it is deathly boring, even to diehard conservatives.

Take Sacramento, where Salem's KTKZ/1380 (now primary on FM at 105.5) has been struggling for years, despite having a local morning show that's actually gotten some publicity in the media there.

When Air America's Sacramento affiliate debuted on a signal 5 times less powerful than 1380, it beat that station in its very first full book (12-plus/full day).

The problem for them isn't liberal talk...it's that the conservative talk market in Sacramento is owned by 50,000 watt blowtorch KFBK/1530, which subleases part of that market to sister KSTE/650 (21,000 watts, popular morning show, home of Hannity in the market, etc.). When Rush Limbaugh is still pulling in nearly double-digit shares in a market he started in locally 21 years ago...what room is there for whatever Salem runs up against him 9-noon?

Here in Northeast Ohio, Salem recently debuted conservatalker WHK/1420. In the noon-3 ET slot, Rush's show on WTAM/1100 also features regular double-digit shares. And how many listeners are left for Dennis Prager on an inferior (to WTAM) signal?

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom