Conservative vs Progressive Audiences?

[kinetic]

MightyFrenchman writes: "Next time use an English language dictionary. You definitely got some mixed up translations for all three words."

How typical for someone to admonish others for not using a "correct" source and then not providing one to back up his ad hominem. Either that's typical of a partisan or a troll.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

And for balance...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

 

[kinetic]

Hence they use the nondescript term, "progressive", which can mean anything to anybody. Personally I think conservatism is progressive because it's the best way for the nation to go. To be more specific liberal talk radio should probably call itself socialist talk radio.

Dig a little deeper into history. Go back 100 to 120 years ago and focus on the Midwestern area anchored by Minnesota and Wisconsin. I think you will find "progressive" anything but nondescript. A number of things that you take for granted in your socio-political being have their roots in actions fought for by The Progressive Party people of that area.

That does not mean you will suddenly like those results thrust into your life by The Progressives, but it does mean "nondescript" probably doesn't work very well in this conversation.

Now, bringing all that back to radio: Liberal radio, Progressive radio, whatever it should eventually be called needs to quit letting Conservative radio be of official "namer" of all the animals in creation to borrow from the Adam and Even Saga. Conservative radio put much energy in deciding who will be called what... and too much of the effort to be "alternative" political expression (not conservative) goes on stage and acts out the script written for them by Conservative Radio.

It is possible that progressive/liberal radio will eventually grow up and discover it's very own persona and then our country will be blessed with authentic, self-policing and correcting, two-way conversation that has been a part of our heritage for over two centuries.

A historical post-script here:
You'll find that religion was a critical component in a number of 19th century movements: anti-slavery, suffrage, charity, supporting the poor, pro-union, humanized treatment of the mentally ill and prisoners. People like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B Anthony, John Brown, General William Booth (who founded the Salvation Army). During the reconstruction era, these particular religionists came to be known as Christian Progressives. The roots of this progressive Christianity can be traced back certainly to our American roots in France, the Enlightenment Period and the notion of individual liberty --pluribus, if you will-- but the efforts of Christian progressives along with many social progressives who fought for reforms, led to numerous social changes of which we are familiar (I presume) coupled with political realities like Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall. Teddy Roosevelt's presidency was a direct manifestation of these various dynamics.

 

[DavidKaye]

Many times on this board it has been stated by people far more knowledgeable than me that conservative talk shows generally pull in sizable audiences whereas progressive shows have trouble finding listeners.

If that is true, why?

KGO has been #1 in each Arbitron book for 30 years and nearly every talkshow host is liberal. In fact, Ronn Owens was the first host to beat Rush Limbaugh locally when programmed directly opposite him.

So, I think it depends on the quality of the host, not their political leaning, as well as the distribution of the show. KGO has a 50kw signal that can be heard from Canada to Mexico. Put the same quality of hosts on a 5kw AM and you're going to have trouble getting listeners (unless it's Portland's 620, which booms into the market and is also a ratings leader).

So, it's quality and reach.

 

[landtuna]

So, I think it depends on the quality of the host, not their political leaning....

I would think it is far easier for people to listen to someone who closely resembles their point of view than another who doesn't - even if the 'quality' of the former is better.

 

[gr8oldies]

Quite possibly....it could be a great host but if he/she's going to call me anj idiot for four hours chances are I'll be gone within 5 minutes.

 

[Parttimer]

So, I think it depends on the quality of the host, not their political leaning....

I would think it is far easier for people to listen to someone who closely resembles their point of view than another who doesn't - even if the 'quality' of the former is better.

This board would seem to indicate that it depends ENTIRELY on whether the listener agrees with the host. Look at the most liberal-leaning posters on this board.... to them, all conservative hosts are horrible people with terrible shows that just benefit from being propped up by their syndicators...while "progressive" hosts are just this side of sainthood, brilliant and talented, and fail to prosper for reasons that defy all logic.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This board would seem to indicate that it depends ENTIRELY on whether the listener agrees with the host. Look at the most liberal-leaning posters on this board.... to them, all conservative hosts are horrible people with terrible shows that just benefit from being propped up by their syndicators...while "progressive" hosts are just this side of sainthood, brilliant and talented, and fail to prosper for reasons that defy all logic.

You are right on target, but you stopped before you finished. You should have added:

Look at the most conservtive-leaning posters on this board... to them, all liberal hosts are horrible people with terrible shows that only fail because their dogma is wrong... while "conservative" hosts are members of the sainthood, brilliant and talented, and succeed because they know all logic."

We have a tough time discussing aspects of Talk-Radio because most of us cannont separate the craft of Talk Radio from our own personal biases in the socio-political world.

Of course, neither you or I EVER let out personal views affect the very logical things we write. :

 

[smedge2006]

One of the worst aspects of the polarization of talk radio over the past 15 years is that it has denigrated the craft of talk radio. It's all about ideology. I think there are great talk hosts with whom I disagree. But my greatest resentment is not that there are so many conservative talk hosts on the radio -- it is that there are so many bad ones. Ditto those on the left who don't get this medium.

Over on NewsBusters, which tries to be the conservative version of Media Matters, there's a thread attacking Stephanie Miller for pointing out her head-to-head ratings wins against conservative shows. One poster responded to another praising Lionel's hosting skills by making reference to Jean Shepherd's abilities to "tell a story" and "paint a picture". A reply claimed that only "infants" needed "stories, painted pictures (and) visual images." So talent means nothing, and we are not allowed to have any entertainment value in talk radio? No skill? Is all talk radio doomed to become the modern version of 1970's Radio Tirana, just shrill and stilted screeds all day long?

 

[DavidKaye]

A reply claimed that only "infants" needed "stories, painted pictures (and) visual images." So talent means nothing, and we are not allowed to have any entertainment value in talk radio? No skill? Is all talk radio doomed to become the modern version of 1970's Radio Tirana, just shrill and stilted screeds all day long?

I think it's the nature of the Internet. People now feel qualified to give instant opinions, especially if they're combative. If you think the comments on radio blogs are bad, have you ever looked YouTube comments? Even the nicest, most innocent videos are torn down by vicious comments often containing obscenity and profanity.

This is why I hate blogs, by the way. People with no background and no experience feel qualified to comment on everything around them, no matter how wrong-headed or hurtful those comments are.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think it's the nature of the Internet. People now feel qualified to give instant opinions, especially if they're combative.

Great observation! Our heritage is a world where Free Speech has been tempered by the limits of the system of Capitalism. To own and operate a newspaper, a radio station, a TV channel or a magazine required that a person be civilized and disciplined enough to accumulate some capital to get it going. (We have always had a few heirs around that got to mouth-off whether they had the brains to make it worthwhile or not.)

With the coming of the Internet, even the mentally incapacitated, the socially mal-adjusted can have a place at the table.

That ain't all bad. That ain't all good.

It certainly makes our world a bit different!

 

[landtuna]

This board would seem to indicate that it depends ENTIRELY on whether the listener agrees with the host.

Nobody has said that.

 

[Parttimer]

That's correct. You have to actually think, and interpret what you read to reach that conclusion.

 

[talkjim]

"That's correct. You have to actually think, and interpret what you read to reach that conclusion."

Or perhaps simply pull such a conclusion out of some indeterminate bodily orifice.

 

[Parttimer]

Well, there you go again.....

 

[b344077]

This is one of the funniest threads I have read in a while. Please, all, go back to the original premise adn the go back to what it has denigrated to.

 

[amfmxm]

I see Leftist and so-called "progressive" audiences and hosts being far less tolerant of opposing views.
They ridicule anything that remotely sounds like it's "off the Liberal plantation," hence their venemous hatred of conservative blacks and Sara Palin, who to them, "wasn't a real woman."

These regressive and leftist shows - and Hannity fits in with those - trade in "gotcha" incidents. Keith Olberdork, Steph. Miller and Fat Eddie are amongst the worst smear merchants. They can't host a show without ripping their superior competitors.

Sadder than this is many in their audience, whilst claiming to be intellectually superior and tolerant of all things, are highly intolerant of their more popular political and broadcast opponents.

Don, your post is exactly what b344077 is talking about. The thread started, very wisely by Landtuna, as an objective look at political talk radio. And now it has devolved into name calling like this. Too bad. It was going pretty well for awhile.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

The original posting wanted a non-political discussion of talk radio, which is difficult, but is possible. Looking at various talk host styles.

First the "NPR talk style" is a calmer more news oriented, guest driven format that includes callers calling in to ask questions of the guest. This format, which may be heard on other networks or stations ( I don't know of any) for my ear is the most informative as that appears to be its ideal of informing and having constructive conversation about a given issue without the acidity that seems to prevade much of talk radio.

Second the "Topical talk style" is the Dolans, Dave Ramsey, Kim Komando, Clark Howard, You Bet Your Garden, Car Talk type shows. These air on both NPR and commerical stations. These shows feature a host or hosts that have extensive knowledge of a given subject like finances, gardening, automoble repairs, home repairs, etc, where callers call in to ask the experts questions on their topic of expertise. These shows started out as local weekend shows which many news/talk stations still use in a local format. All the shows listed above are national shows.

Third type of radio talk show is the "interview show". NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross comes to mind. Ms. Gross is a skilled interviewer and has all sorts of guests on her show ranging from religious leaders (both Christian and non-Christian), political figures (both Republican and Democrat, and other political parties), entertainers, writers, etc. Terry does her homework as she knows much about the people she interviews and has a decent understanding of what they do, their beliefs, etc, making for a great show. Terry is such a good interviewer, you never know from the questions she asks if she is a Democrat or a Republican as her tone of voice is always very neutral towards all guests. I can understand why she has no problem getting all those various guests on her show as they know they'll be treated with respect and not bashed.

Fourth type of radio talk show the radio quiz show such as NPR's "Wait wait don't tell me" or Michael Feldman's "What da ya Know", where in studio particpation with callers into the show participate in dialog and playing the game for cheap lame prizes that is an entertaining refreshing change from the more serious talk formats.

Fifth type of radio talk show is: "Political talk". These shows generally have a host who espouses a particular political or world view. These shows tend to be host driven as the host is the reason people seem to tune in as many of the national hosts talk 95% of time and appear to take callers as a truly last resort. I classify the hosts of these shows, be they liberal or conservative as "secular preachers". Folks like Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill Press, Randi Rhodes, etc, come to mind. They are "preaching" their political message to the "faithful" and trying to win "converts" to their point of view. These hosts tend to have little if anything good to say at all about the opposing side or "the opposition" as many refer to the other side of the political isle. Their point of view is always correct. The other political party is always wrong, etc. Many of the hosts offer divisive comments and are intentially trying to get your blood pressure up to "energize the masses" into action they deem to be correct. This sort of talk isn't new with the talk radio revolution of the 1980's, back in the 1930's there was a "right wing" Catholic priest Father Conlyn (sp) who actually agreed with Hitler's view of the Jews being the problem as this so called man of God didn't preach Christ and Christ love, but preached Hitler hatred on his weekly radio broadcast. From what I've read, he, unfortunately, had a large radio following.

Local political talkers do tend to take more callers than the satellite gang and be less acidic in their comments as their local station doesn't want to alienate the much scarce and much needed AM radio local listener or the local sponsors (local programming on one news/talker here in Wilmington plays disclaimers during their local shows that the views expressed do not reflect the views of the management of the station or the sponsors, etc, but are the views of the host and his/her callers) .

I believe the reason that "right wing" radio political talk generally gets more audience than "left wing" radio political talk is that the right wing is the conservative political viewpoint wanting to hold on to the past whereas change in life is a constant so it is a constant threat to the conservative point of view making for more "crisis" that need to be addressed.

There is my spin on the talk radio world. I apologize, if in my ramblings, I said anything too political for your taste (it wasn't my intention).