FLASH!! Ed Schultz going mainstream!!!!

[Northwest Bobby]

;D Gee I wonder if he positioning himself away from the looney : lefters at Air America.

Is Big Ed doing this to attrack more "mainstream" advertisers???

Does this mean Cindy Sheehan will get little air time on Big Eddy's airwaves???

Is it going to work to get more affliates??? Is he the new Rush with soft socialism?? He most certainly has on every Democrat politico on his show. I wonder if this work and get him in the 200 plus station range soon??? AS a member of vast right wing conspiracy, I actually listen to Big Eddy more than Sean Hannity in the same time period here........just an observation for ya to ponder............ :-\

 

[Gnarlodious]

Ed Schultz is not very liberal, although to listen to him he is the exemplary liberal all rolled into one. But the times are a-changin. The Neocon racket has been exposed and the horrible scandals of their puppet government have made people realize they are not conservative at all. People are getting ready to move back to the real conservative idealogy, as in Lincoln and Goldwater. Schultz may see this trend and be positioning himself to be that trend's spokesman.

I think he would do that well.

 

[FightingIrish]

He's always considered himself 'mainstream'.

It's the wingnuts like Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. that are extreme.

 

[Gnarlodious]

I agree. Thom Hartmann calls himself "The Radical Middle", but Schultz is more middle than Hartmann. Schultz does appeal to solid rural and working folks, and I respect his moderation in an environment of polarizating opposites.

I listened today and it was Trupiano, the difference was pretty glaring. Ed Schultz is just a gravelly kind of guy, and his expressions are real old-timey. I'd say if anyone can pull it of it would be Schultz. Good for Jones Network. And it wouldn't surprise me if he shows up on more Clear Channel stations.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

It's the wingnuts like Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. that are extreme.

So, the extreme is only the Right?

Interesting.

 

[XTalker]

So compare the size of the audience of the so called "wingnuts" and Schultz, then tell me who is mainstream! Sorry, Charlie, but America chooses conservative talk radio by a great majority. That makes it mainstream and those to the right are the wingnuts!

 

[FightingIrish]

So compare the size of the audience of the so called "wingnuts" and Schultz, then tell me who is mainstream! Sorry, Charlie, but America chooses conservative talk radio by a great majority. That makes it mainstream and those to the right are the wingnuts!

And the highest ratings conservotalk can muster in any given market is far less than 10% of the total audience. The others are listening to something else.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

And the highest ratings conservotalk can muster in any given market is far less than 10% of the total audience

And if liberal talk can muster far less than conservative talk can--in almost all markets, and certainly nationally--how does that make Rush Limbaugh, e.g., extreme, as you allege, supra?

The correct explanation, of course, is that your post stating that "fact" was actually your opinion.

 

[XTalker]

There are damn few formats than can claim more than 10% of the listening. If you understand ratings at all, you know that many of those folks who listen to music stations also catch a talk show from time to time. Its call sharing. Check it out in the latest Arbitron in your favorite city. You'd be amaze at how many music fans also cume a news-talk station. That why the format is so strong nationwide!

Morgan is right - the conservative talk wins almost everywhere! It even beats a lot of the music stations.

Irish, how bout this - you get the listeners of ALL the liberal shows on the radio anywhere in America and I'll just take Rush's audience (forget about Hannity, Boortz, and all the local conservative shows) and I'll still be way ahead!

 

[radiophiler]

Well, how about this.

If NPR is really liberal (as many conservatives will argue on this board and elsewhere), if you added the shares for the local NPR station AND the commercial libtalk station with AAR, Schultz, etc., you'd get close to if not above the share of the conservative talk station in town.

One more point: Conservative talk stations probably benefit from inaccurate ratings diary entries. Example: Someone likes Rush, listens to him regularly, and writes in the diary that he listens every day from noon-3pm (eastern). In reality, the person doesn't hear the entire three hour program, and actually misses it altogether some days.

The People Meters will give us more accurate talk radio ratings.

 

[XTalker]

Inspite of the arguement from radiphiler, my previous comment stands! We are talking about nationwide audience numbers and NOT about a particular town. Generally, in college towns, with good NPR affiliates, you might win a battle from time to time, but we are talking about MAINSTREAM America!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

If conservative talk stations benefit from inaccurate diaries (i.e., always putting down the 3 hours for Rush, even if don't listen that long), doesn't that also work for liberal talk favorites (i.e., 3 hours for Miller, even if don't listen that long)?

If so, I fail to see how that can apply for one side and not for the other.

Also, if you're talking about combining NPR and the local lib talk commercial station, it is *possible* they would beat the local conservative talk station. But, is NPR always talk?

And what about markets with more than one conservative talk station (a Rush affil plus a Salem station, or a Rush affil plus a Boortz, e.g.)--can they be combined together...or this only a one-way street?

The theory still holds, and the ratings information backs this up--nationally, at the moment, conservative talk is more popular than liberal talk.

 

[zumahans]

Simple facts, Johnny:

Conservatives wear their affiliation on their sleeves: look at Fox and Rush always beating their breasts: "We're number one!"

Liberals (a) don't view their TV or radio choices as a political statement of what they are, and (b) don't gravitate to polarized media like conservatives do.

The average liberal could give a rat's ass about talkradio in general. Want proof of that fairly-obvious point? Last Presidential election, the vote was close to 50 percent Bush 47 percent Kerry. Conservative talkradio had 95 percent of the talkradio audience in the period leading up to that election: Air America had barely gone on the air.

If people listened to radio And TSL for conservative talk radio fans is much longer - their fans are more fanatic - than an NPR news or magazine show, which will get a higher cume.

If you fail to see how that could apply to one side and not the other, then you just are not being very observant.

 

[XTalker]

Liberals listen to conservative talk radio more than their own brand! You know they do! Otherwise, how would they know what the conservatives are talking about and so they know what to disagree with!

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Conservatives wear their affiliation on their sleeves: look at Fox and Rush always beating their breasts: "We're number one!"

Liberals (a) don't view their TV or radio choices as a political statement of what they are, and (b) don't gravitate to polarized media like conservatives do.

That is not a fact, that is a statement of opinion from you. Unless, of course, you'd like to show some statistical evidence to back it up. It's fine as an opinion, but don't masquerade it as "fact" when it is so blatantly not so.

Now, getting to your actual arguments:

If the average liberal couldn't give a rat's ass, as you say, then why was/is there such a cry and hew about "fairness" in/on talk radio, and fanfare in the New York Times, NBC's Today, e.g., about Air America starting up 3 years ago?

Whether TSL or cume, the net result is that the raw ratings number is the same. The difference comes in when determining how to sell to various advertisers--but both TSL and cume have their selling points (which, in the case of NPR, is different than if NPR was a pure commercial outfit).

By the way, if an NPR show has such a high cume--and, assumedly is liberal, which I don't necessarily buy--then how does that square with your contention that liberals don't give a rat's ass about talk radio?

Further, Democrats won this past November a majority of Congress, a majority of state governorships, and closed a significant gap in the statehouses. Howard Dean himself has credited liberal talk radio with having a significant impact on the election in Ohio (and, one assumes, in other states as well). Does that mean that liberals ignored the very prospect that Dean appaluds?

But what your whole contention is premised on is the idea that ONLY conservatives listen to conservative talk radio, and only liberals would listen to liberal talk radio (if they listen to any talk radio at all, as you allege). If Dean is right--and he may be, or he may be blowing sand--does that (a) prove your contention wrong and liberals do listen to talk radio, or (b) show that talk radio listeners are not corralled by affiliation as you also allege in your opening missive, but instead, listen to what they enjoy or want to hear.

But this does not change the objective fact that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are, AT THE MOMENT, more successful in ratings (and, as a sideline, in terms of affiliate numbers) nationally than liberal talkers.

 

[kaufcom]

Irish, how bout this - you get the listeners of ALL the liberal shows on the radio anywhere in America and I'll just take Rush's audience (forget about Hannity, Boortz, and all the local conservative shows) and I'll still be way ahead!

You are comparing apples to oranges. If lib talk ever gets going on commercial radio it's going to take time. Let's look at the facts.

Rush is on over 500 stations.

Rush is almost alway on the most powerful AM powerhouse in the market, which not only covers the local markets, but probably three to four adjacent markets.

Rush's show in generally preceded by a strong local show (e.g. here in LA, Rush is carried on KFI which gets ratings in 15 adjacent markets. His show follows the Bill Handel Show which is the number one talk radio show in the country -- with more than 1 million listeners.

Rush's show is heavily promoted by his affiliates.

On the other hand,

Lib talk is carried on 150 stations (carrying two or more shows) per weekday

Lib talk stations are mix some reasonable signals but mostly "bad" and "ugly" ones. The lib talk station roster is syndicators nightmare. WCPT in Chicago which goes off the air in the middle of Randi Rhodes Show. KTLK in L.A. (and several other stations) that switch to local sports three to four nights per week. Only a handful of lib talk stations reach beyond their primary market.

Only a handful of 150 lib talk stations have local programming.

Virtually all lib talk stations have no promotions budget. (especially those owned by CC)

Get the picture?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

KTLK in L.A. (and several other stations) that switch to local sports three to four nights per week.

Something that affects conservative talk stations (including a number of Rush affiliates) too, most notably ones operated by Clear Channel (e.g., WTAM, WPGB, WTVN).

And if we're talking about low-class affiliates and/or no promotional budget, you can stick Salem's talk stations in that group too (you're lucky if you see *a* billboard for them).

 

[kaufcom]

And if we're talking about low-class affiliates and/or no promotional budget, you can stick Salem's talk stations in that group too (you're lucky if you see *a* billboard for them).

Not here in L.A. -- Dennis Praeger's mug is on billboards all over Southern California. In any case, I'm glad you brought up Salem. Their station ownerhip pattern is very similar to AAR and their overall ratings are slightly lower.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I'm fully willing to concede that SoCal may be an outlier in Salem's promotions, much of which may have to do with almost all of their N/T stations' content originating from (new) KRLA. But in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. you're lucky if you have 1 billboard (and the one constant they did have was papered over with sister Christian talk 1220's ad).

Salem and AAR are very similar in terms of operations (and I have no reason to suspect Salem's ratings aren't lower--in fact, I'd be very surprised if they weren't), but if we want to look at conservative talk as a whole and liberal talk as a whole, the objective fact is that conservative talk has higher numbers. Whatever the reason, that is the case.

So, what is the solution? Market response to superior programming? The Kucinich plan of government intervention and artificial comity via a new Fairness Doctrine? An enterprising company giving a two-fer in ad sales?

The only fact in all of this is that conservative talk stations as a whole, right now, nationally, have better ratings and, thus, are more popular. It is not an affirmative indication of national preference to the political opinion espoused on those stations, but merely a fact open to any number of formatic, artistic, political, or neutral interpretations.

 

[kaufcom]

The only fact in all of this is that conservative talk stations as a whole, right now, nationally, have better ratings and, thus, are more popular. It is not an affirmative indication of national preference to the political opinion espoused on those stations, but merely a fact open to any number of formatic, artistic, political, or neutral interpretations.

Fine, if you want to go straight to the bottom line and note that conservative talk radio dominates the market without considering some of "why" issues which I have identified, be my guest. However, aren't you wasting everybody's time by stating a point that we all already know. i.e. that over 90% of talk radio listeners are listening to conservative talk and radio stations program 17 hours of conservative for every one hour of liberal talk.