FLASH!! Ed Schultz going mainstream!!!!

[Johnny Morgan]

I have no problem investigating some of the "why" issues--I have been more than willing to investigate some "whys".

What I, correctly, refuse to do is call any one or set of "whys" a fact, and a sole excuse why liberal talk fares worse nationally than conservative talk.

 

[zumahans]

I said "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."

----You say: That is not a fact, that is a statement of opinion from you.

Statistical evidence? Look at the number of conservotalk stations. Far more than the proportionate number of conservatives.

----You say: 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?

I said the average American liberal doesn't give a rat's ass about talk radio, because they don't listen to it. That's just a fact. I would also bet the average american liberal also doesn't know what the Fairness Doctrine is, was, or would do.

--->Whether TSL or cume, the net result is that the raw ratings number is the same.

No, it is not. Conservatives listen to more talk radio than do liberals, that has been proven over and over.

---->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?

NPR is not talkradio. When I talk about NPR, I am talking about their newsmagazine and news shows. Their "talk" programming is C-SPANesque and not very highly-rated at all. Many huge markets don't even get it, LA being one.

---->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?

No. Dean himself credited Air America with energizing the party's activists. The average liberal doesn't listen to Air America, ever. If they did, Air America would be HUGE.

---->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).


Crossover is very low.

---->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,

Only liberal activists, a small percentage of liberal voters, listen to talk radio. The proof is in Air America's low ratings.

---->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.

Liberals do not listen to talk radio at all, much less conservative talk radio. NPR is not talk radio, like it or not, it is a whole different statiscal animal.

---->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.

That's right, Johnny, do the math:

The nation is fairly split politically right now. Yet more people listen to the conservative wing nuts than liberal wing nuts. Liberals and conservatives rarely listen to the other side - no one I know EVER listens to Rush. Why should we be insulted? And how many of your side settle down for a good hour of Rachel Maddow?

And the Pew studies and local ratings bear out this fact.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I said "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."

----You say: That is not a fact, that is a statement of opinion from you.

Statistical evidence? Look at the number of conservotalk stations. Far more than the proportionate number of conservatives.

This is the only point to which I am going to respond because your latter statement does not, in any way, support the first contention.

The number of conservative talk stations nationally, in proportion to the number of conservatives nationally, does not prove anything related to how liberals view talk radio as reflecting their political choices, and it does not prove that liberals do not gravitate to polarized media, or prove that conservatives do gravtitate to polarized media.

You have shown not one bit of evidence to show that liberals do not view their radio choices based on political statement, or that conservatives do view their radio choices based on political statement. In other words, what you have done is made an opinion statement about what you perceive liberals (and, inversely, conservatives) do with regard to media choices--and have no evidence to back it up.

One more item, before I go: if liberals do not listen to talk radio, and thus, this is the reason liberal talk has hurt so much--why the constant cry and hue that liberal talk does so bad and there must be more fairness in views, etc.? Why the mourning on this board from liberals when their favorite Air America affiliate goes off the air? If liberals truly don't care, as you allege, why the pity party?

I will give you much appreciated props for actually calling the leftist talk hosts "liberal wing nuts," and not leaving that phrase merely for the right.

 

[zumahans]

You mistakenly posit that, since liberals hate conservotalk radio, ergo, they must love liberal talk radio.

They don't.

Liberals hate talk radio in general because talkradio is conservative and angry in general.

The great "hue and cry" you hear in the internet is NOT liberals. It is liberal activists, the type of people who listen to Air America.

What is so hard for some people to grasp the fact that talkradio as a forum - and cable TV news, for that matter - is more popular among conservatives than liberals? The marketplace proves that.

NPR news programming, as a forum, is more popular among liberals than conservatives. That's also a fact, and it doesn't mean that NPR is a liberal institution, either. Liberals are more comfortable than conservatives with that format.

Liberals like news: news challenges the status quo.

Conservatives like talkradio: it voices the outrage of the common man, traditionally a conservative bastion.

That's just simple fact, Johnny. To argue otherwise is just silly.

 

[kaufcom]

I have no problem investigating some of the "why" issues--I have been more than willing to investigate some "whys".
What I, correctly, refuse to do is call any one or set of "whys" a fact, and a sole excuse why liberal talk fares worse nationally than conservative talk.

So you don't consider it a fact, that high profile conservative talk stations

• Have more powerful signals than lib talk stations in the same markets.
• Reach more adjacent markets than lib talk stations
• Have more local talk than liberal stations
• Spend more money on local promotion than liberal stations

 

[Johnny Morgan]

zumahans: I don't posit that at all. If liberals don't like conservative talk radio, that's fine. They may like other talk radio; they may like music; they may turn off the radio altogether.

I have never suggested otherwise.

The hue and cry to which I refer is, yes, in part, from liberal activists on the Internet; but it is also, implicitly, from Congressmen, from newscasters (the same ones who paraded Air America's launch in unpaid advertising masquerading as news in the New York Times and on Today).

If the marketplace proves that talk radio is more popular with conservatives, why is there a constant drone from folks on the left of this board--most of them not liberal activists--that conservatives have a dominance on talk radio to the exclusion of liberal talk that needs to be rectified, and even to the point of apologizing for liberal talk's failure to reach the same audience as conservative talk?

That is what I have been questioning. I have no problem with the marketplace--in fact, that is what I have been saying for years here: the marketplace proves that conservative talk is more popular, at this moment, than liberal talk. That is a fact, and it is left to the marketplace to decide.

I agree with your final points--bar the suggestion that only liberals like news, and only conservatives like talk radio. As generalities, perhaps, but not as conclusions.

To barooosk--no, I do not consider any of those items you list as conclusive proof, ab initio, that liberal talk fails simply because conservatives have better facilities. Portland's lib talk station has a powerful signal; Akron's lib talk station has a powerful regional signal (best full-time AM in the market); at numerous times in the past, liberal talk has appeared on powerful signals in Ohio's two largest cities, on KABC, KDKA, and WABC, on a significant signal in New York, on one of Buffalo's heritage clear-channels, etc.

This constant apologia for liberal talk's failure to attract the market for it does not in any way change what zumahans may well be correct about--you can't squeeze a gallon from a pint-sized lemon.

And the adjacent markets talk is a non-starter: stations do not sell nor program for adjacent markets--as for conservative talk radio, almost all of those adjacent markets have their own stations airing, e.g., Rush Limbaugh. If the conservative stations have more local talk, what is stopping the liberal talk stations from adding local talk? No one forced them (bar Air America at first) from carrying the entire schedule of a service.

It all seems like the extreme in apologies for liberal talk failing to be what it aimed to be. If zumahans is right, it was doomed from the start; if his theory is wrong, then the programming itself was inappropriate.

But the basic fact is that conservative talk is more popular, right now, nationally than liberal talk radio.

 

[zumahans]

--->The hue and cry to which I refer is, yes, in part, from liberal activists on the Internet; but it is also, implicitly, from Congressmen, from newscasters (the same ones who paraded Air America's launch in unpaid advertising masquerading as news in the New York Times and on Today).

Really? I hear no groundswell of support in liberal America for a new Fainess Doctrine.

Or is the hue and cry that you hear the reaction of conservative wingnuts who see the gravy train threatened?

--->If the marketplace proves that talk radio is more popular with conservatives, why is there a constant drone from folks on the left of this board--most of them not liberal activists--that conservatives have a dominance on talk radio to the exclusion of liberal talk that needs to be rectified, and even to the point of apologizing for liberal talk's failure to reach the same audience as conservative talk?

If they are typingon this board, they are activists. Per se.

----->Portland's lib talk station has a powerful signal; Akron's lib talk station has a powerful regional signal (best full-time AM in the market); at numerous times in the past, liberal talk has appeared on powerful signals in Ohio's two largest cities, on KABC, KDKA, and WABC, on a significant signal in New York, on one of Buffalo's heritage clear-channels, etc.

Yes, but the 200 other libtalk stations are all fleapowered.

---->This constant apologia for liberal talk's failure to attract the market for it does not in any way change what zumahans may well be correct about--you can't squeeze a gallon from a pint-sized lemon.

------>And the adjacent markets talk is a non-starter: stations do not sell nor program for adjacent markets--as for conservative talk radio, almost all of those adjacent markets have their own stations airing, e.g., Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, but those more-powerful stations arestronger in fringe areas of their home ADI.


----> If zumahans is right, it was doomed from the start; if his theory is wrong, then the programming itself was inappropriate.

Why can't both hypotheses be true, and not mutually exclusive?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

The two can be correct, but if A is correct, then programming doesn't matter--it could be great, but no one would listen.

If B is correct, based on A not being correct, then it is exclusive.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I hear no groundswell of support in liberal America for a new Fainess Doctrine.

If Congress reflects the people, the ground hasn't just swelled...it's flooded. Coming from the House and the Senate.

 

[zumahans]

Disagree. I hear a few liberal activists asking for something, and a few pandering Congressmen. The chances of anything being passed are zero. It's not even on the radar screen.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I know tha chances of it being passed are zero, but the Democratic Congressional leaders (both Houses) were/are talking about it.

Not that that necessarily means they aren't liberal activists...

The Fairness Doctrine has long been dead, and for good reason.

 

[XTalker]

What those who want to see liberal talk succed seem to forget is that conservative talk radio's success to 20 years! It didn't start with the election of George W. Bush! The other thing they choose to ignore is that radio is a business and those who own stations WILL follow the money.

If liberal talk could be successful, it would be on stations with good signals, it would have promotion budgets. Problem is, liberals want success handed to them NOW and don't care to deal with anything that requires earning it!

 

[zumahans]

I think what liberals want is the public airwaves used fairly.

 

[Northwest Bobby]

??? Used FAIRLY????? C'mon give me a break....Even as a member of the vast right wing zionist conspiracy ...just what is FAIR in free market radio. I would love 3 hours of talk every day of Cindy Sheehan so every one can HEAR what she's really all about, but even the liberals would not stomach that much of her.

I believe liberals should be loud and clear on the radio too, but let the market and the talent involved make it happen :

 

[zumahans]

What is fair in free market radio?

If a corporation allows its trusteeship of the public airwaves to be used to attack someone, then that someone gets a chance to respond.

If a corporation has 8 radio stations in a market, and uses 2 of them for political talk programming, then one should be liberal.

These are PUBLIC airwaves. If they want to make money, great. In return, the other half of the political spectrum (newsflash - we won the last election) is entitled to use half of the spectrum.

Radio has evolved into a poilitical force. As such, it is far more than merely a profit center for some company.

it is a public asset - and half the public has been frozen out.

 

[Northwest Bobby]

Actuall some BIG corporate radio groups have given away extra small freqs in some markets to groups for public use. Where does it say that there should be one con and one lib if that ownership has several AM freqs....so what if they decide they can get SOME advertising with two consevative stations. Hey, if a lot of green could be made with 1 or more lib stations by one ownership group then the market and adverstising would dictate that........

Hey if EL Rushbo turned his show into a 3 hour RNC fax machine and go out and vote for every Republican candidate his show would suck, but there is nothing wrong in talking about consevative politics and those who support that point of view. I can handle a lib talk show if they discuss why liberalism works is fine, but a 3 hour Bush bash (coke snortin' bar-ba que jockey frat boy)show is boring after the first 30 seconds... :'(

 

[zumahans]

If it bores you, you have 4 or 5 other talkradio stations to listen to, that will be happy to reinforce your view of the world.

Liberals in many markets do not have that luxury, and last I checked, it was our airwaves too.

 

[kaufcom]

Actuall some BIG corporate radio groups have given away extra small freqs in some markets to groups for public use.

What "big corporate radio groups" have "given away extra small freqs[sic] in some markets" and where are those markets?

Where does it say that there should be one con and one lib if that ownership has several AM freqs

Nowhere now but maybe soon as federal legislation making its way through Congress.

Hey if EL Rushbo turned his show into a 3 hour RNC fax machine and go out and vote for every Republican candidate

You mean like if he was "carrying water for the [The RNC's]them"

 

[Radio_Realist]

If it bores you, you have 4 or 5 other talkradio stations to listen to, that will be happy to reinforce your view of the world.

Liberals in many markets do not have that luxury, and last I checked, it was our airwaves too.

Here's some additional news for you. Fans of classical music, like symphonies, operas, etc., often don't have the luxury of radio stations that play that kind of music. But the airwaves belong to those people, too. Those of us who like scripted radio comedies and dramas, like the stuff from the Golden Age of radio don't have the luxury of radio stations that present that kind of programming. But the airwaves belong to those people, too. There are a great many types of radio programming that aren't found on very many stations, because not enough people want to hear them to make it profitable to broadcast them.

That's how the universe works. Get used to it.

 

[zumahans]

What a load. Choice of music has nothing to do with politics.

Airwaves are owned by the public, and only one side of the debate is being heard.

That is not right.