Goodbye Lib Talk, You're Off To Join The Circus...

[Those RRRRs]

Anyone remember that (or perhaps similar words) from that great James Darren tune?

Bottom Line: Lib talk is a failure for two reasons:

1) When faced with hard questions and conclusive data, liberals can not answer questions. On this board the libs criticize Sean because he interupts liberal guests and doesn't allow them to finish the answer to the question asked of them. Why? Simple. Everytime a lib is faced with a tough question, he/she goes into evasive mode. Hannity doesn't allow these guests to get away with it. What's worse is that libs on this board will criticize Hannity instead of admitting that the lib guest looks like an idiot and cannot answer the question.

You cannot sell a format that is based on hysterical emotion rather than inductive and deductive reasoning. That's why only a handful of sponsors will buy time. The result? Bankruptcy.

Here's reason 2)

[EDIT]

The result? Neither type of lib is appealing to advertisers.


[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Everytime a lib is faced with a tough question, he/she goes into evasive mode.

I do know that once Laura Ingraham had someone on from "Lawyers Against the War". She asked him
nicely if he thought it was good that Saddam was now out of power. He refused to answer. She asked
him again a few more times but he still refused to answer the simple yes/no question, then he hung up and when
her producer called him back, he refused to go back on the air and used an obscenity to describe
Laura (acc. to the producer). This has happened a few other times. Maybe it's happened with conservatives too, when being
interviewed by a liberal host, but I don't know of any examples.

>>a format that is based on hysterical emotion rather than inductive and deductive reasoning

Both sides can "rant"/"yell", etc., but you're implying libtalk is based on that. Could be; I didn't listen
to AAR long enough to be able to judge. Maybe some of the Jones hosts (Steph Miller, Ed Schultz)
may fare better, I don't know. It could be more a case of the Jones hosts tried to be entertaining
rather than trying to "win elections/put forth an agenda".

It can be said conservative talk hosts also try to put forth their agenda, and maybe they've just found a way to do that yet still be entertaining.

I happen to be conservative on most issues, liberal/moderate on a couple, and I think lib talk radio should be given a chance _in the free market_ rather than having the government force it on people --i.e., the
(un)Fairness Doctrine. If lib hosts can be entertaining and get great ratings, then fine...Stations that feel
lib talk can be "sold" (attract advertisers and of course listeners) then fine, but so far it doesn't quite match conservative talk.

The TalkingRadio blog, which leans left, has some hard numbers:
"On February 1, 2006, coverage of liberal talk radio peaked. There were 64 stations carrying three or more liberal hosts daily. Since that time it has been all down hill for lib talk. In the past year, the format has gained two stations and lost 19 and gained 658,000 potential listeners while losing 13,815,100."

And I understand 13 of those 19 were in a recent two month period. He says currently there are
47 libtalk stations. A far cry from the number of "conservative" talk stations. Maybe some stations may try to blend a libtalk host in with the conservatives and if it works, fine...but _all_liberal-lineup stations have been
taking their lumps lately...and deserting the format. In some cases to conservative talk but in many,
sports. Easier sell.

"Yes, WalMart, the oil industry, big business in general--they're all evil!! All right, let's take a break now
for these--uh, _public service announcements_ on Air America..."

"Americans don't want to be told that their country sucks 24 hours a day"--Bill O'Reilly, on the subject of
Air America.

Liberals and conservatives alike listen to conservative talkers. I don't know if the same can be said
of lib talk hosts. You may find more "liberals who listen to Hannity" than
"conservatives who listen to Schultz/Hartmann/etc."

Give me an entertaining libtalk host and I'll listen (I have heard the likes of Steph Miller, Jay Marvin,
and Alan Colmes)...so far liberal talk hasn't proved it can compete with liberal talk but who knows.
Maybe they're like a 9 year old Little leaguer trying to hit major league pitching...so far the conservatives
have clicked with talk radio--and yes, maybe some libtalkers are getting more success, but it'll
take awhile...

 

[raccoonradio]

Let me add, to play a bit of the devil's advocate here, that some conservatives have done drugs,
including one particular talk host whom I describe as "Talent on Loan from Oxy Contin"

Also in the case of Boston's _two_ prog. talk stations, it should be admitted that Clear Channel
put them on fairly weak signals (when compared to the conservatalk stations), and did not have
any local weekday hosts. It has also been said that promotion was lacking, though I did see some
complimentary pieces on AAR Boston in the local papers, etc. _Had they thought that the format
showed potential for high ratings_, the PDs at the other talk stations (owned by Entercom, Salem,
Greater Media, and CBS) would have put some of the AAR/Jones product on (especially now since
the two prog talkers have changed format). They have not done so, presumably because they
feel conservatalk is a better sell....

 

[evnlee]

>>Everytime a lib is faced with a tough question, he/she goes into evasive mode.

The TalkingRadio blog, which leans left, has some hard numbers:
"On February 1, 2006, coverage of liberal talk radio peaked. There were 64 stations carrying three or more liberal hosts daily. Since that time it has been all down hill for lib talk. In the past year, the format has gained two stations and lost 19 and gained 658,000 potential listeners while losing 13,815,100."

I question those statistics.

'potential listeners'? What's that? You mean 'market population'?

Lib Talk never had a chance at 13 million 'potential listeners'. Waaaaay too high!

 

[KevinFodor]

Let me add, to play a bit of the devil's advocate here, that some conservatives have done drugs,
including one particular talk host whom I describe as "Talent on Loan from Oxy Contin"

Also in the case of Boston's _two_ prog. talk stations, it should be admitted that Clear Channel
put them on fairly weak signals (when compared to the conservatalk stations), and did not have
any local weekday hosts. It has also been said that promotion was lacking, though I did see some
complimentary pieces on AAR Boston in the local papers, etc. _Had they thought that the format
showed potential for high ratings_, the PDs at the other talk stations (owned by Entercom, Salem,
Greater Media, and CBS) would have put some of the AAR/Jones product on (especially now since
the two prog talkers have changed format). They have not done so, presumably because they
feel conservatalk is a better sell....

My comments (Kevin Fodor):

Though it was not in Boston, I worked once for one of those "fairly weak signals" that Air America was
on. The facts: Rush got 4 times the audience on that weak signal that Air America later did. And, we had
very little promotional money to market Limbaugh with. The problem with AAR was product.

 

[raccoonradio]

Product: some libs probably loved it; others may have preferred NPR or, gasp, even conservative talk! As
for conservatives, I couldn't be troubled to sample Franken's "molasses dripped voice" (that description was
from a liberal btw) for too long. Some hosts may show promise; I did like Steph Miller's prev show when it was on WRKO and stuff like "Stand up News"...but yes this is probably a big part of it. As O'Reilly did say, "America
doesn't want to hear that it sucks 24 hours a day"

Signals: WKOX and WXKS seemed OK (in the car, during the day) but admittedly weaker than WBZ, WRKO, WTKK

Committment: Having at least ONE local host would have been great. Raised visibility and ratings and served
the LOCAL community. They finally put someone on--ONCE A WEEK, Sunday afternoons. Not enough.

Promotion: Again, it was said there was little promotion; I did see a couple billboards and taxi tops. No real
TV campaign BUT some very flattering articles in both Boston papers, and Ch 4 Boston did a puff piece on them
when Steph Miller came to town.

But it still says something about lib talk when in bombs in BOSTON (though again, weak signals). Many
more people were listening to the conservatalkers and WBUR...
And for those who might think, oh, he's some neo-con that would love to see libtalk fail--well to some extent
I do get some schadenfreude but also I know if libtalk succeeds, then whatever. I don't care. I just don't
think the govt should have to step in to force it on people. (If they do, I demand four more conservative
news channels on my cable. Fair is fair!)

 

[kaufcom]

'potential listeners'? What's that? You mean 'market population'?
Lib Talk never had a chance at 13 million 'potential listeners'. Waaaaay too high!

Potential listeners are the number of listerners (ages 12+) in a primary market (not an adjacent market) that are able to receive the signal of particular station on their radios. For example, the Phoenix market includes 3,150,300 radio listeners. The liberal talk station in that market -- KPHX -- is able to reach 89% of these listeners. That means that KPHX reaches 2,800,000 potential radio listeners.

 

[evnlee]

'potential listeners'? What's that? You mean 'market population'?
Lib Talk never had a chance at 13 million 'potential listeners'. Waaaaay too high!

Potential listeners are the number of listerners (ages 12+) in a primary market (not an adjacent market) that are able to receive the signal of particular station on their radios. For example, the Phoenix market includes 3,150,300 radio listeners. The liberal talk station in that market -- KPHX -- is able to reach 89% of these listeners. That means that KPHX reaches 2,800,000 potential radio listeners.

that's quite ridiculous.

stating 'potential listeners' without factoring in how many other signals there are to compete with..

A more honest statistic would be to take the amount of listeners that filled diaries stating they listened to N/T as thier P1, since they have shown the 'potential' to do so in the past. There's your number.

It sounds like 'inflating the numbers to make it sound more impressive'.

That's a bonafide LibTalk stratgey!

 

[sdkalb]

After everyone is done saying that "liberal" radio is dead and "conservative radio lives on" from an arithmetic perspective both have a chance. Face it, the country is split 30/30 (liberal/conservative) with another 40% right smack dab in the middle. That is where pols look for votes and talk shows look for growth. But just like politicians talk show hosts are afraid to alienate their "base" so getting new listeners is difficult. Pretty soon it is a one note samba playing to a selected audience.

I'll freely admit to being more liberal then conservative. That said, I know ONE person who listens to talk radio. Just one. And I've got a pretty wide circle of friends. Most listen to either an all-news station, something that plays music...or nothing. And my friends run the age from 26-66.

That may say more then I am willing to, but I suspect it does say something. In our rush to make sure our stations are either liberal or conservative so as not to alientate our base...we may have driven away the audience.

Just a thought.

 

[raccoonradio]

Many talk radio fans tend to be middle aged and older (I'm 45 btw), though I'd think libtalk skews younger.
There is the old saw about how if you're 20 and not liberal you have no heart and if you're not 40 and
conservative you have no mind. Maybe it's me but somehow I picture most of the fans of libtalk radio as being on the younger side (college kids, etc.) though there are certainly older folks from the Woodstock generation
too, who are still liberal and proud of it...talk radio listeners can be a desireable demo in some ways but it's
also on the older side

I would think in some ways the younger demo would be desireable and libtalk radio if run right might do well.
But somehow I picture younger people being much more into music. That college kid driving by has got
his fave music cranked up, not a talk show

>>(ages 12+)

That's where the potential listeners stat comes from but it's also not considered as valuable as 25-54,
35-54 etc. esp. as far as talk radio is concerned.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Face it, the country is split 30/30 (liberal/conservative) with another 40% right smack dab in the middle. That is where pols look for votes and talk shows look for growth.

The problem is that the way people vote doesn't translate into what people vote for. To consistently vote liberal requires one to not pay much attention to any sort of political discussion. To support liberal political policies requires a high level of ignorance about the issues. To be a liberal, one must be able to believe ten impossible things before breakfast, and doing that requires ignoring political discussion, and listening to music programming instead.

 

[sdkalb]

You're absoluetely right. to be a liberal 9and I'm not sure I know what that is) is to believe ten impossible things before breakfast. The difference is the conservative bemoans the good old days and the liberal goes about making the "Impossible"...possible. Remember, it was thanks to those so-called "liberal" legislators, judges and educators that improved the general well being for all, improved the law to protect those truly in need of protection and insured our civil liberties and made our university system the envy of the world. Being liberal is not only not bad...it is a vast improvement over the so called "conservative" look at th eworld that sees every change as a threat to their way of life. Change is inevitable. Live with it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Remember, it was thanks to those so-called "liberal" legislators, judges and educators that improved the general well being for all, improved the law to protect those truly in need of protection and insured our civil liberties and made our university system the envy of the world.

There you go, you've listed three impossible things that you manage to believe, even though they aren't really correct at all.

Change is inevitable. Live with it.

Not every change is an improvement. Learn to tell the difference.

 

[evnlee]

Remember, it was thanks to those so-called "liberal" legislators, judges and educators that improved the general well being for all, improved the law to protect those truly in need of protection and insured our civil liberties and made our university system the envy of the world.

Yeah, those liberals really did somthing about slavery, huh? Not to mention our secondary schools are the pride of the Earth. No, really! Our public grade schools are so darn good, that all the private schools are closing thier doors today!!

thanks liberals! Keep up the good work! I cannot wait until a visit to the doctor is akin to a trip to the DMV :

 

[sdkalb]

I'm sorry to hear you have had problems with the DMV...last time I was there I had a new set of plates in 15 minutes. I waited 30 minutes for my doctor. Go figure.

As for those who believe the US is worse off now then 20 years ago, I'd remind you there are waiting lists for those who want to legally come here.

For those who suggest that not every change is an improvement I would agree...however change is inevitable. If you stand still you are moving backwards.

I'm proud to be a liberal. Based on what conservatives have done in the last 6 years they should be ashamed of themselves....from reductions in civil liberties, illegal spying, a senseless and meaningless war, "ghost prisoners", rendition, and the general reduction in CIVIL discourse I thank conservatives. They have done a superb job of "balkanizing" the country.

I expect any day for a return to the "love it or leave it " bumper stickers of the Archie Bunker crowd of the 60's. But I am a left leaning, liberal, pinko, commie. Or at least that is what they called me in the 60s.

 

[Radio_Realist]

As for those who believe the US is worse off now then 20 years ago, I'd remind you there are waiting lists for those who want to legally come here.

There you go, posting another irrelevant argument. The issue with immigration isn't whether or not the US is worse or better than the US was 20 years ago. The issue with immigration is whether the US is better off now than the other countries that people want to move from. I think I can guarantee you that if there was a list one could put one's name on to immigrate back to 1987, there would be plenty of names on it. But, since that is totally impossible, it doesn't really matter, does it?

There's also the other issue that you are loathe to admit. And that is the fact that there's no such thing as a single, overall rating for how good or bad things are. Right now, the US is still in good shape. The actions of the liberals in government have been a force for making it worse. The actions of private enterprise and individuals and organizations working outside of government have been a force for making it better. Right now, the private sector has done a better job of making things better than the government has at making things worse. We conservatives want to keep it that way. You liberals want to have the government win and the people lose.

 

[sdkalb]

"You liberals want to have the government win and the people lose."

Obviously if you believe that thne there is no reasoning with you. Good luck.

 

[evnlee]

I'm sorry to hear you have had problems with the DMV...last time I was there I had a new set of plates in 15 minutes. I waited 30 minutes for my doctor. Go figure.

As for those who believe the US is worse off now then 20 years ago, I'd remind you there are waiting lists for those who want to legally come here.

For those who suggest that not every change is an improvement I would agree...however change is inevitable. If you stand still you are moving backwards.

I'm proud to be a liberal. Based on what conservatives have done in the last 6 years they should be ashamed of themselves....from reductions in civil liberties, illegal spying, a senseless and meaningless war, "ghost prisoners", rendition, and the general reduction in CIVIL discourse I thank conservatives. They have done a superb job of "balkanizing" the country.

I expect any day for a return to the "love it or leave it " bumper stickers of the Archie Bunker crowd of the 60's. But I am a left leaning, liberal, pinko, commie. Or at least that is what they called me in the 60s.

You obviously do not live in South Dekalb, or I guarantee you will wait alot longer than 15 minutes for ANYTHING at the DMV.

I dont think the conservatives alone have done a superb job of "balkanizing" the country, they had a little help from the liberals, too.

If you think the DMV is working just fine, then you obviously will have no problem waiting a couple weeks for your cat scans and laser eye surgery when it's 'universal'

 

[sdkalb]

But you see I haven't had those problems at the DMV. As a matter of fact I've been to DMVs in 5 states over this lifetime of mine and the only bad one was in PA. He had a crew cut and a 'tude to go with it.

Maybe the issue is NOT with the DMV but how YOUR DMV in your state operates. Look closer to home rather then blame everyone. Just because YOUR supermarket is bad doesn't mean they are all bad.

If I based my experience with the DMV and using your arguement fo the DMV being an indicator of how government operates then logically I would have no wait for a CAT scan.

As for "universal" health insurance I have family that lives in Europe. they've never waited more then a few days for "elective" surgery and have had important surgery no faster or slower then in the US. That is just a fact. Not conjecture. Not an opinion designed to advance a political position. Just a fact.

You're right, I don't live in the South. I like the northeast and the cold. Boston ain't bad either.

 

[evnlee]

But you see I haven't had those problems at the DMV. As a matter of fact I've been to DMVs in 5 states over this lifetime of mine and the only bad one was in PA. He had a crew cut and a 'tude to go with it.

Maybe the issue is NOT with the DMV but how YOUR DMV in your state operates. Look closer to home rather then blame everyone. Just because YOUR supermarket is bad doesn't mean they are all bad.

If I based my experience with the DMV and using your arguement fo the DMV being an indicator of how government operates then logically I would have no wait for a CAT scan.

As for "universal" health insurance I have family that lives in Europe. they've never waited more then a few days for "elective" surgery and have had important surgery no faster or slower then in the US. That is just a fact. Not conjecture. Not an opinion designed to advance a political position. Just a fact.

You're right, I don't live in the South. I like the northeast and the cold. Boston ain't bad either.

but you've already admitted that in one of the five DMV's you've been to~it wasn't 'efficient' . So you've made my case for me.

AND~ I have family in the UK right now. My Aunt teaches at an USArmy base in England. Her husband ( a Welshman ) waited 5 months for a cat scan that resulted in his condition not being 'caught' early enough, and many, many more health problems arose.

But , dont take my word for it. Let's go to that 'right wing' organization, PBS :

"Many European countries have universal, government-run programs, but they come at the cost of higher taxes. Such systems also result in varying health care quality.

In Britain, for example, all residents are covered, but many people complain of lower standards of care and lengthy waits - of sometimes years -- to see certain doctors.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june04/uninsured_1-19.html

Sdkalb~ I'm glad you will be as happy with your government health care provuder, since you seem to think that the DMV has 'got it's stuff together'... :