Hannity- 3 hours of unrelenting, goofy jingoism....

[johnbasalla]

Hannity is ok for me. Not the greatest, not the worst. As for others, I don't see why anybody would call "The Savage Nation" to disagree with Michael. The second he knows that the caller is going to disagree with him, he starts hammering away and they rarely get a chance to fully state their case.

I believe some of the Salem hosts are quite good. My favorite radio talk show host, by far, is DENNIS PRAGER. His mature, well thought out and delivered opinions are compelling listening. He comes up with great arguments to defend his positions. Additionally, as he says, he talks about everything. To that end he has his "Ultimate Issues Hour" which covers large philosophical issues. A breath of fresh air, on-the-air.
Then there's the Friday second hour "Happiness Hour". These are unique.

If you're one of those complaining about the one-sidedness of talk radio, check out THE MICHAEL MEDVED SHOW. He relishes taking callers that disagree with him. In fact he has whole shows dedicated to disagreement on "Disagreement Days". It's also fun to listen to the conspiracy segments.

 

[ctkatz]

Liberal Talk Radio just doesn't earn any money and in today's corporate world that is the bottom line.

then i think the solution is to break up the big radio conglomerates. as an addition to what docwashburn posted, because so many talk stations are owned by the same company, they are going to program them as cheaply as possible, meaning not only multiple rush clones on those stations, but now they are running best-ofs on sister stations. i do not believe that hannity's show airs at any time on WHAS out of louisville, but there he is, with a best-of on the weekend. if you bust up the conglomerates chances are likely that other voices can be heard, including liberal talk.

and by the way, if you think that stephanie miller or bill press couldn't take out tony cruise or francene cunicello or at least give them a serious run for their money, i think you're mistaken. the same goes for ed shultz (i prefer hartmann, but his style won't fit louisville). ed could put a hurt on limbaugh. and randi would straight up beat meiners. liberal talk can work in markets, but i don't think that some radio execs would put enough serious effort in seeing it work well.

 

[Parttimer]

then i think the solution is to break up the big radio conglomerates.

So somehow if smaller companies owned the stations, suddenly the listeners would want to hear liberal talk, and those shows would get ratings?

Do people make their listening choices based on who owns a station now?

 

[ctkatz]

nope. i'm not saying that. what i am saying is that rather than a station having a contract to run a show, its the local corporation. break up the local corporations and that means less stations are airing the exact same programming. other voices get heard. including liberal talk. i didn't say anything about getting ratings. just that it gets heard. we would see if it takes off after that.

and actually some people do base their listenership based on who owns the station. i don't listen to any local clear channel station based on what they did to take the big stick blowtorch community station and turned it into some generic station you could hear anywhere else in the country.

 

[One Who Knows]

Liberal Talk Radio just doesn't earn any money and in today's corporate world that is the bottom line.

then i think the solution is to break up the big radio conglomerates. as an addition to what docwashburn posted, because so many talk stations are owned by the same company, they are going to program them as cheaply as possible, meaning not only multiple rush clones on those stations, but now they are running best-ofs on sister stations. i do not believe that hannity's show airs at any time on WHAS out of louisville, but there he is, with a best-of on the weekend. if you bust up the conglomerates chances are likely that other voices can be heard, including liberal talk.

and by the way, if you think that stephanie miller or bill press couldn't take out tony cruise or francene cunicello or at least give them a serious run for their money, i think you're mistaken. the same goes for ed shultz (i prefer hartmann, but his style won't fit louisville). ed could put a hurt on limbaugh. and randi would straight up beat meiners. liberal talk can work in markets, but i don't think that some radio execs would put enough serious effort in seeing it work well.

Then...why isn't this happening in all of the markets where the Ed's and Randi's do exist?

 

[ctkatz]

signal strength pure and simple. i don't know of any progtalk station on a good signal anywhere in the country other than portland. i do know of third rate conservotalk stations having better signals than progtalk stations if they happen to be in the same market.

its real hard to generate ratings if no one can hear you.

besides how many markets is ed in? laura ingraham has more affiliates and i think most here would consider her a third tier conservative talker.

 

[DocWashburn]

[EDIT-response to deleted content]

The people that I come across listening to Rush...etc Lot of white truck drivers, older whites in the trades(electricians, plumbers), small business owners(walked into many a small business with Rush going), evangelical christians, and retired (usually white, not always), and fair number of military ppl. These ppl are in situations where they can listen to the radio and they want something more engaging than music.

Liberals/progressives tend not to have occupations/situations where they can listen to the radio... Teachers/ppl in the medical fields/ academics/ journalists/..etc They are the ones that listen to NPR on the way to work..

Now your lower class type's if there is a TV around during the midday they turn on, Court TV type shows, Jerry Springer, Oprah..etc but if they are listening to the radio its music(fodder for the masses..AC, hip hop, Pop)

Most radio programming is geared for the lowest common denominator... People who aren't that bright, don't reflect much.. So if you are a Program Director today basically you are programming for idiots... NICE line of work... must be very stimulating...

[/quote]
You obviously have not listened to Rush very much. I heard him do an hour on quatum physics once, taking callers from physicists all hour long. He is brighter than anyone I've ever heard on the radio. If his audience composition was as you described it, they would not have handed him an 8-year deal for $400 million.

 

[DocWashburn]

Actually, a good number of broadcasting folks have looked for an excuse to air progressive talk. But the market actually rejected it. Funny how that works out sometimes. Intelligent, articulate liberals like Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo gave it their best shot and went down in flames. Allan Colmes is on his second go-round in national syndication and certainly is not setting the woods on fire. The most listened to talk show hosts (for their dayparts) are Glenn Beck (9-12N EST); Rush (12N-3P EST); Hannity (3-6P EST); and Levin (6P-9P). What does that tell you about what the Talk radio audience prefers?

First of all, Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo were HORRIBLE on the air, and it had NOTHING to do with their respective ideologies. They had almost no presence behind the mic. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck have extensive radio backgrounds. BIG difference. Beck was a reasonably successful top 40 morning guy for years. Limbaugh was from wacky music radio as well. They know that you have to be "entertaining" first.

Secondly, many seem to be completely ignorant of the chronology of events that has the talkradio landscape sounding the way it does today. About 20 years ago, Rush Limbaugh's show was being picked up in syndication by more and more affiliates every week and, because of his showmanship, found it's way to many great talk radio stations around the country. I'm talking about successful stations--some legendary stations, many of which had liberals, conservatives and everything in between all over their schedules.

As Limbaugh's popularity grew, a very common phenomenon unfolded---one that manifests itself in musicradio all the time: He was copied. But in this case, the showmanship wasn't what was focused on, but rather his ideology. So, in their infinite uncreative wisdom, talk programmers around the country systematically hired one Rush Limbaugh copycat after another. Over many years, this resulted in what was depicted in the movie "Field of Dreams": If you build it, they will come. And they did. Conservative hosts and conservative listeners took ownership of the format. Fewer and fewer people who were less than conservative warmed to such a monothematic drumbeat and gradually drifted away, further tilting the ratio of listeners of talkradio in the conservatives favor.

Along comes "Lib-Talk". This poorly conceived response to conservative talk radio only bolstered the claim that only conservatives like hearing conversation on the radio. The problem with Lib-Talk was that many of it's hosts sucked. Another significant problem was that the affiliates of Lib-Talk were usually second and third tier signals in the marketplace.

Let's see: The morphing of mainstream talkradio into conservative talkradio took a good 12 to 15 ytears to complete, entrenching it on the biggest and most legendary signals in all markets. Gee, Lib-Talk, with their crappy hosts and inferior signals couldn't beat those established stations in a year or less? That must mean people only want to hear conservative hosts! (This isn't to say Lib-Talk would have succeeded the way it was programmed anyway. Many of the Air America hosts, for example, were terrible entertainers.)

Programming a station based on ideology is short-sighted. However, many managers claim at this point that they are completely satisfied with their niche. Great. But don't tell me that only conservatives want to hear interesting conversation, because that is BS. It's the worst kind of lazy Monday morning quarterbacking there is, because all you're doing is ignoring history and assuming a situation is the result of factors that serve your purpose or bias.

Talkradio has become a very dark place, and it didn't have to be that way.

Each of the top talk hosts for their dayparts (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin) has a unique style. I can not think of a currently successful talk show host who is a Rush impersonator. Compelling talk radio works in part because it is entertaining. But the host also has to be able to defend his view in a give-and-take with callers. Perhaps there are a lot of liberals who don't want to take that chance. I am usually not up lat enough to catch Colmes. But I heard Ellis Hennican fill in for him recently and he was cutting callers off left and right - seemed terrified of what they might say. I think its a lot easier for someone of a liberal persuasion to write editorials or do a newscast. Actually having to defend one's views in "real time" with live callers is a high-wire act

 

[Leebo65]

Hannity will not allow anyone to make a point........

I'm listening to Hannity and like he always does he interrupts his caller trying to make a point.. He walks all over them.. Its like he doesn't want another point of view on air... What's his problem...

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Rush isn't college educated, but he apparently does read. You don't have to be a college grad to have a mind and be able to think and to be well read. I don't always agree with Rush and don't listen to his show often, because he is so one sided which makes him very predictable, but he is articulate, generally can be entertaining when not ranting, as he plays his conservative audience like a fiddle. Rush is a "secular" preacher preaching his view of the world. If you agree totally with him, you are a conservative and a ditto head, if you disagree with him in any way, you are (considered by him) to be a liberal or worse yet a moderate who is someone (according to Rush) who doesn't have the backbone to take a stand where as a true moderate probably does have strong opinions, just some of those opinions are not conservative, but are strongly held views just the same. In other words, a moderate is a person who thinks about the issues, but comes to a different conclusion, in many cases, than elRushbo.

Hannity is just loud, angry, and loses when he has Ariana Huffington on as a guest. I heard her on his show one day and she kicked his butt. Of course when he got her off the phone, he spun it like he won.....he didn't and I'm sure anyone who actually was paying attention to what was said would agree, she out debated him and made her points far better than Mr. Hannity.

 

[Heater]

[EDIT-response to deleted content]

The people that I come across listening to Rush...etc Lot of white truck drivers, older whites in the trades(electricians, plumbers), small business owners(walked into many a small business with Rush going), evangelical christians, and retired (usually white, not always), and fair number of military ppl. These ppl are in situations where they can listen to the radio and they want something more engaging than music.

Liberals/progressives tend not to have occupations/situations where they can listen to the radio... Teachers/ppl in the medical fields/ academics/ journalists/..etc They are the ones that listen to NPR on the way to work..

Now your lower class type's if there is a TV around during the midday they turn on, Court TV type shows, Jerry Springer, Oprah..etc but if they are listening to the radio its music(fodder for the masses..AC, hip hop, Pop)

Most radio programming is geared for the lowest common denominator... People who aren't that bright, don't reflect much.. So if you are a Program Director today basically you are programming for idiots... NICE line of work... must be very stimulating...

You got it. Liberal talk radio is not popular because Liberals have different Demographics. Plus, Liberals do not want to listen to someone who agrees with their views to justify their views. Liberals may listen to Conservative radio in a mocking sort of way but they do not need to listen to someone who agrees with them everyday to validate their way of thinking. Smart Conservatives don't need that either.

I am sure Hannity understands this and exploits his demographics perfectly. That is why a lot of people can not handle listening to his childish, moronic ranting regardless of political ideology.

 

[willcail]

This is why I Podcast the shows I want to hear.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Hannity is ok for me. Not the greatest, not the worst. As for others, I don't see why anybody would call "The Savage Nation" to disagree with Michael. The second he knows that the caller is going to disagree with him, he starts hammering away and they rarely get a chance to fully state their case.

I believe some of the Salem hosts are quite good. My favorite radio talk show host, by far, is DENNIS PRAGER. His mature, well thought out and delivered opinions are compelling listening. He comes up with great arguments to defend his positions. Additionally, as he says, he talks about everything. To that end he has his "Ultimate Issues Hour" which covers large philosophical issues. A breath of fresh air, on-the-air.
Then there's the Friday second hour "Happiness Hour". These are unique.

If you're one of those complaining about the one-sidedness of talk radio, check out THE MICHAEL MEDVED SHOW. He relishes taking callers that disagree with him. In fact he has whole shows dedicated to disagreement on "Disagreement Days". It's also fun to listen to the conspiracy segments.

The real problem with the Salem talk stations is that they are virtually run the same way. Prager and Medved are the best in the bunch, but they are weighed down by the lack of creativity on a programming sense.

All of the stations - excluding WIND in Chicago - have no local programming of note beyond brokered time slots on the weekends. Plus, Salem botched up their relationships with Talk Radio Network (where Laura Ingraham was replaced with the less-than-stellar Mike Gallagher) and Dave Ramsey's self-syndication firm.

Note, too, that one of their stations (WHK) dropped Savage from their lineup after the autism flap, with the OM calling him a "knucklehead." The former is completely proper to do (and what I would have easily done as well)... but calling him a knucklehead is just ridiculous. Why stoop to his level?

Salem is means to an end. It's ALL about the ideology before the program quality. Prager and Medved are the exceptions, because both have had good broadcasting careers otherwise. Hugh Hewitt and Bill Bennett never had that when their shows started, and it still shows a bit today. And quite frankly, I'm shocked that Gallagher's still in the biz after the way Salem initially treated him.

 

[radiotower40]

Savage, at least, is clearly an intellecual. Hannity is a paper -- how can I say this -- um, tigress. I will put up with a lot of crap if I respect someone's intellect. Beck is only slightly more tolerable than Hannity because he clearly does not take himself as seriously as Hannity and Savage. God, I hope there is a place in talk radio for a compelling moderate, a la Bob Lassiter.

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but; I noticed nobody had pointed it out. Are you talking about
the Bob Lassiter who worked at WLS in Chicago about 15 years ago? He also worked in Florida? I'm sorry to say that
he passed away in 2006.

 

[BingoLong]

greetings from a noob! great thread-not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but radio isn't static, much as it may seem to be. We carry Hannity but the guy is stale as hell. I'm a Dem, but at least I can admit while I hate his politics, Levin IS entertaining. Thankfully our owner consented to add Dennis Miller to the line-up, but only because he was pissed as Bortz. I would love to know of a center, to slightly left of center entertaining host. There are several good reasons "Morning Joe" is being received so well, and were it just Joe or Pat, it wouldn't be. No small part of it is the round-table format-not sure if that would work for radio, although we copied it for a local golf show. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

[cm454]

Yeah if we only had the old media to rely on, no one would ever question Obama.

Yeah, thank God we have the "new" media, particularly FOX News. Where would we be without the factual misrepresentation and falsehoods propagated so recklessly on a daily basis? Where else can we see people like Glenn Beck who seems more in need of psychiatric help than a makeup person? Where else can we see the childish rantings of a grown man obsessed with all things Obama in Sean Hannity?

Three cheers for the NEW media!

 

[radiotower40]

Yeah if we only had the old media to rely on, no one would ever question Obama.

Yeah, thank God we have the "new" media, particularly FOX News. Where would we be without the factual misrepresentation and falsehoods propagated so recklessly on a daily basis? Where else can we see people like Glenn Beck who seems more in need of psychiatric help than a makeup person? Where else can we see the childish rantings of a grown man obsessed with all things Obama in Sean Hannity?

Three cheers for the NEW media!

I guess we would be watching the factual misrepresentation and falsehoods propagated so recklessly on a daily basis
on MSNBC.....

 

[storrs19]

I'm thankful for Alex Jones, Rollye James and websites like WorldNetDaily. Glenn Beck looks like a spaz every time I turn his show on. He is acting like a stupid 5 year old throwing a fit.

 

[cm454]

Yeah if we only had the old media to rely on, no one would ever question Obama.

Yeah, thank God we have the "new" media, particularly FOX News. Where would we be without the factual misrepresentation and falsehoods propagated so recklessly on a daily basis? Where else can we see people like Glenn Beck who seems more in need of psychiatric help than a makeup person? Where else can we see the childish rantings of a grown man obsessed with all things Obama in Sean Hannity?

Three cheers for the NEW media!

I guess we would be watching the factual misrepresentation and falsehoods propagated so recklessly on a daily basis
on MSNBC.....

FOX News and all the RUsh clones purposely LIE and MISREPRESENT information. While the traditional broadcast networks certainly have their flaws, LYING was never their mission statement. MSNBC simply offers a completely one-sided slap back at these Fox morons and I'm glad for it.

 

[DocWashburn]

greetings from a noob! great thread-not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but radio isn't static, much as it may seem to be. We carry Hannity but the guy is stale as hell. I'm a Dem, but at least I can admit while I hate his politics, Levin IS entertaining. Thankfully our owner consented to add Dennis Miller to the line-up, but only because he was pissed as Bortz. I would love to know of a center, to slightly left of center entertaining host. There are several good reasons "Morning Joe" is being received so well, and were it just Joe or Pat, it wouldn't be. No small part of it is the round-table format-not sure if that would work for radio, although we copied it for a local golf show. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Morning Joe "received well"? As in ratings? Or am I missing something?