Left Beats Right In Seattle In 25-54

[Scribbler]

Just noticed on Thom Hartmann's web site that in Seattle, in the all-important 25-54 demo, Hartmann's syndicated national show beats Rush Limbaugh.

In addition, Ed Schultz beats Sean Hannity, Al Franken beats Michael Savage (in PM drive), and Randi Rhodes beats Bill O'Reilly and Laura
Ingraham. The liberals are all on CBS Radio's KPTK, which has a decent signal, unlike most "progressive" stations. All this without a local morning show (KPTK carries Stephanie Miller's syndicated show in AM drive).

As you probably know, Hartmann also does a local morning show on Clear Channel's KPOJ in Portland, which also has good 25-54 (and 12+) numbers.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

 

[RBA]

What's that I hear? Bueller, Bueller? Echos? The sounds of silence. ahhh.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Seattle

Let's put on our hippie sandals and Che T-shirt and hold our anti-war signs down at the Starbuck's!
Ah, we see why they call it the "Left Coast'

Put prog. talk on WRKO in Boston, a strong signal, and you'll soon see their ratings would be more like the
KC Royals than the Boston Red Sox...if Entercom figured prog talk would sell in the Hub, they would have done it long ago.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

What's that I hear? Bueller, Bueller? Echos? The sounds of silence. ahhh.

What's there to comment on? It is what it is. Liberal talk wins in demo in Seattle. Congratualtions.

I think it's kinda sad that you need to re-emphasize the point--or seek affirmation from the right. Maybe the nanny state didn't hug you enough when you were growing up liberal.

 

[manager3]

The political arguement/debate was split from this topic and moved to the Off Air board. Please keep these posts relevant to radio, not politics. You can continue the political debate on the Off Air board.

Thanks!


Managing Board Editor

 

[Radio_Realist]

I'm genuinely curious about something. How does one discuss political talk radio programming without mentioning politics? Isn't that rather like discussing sports talk radio programming without mentioning sports?

I'm not pursuing an agenda with this question. I really can't see how one can separate politics from political talk radio any more than one can discuss music format radio without at least touching on music. Are the discussion in here supposed to be nothing but gossip about who is getting hired and who is getting fired?

 

[FightingIrish]

I'm genuinely curious about something. How does one discuss political talk radio programming without mentioning politics? Isn't that rather like discussing sports talk radio programming without mentioning sports?

I'm not pursuing an agenda with this question. I really can't see how one can separate politics from political talk radio any more than one can discuss music format radio without at least touching on music. Are the discussion in here supposed to be nothing but gossip about who is getting hired and who is getting fired?

The political flame wars go here:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/board,192.0.html

This is a site about RADIO, not POLITICS. There are lots of boards out there about politics. So, if you don't like it here, go elsewhere.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"This is a site about RADIO, not POLITICS."

Yes, I understand that. Let me rephrase my question so that even you can understand what I am asking.

How does one discuss the News/Talk radio format, in which talk about politics is the central core of the format, without mentioning politics? In discussing the radio sports talk format, doesn't one end up mentioning sports in the course of discussing sports talk on the radio? In discussing the various radio music formats, doesn't one end up mentioning music in the course of discussing music formats on the radio?

So how does one discuss radio News/Talk programming, which is all about politics, without any mention of politics in the course of the discussion?

 

[FightingIrish]

"This is a site about RADIO, not POLITICS."

Yes, I understand that. Let me rephrase my question so that even you can understand what I am asking.

How does one discuss the News/Talk radio format, in which talk about politics is the central core of the format, without mentioning politics? In discussing the radio sports talk format, doesn't one end up mentioning sports in the course of discussing sports talk on the radio? In discussing the various radio music formats, doesn't one end up mentioning music in the course of discussing music formats on the radio?

So how does one discuss radio News/Talk programming, which is all about politics, without any mention of politics in the course of the discussion?

The thing is, not to flame you, but you turn radio-related threads into political feces-flinging fests with some pretty inane stuff. Same goes for 954, Raccoon and Herb. There's a board called "Off The Air" that's designed for off-topic discussion.

As for discussing sports, take a closer look here:

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/board,295.0.html

Hmmmm... I don't see a whole lot of "your team sucks"-type of discussion here.

All I'm saying is, let's keep it to a mature discussion of RADIO here, and keep the political stuff on the off-topic board.

 

[fred flintstone]

When the discussion deals with the quality of the hosts and on-air product, that's radio.
When it's about business aspects of the station, that's radio.
When it's about whether you agree with the views expressed, that's politics.
When it's about whether you think a show is good or bad only because of whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed, that's politics.
When it's about what you think of the people who agree with the views expressed, that's politics.
And when you can't resist taking shots at people or parties with whom you disagree, that's over-the-line politics.

When I was doing debate in high school, we had to be ready to argue either side of the proposition (we would not know which in advance). Lawyers, in the course of their careers, often argue positions 180 degrees opposed to each other.
If Rush (or Hannity) did a liberal show, would it still work? Would it be entertaining radio?
If Franken (or Steph or Randi) did a conservative show, would that work? Would it be good radio?
Only the views expressed change, not the format or presentation.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"When I was doing debate in high school, we had to be ready to argue either side of the proposition (we would not know which in advance). Lawyers, in the course of their careers, often argue positions 180 degrees opposed to each other."

Which is all well and good if all one needs to impress is an impartial debate judge or to simply do a better job of convincing a jury than one's opponent. To be able to convincingly and entertainingly expound on political opinions for several hours a day, five days a week, a high level of genuineness is required. It's one thing to fool an audience for the length of time it takes to participate in a structured debate contest or a courtroom trial. It's quite another to do the same thing day after day for years.

"If Rush (or Hannity) did a liberal show, would it still work? Would it be entertaining radio?"

No, it would not work. At least, it wouldn't work more than a few weeks. No one can maintain the level of genuineness and passion required to be successful for much longer than that unless the passion is truly genuine.

"If Franken (or Steph or Randi) did a conservative show, would that work? Would it be good radio?"

Same answer.

"Only the views expressed change, not the format or presentation."

You leave out the most important aspects of the talk radio format. The intangible qualities, the passion, the verve, the enthusiasm. Audiences can see through phoniness (or is it "hear" through phoniness). Maybe not at first, but over time if a talk host is simply pretending, the audience will pick up on it.

There are dozens and dozens of talk show hosts in the country who work at local stations who have no hope of ever getting a syndication deal. They are the talk show host equivalents of musicians who play in local bar bands. Only a small handful of them have the spark, the talent, the special quality that separates the also-rans from the real stars. And one of the most important ingredients in that star quality is genuineness.

If anyone could be a successful national talk show host and could bounce between one side of the political spectrum or the other, it would have happened by now.

 

[fred flintstone]

Dream On

Please! This is your idea of "realism?"

Radio is rife with examples of on-air talent of radio people...
Convincingly selling products they know to be cr*p.
Plausibly making claims they know to be false.
Playing music they hate and pretending to love it.
Convincing the audience they are close friends with co-workers they loath.

Radio is a business filled with people who lie for a living - make a virtue of their ability to lie effective - and take an almost infantile joy in their ability to lie.

Next you'll tell us politicians are sincere and honest human beings (at least the ones with whom you agree).

Maybe Rush or other national hosts could not change sides politically but a local host could easily change markets and change sides without qualm.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people - H. L. Mencken

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Radio is rife with examples of on-air talent of radio people...
Convincingly selling products they know to be cr*p.
Plausibly making claims they know to be false.
Playing music they hate and pretending to love it.
Convincing the audience they are close friends with co-workers they loath."

And when one is reading scripts for a commercial or has to come up with 30 seconds of talk in between records, then fooling an audience isn't all that difficult. Those things you describe aren't that tough to do in small doses. It's like comparing a movie actor being able to play an emotional scene until the director says "cut" compared with a stage actor staying in character for a four hour play, eight performances a week, for several years. And even that is an imperfect comparison.

News/talk isn't about cracking the mic open for a few moments between songs. News/talk requires filling hours and hours of time day after day. It's not the same thing as pretending to like country music for a moment or two at a time. It's not about reading a script for a commercial about a product several times until you get a good, useable take.

The only way one could believe that the audience could be fooled by someone who was only pretending for three hours at a time, five days a week, year-after-year would be if that person truly believed that audiences were, on the whole, really stupid.

 

[fred flintstone]

The Art of the Con

The only way one could believe that the audience could be fooled by someone who was only pretending for three hours at a time, five days a week, year-after-year would be if that person truly believed that audiences were, on the whole, really stupid.

Bingo!

Ask anyone who has ever answered the phone at a radio station (yes, including talk stations - maybe especially talk stations).

Part of it is that listeners aren't really paying attention.
Part is that smart people read books, are among early adopters of new media and new audio technology, or - at the very least - are listening to public radio.

Talk radio - left or right - is dumbed down political discourse. Listen to the spots (pretty much the same ones on liberal or conservative talk radio) and you'll get a pretty good idea of the kind of people who listen. Clearly, talk radio is not targeting people who think for themselves.

And if you don't think people can be fooled over the long-term, I offer into evidence the radio preachers and televangelists (at least those who got caught doing deeds in private not consistent with their preaching). I see Jim Baker is back with a new cable show and thousands of people are again sending money and prayer requests.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"And if you don't think people can be fooled over the long-term, I offer into evidence the radio preachers and televangelists"

This isn't about fooling some of the people some of the time, this is about fooling large enough numbers of people to generate large Arbitron ratings. The fakes and frauds you use as examples prove that some people can fool enough gullible people to bilk them out of their money. It doesn't take all that many gullible fools to make up a profitable audience for a con man.

But it takes far more people to make the size of audiences that the top syndicated radio news/talk hosts attract. One might be able to find a small but profitable niche audience with a fake or a phoney news/talk host on a local station. But this isn't about that level of radio, this is about big-time major coverage syndication success. This is about drawing the kind of audience numbers that Limbaugh or Franken draw, not about drawing the size audience that snake oil salesmen make on brokered infomercials.

 

[fred flintstone]

Fooling People

"As my old pappy used to say, 'you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time and those are pretty good odds'." - Maverick

According to Talkers Magazine's (questionable and probably inflated) figures, Rush reaches 13.5 million people weekly. Hannity reaches 12.5 million (with considerable overlap with Rush's listeners). Arbitron reports that weekdays the talk and news-talk formats combined get a 13.2 Average Quarter Hour share. During the week radio reaches 142.4 million 12+ listeners (out of 203.7 million possible in all rated markets - about 70 per cent). This means Rush has to fool about seven per cent of the people - all or some of the time; Hannity about six per cent.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"This means Rush has to fool about seven per cent of the people - all or some of the time; Hannity about six per cent."

Exactly! To fool that many people consistently for years and years is so close to impossible that it might as well be impossible. To fool that many people once, to fool that many people for the duration of a 30 second commercial, to fool that many people in a scripted drama or comedy, to fool that many people in little 30 second chunks of time between songs, that's easy. There are thousands of radio professional who can do that, maybe even tens of thousands.

But keeping it up hour after hour, day after day, year after year, that's really, really hard. I don't think that there is anyone out there who could do. And even if there was, why would anyone want to go to the trouble of finding someone with such a talent when there are far more people to choose from who don't need to pretend to hold any opinions?

Why bother searching for a "generic" talk show host to turn into the next star of either side of the political spectrum when there are so many to choose from who don't have to fake anything?

 

[fred flintstone]

It's All Show Biz

Again, how do you know any of these talk show hosts are sincere, as opposed to putting on act - do shtick - pandering to the rabble?

And their audience - a small percentage of the population - is filled with who people who want, even desperately need, to believe. The appeal of Rush and Hannity is to "true believers," people whose lives are aren't working, who lack self-esteem and therefore need to identify with something outside themselves to make up for that. True believers need a flag to wave, a leader to follow and an enemy to hate. All somebody has to do is get on the radio and push the right buttons.

What Rush really believes is irrelevant. What he can get others to think he believes - and more important in a sales medium - what he can get others to do is what matters. And Rush's political rants only serve to get people to listen to the Verbal Advantage, Health Insurance for the Self-Employer and e-Harmony spots. That's the real purpose of talk radio. Rush, like most people in the biz, will say anything - do anything - agree to anything in order to be on the radio. This is a business in which people sell out for just over minimum wage and put up with abusive managements so they can go on the air and tell lies to people and work in the lowest form of show biz. This is the world Rush and Hannity come from - the world which produced them. They are not any different than the rest of radio.

 

[smedge2006]

Yes there are chameleons in talk radio

Yes, some hosts have been political chameleons and have even been successful at it:

MIKE SIEGEL: A liberal in the 80s with corn row hair implants, Siegel switched during the "Billary" era to stay employed and was a successful conservative host for many years with KVI Seattle. He even made it to national for a time as host of "Coast to Coast AM" following one of Art Bell's departures.

STEVE KANE: A liberal in the 80s in Miami, then claimed a conversion and remains on the air in South Florida as a conservative today. (He buys the time, but that has less to do with his talent than consolidation and the collapse of English-language talk radio as a business in So Fla.)

JAY MARVIN: A liberal, but played a conservative in Milwaukee to stay employed -- a move he admitted later was a mistake.

I would estimate that as many as a third of the so-called "conservative" hosts during the Billary era (mid 90's when talk stations began firing liberals and looking for Rush clones) were closet liberals trying to stay employed in talk radio, before the geeky, nasal-sounding true believers like Mark Belling and Bob Lonsberry started popping up everyplace...

 

[Radio_Realist]

"I would estimate that as many as a third of the so-called "conservative" hosts during the Billary era (mid 90's when talk stations began firing liberals and looking for Rush clones) were closet liberals trying to stay employed in talk radio, before the geeky, nasal-sounding true believers like Mark Belling and Bob Lonsberry started popping up everyplace..."

I do not dispute or deny for one moment that what you've said isn't accurate. But, there is the matter of the degree of success those chameleons you listed have achieved. If you define "success" as "managed to keep working and not get fired", then they were successful. My point, which perhaps I should have been more explicit about, was that even though someone can carve out a middling career niche for himself in the low to middle echelons of the news/talk world, reaching the top levels requires more than journeyman's skills and pretending to believe what one says.

I've acknowledged that anyone with a modicum of radio skill can fool enough people to keep a local job for a period of time, maybe even get a minor syndication deal. But the success of those in the low to middle ranks of the news/talk world only helps to prove that to burst forth from the mediocre middle requires something beyond basic skills. It requires passion for the subject matter and content. That cannot be faked successfully over the long haul.

That's not an insult at those journeymen who hold down the mediocre middle. Most of radio, like most of the rest of American life, is made of the mediocre middle. Mediocrity is the goal of most people, in their careers and in life itself.

The issue is whether or not someone responsible for putting together a syndication package, like AAR, should settle for a cadre of mediocre journeymen, or should put for the effort to find the rare talents who combine both good radio skills with genuine passion for the program content.