Left-wing talk: out in the ratings cold

[SirRoxalot]

Speaking of Out in the Cold...

> By the way, I tried getting into media right after I got my
> degree years ago, and I "played by the rules," as was
> suggested by those on the inside.
>
> No luck.
>
> Face it: if you don't know the right people, or if those in
> power don't take a shine to you, forget it!

...Or, if you're not willing to start overnights in Podunk, IA where you can learn your craft.

...Or, if you're not willing take constructive criticism and work to improve.

...Or, if you just don't have the talent to make it.


I think I'm beginning to see why Program Directors aren't lining up at your door.

PS - All those of you "in the biz" who "knew the right people" when you started, please raise your hand.

PPS - It's "Dampier", not "Dampler". I rarely agree with Phillip, but I respect him enough to spell his name correctly.

 

[doc9464]

> > Sorry. Paid sycophants.
>
> So you don't think their comraderie on the air might go
> beyond a paycheck? What evidence do you have of that?
>


Hello, took some time to read this thread, won't try to address the local stuff:

Why the potshots at Stephanie Miller?...her show is a fairly different spin on talk radio (as comedy). I think its got longer legs than most of the liberal shows in growth potential. Of course, Randi is the growth item in "classic" talk from the liberal side. Jim Ward is a talent and the producer, Lavoie, seems to have the special effect, sounds, or research in support of their host.
She takes calls, engages even the conservatives who just call to annoy, and is actually a very smart host who happens to be an activist off the air. She's a winner, no doubt, with a bright future.

I met Stephanie Miller & Jim Ward at a WKOX special event in Boston. She and Jim have been friends for many years. Jim is no syncophant or "paid laugher".
He is, however, a gifted voice talent who can do some of the funniest impressions of famous/obscure people as well as the politicians we can't stand.

I always laugh at the vitriol thrown at liberals who decided to enter this genre. Rush and the other conservatives had this medium pretty well to them selves with a few exceptions. Liberal radio enters and 12+ becomes the defining medium, the hosts "spew" hate, the material is boring, the show values aren't (fill in the blank). It's all false hyperbole.

A casual scan using Google shows the absolute trend to kick AAR and the other breakout liberal radio hosts as hard as possible, a strong desire to attach scandal, and in some cases just out and out lies about the progress and future of the liberal radio genre. Do that same search on the liberal or left-leaners and you will probably see more criticsm of the conservative hosts and their caustic words versus trying to see "conservative radio" wiped off the dial. That is a significant difference between whats coming from each side.

The right is adamant about seeing liberal radio die despite their obvious dominance for now. So far the new genre of talk radio has survived all the naysayers and with the climate the way it is now, it has a chance to catch on even more.

 

[BillFranklin]

Re: Speaking of Out in the Cold...

> > By the way, I tried getting into media right after I got
> my
> > degree years ago, and I "played by the rules," as was
> > suggested by those on the inside.
> >
> > No luck.
> >
> > Face it: if you don't know the right people, or if those
> in
> > power don't take a shine to you, forget it!
>
> ...Or, if you're not willing to start overnights in Podunk,
> IA where you can learn your craft.
>
Excuse me! I tried getting into the business at the "small market" level so I could work on my skills and benefit from constructive criticism and work to improve.

The people in power at that level wouldn't hire me.

Example: I applied for a news job in Corning not long after I graduated from college. I was passed over for someone who lived in the area. The PD didn;t say whether the person he hired was any good.

As for talent, or the lack thereof, there are many people in this racket (ex-politicians, ex-jocks, newspaper columnists, etc.)whose level of talent does not justify one second behind the mike.

As for "Dampier," why should I respect someone who has nothing better to do than to attack people whose views differ from his?

If you want to side with establishment liberal types like Dampier and BobSmith, go right ahead.

I'm just stating the obvious.

If you can't grasp that concept, that's your problem.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Back to the Cold War

> As for "Dampier," why should I respect someone who has
> nothing better to do than to attack people whose views
> differ from his?

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. There's no reason to respect anybody who doesn't share your views, and has the temerity to express contrary views in a public forum.

Thank you for the lesson in truth, justice, and the American Way. By the way, you might check your image in the mirror before you conclude that Phillip Dampier is the only one "who has nothing better to do than to attack people whose views differ from his".

> If you want to side with establishment liberal types like
> Dampier and BobSmith, go right ahead.

I think that a little investigation on your part would reveal that I rarely agree with Phillip Dampier. A little further investigation would reveal that Phillip is several degrees left of Bob Smith, who strikes me a much closer to the center of the political spectrum, and with whom I often agree.

The bottom line is that closed-minded people on both ends of the spectrum believe they have a corner on the "real truth" and refuse to acknowledge facts or theories that don't fit their narrow view. This makes them every bit as wrong as the people they rail against, and leads to futher polarization instead of solutions.

> I'm just stating the obvious.
>
> If you can't grasp that concept, that's your problem.

Oh, I grasp the concept. You're a wannabe without a fresh perspective to offer, who has no experience. I don't have a problem. I have a radio job. YOU'RE the one with the problem, Bub.

Since this has gotten way off the radio topic, let me suggest that you pursue further political discussion on the "Off the Air" board. That board seems to have devolved into a political discussion forum that might be more to your taste.

 

[Bob1370]

> Nowhere did I say that one can't atone -- that's irrelevant
> to the argument. What I was pointing out was that the NAACP
> does not "chase anyone ... regardless of party" for using
> the N-word. When Byrd used it twice in 2001, the NAACP did
> not call for his resignation

But you conveniently forgot to mention that the NAACP DID forcefully demand an apology from him, and GOT one, though the particular use he made of the word was a historical analogy to victimization and not in itself intended as a racial insult. Get ALL the facts right when you make a point, don't be selective and don't ignore the full context.

> the way they did when Lott made
> his stupid comments at Thurmond's birthday party -- and Lott
> didn't utter the N-word.
>
No, he said things that in context were a lot more pernicious. And they didn't ask him to quit his Senate seat, only his leadership position...which his own party members also did, and he appropriately complied.

We're getting off the track of this board, which SHOULD be about radio and what's said on the radio. Let's pull it back to the realm of the germane, shall we?

 

[JohnGalt]

> Get ALL the facts right when you make a
> point, don't be selective and don't ignore the full context.
>

You've just made the point that BillFranklin was making -- it's not what you say, it's the political affiliation of who you are that causes the response. You assume "perniciousness" in Lott's comments but are willing to give Byrd a pass.

BTW, here's Byrd's quote. Explain how it's in any way appropriate or excused in any way by its context.

"There are white (N-word)s. I've seen a lot of white (N-word)s in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

 

[dampier]

> This was before I realized that I was programmed like most
> college grads into being "liberal" and found my roots.

This moment brought to you by IRONY.

> Nor do I, Dampler, have access to transcripts or recordings
> of what someone may have said so I can respond with quotes,
> fabricated or otherwise.

Oh, you are admitting you don't have access to facts. See, if you want to make sweeping accusations about people, be prepared to back them up, especially if the people you are talking about have a long record of statements. If you are accusing me of fabricating quotes, you'll need to *prove that.*

> I do, however, recall an incident on 1/7/05 in which Alan
> Levin said he wanted to call black people the n-word. This
> was during a discussion with his sidekicks about comic Dave
> Chappelle and how he and other black comics frequently use
> the "n-word."

Context, an amazing thing. There is a major difference between discussions about the word and then throwing it on the air as vitriol.

> I've heard him call columnist Ann Coulter a (w)itch.

Well, she is. She has said far, far worse. I have those facts and quotes too, if you'd like to see them. Of course you wouldn't.

> I've heard him repeatedly bash conservatives and use coarse
> language and sexually graphic material.

Bashing conservatives is not (yet) a crime. I hear "liberal" being trashed up and down the dial, but I'm not calling the FCC. I don't know what sexually graphic is to you. What's graphic to you may not be graphic to me.

> It's obvious, Dampler, that you hate conservatives.

Am I angry too? Is this coming out of Sean Hannity's "English Language for the Left" pamphlet? It's always the same thing - people who criticize conservatives are "angry," "on the edge," "moonbatty," "hate-filled." And I thought it was the liberals who were "sensitive."

I judge people based on what they say, issue by issue. It's not about hate, it's about disagreement and debate.

> You're jealous over the fact that Limbaugh has 600
> affiliates, Hannity had 500, Savage has closeto 400, etc.

Limbaugh has more than 600 affiliates. I'm not jealous of Rush or Hannity or Savage. In fact, I don't complain they are on the air. But when Air America showed up, you would have thought we were invaded. All the anger and hate was thrown the way of liberal talk with a set of failing premises lined up like dominoes:

1) Nobody listens to libtalk. Not true.
2) Air America will be off the air in a year. Ditto.
3) Liberals are always angry and never laugh. Ditto ditto.

...and the beat goes on.

In fact, in the money demos, I'd say Hannity has the jealousy problem after Randi Rhodes beat his butt in NY. O'Reilly's radio show is a catastrophe being dropped in several markets. Michael Savage is a product, so I don't worry about what he does because it's an act.

> Like it or not, their success has led to other conservative
> hosts finding success on-the-air, both locally and
> nationally.

Or, imagine this one in the scenario of corporate radio of today, the concept worked in several markets and big radio owners relentlessly copied it in market after market because their consultants told them it was a proven concept.

Just last year Clear Channel realized Air America was a proven concept and began rolling it out in several markets themselves.

Sounds like the same familiar pattern.

> You ilk has dictated what can be said and played in media
> for close to 50 years, and your side is now losing.

Yeah, nobody said a negative thing about Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton while in office. How did we even find out about the stained dress and the million dollar porn report from Ken Starr?

Yawn... these talking points about the liberal media are so old they are collecting social security.

> You can't stand the fact that talk-radio, the web and other
> alternative media are gaining listeners, viewers and
> readers, so you start whining that there's no voice to
> counter the right.

Are you trapped in 1994? The alternative media and blogosphere, by the way, are both right and left wing. There is a voice to counter the right wing now, it's called libtalk, much to the consternation of Fox and a handful of nutty blogs that try to push scandals about the liberal talk industry.

> I have news for both of you: conservative media provides an
> entertaining and informative alternative to "legacy media,"
> and, as a result, is increasing in audience size.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly and Salem's crop of political talkers can quote you in their media kits. Nobody else believes it.

> As for the fallacy that Democrats don't goose-step, Joe
> Lieberman is being chased out of the Democratic Party,
> because he supports our role in the Middle East.

Actually, it's more complicated than that, but you can put that in Off the Air.

> Zell Miller was run out of politics for the same stand
> Lieberman has.

We realized he was NUTS. You can have him, duel challenges and all.

> You're wrong, Dampler!

Oh no!

> Dampler, you're pathetic.

It makes me feel warm all over to know you think so.

 

[dampier]

Re: Speaking of Out in the Cold...

> As for talent, or the lack thereof, there are many people
> in this racket (ex-politicians, ex-jocks, newspaper
> columnists, etc.)whose level of talent does not justify one
> second behind the mike.

Oh, you mean like your good friend Bob Lonsberry who was a newspaper columnist (and let's say he wasn't Mr. Popular amongst most of his D&C colleagues the whole time) before he discovered his real talent lie in subjecting us to his talk radio voice? Now more people can roll their eyes at him.

Or maybe Bill Bennett.... I have another one of those infamous lists of mine, by the way, if you'd like me to post that.

> As for "Dampier," why should I respect someone who has
> nothing better to do than to attack people whose views
> differ from his?

I get discussed even in threads not replies to me now. I feel so wanted. I can send you an autographed photo you can throw things at if you'd like.

Oh and by the way, pot to kettle.

> If you can't grasp that concept, that's your problem.

Bill, you are actually fun to write to. You should get into the topics on Off the Air. There is a whole cadre of conservatives in there Doc and I rail against on a regular basis. You can feel safety in numbers and we get to write some more to each other back and forth.

 

[BillFranklin]

See,
> if you want to make sweeping accusations about people, be
> prepared to back them up, especially if the people you are
> talking about have a long record of statements. If you are
> accusing me of fabricating quotes, you'll need to *prove
> that.*
>
> > I do, however, recall an incident on 1/7/05 in which Alan
> > Levin said he wanted to call black people the n-word. This
> > > was during a discussion with his sidekicks about comic
> Dave Chappelle and how he and other black comics frequently use
> > the "n-word."
>
> Context, an amazing thing. There is a major difference
> between discussions about the word and then throwing it on
> the air as vitriol.

> I just gave you proof! You sloughed it off as nothing special.

Here's more proof: I talked to Tom Mule, a comic who is one of "Brother Wease's" sidekicks. He admitted that he had no radio experience prior to being hired to work for "Wease" at WCMF.

He admitted during this morning's episode that, when "Wease" interviewed him for the job that, the host said, and I quote, "your demo sucked."

Alan Levin brought Mule on board, anyway, because he liked him.

> > I've heard him call columnist Ann Coulter a (w)itch.
>
> Well, she is. She has said far, far worse. I have those
> facts and quotes too, if you'd like to see them. Of course
> you wouldn't.
>
I've seen the Left's response to Coulter's views, so don't watse my time, as it has value.

Besides, I read the actual quotes, and not some idiot's twisted version of them.

You can't stand conservatives and their arguments, so you personally attack them.

> > I've heard him repeatedly bash conservatives and use coarse
> > language and sexually graphic material.
>
That's what people in the MLM have been doping for years. I never said it was, as you put it, "a crime."

> I don't know what sexually graphic is to
> you. What's graphic to you may not be graphic to me.
>
Don't play this "what's graphic to you" crap with with me!
When you're talking explicitly about excretory functions and detailed accounts of sexual acts and functions, that's graphic.

Apparently, you like people talking about "banging" on the air.

> > It's obvious, Dampier, that you hate conservatives.
>
> Am I angry too? Is this coming out of Sean Hannity's
> "English Language for the Left" pamphlet? It's always the
> same thing - people who criticize conservatives are "angry,"
> "on the edge," "moonbatty," "hate-filled." And I thought it
> was the liberals who were "sensitive."
>
I rarely, if ever, listen to Hannity, Limbaugh or anyone else. This may shock your system, but I think independently. I'm not a political (BLEEP) for anyone, as you seem to be.

> I judge people based on what they say, issue by issue. It's
> not about hate, it's about disagreement and debate.

>Where have I heard that before?

> > You're jealous over the fact that Limbaugh has 600
> > affiliates, Hannity had 500, Savage has closeto 400, etc.
>
> >
> In fact, in the money demos, I'd say Hannity has the
> jealousy problem after Randi Rhodes beat his butt in NY.
> O'Reilly's radio show is a catastrophe being dropped in
> several markets. Michael Savage is a product, so I don't
> worry about what he does because it's an act.
>
Money demos. Keep spinning.

Michael Savage a "product?" He has a top-rated talk-show and three best-sellers on the NYT's list, without publicity from anyone in media, even FOX News Channel!

You sound exceptionally jealous.

I bet, if you had your way, you'd issue a industry "fatwah" and have all conservative hosts banished from the airwaves.

> > Like it or not, their success has led to other
> conservative hosts finding success on-the-air, both locally and
> nationally.
>
> Or, imagine this one in the scenario of corporate radio of
> today, the concept worked in several markets and big radio
> owners relentlessly copied it in market after market because
> their consultants told them it was a proven concept.
>
It's called a business move. And for many stations, it works.

> Just last year Clear Channel realized Air America was a
> proven concept and began rolling it out in several markets
> themselves.
>
Or, so you say.

It's very possible that local managers for Clear Channel may have decided to carry Air America programming, and not necessarily Corporate HQ in Texas.
>
> > You ilk has dictated what can be said and played in media
> > for close to 50 years, and your side is now losing.
>
> > As for the fallacy that Democrats don't goose-step, Joe
> > Lieberman is being chased out of the Democratic Party,
> > because he supports our role in the Middle East.
> >
> > Zell Miller was run out of politics for the same stand
> > Lieberman has.
>
> We realized he was NUTS. You can have him, duel challenges
> and all.
>
See what I mean when I said you attack those whose views differ from yours?

When I told our acquaintence, Bob, that I wouldn't tell him how I would do a talk-show, it was because I suspected that he would call me "a Bob Grant/Michael Savage/Morton Downey, Jr." hybrid bomb thrower.

It didn't surprise me that you would take the bait and expose yourself for what are.

You can spin all the inside-the-industry garbage you want.

We're not in Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union, where it's the party line or a spot in the salt mine, gas chamber or firing squad.

For some people who share your warped views, I hold out hope that they may see the light.

In your case, I gave up hope for Lent!

 

[BillFranklin]

> > Get ALL the facts right when you make a
> > point, don't be selective and don't ignore the full
> context.
> >
>
> You've just made the point that BillFranklin was making --
> it's not what you say, it's the political affiliation of who
> you are that causes the response. You assume
> "perniciousness" in Lott's comments but are willing to give
> Byrd a pass.
>
> BTW, here's Byrd's quote. Explain how it's in any way
> appropriate or excused in any way by its context.
>
> "There are white (N-word)s. I've seen a lot of white
> (N-word)s in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just
> need to work together to make our country a better country,
> and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
>
John:

Thank you for clarifiying the issue.

I came to the forum with the goal of gaining information so I can get into the radio business.

I was informed by one of our acquaintences at this board that one would essentially have no chance getting into talk-programming without media experience.

Unfortunately, this does not ring 100% true.

I've seen ex-jocks, politicians, failed comics, and other non-radio people get into the business.

Like most other industry, talent and hard work does not always guarantee someone upward career movement.

Bob Smith suggested that I tell him in an earlier post that I share with him and the class how I would host a talk-show.

I declined the offer, because I would risk being called, in so many words, a troublemaker.

I smelled a trap: Bob Smith works for WXXI (NPR) in Rochester. He later gave me the station's web site address and suggested that a producer/talk-host opening exists.

My fitting into a public broadcasting environment would be like asking Limbaugh or Hannity to join the DNC.

It won't happen.

Public broadcasting is for high-minded people who don't want to compete in the broadcast marketplace.

Dampier showed himself for what he is and started attacking me from the get-go.

Is this what happens when someone with a different experience trying to get radio work gets when he shares his views with someone from the "establishment?"

As for what people can say on the air, left-wingers get away with murder, while conservatives are crucified.

Sen. "Sheets" Byrd proved my point.

Contrary to what Dampier said, politics plays a bigger role in who gets into, and who gets run out of, any business more than one would think.

Again, John, thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[dampier]

> I just gave you proof! You sloughed it off as nothing
> special.

Your "proof" was to hand me a copy of The Enquirer when I asked for The NY Times. We still have to take your word on it. We asked for Pavarotti and got K-Fed instead!

> Here's more proof: I talked to Tom Mule, a comic who is one
> of "Brother Wease's" sidekicks. He admitted that he had no
> radio experience prior to being hired to work for "Wease" at
> WCMF.

You are arguing with yourself now. I don't have a dog in the fight about whether someone has to be a "professional radio announcer" in order to have credibility in the business of talk radio. I don't care one way or the other, but your earlier posts were all about how those non-radio people had no business being on the air when there are unemployed "professionals" waiting for their turn.

> Besides, I read the actual quotes, and not some idiot's
> twisted version of them.

The funniest thing about watching O'Reilly, Coulter, and friends complain about how they are being misquoted, judged unfairly, and attacked by "extreme left wing elements" is that those sites, like Media Matters, only quote what they actually said. The clips are there for you to enjoy. And nobody has to twist what Ann Coulter has to say anyway.

> Don't play this "what's graphic to you" crap with with me!
> When you're talking explicitly about excretory functions and
> detailed accounts of sexual acts and functions, that's
> graphic.
>
> Apparently, you like people talking about "banging" on the
> air.

Why are you listening to these shows? I don't listen to them. Again, we have to take your word on it. If you believe license rules were violated, why are you telling us? Record them and send them to the FCC.

> I rarely, if ever, listen to Hannity, Limbaugh or anyone
> else. This may shock your system, but I think independently.
> I'm not a political (BLEEP) for anyone, as you seem to be.

I wonder where their ratings come from. It's amazing to me everytime I catch one of you guys using a catchphrase from one of their shows, you always deny listening to them. Sean who? Rush? What's that? In fact, I have yet to find one single conservative on here who used something right out of a conservative talk show admit they actually listen to that show. Who knew that since Brokeback Mountain, the closet lease would be up for the gay community and is now rented by conservatives too embarrassed to admit they listen to conservative talk radio!

As I offered earlier, come join us in OffTheAir and we'll test to see how independently you think about the issues of the day.

> Money demos. Keep spinning.

Yeah, that concept has nothing to do with the business of radio.

> Michael Savage a "product?" He has a top-rated talk-show and
> three best-sellers on the NYT's list, without publicity from
> anyone in media, even FOX News Channel!

His show was invented to fit in the Hot Talk format back in the 1990s. Angry, combattive, targeting a male demo. For him it was just another product to sell. His earlier career was pitching vitamins on the radio. In fact, if you're really interested in learning about Michael Weiner, his real name, enjoy:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/05/savage/

> I bet, if you had your way, you'd issue a industry "fatwah"
> and have all conservative hosts banished from the airwaves.

Which of course is absolutely contrary to the position I wrote and you just quoted in this message.

> It's very possible that local managers for Clear Channel may
> have decided to carry Air America programming, and not
> necessarily Corporate HQ in Texas.

Yeah, and everyone came up with the Jack format independently and ran it on their stations at the same time ... it's a coincidence.

> When I told our acquaintence, Bob, that I wouldn't tell him
> how I would do a talk-show, it was because I suspected that
> he would call me "a Bob Grant/Michael Savage/Morton Downey,
> Jr." hybrid bomb thrower.
>
> It didn't surprise me that you would take the bait and
> expose yourself for what are.

I "expose" my views in here every day quite consistently. I didn't need your "bait."

> You can spin all the inside-the-industry garbage you want.

Yeah, this is only a site about the radio business. How off topic!

> We're not in Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union, where
> it's the party line or a spot in the salt mine, gas chamber
> or firing squad.

> For some people who share your warped views, I hold out hope
> that they may see the light.

Warped views is also another magic moment brought you by new Family Sized Irony! Look for the coupon in your Sunday paper!

Please, please, please... come to OffTheAir and start posting.

 

[Bob1370]

> Mr. Smith:
>
> Thanks, but no thanks, to working for a "broadcasting
> welfare" organization.

Nobody asked you to apply to such an organization. You can't. Such an organization doesn't exist in Rochester, or anywhere else in the state. You're obviously unaware of the fact that neither WXXI nor any other noncommercial station in the state gets a dime in operating subsidy from any level of government whatsoever. Every dollar is raised privately from membership subscriptions or underwriting sponsorship. Glad for the opportunity to clear up misinformation that's become common in some quarters.

> A conservative who is not afraid to speak his mind like me
> would not be a fit for public broadcasting.

That'll be news to Curt Smith, a colleague who, as you should know, was a speechwriter for George Bush the elder.

> For me to even consider setting myself up for WXXI
> management to blow me out of the water before being
> considered for work would be akin to slicing my own throat!

Again, who asked you to apply for any particular station? My comments and suggestions really applied to a possible application to WBEN, WHAM or WSYR, any of which would probably be a comfortable fit for you assuming you have the goods and can prove it to their management. Let's see how they react to what you have to offer. And let us know how you do when you contact them.

> Besides, I thought you weren't concerned over ratings.

Huh? That's a non sequitur.

> As for your assertion that "Wease" is an original, what
> makes you think he didn't listen to any shock-jocks while he
> was in Philly or some other city years ago and copied bits
> of their styles?

Philly (which I used to visit a lot, given that I dated a Philadelphia girl back in the day) didn't have shock jocks as we know them today back when Wease was there. Talk radio was dominated by guys like Irv Homer and rock radio by guys like John DiBella, and no one ever called either one of them a shock jock. (And Stern was just getting started at K-Rock in 1986 and was years away from syndication when Wease started on the air in Rochester.) He didn't have anyone to copy in that genre. In a lot of ways Wease is as much a classic informal, conversational personality in the Arthur Godfrey mode as he is anything (and if you were an adult before 1972, which Wease was, you'd remember Godfrey).

> By the way, I tried getting into media right after I got my
> degree years ago, and I "played by the rules," as was
> suggested by those on the inside.
>
> No luck.
>
> Face it: if you don't know the right people, or if those in
> power don't take a shine to you, forget it!

Or msybe you just didn't put together a tape and resume that grabbed 'em.

> This was before I realized that I was programmed like most
> college grads into being "liberal" and found my roots.
> Unfortunately, I don't have recording devices hooked up to
> my car radio while driving to and from work.

That didn't stop Lionel from calling WFLA from his car and becoming, first a regular featured caller, and then, a regular featured host. If you have something to say and can say it cogently maybe you can get on that way. Lionel's national now. He had the chops and found the way to show it. What's holding you back?

> I've heard him repeatedly bash conservatives and use coarse
> language and sexually graphic material.

I haven't. I HAVE heard Limbaugh use cruder terminology.

> I doubt that you, Bob, would closely listen to what Levin
> says, and just follow blindly to what everyone else in local
> media says and thinks of "Wease."

I have, and I respect the guy's ability to connect with his audience. He's the Jack Slattery of the boomer generation.

> If you can spare a day off or two or three from WXXI, why
> don;t you listen to a few shows in their entriety.

No need. When you've spent a lot of time listening to a guy for the better part of two decades you know what he does, and what he doesn't do.

> You're jealous over the fact that Limbaugh has 600
> affiliates, Hannity had 500, Savage has closeto 400, etc.
>
> Like it or not, their success has led to other conservative
> hosts finding success on-the-air, both locally and
> nationally.

All that proves is that some hosts cater to Lowry Mays' political preferences for the 1100+ stations his family controls.

> You ilk has dictated what can be said and played in media
> for close to 50 years, and your side is now losing.
>
> You can't stand the fact that talk-radio, the web and other
> alternative media are gaining listeners, viewers and
> readers, so you start whining that there's no voice to
> counter the right.

Rush's audience is down 40 per cent from his 1994 weekly cume peak. He has been downgraded in market after market and was recently dumped by KSTP in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

> You have had the forum for half a century, and now, you
> can't stand competition.
>
> I have news for both of you: conservative media provides an
> entertaining and informative alternative to "legacy media,"
> and, as a result, is increasing in audience size.

Arbitron disagrees.

> I know all about the Lonsberry deal, and if it weren't for
> the left-wing goons (gay and lesbian groups, Bill Johnson,
> Rev. Raymond Graves, etc.) who called WHAM several weeks
> after Lonsberry's remarks were made, we wouldn't be talking
> about it!

Lonsberry's last straw was his online insult of Bishop Matthew Clark and the Roman Catholic Church, after which his passionately Catholic boxx said he'd seen enough and told him to take a walk. You don't make blatant insults against the majority religion in your market and manage to keep your job, especially if your boss happens to belong to that faith himself. Lonsberry's successors failed, and corporate HQ in San Antonio ordered his rehiring (over Jeff Howlett's objection, I'm told, but Howlett needs to keep his own job till his youngest graduates from college and he can retire). But Lonsberry has yet to regain the audience level he once enjoyed.

It happens. Bush used to be approved by 89% of the population. Now his approval rating is 39%. Same thing's happening to his backers on the air. Limbaugh's losses I already told you about. Hannity has lost a quarter of his home market audience in the last 12 months. Savage is a flop in NYC on WOR. Dr. Laura just got dumped in Buffalo. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend.