U
Unregistered
Guest
Are there many commercial AM or FM stations airing liberal--progressive
'talk now?
If so, which stations are they ?
'talk now?
If so, which stations are they ?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
That is a well-timed question. It has been quite a while since we took an inventory of which stations play on that stage, and the players are constantly changing.
And that means we will again need to have our brain-cells wrestle with the definition of liberal/progressive talk content. When I "get on a toot" and start beating back the effort of the forrest to build a canopy over my little cottage here in the edge between big city and the big mountains, I have to once again review where my property boundaries are lest I upset my neighbor.
I hope that people who choose to contribute to this discussion will remember that there are boundaries, not always well defined and well marked, that separate political and social views in this country. Please be careful about trying to tell me how I should prune the trees on MY side of the boundary, and I will try to afford you a similar courtesy.
At one time Clear Channel (I Heart Radio?) had a few stations that were functioning as liberal/progressive. Is that true today? What is the head-count?
And that means we will again need to have our brain-cells wrestle with the definition of liberal/progressive talk content. When I "get on a toot" and start beating back the effort of the forrest to build a canopy over my little cottage here in the edge between big city and the big mountains, I have to once again review where my property boundaries are lest I upset my neighbor.
I hope that people who choose to contribute to this discussion will remember that there are boundaries, not always well defined and well marked, that separate political and social views in this country. Please be careful about trying to tell me how I should prune the trees on MY side of the boundary, and I will try to afford you a similar courtesy.
At one time Clear Channel (I Heart Radio?) had a few stations that were functioning as liberal/progressive. Is that true today? What is the head-count?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Which are you asking about, liberal or progressive?
(Slaps my head in the realization that this is launched by an unregistered lurker, and is no doubt just a scam to stir up controversy. I thought that management was considering the really excellent idea of limiting unregistered lurkers to replying and not launching threads, especially controversial threads. But, I see I was wrong.)
Very very few are running liberal talk as a 24-hour format. There are a few dozen talk stations who carry a progressive talk show - Thom Hartman is on roughly 70 stations. Alan Colmes is on about half that number.
Is that Crazy Mike Malloy still on anywhere?? Pacifica probably has more listeners
Well, we could turn this into an educational moment.
Could you explain to the rest of us what are the distinctive hallmarks between the two? Some of us kind of lump them together and assume there is no socially redeeming value in taking the time to sort liberal from progressive like sorting cattle down at the sale barn on Thursday.
...simple: Liberals are usually too conservative for Progressives ;-) ...
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Yes, I could. But then this would turn into a political thread.
I guess it's too late to avoid turning political.
That's one way of looking at it. If I had to make an analogy, I'd say that Progressives are to Liberals what Libertarians are to Conservatives.
From a radio perspective, both Libertarian and Progressive points of view are much more ideologically based, and attract listeners with a different mindset from Conservatives and Liberals. The former pair would attract a smaller number of more intense listeners who enjoy in-depth discussion, while the latter would attract a higher number of casual listeners who just like to hear their existing opinions validated and encouraged.
Last edited:
I must compliment you for taking my question and responding to it in a way that does not push the topic into a political slug-fest.
Hopefully there can be some additional conversation, with additional participants in which we tackle the next step and still remain non-combative from a political view.
I can take your answer two different ways. (1) Libertarians and Progressives view civilization in a more rational way, while Conservatives and Liberals are wildly passionate in their views whether they are logical or not. (2) Libertarians and Progressive are people who are not as emotional while Conservatives and Liberals are more radical and visceral in their emotional views.
If I am a radio programmer, and the company has a spare (FAILING!) channel in the market and I am charged with picking a talk-format to implement, what are some of the factors I have to consider in selecting one of these four ideological audiences to pursue. Do the four different "mnd-sets" have different day-parts that make them available as possible listeners? Do some of the "mind-sets" respond well to phone call based programs while other respond better to one-directional talk? Do the four different "mind-sets" respond differently to a hot current-events content vs. theory-and-logic just for the sake of theory and logic which ignores the hot news topics of the day or week?
If we try to have a conversation here about which mind-sets are right and which are wrong, our conversation degenerates downward like political discussions often do. If we can collect some observations on broadcast style that is appealing and broadcast style which offends or drives away, then maybe will have had a productive conversation.
In my own conversations (NOT on-line conversations) I tend to use liberal and progressive interchangeably, but probably give a little more thought to which terminology is more appropriate when talking about libertarians and conservatives. I may have to rethink my lack of a big fence between liberal and progressive. (Is that a fatal flaw which would doom my efforts if I were a radio programmer?
)
Clear had about 10 stations on the Air America net at one time. Air America imploded, the byproduct of a failure to get ratings in all but a couple of markets, and went through management and ownership upheavals.
Most of the stations defected. A few, like the Clear Channel LA station, attempted to preserve the format but they did not get notable ratings. Even the most successful of all of them in ratings generation, the Portland affiliate, went into decline and opted for sports when they could not sustain viability with progressive talk.
While programmers tend to look at the content and rather uniformly state that the hosts on Air America were too intense and not entertaining enough, I don't think that the content is the only reason why we don't see many progressive stations today. What owners and managers see is that the progressive concept failed, and money was lost. They see that Air America failed, and then local efforts to succeed with the format also failed, for the most part. They see the track record, and don't like the risk - reward ratio.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Regardless of ideology, a talk-based station would need to constantly provide content that listeners would find informative or reassuring and hopefully not keep ranting on the same-old, same-old. Looking at past history it seems that the drum beaters of the political Right have had more success in attracting listeners by continuing to feed lies, damn lies and statistics to the partially informed and these listeners seem to want to be reassured they are correct in their thinking and have many other listeners which complement theirs.
The political Left doesn't seem to be nearly as concerned with reassurance or need the numbers of allies. Perhaps that is due to the progressive "live and let live" attitudes prevalent on this side of the fence or that politics just isn't as centric to their persons as on the Right. Unless one has a particularly well defined axe to grind it becomes pretty boring listening to repetitious messages no matter where they originate.
Education and economics also seem to have something to do with it. The better educated and economically better off Left seem to have many alternative sources of political information than Rant Radio.
And then there are the personalities on both sides of radio and TV. I am not a devoted listener of anything coming close to ranting on either medium but from what I have observed in my limited exposure it becomes apparent that the lefty personalities, as a general rule, are far more interesting and tongue-in-cheek than the pseudo Hitlers of the right where the topics seem much more serious and immediate. Regardless of which side of the fence the talking head is on, unless they can deliver their messages in an informative and interesting manner they most probably will not last long. Of course, the demagogs always seem to find an audience no matter how small.
The political Left doesn't seem to be nearly as concerned with reassurance or need the numbers of allies. Perhaps that is due to the progressive "live and let live" attitudes prevalent on this side of the fence or that politics just isn't as centric to their persons as on the Right. Unless one has a particularly well defined axe to grind it becomes pretty boring listening to repetitious messages no matter where they originate.
Education and economics also seem to have something to do with it. The better educated and economically better off Left seem to have many alternative sources of political information than Rant Radio.
And then there are the personalities on both sides of radio and TV. I am not a devoted listener of anything coming close to ranting on either medium but from what I have observed in my limited exposure it becomes apparent that the lefty personalities, as a general rule, are far more interesting and tongue-in-cheek than the pseudo Hitlers of the right where the topics seem much more serious and immediate. Regardless of which side of the fence the talking head is on, unless they can deliver their messages in an informative and interesting manner they most probably will not last long. Of course, the demagogs always seem to find an audience no matter how small.
The content is a platform. The success of talk hosts depends more on the ability to entertain. Within the industry, and irrespective of political inclination, the consensus following the demise of Air America was that the hosts were not entertaining for the most part, too intense and too "crusading" while traditional centrist and conservative hosts were personalities first. On Air America, the hosts that were foremost entertainers actually got some numbers and a couple stayed in syndication after AA died.
Talk listeners don't necessarily seek content that is "informative" or "reassuring" but, rather, something fun to listen to.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Don't hold your breath.
OK, I'd suggest considering these factors (which will probably turn this into a political slug-fest)
First, consider that Progressives and Libertarians, being more motivated by intellect than emotion, tend to be boring policy wonks that only a very, very small portion of the population wants to hear, you're most likely to have an extremely small pool of potential listeners to pick from. So, chances are that any truly Progressive or Libertarian talk shows will probably tank really, really badly in the ratings.
Second, consider that Conservatives, tend to like hearing spoken word format radio content that affirms their existing beliefs and opinions. To those listeners, hearing things that affirm that they are correct is "fun". It is "entertaining". And, being stroked and told "we're right and they're wrong" never gets old or boring. It's almost like going to church to hear the same message of reassurance and hope over and over every Sunday.
Liberals, on the other hand, embrace the principle that it's up to others to take care of seeing that things get done, so they'd rather spend their time listening to entertaining music format radio. That's not totally, 100% accurate, since it's a broad, sweeping statement. However, the ratings for conservative and liberal talk radio stations are consistent with that observation.
I believe that fundamental truth is why no matter how anyone packages liberal talk radio, there simply isn't a big enough audience for it in most markets of the United States to make it viable. Sure, in some isolated markets a liberal talk show might have some success. I think that says more about the unique nature of those markets than about a technique that can be replicated elsewhere.
As for what terms you use, most Americans are extremely lazy when it comes to linguistic accuracy. Most people who want to hear liberal radio programming in the radio, for whatever reason, tend to use the p-word in hopes that it won't scare people away because of the negative connotations that "liberal" has in many peoples' minds. If you're a radio station suit trying to sell liberal talk radio, you'll have a better chance of success if you call it "Progressive", even though that's an inaccurate term. But then, since when has broadcast radio ever worried about accurate nomenclature? Whatever you put in the air, slap a name on it that'll help it sell, and to hell with grammatical accuracy!
If it helps, imagine a Venn diagram of Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives, and Libertarians. It would show large intersecting areas where Progressives and Liberals are in agreement on some issues, and Libertarians and Conservatives are in agreement on other issues. By carefully controlling which issues are covered by the hosts, by ignoring those issues where Liberals and Progressives disagree, you can theoretically improve your chances of gaining more listeners. The same is true for the areas where Libertarians and Conservatives disagree. However, I don't think there's anything that would persuade the listeners who agree with Liberal political philosophy to actually pay attention to spoken word programming. At least, not in numbers large enough for commercial success.
Last edited:
You are trying to convince me that a substantial number of listeners found El Rushbo "entertaining"? I found his delivery hilarious at times with his blubbering and slobbering all over his golden mic but neither informative nor entertaining - and especially not "fun". (Paul Harvey was "fun".) There are others as well obviously and on both sides of the fence. I always pictured one of these listeners as someone like Archie Bunker who wanted to hear the dirt on the other side and also wanted to hear someone agree with their personal position.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I do not find Rush Limbaugh entertaining, but his fans do. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that thousands of other people do. In point of fact, his success proves that sufficient numbers of fans of spoken word format radio do find him fun and entertaining. Whatever sort of stereotype you might want to conjure in your own mind about the typical Rush listener says far more about your personal bigotry and narrow mindedness than it does about those who enjoy listening to Rush.
Political Talk radio is running out of gas.
The young generation has no interest in the format.
Sports may have some miles left but not much.
As for CC dropping the formats like LA, for example, they used those frequencies to move Rush over there and place local hosts in his former stations.
The young generation has no interest in the format.
Sports may have some miles left but not much.
As for CC dropping the formats like LA, for example, they used those frequencies to move Rush over there and place local hosts in his former stations.
Interesting observation, Lester. But it assumes that nothing new in the world of politics is going to happen to grab their attention by the throat.
I've lived through WWII, The arrival of the atomic age, Korean War, The Cold War, The McCarthy rhetoric about Communists under every bed, Vietnam which politically shoved Liberals front-and-center in the political picture, the Reagan era and then 9/11 which shoved Conservatives front-and-center in the political picture.... you get the picture.
Today's young people probably don't know who they are yet. We didn't when we were young. Once they get their face slapped or their teeth kicked in by some "ism" or some social upheaval, then today's young people will discover themselves.... politically, socially, maybe religiously, and then they can create a whole new world of radio, Internet, video or tee-shirts.... and THEN we will know "whats out of gas" and who is in the drivers seat.
Take it from an old weathered cowboy.... out-guessing what the direction of our youth will be after life slaps them in the face a couple of times is a bit of a fool's errand.
Oh yeah. I lived through Orval Faubus and Dan Quayle, too.
I've lived through WWII, The arrival of the atomic age, Korean War, The Cold War, The McCarthy rhetoric about Communists under every bed, Vietnam which politically shoved Liberals front-and-center in the political picture, the Reagan era and then 9/11 which shoved Conservatives front-and-center in the political picture.... you get the picture.
Today's young people probably don't know who they are yet. We didn't when we were young. Once they get their face slapped or their teeth kicked in by some "ism" or some social upheaval, then today's young people will discover themselves.... politically, socially, maybe religiously, and then they can create a whole new world of radio, Internet, video or tee-shirts.... and THEN we will know "whats out of gas" and who is in the drivers seat.
Take it from an old weathered cowboy.... out-guessing what the direction of our youth will be after life slaps them in the face a couple of times is a bit of a fool's errand.
Oh yeah. I lived through Orval Faubus and Dan Quayle, too.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You overlook the fact that an interest in the political process or some important event doesn't automatically translate to a desire to listen to spoken word format radio where that topic is discussed. The past few decades have demonstrated that people with some political alignments who feel extremely strongly about certain issues were never motivated in large numbers to hear those issues talked about on spoken word format radio. That doesn't mean that they didn't care about the issues. It meant that they didn't care to listen to spoken word format radio where those issues were talked about.
Passion for an issue or ideology simply doesn't mean an automatic desire to hear it talked about on the radio.
No, I didn't overlook your point. Talk Radio has survived and prospered by serving the wants and needs of a relatively small audience, and much of that audience is elderly, and male, and angry, and learning a whole new attitude toward the concept that death is just around the corner.
If we have some kind of socio-political-theological earthquake in our society, and a number of people suddenly find motivation to become activist and/or verbal on some topic, most of them will not want to participate in talk communication... on the radio, on the internet or at the town hall meeting. But if FIVE PERCENT of those folks do find that they get fulfillment and satisfaction from participating in group sharing of the spoken word, that could enough new listeners and yakkers to make Talk Radio GOLDEN once again.
I'm not pushing for it, I'm not hoping for it, I'm not encouraging it.... I'm just gritting my teeth as I mutter: Get ready for it. We don't know yet what it is, but when it happens, hold onto the nearest handrail. It will shake up society and communications.
If we have some kind of socio-political-theological earthquake in our society, and a number of people suddenly find motivation to become activist and/or verbal on some topic, most of them will not want to participate in talk communication... on the radio, on the internet or at the town hall meeting. But if FIVE PERCENT of those folks do find that they get fulfillment and satisfaction from participating in group sharing of the spoken word, that could enough new listeners and yakkers to make Talk Radio GOLDEN once again.
I'm not pushing for it, I'm not hoping for it, I'm not encouraging it.... I'm just gritting my teeth as I mutter: Get ready for it. We don't know yet what it is, but when it happens, hold onto the nearest handrail. It will shake up society and communications.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
That's a really HUGE "if". Getting just five percent of the listening audience to all develop a desire to hear spoken word format radio instead of musical entertainment, that has a particular political perspective (regardless of what that perspective is), is probably impossible. Yes, getting that 5% would make talk radio golden again. But the chances of it happening are, based on prior history, slim and none.
- Status