-
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
Liberal Talk Exit Stage Left
- Thread starter SDRadio
- Start date
I stood at the chalk board last Thursday and wrote 100 times:
I will NOT engage in any more threads that turn into political dog fights that end up in T.I.O.
Repeat as necessary.
I guess my age is showing through. I don't quite understand your message.
Are you crowing because you were part of the programming that was so successful that Liberal Talk is having exit the stage?
Are you lamenting the fact that Liberal Talk will be exiting the market... as a failure?
Do you have a "dog in this fight"?
Your message was so cryptic, I am not sure what kind of conversation and response you are hoping for.
I will NOT engage in any more threads that turn into political dog fights that end up in T.I.O.
Repeat as necessary.
I guess my age is showing through. I don't quite understand your message.
Are you crowing because you were part of the programming that was so successful that Liberal Talk is having exit the stage?
Are you lamenting the fact that Liberal Talk will be exiting the market... as a failure?
Do you have a "dog in this fight"?
Your message was so cryptic, I am not sure what kind of conversation and response you are hoping for.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
No fighting. There was a lot of phone calls and email suggesting that Air American and/or Novas M would land somewhere here the first quarter in San Diego.
I believe there is room for progressive talk. I also believe that as long as there is an audience it should be on. Currently, the closest outside of satellite, is KTLK-AM in Los Angeles.
I have no dogs in this fight; I miss Stacy Taylor on the radio here.
thanks for writing.
It has to be very scary for an investor/entrepreneur to take a station and program it with liberal talk.
Does it help if the investor is at least a moderate liberal... will the investor understand the wants of the potential audience? Does it help if the investor is at least a moderate conservative so decisions can be made from business logic rather than emotional attachment?
I can't think of any other format where a great unseen force is swimming out of sight much like a shark in the waters off the beaches of Southern California where surfing is popular. Can you anticipate in advance whether some vocal, partisan group will become very vocal in the community in opposition to the station before it can become established? Will vocal protests and letters to the editor scare off potential advertising, or will the adverse publicity call attention to the station and it's programming which may be something the station cannot afford to accomplish through advertising?
I look at this as something a station would need to approach with a three to five year time frame and plan on how to introduce the format and cultivate the product very carefully. It's like establishing a new winery. You can't plant grapes and expect to put a quality wine on the shelves in 90 days.
Does it help if the investor is at least a moderate liberal... will the investor understand the wants of the potential audience? Does it help if the investor is at least a moderate conservative so decisions can be made from business logic rather than emotional attachment?
I can't think of any other format where a great unseen force is swimming out of sight much like a shark in the waters off the beaches of Southern California where surfing is popular. Can you anticipate in advance whether some vocal, partisan group will become very vocal in the community in opposition to the station before it can become established? Will vocal protests and letters to the editor scare off potential advertising, or will the adverse publicity call attention to the station and it's programming which may be something the station cannot afford to accomplish through advertising?
I look at this as something a station would need to approach with a three to five year time frame and plan on how to introduce the format and cultivate the product very carefully. It's like establishing a new winery. You can't plant grapes and expect to put a quality wine on the shelves in 90 days.
B
Bob_Hudson
Guest
It's been proven time and again across the country that so-called "liberal talk" radio stations just don't work. Part of that is because most of the hosts presented so far seem to have been the angry ticked off Al Franken, Randi Rhodes types whose politics are on the left fringe and just don't speak to a mass audience. The left still mistakenly thinks Rush Limbaugh is on the far right and that most of those who voted Democrat are left-leaning and support the so-called "progressives" agenda. In fact the information needs of mainstream liberals are more than adequately addressed by public radio and television, most of the major TV news operations and the daily newspapers. Rush does well on radio because mainstream conservatives don't have all of that TV and newspaper support.
When we want an accurate orientation of time to correctly set our watches, we can turn to NIST and WWV and adjust ourselves to be synchronized with the rest of the world.
When we want an accurate orientation of direction so we can correctly survey a property line we turn to the north star and adjust ourselves to be synchronized with the rest of the world.
There doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon standard for adjusting our political orientation so that we describe who is liberal and who is conservative that our observations can be synchronized with the rest of the world.
It is always dangerous for anyone to assume they have it down pat and can help the next fellow find the correct instructions for describing his own orientation, and then be able to evaluate the people around him.
Bob, may I be so bold as to suggest that your understanding of left, middle and right may be ready for a tune-up or front-end-alignment. ;D
There are a number of threads going on at this time where people who disagree on their politics are having head-banging screaming matches that the Board Editor quickly sends to the penalty box known as "Take It Outside".
We were hoping to engage here in a discussion of the possibility of a station trying to carve out a place in the spectrum that would attempt to have a listener success and a business success programming Liberal Talk, Progressive Talk, whatever. I hope you won't trash the conversation with this "proven that it cannot work" canard. Yes, there have been some spectacular failures. There are some successes. We simply want to amuse ourselves speculating on what might work, what should work, what probably won't work, and "Who came up with THAT bright idea?"
As unlikely and improbable as it seems, there is always that tiny, tiny possibility that someone who understands the audience and understands the business could actually create the most successful Liberal Talk radio ever seen in this country in San Diego of all places. Talk is cheap, so join in.
When we want an accurate orientation of direction so we can correctly survey a property line we turn to the north star and adjust ourselves to be synchronized with the rest of the world.
There doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon standard for adjusting our political orientation so that we describe who is liberal and who is conservative that our observations can be synchronized with the rest of the world.
It is always dangerous for anyone to assume they have it down pat and can help the next fellow find the correct instructions for describing his own orientation, and then be able to evaluate the people around him.
Bob, may I be so bold as to suggest that your understanding of left, middle and right may be ready for a tune-up or front-end-alignment. ;D
There are a number of threads going on at this time where people who disagree on their politics are having head-banging screaming matches that the Board Editor quickly sends to the penalty box known as "Take It Outside".
We were hoping to engage here in a discussion of the possibility of a station trying to carve out a place in the spectrum that would attempt to have a listener success and a business success programming Liberal Talk, Progressive Talk, whatever. I hope you won't trash the conversation with this "proven that it cannot work" canard. Yes, there have been some spectacular failures. There are some successes. We simply want to amuse ourselves speculating on what might work, what should work, what probably won't work, and "Who came up with THAT bright idea?"
As unlikely and improbable as it seems, there is always that tiny, tiny possibility that someone who understands the audience and understands the business could actually create the most successful Liberal Talk radio ever seen in this country in San Diego of all places. Talk is cheap, so join in.
B
Bob_Hudson
Guest
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I think you pretty much validated what I said
My comment was not political, it was based on 30+ years experience in media and politics and an understanding of the facts of life.Bob_Hudson said:
Maybe you have browsed these two threads already but for the sake of discussion I offer them to you:
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,120307.0.html
10th message down. Last one on the page.
amfmxm is the cluster manager in his market. He does not dwell on political issues. He does not strike me as a liberal. He obviously is following what works and doesn't work in radio today.
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,120386.msg976023.html
4th message down.
JohnAllan lives about 25 miles from me. He has a studio there that does some recording of local talent, but he is also doing voice-tracking for a couple of stations. He has some very telling observations about the failure of some liberal talk radio talents.
Thanks for the mention, GRC. Let me chime in here for a couple of reasons. I am indeed a longtime radio guy (43 years, at this point, with 30 years as a GM/Mkt Mgr/owner+DOS/GSM) now operating a 5-station cluster out east. Though I haven't worked in SD I know the market well, courtesy of a shitload of relatives living in the city.
Let me also clarify that I am, indeed, a liberal--a progressive liberal, at that. One who believes strongly in the capitalistic free-enterprise system--through which I've made a terrific living--but with enough governmental regulation to protect the nation from the kind of excesses we are now paying for. But that's not the point of this discussion, so let's steer clear of ideology, shall we? Just understand that I'm not neutral.
San Diego--SD County, specifically--voted for Obama last November by a 10-point margin, 54% to 44%, providing strong statistical evidence that the radio market has plenty of population generally agreeing with the ideas supported & espoused by lib-talk radio.
If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an urban format, for instance, and identified a market with 54 percent African-American population, we wouldn't hesitate. If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an easy listening format and identified a market with 54 percent 65+ population, we wouldn't hesitate. Though they're not quite at that (54%) level, those formats work quite well in Mobile, AL (Urban) and Fort Myers-Naples, Florida (EZ). It didn't take hand-wringing research to ID those huge opportunities. And it doesn't take this kind of BS to identify an opportunity for lefty-talk in San Diego, either. (Or DC, Boston, Philly, Baltimore). It's common sense.
Clear Channel--owned & operated by dyed-in-the-wool conservatives--don't run lib-talk in LA & SF in order to promote liberal views. They do it to because there is a huge base of support in those markets, and even on "challenged" signals, they make money. If they had enough moxy to put the format on their big sticks instead of relatively small stations (KTLK & KKGN) the format would kill--because signal still matters. In San Diego they put the format on their worst property, and--like everything else that has been tried on 1360 in recent decades--it didn't light up the sky.
But put it on a competitive facility--AM or FM--and it would do fine in San Diego.
This ain't brain surgery... rocket science... or rocket surgery. Sooner or later, it'll happen. Whether you like it or not.
Let me also clarify that I am, indeed, a liberal--a progressive liberal, at that. One who believes strongly in the capitalistic free-enterprise system--through which I've made a terrific living--but with enough governmental regulation to protect the nation from the kind of excesses we are now paying for. But that's not the point of this discussion, so let's steer clear of ideology, shall we? Just understand that I'm not neutral.
San Diego--SD County, specifically--voted for Obama last November by a 10-point margin, 54% to 44%, providing strong statistical evidence that the radio market has plenty of population generally agreeing with the ideas supported & espoused by lib-talk radio.
If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an urban format, for instance, and identified a market with 54 percent African-American population, we wouldn't hesitate. If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an easy listening format and identified a market with 54 percent 65+ population, we wouldn't hesitate. Though they're not quite at that (54%) level, those formats work quite well in Mobile, AL (Urban) and Fort Myers-Naples, Florida (EZ). It didn't take hand-wringing research to ID those huge opportunities. And it doesn't take this kind of BS to identify an opportunity for lefty-talk in San Diego, either. (Or DC, Boston, Philly, Baltimore). It's common sense.
Clear Channel--owned & operated by dyed-in-the-wool conservatives--don't run lib-talk in LA & SF in order to promote liberal views. They do it to because there is a huge base of support in those markets, and even on "challenged" signals, they make money. If they had enough moxy to put the format on their big sticks instead of relatively small stations (KTLK & KKGN) the format would kill--because signal still matters. In San Diego they put the format on their worst property, and--like everything else that has been tried on 1360 in recent decades--it didn't light up the sky.
But put it on a competitive facility--AM or FM--and it would do fine in San Diego.
This ain't brain surgery... rocket science... or rocket surgery. Sooner or later, it'll happen. Whether you like it or not.
632,000 to 520,000--that's 112,000 conservatives who voted liberal this time, eh? LOL!!! That's like saying "San Diego may be skewing Roman Catholic now, but the region is primarily Protestant." Check it out. Those newcomers moving in from down south ain't Protestant. Sorry, bad analogy...
As with any emerging format--or any emerging business--liberal talk needs to address the same principles of marketing critical to any kind of organizational success. The "4 Ps"--product (service), price, place & promotion.
Radio has two "publics"--consumer groups: listeners and advertisers.
For listeners, the product/service is the programming, which must meet the needs & wants of targeted listeners. The price--listening is free, ain't it? Well, the price might be how much static the listener is willing to put up with. The place--somewhere on the radio dial, hopefully (see price) loud & clear & easy to find. And promotion? Us media-types hate to spend real money to promote our own products/services, but it has to be done... and intelligently enough/strongly enough to build an audience.
For advertisers, the product/service is advertising... or sponsorship... or underwriting (different names for the same game). The price--must be appropriate & competitive. The place--at the advertiser's office... the agency office... the golf course/restaurant/bar--just like any other advertising is sold. And promotion? That's the sales staff. They need to understand the product/service, recognize its strengths (& weaknesses), and persuade prospective advertisers to appreciate the strengths enough to buy. Again, just like any radio station.
Putting it all together is the task. And that's why (other) liberal/progressive radio pros need to step up and get the wheels in motion.
Why not me? Hey, I'm old...
As with any emerging format--or any emerging business--liberal talk needs to address the same principles of marketing critical to any kind of organizational success. The "4 Ps"--product (service), price, place & promotion.
Radio has two "publics"--consumer groups: listeners and advertisers.
For listeners, the product/service is the programming, which must meet the needs & wants of targeted listeners. The price--listening is free, ain't it? Well, the price might be how much static the listener is willing to put up with. The place--somewhere on the radio dial, hopefully (see price) loud & clear & easy to find. And promotion? Us media-types hate to spend real money to promote our own products/services, but it has to be done... and intelligently enough/strongly enough to build an audience.
For advertisers, the product/service is advertising... or sponsorship... or underwriting (different names for the same game). The price--must be appropriate & competitive. The place--at the advertiser's office... the agency office... the golf course/restaurant/bar--just like any other advertising is sold. And promotion? That's the sales staff. They need to understand the product/service, recognize its strengths (& weaknesses), and persuade prospective advertisers to appreciate the strengths enough to buy. Again, just like any radio station.
Putting it all together is the task. And that's why (other) liberal/progressive radio pros need to step up and get the wheels in motion.
Why not me? Hey, I'm old...
Ouch, gee, that is a lot; my right leaning friends still don't believe that he's president.amfmxm said:
amfmxm said:
Listeners are getting harder to find. I don't think my main work place is an anomaly: Pandora, satellite, iTunes, personal collection ... then radio. I do find radio on when breaking news happens (hey, if you break it, FIX IT); then normal programming of the list I wrote returns.
amfmxm said:
Likewise, I am too. I just crossed another time barrier on the Arbitron of life. I spend more time listening to radio talk shows than watching the tube (and I have no cable or satellite by choice). Hulu and network show pages are great to watch, even if a day behind.
[/quote]
My days of listening to Jack Rice, Kennedy and Suits, and Coast to Coast AM may not be the norm with most folks, but that's my typical evening when gathering around the Philco.
Listeners aren't quite as hard to come by as we've been led to believe. I researched it pretty thoroughly last semester for a media class at the Local U, and--according to the most recent data available from Nielsen (for both TV & online), Arbitron and Pew Research, American media usage--viewing, listening, reading & surfing--shakes out with TV @ 96%, radio @ 93%, online @ 53% and newspaper @ 39%. Radio TSL is down in 12-24 by about 20% but it's still astronomical compared to other media. We've gotta stop slitting our wrists and start telling our story better.
Yeah, it's hell getting old, ain't it? I'm out of everybody's demo--well past the point of wanting to pack up the U-Haul and move across the country on the promise of wealth & fame. Still, if the good conservatives at CC wanted to write me up a 5-year/no-cut contract with enough zeros behind it to run their #24 FM station in San Diego--the one ranked behind seven stations that start with an X--I'd take that SOB to lib-talk before the ink was dry. Run it very lean, very mean & hire the savviest bunch of experienced laid-off, cast-off or retired sales types in the city--the ones who can read, write, think, talk and have very lengthy positive relationships in the ad community--and kick ass & take names.
Maybe the current CC market manager will figure it out. It sure ain't slowing KSON down any, is it?
Yeah, it's hell getting old, ain't it? I'm out of everybody's demo--well past the point of wanting to pack up the U-Haul and move across the country on the promise of wealth & fame. Still, if the good conservatives at CC wanted to write me up a 5-year/no-cut contract with enough zeros behind it to run their #24 FM station in San Diego--the one ranked behind seven stations that start with an X--I'd take that SOB to lib-talk before the ink was dry. Run it very lean, very mean & hire the savviest bunch of experienced laid-off, cast-off or retired sales types in the city--the ones who can read, write, think, talk and have very lengthy positive relationships in the ad community--and kick ass & take names.
Maybe the current CC market manager will figure it out. It sure ain't slowing KSON down any, is it?
M
mred
Guest
back in the 60's and 70's liberal talk radio on FM and am was about as frequent as conservative talk. FM was liberal, with morning shows having political content and most AM had left, right, and center hosts in many markets.
Was Joe Pine conservative? I think he had views across the political spectrum. Alot of the Don Chamberland type sex talk shows would be considered liberal, as well as the psycho babble shows like Bill Balance, etc.
I think ksfo was the first branded "conservative" station starting in the 90's (PD Jack Swanson was a liberal) KFBK had a variety of views when Limpbaugh was on it.
AM was dying and conservative talk fit at the time, low fidelity and cheap programing.
Was Joe Pine conservative? I think he had views across the political spectrum. Alot of the Don Chamberland type sex talk shows would be considered liberal, as well as the psycho babble shows like Bill Balance, etc.
I think ksfo was the first branded "conservative" station starting in the 90's (PD Jack Swanson was a liberal) KFBK had a variety of views when Limpbaugh was on it.
AM was dying and conservative talk fit at the time, low fidelity and cheap programing.
If you are boating on a swollen river and the boat capsizes, you spend most of your time just keeping your head above water. Worrying about the fine points of navigating your body to a safe place sometimes get lost in the panic.
I read the essay in Newsweek yesterday by David Frum where he goes head-to-head with the issue of Limbaugh.
It suddenly dawned on me that in all these threads on Radio-Info about Conservative vs Liberal talk programming, we have lost sight of where the shoreline and safety are. We have, no matter what our personal ideologies and politics are, sat and watched as a political party has become monolithic. Do not apply to become a Republican unless you are willing to "toe the line" and be loyal to the dictates of the party.
We have been arguing whether it is appropriate for broadcasters to become part of the Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal struggle by being good business people and grabbing the available dollars without worrying whether broadcasting thus becomes part of the struggle.
No, if there are still people on the face of the earth who concern themselves with "ethics" then the question should be: Is it ethical for a broadcaster to operate in such a way that it enables one internal ideology to dominate all competing ideologies within one given party.
If you have to, read the previous paragraph and second and third time. I participate in a discussion group that debates and struggles with the internal politics of a national church group... a denomination if you please. And that discussion has given a lot of attention to The Barmen Statement in Germany in 1934. It is a fascinating look at how Hitler rose to power in Germany while many people went for what appeared to be a very comfortable and in some cases a profitable ride.
And then I look at the venom, the anger, the heat piled on three senators who dared get out of step with the party and vote with the democrats recently.
Maybe the question is NOT do broadcasters have some need, some opportunity, some deep requirement to make sure Liberals have air time. Maybe the question is: Do broadcasters have some need, some opportunity, some deep requirement to see that various factions of the Republican Party and/or Conservative Movement have access to airtime.
I read the essay in Newsweek yesterday by David Frum where he goes head-to-head with the issue of Limbaugh.
It suddenly dawned on me that in all these threads on Radio-Info about Conservative vs Liberal talk programming, we have lost sight of where the shoreline and safety are. We have, no matter what our personal ideologies and politics are, sat and watched as a political party has become monolithic. Do not apply to become a Republican unless you are willing to "toe the line" and be loyal to the dictates of the party.
We have been arguing whether it is appropriate for broadcasters to become part of the Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal struggle by being good business people and grabbing the available dollars without worrying whether broadcasting thus becomes part of the struggle.
No, if there are still people on the face of the earth who concern themselves with "ethics" then the question should be: Is it ethical for a broadcaster to operate in such a way that it enables one internal ideology to dominate all competing ideologies within one given party.
If you have to, read the previous paragraph and second and third time. I participate in a discussion group that debates and struggles with the internal politics of a national church group... a denomination if you please. And that discussion has given a lot of attention to The Barmen Statement in Germany in 1934. It is a fascinating look at how Hitler rose to power in Germany while many people went for what appeared to be a very comfortable and in some cases a profitable ride.
And then I look at the venom, the anger, the heat piled on three senators who dared get out of step with the party and vote with the democrats recently.
Maybe the question is NOT do broadcasters have some need, some opportunity, some deep requirement to make sure Liberals have air time. Maybe the question is: Do broadcasters have some need, some opportunity, some deep requirement to see that various factions of the Republican Party and/or Conservative Movement have access to airtime.
The present economic disaster is in large measure the result of over 20 years of nonstop unrelenting Pro-deregulation, Pro Dog Eat Dog 19th Century Style Capitalism, Pro-Republican programming by the masters of the radio industry and tipping a few crucial elections to the party of Deregulation. How nice for them that they made some money. I wonder if anybody on this board has lost anything as a result. Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) called the American people "whiners" for being upset about losing their life savings, their retirement, their jobs, their homes, etc, as a result of His securities deregulation bill, written by Wall Street lawyers. Sorry, I swore off politics on this board. Theres no point.
B
Bob_Hudson
Guest
"San Diego--SD County, specifically--voted for Obama last November by a 10-point margin, 54% to 44%, providing strong statistical evidence that the radio market has plenty of population generally agreeing with the ideas supported & espoused by lib-talk radio.
If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an urban format, for instance, and identified a market with 54 percent African-American population, we wouldn't hesitate. If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an easy listening format and identified a market with 54 percent 65+ population, we wouldn't hesitate."
And once again we get back to that liberal/progressive misconception that people vote "Democrat" because they are liberals.
One 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey shows that "Only 19 percent of the public consider themselves liberal," and "36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative." A Gallup poll a few years back showed that 20% of the US population considers themselves liberal, compared to 40% conservative and 40% moderate. The Media Research Group survey looked at this same labels last year and found that the numbers has basically stayed the same since 2004 (their survey also showed 36 percent of the overall population generally consider themselves conservative). The Battleground Poll (conducted jointly by one Democrat-leaning polling firm and one GO-leaning firm) reported in August 2008: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.
Again the left's misconception is that Rush and his ilk appeal only to the far right, but even if he did, that would still be twice the potential audience from the far left (the 9% "very liberal"). Air America tried to target that nine percent and was only concerned about preaching to the choir and did not seem concerned about how to package its messages so that people outside the very liberal spectrum might take a listen to them: to the contrary they portrayed anyone not already in their camp as ignorant, unwashed rubes (heck, even Ed Schultz got dumped on by some Air America hosts for not being liberal enough).
Far right radio with the likes of G Gordon Liddy and Oliver North did not last long, and far left radio from Air America and Nova M had even shorter lifespans. Both were niche formats for angry people who blame government for all that goes wrong and probably for much of their personal woes: neither represents that vast majority of the American people, but of these extremes is myopic in its beliefs and fanatic in its paranoia. No matter how you label it, this does not appeal to too many people and to even fewer advertisers.
If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an urban format, for instance, and identified a market with 54 percent African-American population, we wouldn't hesitate. If instead we were trying to determine the viability of an easy listening format and identified a market with 54 percent 65+ population, we wouldn't hesitate."
And once again we get back to that liberal/progressive misconception that people vote "Democrat" because they are liberals.
One 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey shows that "Only 19 percent of the public consider themselves liberal," and "36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative." A Gallup poll a few years back showed that 20% of the US population considers themselves liberal, compared to 40% conservative and 40% moderate. The Media Research Group survey looked at this same labels last year and found that the numbers has basically stayed the same since 2004 (their survey also showed 36 percent of the overall population generally consider themselves conservative). The Battleground Poll (conducted jointly by one Democrat-leaning polling firm and one GO-leaning firm) reported in August 2008: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.
Again the left's misconception is that Rush and his ilk appeal only to the far right, but even if he did, that would still be twice the potential audience from the far left (the 9% "very liberal"). Air America tried to target that nine percent and was only concerned about preaching to the choir and did not seem concerned about how to package its messages so that people outside the very liberal spectrum might take a listen to them: to the contrary they portrayed anyone not already in their camp as ignorant, unwashed rubes (heck, even Ed Schultz got dumped on by some Air America hosts for not being liberal enough).
Far right radio with the likes of G Gordon Liddy and Oliver North did not last long, and far left radio from Air America and Nova M had even shorter lifespans. Both were niche formats for angry people who blame government for all that goes wrong and probably for much of their personal woes: neither represents that vast majority of the American people, but of these extremes is myopic in its beliefs and fanatic in its paranoia. No matter how you label it, this does not appeal to too many people and to even fewer advertisers.
- Status