Will there ever be a liberal talk lion? In other words, a liberal Rush Limbaugh?
-
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 lion?
- Thread starter johnbasalla
- Start date
Is this the place to say: "Never say never!" ?
Whenever there is any attempt to discuss the fairness of conservatives having so much radio talk time and liberals having so little, there is always this cheer leading section that comes forth and says: "It's not a matter of ideology and fairness. Rush is so talented. He attracts all those people with his charm and wit. It has nothing to do with politics and partisanship."
So if Rush is so popular strictly because of his talent as opposed to the political content, then it would be short-sighted to say there will NEVER be a person with equal or superior talent who could attract comparable audiences with liberal talk because of overwhelming amounts of talent.
Following that line of thinking... you are probably right. There will never be a liberal talker who can command the kind of audience numbers that Rush does. Rush has big audience because today's conservatives love and thrive on a message of rigidity and terseness. Fifty years ago I came across a bit of humor (Readers Digest I think) in which someone stated: There is nothing that upsets a non-conformist more than another non-conformist who does not adhere to the current standards of non-conformity! Remember, that was the age of Stan Kenton and Ray Charles, a lot of jazz greats and Stan Freeberg. And yet conservatives are fond of saying they are the true champions of personal freedom.
Liberals are not interested in walking across the room to push the button and hear someone on the radio tell them what is the proper attire and behavior and thought pattern to be liberal. Thus what would be the nature of the monologue by a liberal that would captivate hordes of liberals to acquire a radio and "sit at the feet" of their talkmaster.
If what I have expressed above has any validity at all, then it is the laugh of the century that conservatives champion themselves as the messengers of personal freedom while the liberals carry the burden of a reputation that they want the government to impose rigidity on the people of the nation.
I am not trying to launch a conversation that starts arguing the nature of today's politics. I am hungry to learn why indeed conservatives have a reputation of flocking to talk radio while liberals have a reputation of ignoring talk radio. It could be that engineers need to change the polarity of the microphone plugs in the studio. Maybe liberal radio needs to be in the night time hours rather than the daytime hours. This thread could lead us to the genius who can explain once and for all what is the chemistry of talk radio.
Whenever there is any attempt to discuss the fairness of conservatives having so much radio talk time and liberals having so little, there is always this cheer leading section that comes forth and says: "It's not a matter of ideology and fairness. Rush is so talented. He attracts all those people with his charm and wit. It has nothing to do with politics and partisanship."
So if Rush is so popular strictly because of his talent as opposed to the political content, then it would be short-sighted to say there will NEVER be a person with equal or superior talent who could attract comparable audiences with liberal talk because of overwhelming amounts of talent.
Following that line of thinking... you are probably right. There will never be a liberal talker who can command the kind of audience numbers that Rush does. Rush has big audience because today's conservatives love and thrive on a message of rigidity and terseness. Fifty years ago I came across a bit of humor (Readers Digest I think) in which someone stated: There is nothing that upsets a non-conformist more than another non-conformist who does not adhere to the current standards of non-conformity! Remember, that was the age of Stan Kenton and Ray Charles, a lot of jazz greats and Stan Freeberg. And yet conservatives are fond of saying they are the true champions of personal freedom.
Liberals are not interested in walking across the room to push the button and hear someone on the radio tell them what is the proper attire and behavior and thought pattern to be liberal. Thus what would be the nature of the monologue by a liberal that would captivate hordes of liberals to acquire a radio and "sit at the feet" of their talkmaster.
If what I have expressed above has any validity at all, then it is the laugh of the century that conservatives champion themselves as the messengers of personal freedom while the liberals carry the burden of a reputation that they want the government to impose rigidity on the people of the nation.
I am not trying to launch a conversation that starts arguing the nature of today's politics. I am hungry to learn why indeed conservatives have a reputation of flocking to talk radio while liberals have a reputation of ignoring talk radio. It could be that engineers need to change the polarity of the microphone plugs in the studio. Maybe liberal radio needs to be in the night time hours rather than the daytime hours. This thread could lead us to the genius who can explain once and for all what is the chemistry of talk radio.
I cannot think of any honest, accurate way to go into more detail about why liberals probably don't enjoy talk radio with a liberal perspective the way conservatives do enjoy talk shows with a conservative perspective without straying into territory that will result in the thread going to Take It Outside.
There are reasons that could be put forward as suggestions that wouldn't result in the thread being moved, but I haven't seen or heard any that were honest or accurate.
There are reasons that could be put forward as suggestions that wouldn't result in the thread being moved, but I haven't seen or heard any that were honest or accurate.
The reasons a "liberal lion" doesn't emerge in talk radio are structural, mainly the consolidation-syndication complex, preventing the natural growth of local talent and imposing decisions on all markets from a few hubs. When conservative radio boomed, local stations still did talk shows and there was a wealth of talent ready to groom for the big time.
A liberal talk station needs to be built from the ground up, the way conservative talkers were, not just flip on a switch and get the satellite. It also needs promotion just like any other format. NOT articles in the paper or TV pieces. I dare say that no successful radio station's cume was ever built on coverage in other media. That came AFTER the success. The station must generate its OWN buzz.
When someone says "liberals" (as a demographic, not an ideology) don't like confrontation or lockstep marching orders from a Limbaugh-type figure, I think they should add the modifier "White-collar." To grow the audience, be more blue-collar -- that is to say, more confrontational. The Neil Rogers/ Bob Lassiter approach from 1980's Florida is a great example of blue-collar liberal radio.
A liberal talk station needs to be built from the ground up, the way conservative talkers were, not just flip on a switch and get the satellite. It also needs promotion just like any other format. NOT articles in the paper or TV pieces. I dare say that no successful radio station's cume was ever built on coverage in other media. That came AFTER the success. The station must generate its OWN buzz.
When someone says "liberals" (as a demographic, not an ideology) don't like confrontation or lockstep marching orders from a Limbaugh-type figure, I think they should add the modifier "White-collar." To grow the audience, be more blue-collar -- that is to say, more confrontational. The Neil Rogers/ Bob Lassiter approach from 1980's Florida is a great example of blue-collar liberal radio.
For some reason, radio has always been home to right wing voices. No liberal Father Coughlin. No liberal Paul Harvey. No liberal Joe Pyne.
A big factor is liberals came too late to radio. Rush is the only right wing lion. The rest copy his act and ride his coat tails. None of them has ever built an audience on a station without Rush. Rush-free wing-nut talk stations get about the same shares as progressive talk stations. Even Rush is not what he was; he is the lion in winter. But inertia is a powerful force in radio, as in physics.
Rush got there first and for almost a decade had no real competitors.
Rush is talented and he spent the first 20 years of his career "going town to town, up and down the dial" honing his shtick as a Top 40 DJ. That experience is irreplaceable and, sadly, now largely unavailable. You can't become a lion in radio at comedy clubs or writing for SNL. So, don't look for another radio lion - ever - liberal or conservative. Rush (and Howard) were the last of the breed.
A big factor is liberals came too late to radio. Rush is the only right wing lion. The rest copy his act and ride his coat tails. None of them has ever built an audience on a station without Rush. Rush-free wing-nut talk stations get about the same shares as progressive talk stations. Even Rush is not what he was; he is the lion in winter. But inertia is a powerful force in radio, as in physics.
Rush got there first and for almost a decade had no real competitors.
Rush is talented and he spent the first 20 years of his career "going town to town, up and down the dial" honing his shtick as a Top 40 DJ. That experience is irreplaceable and, sadly, now largely unavailable. You can't become a lion in radio at comedy clubs or writing for SNL. So, don't look for another radio lion - ever - liberal or conservative. Rush (and Howard) were the last of the breed.
Really talented liberal people end up on TV.
An ill-informed perspective that all but assumes radio history began in 1988. There's a quote in a New York Times article from 1990, in which a conservative talk host on WFLA radio in Tampa welcomes Rush Limbaugh on his "Rush to Excellence" tour to the studio, and says it's the first time in station history that two conservatives have been in the studio at the same time!
Barry Gray pioneered talk radio in the 40's, and he was a liberal. Well to the left of Joe Pyne.
Harvey wasn't the pioneer of his type, he was the LAST of his type. In the 50's and 60's, all of the networks except CBS employed anchors who mixed news and commentary. Even at CBS, Edward R. Murrow and others often took positions well to the left of anything they would ever dare say in front of a camera.
I think most liberals listen to NPR ( believing incorrectly that it is liberal) because they like the pacing, the sometimes 'intellect' and the non-confrontational aspect and so any liberal talk station/ host would have to contend with that.
Even if it's against what they believe or think they believe, I would guess a lot of conservative talk listeners would rather hear Thom Hartmann or some of the other national liberal hosts than George Noory if they had the choice and sampled it.
Even if it's against what they believe or think they believe, I would guess a lot of conservative talk listeners would rather hear Thom Hartmann or some of the other national liberal hosts than George Noory if they had the choice and sampled it.
Alan Colmes still does a radio show for Fox doesn't he? I always thought he was a very good host. After all he did host the last airshift on WNNNNNNNNBC.
MattParker said:
Rush's radio career is actually kinda spotty before he hit it big.
Yes, there were those formative years as "baby DJ Jeff Christie" on an AM outside Pittsburgh (1360) and one in town (KQV "14K"). He did a little radio in Kansas City, and eventually ended up working off-air in the Kansas City Royals marketing department in a low-level job.
It was audio of short form commentaries he did at night (I believe for KMBZ there) that caught the attention of KFBK in Sacramento, which hired him for middays to replace, believe it or not, Morton Downey Jr. (Downey had been canned for some poorly chosen words, let's just say.)
Edward F. McLaughlin, a former ABC Radio exec, picked him up out of Sacramento, moved him to New York City, put him on satellite space he had courtesy of his exit deal with ABC, and...
So, there's certainly some background there, and some "up and down the dial", and it's very unlikely he would have been the Rush we know today without spinning records in Pittsburgh. But he didn't follow the typical "small market to medium market to medium market to larger market to major market" path.
You guys are looking at the wrong half of the equation. It's not about the host. It's about the audience. Liberals have a hard time getting 100% behind someone. Even when they partly agree, they find fault with one or two parts, so they end up not being consistently passionate. Conservatives (and we see this in election after election) are willing to accept one or two faults if the overall message is right. Liberals are always looking for someone better. You need to be able to build a consensus, and liberals can't do that on all issues in the way conservatives can. If liberals could find someone they'd agree with, they'd put him in the White House...not on the radio. Spend some time studying the audience, and you'll see there's no way to unify liberals in a way that will attract a large enough audience for advertising. A liberal host would have to talk about something other than politics in order to attract an audience. Because he's not going to win large numbers of bleeding hearts by attacking McConnell or Boehner. It's just not the liberal way.
- Status