Liberal Talker Beats Pioneer Conservative Talker

[smedge2006]

KPTK, Seattle has edged out KVI in the Seattle PPM for December.

Not the first time a liberal talker has beaten a conservative talker, but noteworthy because KVI claims to have pioneered the concept of having an all-conservative lineup which is now the norm in talk radio, around 1993. (I remember stations with hosts that were basically all-conservative and all-liberal in the 1980's, however. It was usually driven by the makeup of that particular market.)

One of the Seattle papers did a breakdown of a previous survey and found KPTK was number 4 in city of Seattle zip codes, while coming in number 30 in the suburbs.

Given how the fraternity that manages the industry rewards success with liberal talk, this has to be an omen that KPTK will soon be flushed or converted to a lineup of fifth-tier conservatives, or brokered out to colon cleanser infomercials.

http://www.radio-info.com/site/markets/grid/seattle-tacoma

 

[pbf1]

KVI lost its marquee shows quite some time ago.

If they beat KTTH, then there are bragging rights.

 

[Oldbones]

Well, Seattle is a pretty liberal city...only stands to reason there'd be an audience for it. That having been said, a 1.2 isn't really anything to brag about.

 

[ctkatz]

i wonder if they would ever include online listenership. i know of two people on the complete opposite coast who are dedicated kptk listeners, me being one of them.

i think that this is a sign of what i predicted here a while ago, and for progtalk radio its a good thing- stations are no longer being confined to just their local airwaves and the wave of the future is going to be online radio. people are listening through streaming technology in their cars. many will claim progressive talk radio as a dying breed but its not. its just shifted to another medium. it is on the edge of the future of radio. its been around for years (head on radio network has been around for 3 or 4 years now solely online) and the former progressive kmny in houston is now an online stream. jeff farias built up a strong listenership because of kphx's stream through nova m. i'd say fairly soon your more successful radio stations will have a strong online streaming presence. mainly because they're forced to go that way because the corporate radio stations don't realize how much of a listenership they would have with a progressive station so people are going that way to get a progressive voice.

conservative radio is rapidly coming up short on the supply/demand curve. way too much supply and no demand at all. yet these corporate stations continue to supply it. it leads to two questions: 1. why do the corporate radio stations continue to shoot themselves in the foot and 2. if the media is so allegedly liberal why are there so many conservative/business stations and so few progressive stations on the air?

 

[Indy Legend]

i wonder if they would ever include online listenership. i know of two people on the complete opposite coast who are dedicated kptk listeners, me being one of them.

i think that this is a sign of what i predicted here a while ago, and for progtalk radio its a good thing- stations are no longer being confined to just their local airwaves and the wave of the future is going to be online radio. people are listening through streaming technology in their cars. many will claim progressive talk radio as a dying breed but its not. its just shifted to another medium. it is on the edge of the future of radio. its been around for years (head on radio network has been around for 3 or 4 years now solely online) and the former progressive kmny in houston is now an online stream. jeff farias built up a strong listenership because of kphx's stream through nova m. i'd say fairly soon your more successful radio stations will have a strong online streaming presence. mainly because they're forced to go that way because the corporate radio stations don't realize how much of a listenership they would have with a progressive station so people are going that way to get a progressive voice.

conservative radio is rapidly coming up short on the supply/demand curve. way too much supply and no demand at all. yet these corporate stations continue to supply it. it leads to two questions: 1. why do the corporate radio stations continue to shoot themselves in the foot and 2. if the media is so allegedly liberal why are there so many conservative/business stations and so few progressive stations on the air?

I know in Indianapolis we have to rely on online streaming for progressive talk because stations here would rather loose money than give the other half of the community the option (there's that word that scares the hell out of conservatives again) of progressive talk. They constantly cry that conservative talk is the free market at work. Well if all the media where liberal,which it clearly isn't, would that not also be the free market at work? The right loves the free market until they actualy have to compete in it. We have three full time righty talkers two of which no one listens to and three sports talk stations two of which no one listens to. We have a handfull of stations that change formats on a yearly basis and sometimes even go back to formats that have failed multiple times, but they wouldn't even consider,for a moment, progressive talk. I don't know if it would work in Indy or not but it would be refreshing if someone would try. It couldn't do any worse than some of the under preforming stations in this market who haven't shown up in an arbitron book for years have done. Unlike righties I don't mind the free market. Let's just see if works . If the format fails then so be it, but give it a chance.
As for the myth that the media is liberal, that's just the lie that conservatives parrot constantly because Rush, Glenn, Sean, or Bill-o told them it was so. While not all of them are that way I have run into very few righties who have ever had a thought that one of these corporate blowhards didn't tell them to have. Kind of like the myth that Fox is "fair and balanced", that liberals hate America, or that Republicans care about something besides the rich, the big banks, big pharma, or the Insurance companies.

I hope to be in a position to move in a year or two and I'm looking closely at Seattle or Portland because they are more progressive cities and I could escape the GOP hell that is Indiana.

If you are surounded by righty talk and are looking for something on line to help retain your sanity you can also listen to good progressive stations on line like WCPT (Chicago), KTLK (losAngeles), WXXM 92.1 the Mic (Madison,Wi), or KPOJ (Portland). Hang in there fellow lefties.

 

[smedge2006]

many will claim progressive talk radio as a dying breed but its not. its just shifted to another medium. it is on the edge of the future of radio. its been around for years (head on radio network has been around for 3 or 4 years now solely online) and the former progressive kmny in houston is now an online stream.

I don't consider it a victory when progressive stations are kicked off air signals. On-air still has a significant audience, particularly among those age groups likely to vote. Being in the online universe just means being one of a billion signals. It also misses the local focus which a local station potentially can have -- although in these days of syndication, it often doesn't. KPTK would probably improve on its 1.2 with a strong local host.

One problem with many on-air progressive stations is this having to live hand-to-mouth and fight for brokered signals with foreign language operators, religion (see Columbus, Ohio), and the Chinese government. Liberal talk radio could use an equivalent to Salem Communications, whose owners are driven by ideology and who will stick with their particular political flavor of talk no matter what.

conservative radio is rapidly coming up short on the supply/demand curve. way too much supply and no demand at all. yet these corporate stations continue to supply it. it leads to two questions: 1. why do the corporate radio stations continue to shoot themselves in the foot and 2. if the media is so allegedly liberal why are there so many conservative/business stations and so few progressive stations on the air?

Three reasons. One, syndicators like Salem and TRN are driven by ideology. That creates a reinforcing groupthink in the people they hire to talk and to manage the talk. Two, the program directors at 90 percent of talk radio stations all tend to come from the same fraternity, especially at the "C" companies. They all tend to be fortysomethings who cut their teeth with Reagan and Rush and align with his views. Plus, many of them come out of that Jacor-swagger mentality with Power Piggish disdain for any talk format aimed at women (which helped kill Greenstone radio in the crib). Reason three, of course, is ownership.

I had no idea there was so much audience for Bizradio in Texas ??? but if you read up on them you realize there may be "other" factors keeping that sludge on the air.

Three tips for liberal talk radio:

1. Own, don't lease
2. Develop local shows
3. "Make trouble" -- engage in the same kind of attention-getting activism formerly employed by local conservative hosts, before they were all fired or got syndicated.

 

[ctkatz]

even though i'm right down the road i'm not that up on local indy matters. is it much of a union town? if it is, there is no question that ed shultz would work there and possibly thom hartmann and mike malloy. shultz's bombasticity is a perfect match for limbaugh's, malloy's for savage weiner. louisville is a big union town with two ford plants and a ups hub. progressive radio may not work here, but ed shultz definitely would, yet we have 3.5 conservative stations (one airs 13 hours of local, 10 of which are nonpartisan, during the week with rush and hannity and other conservocrap on the weekends), 3 religious stations, 2 sports stations and zero progressive stations with zero progressive shows on air. i imagine its the same in other union cities.

 

[gr8oldies]

As far as union membership predicting success for liberal talk, you have to assume union members march in lockstep with their leaders and that they are interested in turning off country and rock for talk shows

 

[Oldbones]

i wonder if they would ever include online listenership. i know of two people on the complete opposite coast who are dedicated kptk listeners, me being one of them.
i think that this is a sign of what i predicted here a while ago, and for progtalk radio its a good thing- stations are no longer being confined to just their local airwaves and the wave of the future is going to be online radio. people are listening through streaming technology in their cars. many will claim progressive talk radio as a dying breed but its not. its just shifted to another medium. it is on the edge of the future of radio.

Why would a station in Seattle really care if they have streaming listeners in New York, Miami or Frostbite Falls? While it may be a bit of an ego boost for the programming staff, it does zero for the bottom line. The likelihood that a listener 3000 miles away will patronize one of your advertisers is nil.

The number of people listening to streams in their cars is so close to zero as to be negligible. Maybe someday when the technology and bandwidth permit things will change, but that's years away.

conservative radio is rapidly coming up short on the supply/demand curve. way too much supply and no demand at all. yet these corporate stations continue to supply it. it leads to two questions: 1. why do the corporate radio stations continue to shoot themselves in the foot and 2. if the media is so allegedly liberal why are there so many conservative/business stations and so few progressive stations on the air?

First of all, there is nothing "progressive" about liberal/left-wing talk. It's the same "if you disagree with me you're an idiot" crap as conservative/right wing talk...only the ideology is different.
That having been said, there does seem to be an abundance of conservative talk hosts. I'm guessing it's perceived demand. While a liberal viewpoint is generally in short supply on talk radio, it exists in ample quantities elsewhere. Certainly (Fox excluded) most of the mainstream "news" media was, and for the most part still is a huge Obama cheerleader. OTOH, many conservative hosts (Rush & Beck come to mind) seemed pretty tepid in their support of Bush.

As for the myth that the media is liberal, that's just the lie that conservatives parrot constantly because Rush, Glenn, Sean, or Bill-o told them it was so. While not all of them are that way I have run into very few righties who have ever had a thought that one of these corporate blowhards didn't tell them to have. Kind of like the myth that Fox is "fair and balanced", that liberals hate America, or that Republicans care about something besides the rich, the big banks, big pharma, or the Insurance companies.

It's just as much a "lie" that the media is mostly conservative too. There are conservative voices and liberal voices. Pacifica radio is about as left-wing as it gets, NPR, while not the ultra-liberal voice it's portrayed to be is still quite a bit left of center. The whole "conservatives only care about the rich, while liberals are all for equality, justice, diversity and the American way" is just as much a myth as the one you quoted. I don't see America being a better place with (essentially) a one-party federal government (whether Republican or Democrat). We need to encompass all viewpoints.

syndicators like Salem and TRN are driven by ideology. That creates a reinforcing groupthink in the people they hire to talk and to manage the talk. Two, the program directors at 90 percent of talk radio stations all tend to come from the same fraternity, especially at the "C" companies. They all tend to be fortysomethings who cut their teeth with Reagan and Rush and align with his views. Plus, many of them come out of that Jacor-swagger mentality with Power Piggish disdain for any talk format aimed at women (which helped kill Greenstone radio in the crib).

Are you saying Air America wasn't driven by ideology?
Did you ever actually listen to Greenstone? Some of the lamest, most boring programming ever conceived...an attempt to be "The View" without (1) video or (2) hosts who had even a shred of talent.
Both failed for the same reason....they put ideology above entertainment value. The same goes for most of the second or third tier conservatalk hosts (Salem is a good example). People want to be entertained and/or informed. When you don't offer either, don't expect the world to beat down your door.

As far as union membership predicting success for liberal talk, you have to assume union members march in lockstep with their leaders and that they are interested in turning off country and rock for talk shows

Very true. Most union members see a union as an organization they're required to join in order to get/keep their job. How they vote/think has little to do with whether theyre a member of one or not. Besides, what percentage of the workforce is unionized these days? Last I heard it was less than 15%.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Being a union member myself (Ohio Civil Service Employees Association), I would ask Oldbones to provide proof regarding the statement that "Most union members see a union as an organization they're required to join in order to get/keep their job."

As for the subject at hand...Despite the naysayers, Ed Schultz just started his 7th season, not to mention the msnbc gig he got this past year. Stephanie Miller just completed five years on the air in September, Bill Press will celebrate five years on the air in the spring, and Thom Hartmann will complete three years in national syndication within the next month or so. I have mentioned in several threads that Dial Global took over as the leader in progressive talk from Air America.

The stations that called themselves their market's local affiliate for Air America are pretty much gone for the reasons Oldbones cited: too much emphasis on ideology and hosts (Al Franken included) who had little or no experience behind a radio microphone. If those same stations focused promoting the progressive talk format instead on the likes of Miller and Schultz, who respectively delve into celebrity and sports talk on a regular basis, the state of the format right now would be completely different.

Air America was thought to be the next best thing for radio, but it took the network years to find hosts who actually could do radio (Lionel, Montel Williams, Jack Rice, Ron Reagan). If these hosts were around at the beginning instead of the likes of Marc Maron, Sam Seder and Franken, Air America would be in must better shape and not have given up its unofficial title as the leader in progressive talk to Dial Global.

Then again, no one anticipated Air America would still be around six years later. And I was one of those who said the end was near for Air America three years ago.

As for the perceived demand for conservative talk, it isn't there in Columbus. The number of conservative talkers in Columbus went from three to one in the span of less than a year.

On the other hand...the only reason progressive talk left Columbus a second time was because the Catholic group operating the station gave the owner a better offer. There is a station in Columbus which is a prime candidate for progressive talk to return at least part time, in spite of the station's conservative owners. It is simply simulcasting the FM's sports talk format since it moved from the AM to the FM, and the listeners have pretty much migrated to the FM frequency. I have no doubt the owners are aware of Dial Global's presence in the Columbus market, and eventually they may see the possibility counterprogramming themselves: the "left of center" talk station with the actual Buckeye coverage vs. the conservative talk powerhouse with what they claim as "the best Buckeye coverage."

Note I say part time as far as talk from left of center. There is no way that station would air Randi Rhodes or any other progressive talker which Premiere Radio Networks would sign up in the future. There are, however, two former Columbus radio personalities, Matt Harris and Ramona Holloway, whose nationally syndicated show via Greater Media will likely regain a following. The show was on the FM station before it went sports. It would be enough to keep the AM station from labeling itself as liberal talk because Matt Harris, from my personal experience, is a right-wing tool.

Nonetheless, it would compliment an ex-football jock from Fargo, North Dakota, and a spinster in the making infamous for fart jokes, box wine and French kissing her dogs, both of whom I listen to at work via my podcast paid for with union wages.

 

[listener-in]

Air America was thought to be the next best thing for radio, but it took the network years to find hosts who actually could do radio (Lionel, Montel Williams, Jack Rice, Ron Reagan). If these hosts were around at the beginning instead of the likes of Marc Maron, Sam Seder and Franken, Air America would be in must better shape and not have given up its unofficial title as the leader in progressive talk to Dial Global.

I agree for the most part with your assessment of the weakness of the original Air America lineup, with the strong exception of your reference to Al Franken. As a mere listener, I always thought he was a talented broadcaster, with a quality program which delivered plenty of opinion, information and entertainment. What more would you want? There's a variety of styles of successful progressive talkers, as there should be, and if Franken hadn't quit to run for the Senate I'm sure he would have still have held his own among them.