Liberal vs Conservative talk

[FLjack2]

Political Talk Radio 101

Here's why there are no liberal/progressive talk shows that do really fantastic in the ratings:

Conservative talk gets their fans to listen. They love to drink the Kool Aid. They feed off of what the hosts say and know that there are people out there who believe with they believe. Liberals also listen to these shows. They feel they need to keep an eye (or, in this case, an ear) on those "crazy, nutty" conservatives. As soon as the host says something outrageous, they call them out on it. It's all over the web, on YouTube and sometimes makes it to broadcast TV. They call them racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. Liberals watch those conservatives very very closely.

Liberal/Progressive talk also has its fans. They, too, love to drink their flavor of Kool Aid. They love to hear someone presenting their views and dispelling those crazy conservatives. They consider themselves more even keel and compassionate. Conservatives DON"T listen to liberal radio. They just think the hosts are nuts and they don't feel threatened by them.

So what have we learned? Both conservatives and liberals listen to conservative talk shows. Only liberals listen to liberal talk shows.

That means conservative talk shows will always have better rating. That means that companies/stations would rather put on conservative shows to get higher ratings.

 

[ctkatz]

i don't think so based on the number of calls from the opposition i have heard on the radio whether it's genuine or plants. if the conservatives were so unconcerned with what goes on on liberal radio they wouldn't bother calling in. most of the people on the left that i know don't listen to any of that conservative stuff, they're listening to the progressive shows i listen to.

here's the reason why liberal/progressive talk doesn't do well in the ratings books- the sales team can not or will not sell advertising spots during these shows. and there is the strong chance these shows are also on stations that do not have the greatest signals in their respective markets. thom hartmann and randi rhodes have both beaten rush limbaugh in some cities. i'd say those are very successful shows. same with ed shultz. but limbaugh is on 60 times as many stations. why? it's easier to sell spots for conservative programming. many advertisers fear backlash from the conservative people who listen to limbaugh, hannity, beck, weiner savage, etc.

the sad part is that bad liberal programming gets shut down and ridiculed and slammed without remorse by everyone in mass media. bad conservative programming gets syndicated and spread around, and if it does happen to get shut down such news gets a one line mention in the middle of a trade magazine and then gets tossed down the memory hole.

 

[FLjack2]

many advertisers fear backlash from the conservative people who listen to limbaugh, hannity, beck, weiner savage, etc.

So advertisers don't fear backlash from liberals?

 

[w9wi]

ctk hinted at what I believe is the major reason liberal talk radio hasn't worked:

...these shows are also on stations that do not have the greatest signals in their respective markets.

A few other factors I'd consider...

- Lack of facilities in many (most) markets. Will a national advertiser buy a talk show that isn't on the air at all in many major markets?
- Lack of promotion. Radio (and TV) are pretty bad at this in general -- a majority of stations don't promote themselves anywhere except on their own signals; if you don't *know* there's a liberal talk station in your market, you probably aren't going to listen.*
- Somewhat related, is it possible liberal listeners are out of the habit of listening to talk radio? They're used to hearing conservative hosts slander their values on talk stations; there's a pretty good chance they aren't in the habit of sampling AM stations. If you flip one to liberal talk, the audience isn't going to stumble across it, you're going to have to tell them it's there.

Also...

- Is it possible liberal listeners think differently? When I've listened to liberal talk, what I've generally heard was conservative talk with the political viewpoints swapped. Is it possible liberal listeners want something more in-depth?
- Is it possible liberal listeners simply aren't interested in talk radio? Talk-formatted stations in general may do quite well in the ratings, but even the most successful doesn't pull anywhere near half the audience. *Most* people aren't interested in talk radio of either stripe.

* I wonder if station groups owning both conservative and liberal stations passed up a good opportunity here? Many conservative stations air some non-political programming -- sports, weekend specialty shows (gardening, pet care, etc.) -- if they'd promoted co-owned liberal stations during such programming, they may have been able to keep liberal listeners for their cluster rather than losing them to someone else's music station -- or the CD player.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

- Is it possible liberal listeners think differently? When I've listened to liberal talk, what I've generally heard was conservative talk with the political viewpoints swapped. Is it possible liberal listeners want something more in-depth?
- Is it possible liberal listeners simply aren't interested in talk radio? Talk-formatted stations in general may do quite well in the ratings, but even the most successful doesn't pull anywhere near half the audience. *Most* people aren't interested in talk radio of either stripe.

There is a lack of understanding of how the human mind works. People assume that conservtives and liberals are mirror-images of each other. When you listen to conservatives and they describe what they think liberal believe, that becomes very obvious. "Since we are for this, we know liberals hate this" seems to be part of the logic.

The bigger stumbling block is that members or participants in these two groups don't really understand themselves. They make have a checklist of what they are for and what they are against, but tons and tons of people each group cannot carry on a logical conversation about what they believe, and why they believe it. (Maybe believe is a troubled word that should not be used in this context. They don't know what they SUPPORT and why the support that position.)

It is my observations that "the conservative mind" prefers issues that can be described with short simple statements. Over in the church world people say that religious conservatives like to deal with issues that have an answer short enough and simple enough to be reduced to a bumper sticker or a tee-shirt slogan. That sizes up the political conservative to some extent also.

The problem that liberals have is: We can't and THEY can't come up with a similar observation about the liberal thought process. If they were truly mirror images, then since my theory is that conservatives love bumper-sticker sized answers, then we would say that liberals love long, convoluted answers. But when you sort through liberal dogma, the "mirror-image" concept begins to fall apart.

SO! How does this relate to talk on the radio? If there is any validity in my description of the difficulty in figuring out how the liberal mind works, then it is rational to say that people in the radio business have a tough, tough task in figuring out what will appeal to the non-measurable liberal mind. If there is any validity in my description, then it is rational to say that leaders of the Democratic Party have a tough, tough task in figuring out what makes their people tick!!!

 

[Open Source]

I think the obvious answer that hasn't been mentioned is that liberal leaning folks can find their entertainment and information in other media. Liberal opinion leaders ply their trade on TV, in print, and on non-comm radio. Until the past 10 years, if one wanted to find conservative conversations, they HAD to go to radio.

It has nothing to do with sales or signals. At this point, it's what people are used to. Liberal talk on commercial radio will fail because people aren't used to it being there. It would take an extraordinary show to catch the attention of the show, and anyone that good will want to work on TV.

 

[radiobum]

I think liberals believe they're getting liberal news from NPR and/or prefer the sleepy pacing over commercial radio-and no screaming car commercials !

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think liberals believe they're getting liberal news from NPR and/or prefer the sleepy pacing over commercial radio-and no screaming car commercials !

No, people who are truly liberal KNOW they are NOT getting liberal news from NPR. They know they are getting a "centrist" view of the news when they listen to NPR.

Listen to MSNBC from about 7 PM to 11 PM (Eastern), then listen to NPR news the next day, and then stand there with a straight face and tell me that NPR news is liberal.

Sorry that the best you local NPR station can do is "sleepy pacing". Mine is pretty lively... particularly during the news and talk part of their broadcast day. Yes, some of their music hours may not qualify as lively, but from 9 AM to 9 PM even the music programs would not really fit the description of "sleepy pacing".... unless the listener making the judgement normally listens to table-saw rock with jocks to match.

 

[radiobum]

I know NPR isn't liberal. I said some people believe it is. If Diane Rehm isn't 'sleepy', I don't know who is !

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't see a conflict in our two statements.

You think that liberals believe they are getting liberal news from NPR. The bigger question is NOT what liberals think they are getting from NPR, but IS... do YOU know what liberals are thinking.

I think that liberals KNOW they are NOT getting loiberal news from NPR. That leaves us with another heavy question: Do I know what liberals think and liberals know?

Now we know what YOU think. We know what I think. That leaves us with the question: Does anyone truly understand liberals? Do the people responsible for programming talk radio truly understand liberals? There is one group we do have "pegged". Conservative talkers love to talk about liberals, but it soon becomes obvious they don't begin to actually understand liberals. What they DO understand is how to get the blood of other conservatives boiling very quickly... whether their description of liberals has validity or not.

As is always said when this topic gets down to "push comes to shove...." Hey, it's just entertainment folks!.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

I think it's different thought processes. Liberal media seems very fractured. With all the new ideas being presented, and depending on which the liberal media outlets and personalities align with, a section of liberals will agree with one person, while other sections agree with others. There are more popular liberal outlets than others, but those others usually aren't far behind.

Meanwhile, most conservatives seem to look for the one place that can provide the answers to everything, and the most popular option seems to be the one they'll gravitate towards. The top conservative personalities are superstars, and it's not uncommon for their competitors to be in very distant 2nd or 3rd places.

 

[Open Source]

The top conservative personalities are superstars, and it's not uncommon for their competitors to be in very distant 2nd or 3rd places.

Maybe that's because the competitors just aren't very good. I think people put way too much thought into this issue. In entertainment, the cream does tend to rise to the top. The reason Rush gets better ratings than the third tier hosts is because he's a better talk radio host than they are.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think people put way too much thought into this issue. In entertainment, the cream does tend to rise to the top. The reason Rush gets better ratings than the third tier hosts is because he's a better talk radio host than they are.

When it comes to discussing radio RATINGS.... I find it perfectly acceptable to use the word entertainment. Yes, the best entertainers do get the best ratings.

However, when it comes to discussing whether radio is working from a level playing field, and discussion the long-term sociological effects of talk radio as we know it on our civilization, I will debate long and loud that there is something here that goes way, way beyond entertainment. In each of these threads as the temperature rises in OUR discussions, someone always wants to smother the fire with: "Talk radio doesn't change what people think, they are just there for the entertainment."

You guys who say that aren't going to the same local town-hall meetings I have attended lately if you believe that. I went to one featuring my own congressman recently and the room became so obnoxious, shouting people down that I got up and left.

I recently attended a regional denomination church conference recently where some bozos who were overdosed on talk radio got up and threw some talk radio lingo into the debate. On one issue you could, with a reach, say the argument was related to the topic at hand. On the other five issues where this happened, what they said did not relate to the topics being discussed in any way..... but it sounded so warm and fuzzy if your brain has been fried from listening to excessive amounts of talk radio.

I don't know how we attempt to resolve that kind of result and not mess with freedom of speech, but we must find a way or we could become something less than a civilized people in this nation.

 

[w9wi]

I don't know how we attempt to resolve that kind of result and not mess with freedom of speech, but we must find a way or we could become something less than a civilized people in this nation.

Will it die out on its own when all the listeners age into eternity?

 

[KeithE4]

I don't know how we attempt to resolve that kind of result and not mess with freedom of speech, but we must find a way or we could become something less than a civilized people in this nation.

Will it die out on its own when all the listeners age into eternity?

Are there enough folks younger than 55 that listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk on both sides of the aisle? Is it really worth it to move this type of talk radio to FM?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Are there enough folks younger than 55 that listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk on both sides of the aisle? Is it really worth it to move this type of talk radio to FM?

In spite of what the audience studies tell us, if you will keep your ears open as you wander through life, you hear some clues that many of our FACTS about audiences have frazzled edges, have lint on them, that some potential listeners are not on the memo distribution that tells them that since they fit a certain demographic, they are limited to listening only to certain shows.

I'm getting ready to buy license plates for my vehicles this afternoon. It is likely that I will have conversation with others waiting their turn to sign the papers and pay the money. I will go to the pharmacy and pick up some prescriptions for my wife. It's a busy place and I will have to wait a few minutes and since it is down on the town square, there is no telling who will be available for conversation. Then I will go by the fairgrounds where the fair opens today. I must take a picture of a booth to place on a website I maintain. More conversation.

So where am I going with all these words? In spite of what the audience studies say, in my daily travels which ALWAYS involve some day-to-day conversation, I meet a significant number of young adults and middle-age-crazy adults who without provocation make it obvious to me that they can quote the talk show people. I keep wanting to tell them that they are lying to me, because I participate in Radio-Info Forums and that makes me a very well informed dude who know for a fact that only old geezers listen to talk radio. ;D

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm!

My hunch is that as they move more talk onto FM we may read some future audience studies that destroy our current concepts of who is listening.

 

[quadraphonic]

My hunch is that as they move more talk onto FM we may read some future audience studies that destroy our current concepts of who is listening.

But isn't most of the cause of the move to FM to get new listeners, who don't realize that AM exists anymore?
The future concepts of 'who's listening' will be different from the current concepts of 'who's listening,' but they won't affect our future concept of 'who was listening in 1995-2011.'

 

[Open Source]

I don't know how we attempt to resolve that kind of result and not mess with freedom of speech

We don't and can't.

but we must find a way or we could become something less than a civilized people in this nation.

That's a downright scary thing to hear from someone who has worked in media. Think about it this way: When you worked in radio, would you have wanted someone making decisions on your content in order to fill some vague idea of "fairness"?

 

[Open Source]

Here's another possibility to consider: Perhaps discussion like we're having here is the "balance" that everyone seems to be screaming for on radio. Who says the counter-argument has to be on the same medium, especially in this multimedia age?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

but we must find a way or we could become something less than a civilized people in this nation.

That's a downright scary thing to hear from someone who has worked in media. Think about it this way: When you worked in radio, would you have wanted someone making decisions on your content in order to fill some vague idea of "fairness"?

When I worked in media and when I did journalism, that happened every day!

I worked for station owners who sat you down the day you went to work and spelled out the "house rules" that were in effect as long as they owned and operated the station. I worked for station owners who wandered through the studio daily, commenting on what was happening and commenting on what they found acceptable and what they found to be "out of bounds".

And from the war stories I heard from them, we had communities with leaders who were not bashful about expressing to the station owner what was acceptable and out of bounds. Some of the owners I worked for were compliant with the "community standards" and some of the owners I worked for were known around town for pushing back and telling the community what the station found acceptable and what the station found to be out of bounds.

During my management years I dealt with "community spokesmen" who came to the station in hopes of convincing me that I should mold my standards to their values, and I dealt with "community spokesmen" that I went to in hopes of convincing them that my standards were worthy of being considered to become their standards within the community.

I really don't know how to read your question, I really don't know what to infer from your post. I've never until this decade had a feeling that in this country that fairness was some kind of a vague idea. I knew we were a country in which people failed and did not live up to fairness, (can you say Watergate?) but seldom has there been a lack of understanding about fairness.

Here is my philosophy on the topic: ALL media today have decided they no longer want to be part of the work crew, the team, that deals with the hard work of passing the concept of fairness from one generation to the next. People are growing up today with fewer and fewer inputs on "What is fairness?" Every morning when I get up and grab the morning paper, the news screams that result to me. The news that originates in Washington screams it the loudest.