Maloney: Some on Right may want AAR to stick around

[dampier]

Re: Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

> Then you'd better quit looking for a
> conservative talk show.

Limbaugh used to be a good choice before the religious defense initiatives became a major focus. On politics, he was fun to listen to. But he's gonna pull some muscles stretching as far as he does to defend some of the base of today's GOP.

> BTW, I recommend listening to libertarian
> Neal Boortz!

Boortz is a conservative who calls himself a libertarian. Just watch what he says about religious/social matters. A true libertarian will say it's not anyone's business. A libertarian would never legislate morality.

 

[cabradio]

Re: Alan Colmes

> He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves
> Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them. If
> I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.

Are you trying to say that conservatives are bad people? That's surely intelligent of you.

> I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows
> around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a
> conservative-biased operation. I heard
> one particularly hilarious interview in which
> WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael
> Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous
> to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias.

The ownership is one that goes where the money is...you should read up on News Corp sometime. <P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Alan Colmes

If Murdoch was a complete liberal, he would have known that there was a big market for a news service that wasn't perceived as liberally biased. It was a business move. I gotta ask 2 questions.

1..When Laurie Dhue is reading the headlines, where's the bias? (Most of the complaints are about the political shows, which are opinion shows).

2..Do any of our liberal friends take their disdain for Fox News to the extent of not watching regular Fox (Not watching the Simpsons because its under the same umbrella as Fox News?). Just curious.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

I thought Boortz was very much opposed to the religious right. He's pro-choice on abortion, pro gay-marriage and infuriated a lot of listeners by arguing that Terri Shiavo should be allowed to die (same with Mike McConnell). He parts ways from the official Libertarian position on the war, however, but does everyone have to toe the party line on everything?<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>

 

[KeithE]

Limbaughs's social conservatism

> Limbaugh used to be a good choice before the religious
> defense initiatives became a major focus. On politics, he
> was fun to listen to. But he's gonna pull some muscles
> stretching as far as he does to defend some of the base of
> today's GOP.

Limbaugh has never embraced the far-right-religious guys such as Jerry Falwell, but he is a social conservative and has never denied it. He has been spinning the Bush party line far more than usual, though. Dunno why, since he's chastized Bush (actually, both Bushes during their respective terms) on fiscal matters quite often over the years.

 

[talkjim]

Re: Alan Colmes

> > He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves
> > Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them.
> If
> > I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.
>
> Are you trying to say that conservatives are bad people?
> That's surely intelligent of you.

Not at all, Mr. Moderator-my point is simply that Colmes has made the point over and over again ad-nausem on his show that he loves his conservative buddies, even when no one has suggested anything to the contrary. This kind of talk from Colmes has reached the point of pandering.
>
> > I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows
> > around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a
>
> > conservative-biased operation. I heard
> > one particularly hilarious interview in which
> > WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael
> > Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous
>
> > to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias.
>
> The ownership is one that goes where the money is...you
> should read up on News Corp sometime.

I work at a high level of the business and know plenty about News Corp, but
this comment has absolutely nothing to do with my assertion that Fox is a
media organization with a conservative bias. Period.
>

 

[KeithE]

Re: Alan Colmes and the future of political talk

> Tom,
>
> I'm going to make one more stab at helping you understand
> it, and I say the following with respect for Alan as a nice
> guy and a gentleman, who is not without some talent as a
> talk host.

Like Leo Durocher once said: Nice guys finish last. Colmes seems like a nice guy but not a very good talk-show host because he's (1) a moderate in a far-right and far-left industry (for now), and (2) unfocused in his beliefs and delivery.

I'll bet Rush Limbaugh is a nice guy off the air as well, but he's focused in his message as well as entertaining. Colmes is neither.

> But he also has some major credibility problems with the
> liberal "base" and others. He may be perceived as Abbie
> Hoffman by the Fox base, but by his own admission, he is
> simply not that progressive. We are talking about a man who
> enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani's angry reign of
> terror as mayor of New York--so enthusiastically that Rudy
> cut promos for his show on the now-defunct WEVD/New York.
> He's talked about the fact that he has no problem with
> public school teachers leading prayers, and the laundry list
> goes on and on.

That's what I mean by moderate and unfocused.

> He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves
> Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them. If
> I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.

So what's wrong with that? I've never met him, but I don't think I'd have a personal problem with Al Franken either, even though I don't care that much for his radio show and I disagree with him about as often as I agree with Rush (about 75% of the time each).

> I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows
> around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a
> conservative-biased operation. I heard
> one particularly hilarious interview in which
> WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael
> Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous
> to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias. By the
> way, even the champion critic of the so-called "liberal
> media"--former CBS corresponent Bernie Goldberg, has
> emphatically said that "Fox certainly has a conservative
> attitude"--for some reason Bernie wants to use the weasel
> word "attitude", and won't go all the way and say "bias".

Fox's opinion shows/hosts vary from moderate (Bill O'Reilly & Alan Colmes) to far-right (Sean Hannity & Cal Thomas). I really believe their newsreaders try to keep it as objective as they can, though. I also think the news anchors at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC do likewise. With Peter Jennings (moderate but with a more-European world-view) having passed away and Tom Brokaw (more conservative than most will admit) and Dan Rather (as liberal as they come) now retired, the Big 3 news operations have become more objective IMHO.

> Many progressives also have a problem with the fact that
> Alan simply is not as aggressive in his presentation on
> "Hannity and Colmes" as is Sean, who selected Alan as his
> partner-and it shows-night after night.

That's true. I wish Colmes showed more backbone but I think he's too nice a guy to do so. Colmes sometimes comes across like he wants to run for office - he's too diplomatic at times and he kisses butt when he should be arguing. Diplomacy is good on Capitol Hill or at the UN, but not on an opinion show.

> For these and other reasons, the progressive base has
> problems with Colmes and this attitude does show up in
> research, which is why the Colmes show is not carried by
> many of the Clear Channel progressive talkers.

I know raw politics should be kept to an absolute minimum, but it's relevent to this discussion:

The Democrats' "progressive base" is as far to the left as the Republicans' base is to the right. The main difference is that the Democrats' base is the aging hippie/Vietnam-protestor/college professor/Hollywood bunch that is getting on in years. In their youth they were carrying the signs and yelling and screaming. The Republicans' religious-right and corporate base were much quieter. It showed then and it shows now.

I think you'll see a new breed of liberal Democrat coming from today's youth that will act and sound more like their Truman- and JFK-era grandparents than the over-the-hill Woodstock bunch of today. I think AirAmerica needs to take note of that.

And I also think that the religous-nut wing will also lose influence in the next generation of Republicans, but not as much (they lost big-time with the election of Bush Sr.). The Salem folks need to be aware of this. George W. Bush won't be President forever and the next Republican probably won't embrace them. I think the major conservative talkers (Rush, Hannity) will de-emphasize the religious right (but not basic social conservatism) as well.

Bottom line as far as talk-radio goes: I think Randi Rhodes and Michael Savage have just a few years left unless they develop more substance and less screaming. The act on both sides of the political aisle is getting old and tiresome.

> As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes, and I just do not understand it...

See the paragraph above. Maybe Colmes should just bide his time. Or maybe he should run for the Senate.

> > What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts
> > criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When
> > syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on their
> > own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling
> > loses some of its energy...

Sore-sports?

> > Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite points
> > of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear
> > contrasting opinions going back and forth...

Medved is one of the guys most favored by the religious conservatives. He, unlike some of them, is genuine in his beliefs. But if the religious right was influencing ratings and revenue in the talk-radio world, Medved would be up there with Rush, not on the almost-unlistened-to Salem stations.

 

[954]

Re: Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

> > Then you'd better quit looking for a
> > conservative talk show.
>
> Limbaugh used to be a good choice before the religious
> defense initiatives became a major focus.

Limbaugh's been national since '88.

The religious right took over the GOP in '80.

> On politics, he
> was fun to listen to. But he's gonna pull some muscles
> stretching as far as he does to defend some of the base of
> today's GOP.

> > BTW, I recommend listening to libertarian
> > Neal Boortz!
>
> Boortz is a conservative who calls himself a libertarian.
> Just watch what he says about religious/social matters. A
> true libertarian will say it's not anyone's business. A
> libertarian would never legislate morality.

He's been on the radio here only a few weeks and was on
vacation for one and we've had a hurricane this week.

Therefore I haven't heard a lot of him yet. I haven't
heard him advocate legislating morality.

So could you briefly tell me whjat you mean?

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
September 2005 - South Florida Radio News</P>

 

[954]

Hurricanes

> The first part of what you said, is borderline, but it is a
> response to the first post. The second part, I edited.
>
> Stay on point with your posts...keep the political junk off.

Please explain why it is OK for him to say that
"conservatives cheered for the hurricane because more
devastation meant more no-bid contracts."

But it objectionable for me to use a parallel construction
and reply that (this is from memory because you edited my post)
"liberals cheered for the hurricane because they meant
more big government programs."

It was specifically written to show how inane the
comments he quoted were.

Therefore please explain why my words were deleted and
his still stand.

Thank you.

73s from 954
<P ID='signature'>______________
September 2005 - South Florida Radio News</P>

 

[cabradio]

Re: Hurricanes

Because he was stating something that Ed Shultz said, or was said on Shultz's show...your comments strayed into personal political stuff...Your first point answered the "quote" from Shultz's show, if I read that correctly....

Also i just noticed that I did miss some political non-sense in his post which I just removed. Sorry...I'm not perfect!



<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[cabradio]

Re: Alan Colmes

> Not at all, Mr. Moderator-my point is simply that Colmes has
> made the point over and over again ad-nausem on his show
> that he loves his conservative buddies, even when no one has
> suggested anything to the contrary. This kind of talk from
> Colmes has reached the point of pandering.

Point taken...I can see that.

> I work at a high level of the business and know plenty
> about News Corp, but
> this comment has absolutely nothing to do with my
> assertion that Fox is a
> media organization with a conservative bias. Period.

Well, that's where they are making their money isn't it? And CNN is liberally biased. There is a place to go, which ever team you bat for. And please don't bring up the "Fair and Balanced" schtick...O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Greta etc, as you know, are not News Shows, they're magazine-type shows. Even at that, they do present both sides, albeit the liberal side is generally weaker in presentation...but the news falls into a different catagory...unless you can present specific stories the news anchors reported on where the reporter or anchor showed a bias.

Also, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here...without knowing who you are, or what you do, makes it difficult to know what you know....if that makes any sense! lol. So my apologies if I came across insulting...anyway, just makin conversation. Glad to hear your perspective.
<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[cabradio]

Re: Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

When I carried him here in CT on WXCT, he would say that abortion is not a topic on his show. So he never discussed it.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[talkjim]

Re: Alan Colmes

I work at a high level of the business and know plenty about News Corp, but
this comment has absolutely nothing to do with my assertion that Fox is a
media organization with a conservative bias. Period.
>
> Well, that's where they are making their money isn't it? And
> CNN is liberally biased. There is a place to go, which ever
> team you bat for. And please don't bring up the "Fair and
> Balanced" schtick...O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Greta etc,
> as you know, are not News Shows, they're magazine-type
> shows. Even at that, they do present both sides, albeit the
> liberal side is generally weaker in presentation...but the
> news falls into a different catagory...unless you can
> present specific stories the news anchors reported on where
> the reporter or anchor showed a bias.

You state that "CNN is liberally biased" as if that's a universally-accepted fact. I certainly don't accept it. First of all, I see Fox as mostly a talk and opinion network, while I see CNN as a straight-ahead news network--most of the time. One of the best arguments for this theory is a financial one. Fox spends a lot of money paying huge salaries to a few big-name talk hosts, and runs a lower-profile news operation. CNN on the other hand pays a huge amount of money to one talk host (Mr. King) who these days is basically a moderator, and who voices very little opinion. CNN also supports a huge domestic and international news operation, and even a full-fledged international channel.

However, many progressives see CNN as right-leaning--just less so than Fox. To me, one of the biggest problems with virtually all corporate media in this country is that they tend to be very establishment-oriented--they tend to see many issues only as they fall "within the 40 yard lines". They tend to be wary of examining ideas that fall "outside the mainstream". But a check of history will show that the elimination of slavery was perceived as "radical" in the early days of this republic, and much of Ronald Reagan's political philosophy was considered dangerously radical before he came from behind to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980. By the way, I still think Reagan's agenda was unwise, but I wouldn't deny him news coverage, and didn't at the time (I'm aging).

Here's a good current example of what I mean. Numerous reputable public-opinon polls show that about a third of the U-S population favors significant decriminalization and even full legalization of drugs. Reasons vary: libertarians see drug laws as unwarranted government interference in private lives. Various people see drug laws as ridiculously hypocritical while the most destructive drug-alcohol-is legal. Some see the drug war as ridiculously expensive and serving mainly to enrich those in the drug trade, because the laws of supply and demand dictate that illegal drugs will be more expensive than if these same drugs are made legal.

But when have you ever seen a serious, in-depth discussion of drug legalization in the corporate broadcast media. I'll tell you what happens when subjects like drug legalization come up. Analysts like Bill Schneider, Chris Matthews, and the Fox people start rolling their eyes, talk about how any politician who would advocate such a position is doomed to defeat, and of course, never get around to addressing the issue on the merits. And the funniest thing about all this is that many of these baby-boomer political analyst gurus were hitting the bongs on a regular basis in their younger years. And some probably still do.

A couple of media watchdog groups have extensively surveyed the content of both Fox and CNN and found much more opinion injected into Fox programming than CNN, but they might have saved the money they spent doing those surveys. Turn on Fox at almost any time of the day or night and someone is on there bloviating about something. And not just talk hosts. David Asman, a former conservative editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal and now an alleged Fox news anchor, was cited in those surveys for injecting frequent opinion into his newscasts. But the worst offender of all is Brit Hume, who constantly does a one-sided presentation. Check out his nighly "grapevine" segment--two minutes of nightly political "gossip"--almost all the stories in this segment tend to champion the right or in some way demonize progressive causes.
>
> Also, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here...without
> knowing who you are, or what you do, makes it difficult to
> know what you know....if that makes any sense! lol. So my
> apologies if I came across insulting...anyway, just makin
> conversation. Glad to hear your perspective.
>

 

[Tom_]

Re: It's ratings and revenue...

What counts in this business is ratings and revenue. Colmes will be appropriate for some stations that get good ratings, and not for other affiliates that get poor ratings.

Whether some very small fraction of the progressive base of listeners to Colmes has problems with Colmes isn't relevant to radio ratings. Most talk radio listeners, who are conservative, are not aware of the insignificant factors about Colmes and FOX that you and others mention.

> Tom,
>
> I'm going to make one more stab at helping you understand
> it, and I say the following with respect for Alan as a nice
> guy and a gentleman, who is not without some talent as a
> talk host.
>
> But he also has some major credibility problems with the
> liberal "base" and others. He may be perceived as Abbie
> Hoffman by the Fox base, but by his own admission, he is
> simply not that progressive. We are talking about a man who
> enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani's angry reign of
> terror as mayor of New York--so enthusiastically that Rudy
> cut promos for his show on the now-defunct WEVD/New York.
> He's talked about the fact that he has no problem with
> public school teachers leading prayers, and the laundry list
> goes on and on.
>
> He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves
> Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them. If
> I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.
>
> I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows
> around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a
> conservative-biased operation. I heard
> one particularly hilarious interview in which
> WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael
> Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous
> to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias. By the
> way, even the champion critic of the so-called "liberal
> media"--former CBS corresponent Bernie Goldberg, has
> emphatically said that "Fox certainly has a conservative
> attitude"--for some reason Bernie wants to use the weasel
> word "attitude", and won't go all the way and say "bias".
>
> Many progressives also have a problem with the fact that
> Alan simply is not as aggressive in his presentation on
> "Hannity and Colmes" as is Sean, who selected Alan as his
> partner-and it shows-night after night.
>
> For these and other reasons, the progressive base has
> problems with Colmes and this attitude does show up in
> research, which is why the Colmes show is not carried by
> many of the Clear Channel progressive talkers.
>
> So that's it in a nutshell, Tom. I don't expect you to get
> it, but at least I tried.
>
> As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize Colmes,
> > and I just do not understand it...
> >
> > What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts
> > criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When
> > syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on
> their
> > own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling
> > loses some of its energy...
> >
> > Where are the program directors for these hosts? You
> don't
> > criticize someone on the same political side of the fence.
>
> > For the opposite side? Rush? O'Reilly? Savage? Well...it's
>
> > rude, but it's accepted in the industry and gets those
> > ratings...
> >
> > > Laura Ingraham will also have guests on from both sides,
>
> > > even Hannity too
> > > (and will take them on)
> >
> > Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite points
>
> > of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear
> > contrasting opinions going back and forth...
> >
>

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Alan Colmes & Neal Boortz!

True that abortion is not a topic, but he has blasted pro-lifers frequently.
<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Alan Colmes and the future of political talk

> The Democrats' "progressive base" is as far to the left as
> the Republicans' base is to the right. The main
> difference is that the Democrats' base is the aging
> hippie/Vietnam-protestor/college professor/Hollywood bunch
> that is getting on in years. In their youth they were
> carrying the signs and yelling and screaming. The
> Republicans' religious-right and corporate base were much
> quieter. It showed then and it shows now.

I think the Berkeley-style leftist movement is still largely dead in this country, killed off mostly by the Reagan-era. You certainly don't ever see a radical leftist turn up on any radio or TV political show these days, although you will see far Christian right people show up all the time. The closest possible think to far left radio is Pacifica, and even they have abandoned some of the revolutionary rhetoric that used to be on the lips of a lot of their announcers. (They've also been distracted by internal strife, but that's another post.) Of course, the right wing shows will label anyone to the left of them as "extremist liberals," but that doesn't make it so, especially if people remember 1970s liberalism.

Today's libtalk "revolution" seems to yearn for a return to Clinton policies, and he was hardly commielib. The left wing of today has moved more to the center and the right wing of today has moved farther out to the fringes. You can also hear that on the radio shows today.

I also do not see the religious base as being at all quieter. In fact, they are much louder now than they were under Reagan. Have we all forgotten Terry Schiavo already? How many conservative shows moved down or sent correspondents down to stand outside the clinic with water bottles in hand. When you listen to today's conservative talk, there is far more religion and social issues mixed in than the old standbys fiscal responsibility, non-interventionist, and less government. I think this is because they are trying to defend the Administration in power and have to go along for the ride. You can't do the old standbys when they aren't applicable to the people in power, so you run the "culture war" chatter instead.

> I think you'll see a new breed of liberal Democrat coming
> from today's youth that will act and sound more like their
> Truman- and JFK-era grandparents than the over-the-hill
> Woodstock bunch of today. I think AirAmerica needs to take
> note of that.

I don't think anything is going to happen until we get the kind of social protests that Nixon faced. A lot of today's youth still refuses to vote and is disengaged in politics. Political talk radio still doesn't talk to these people much.

> And I also think that the religous-nut wing will also lose
> influence in the next generation of Republicans, but not as
> much (they lost big-time with the election of Bush Sr.).
> The Salem folks need to be aware of this. George W. Bush
> won't be President forever and the next Republican probably
> won't embrace them. I think the major conservative talkers
> (Rush, Hannity) will de-emphasize the religious right (but
> not basic social conservatism) as well.

The only way this happens is if Republicans lose massively at the polls in 2006 & 2008 and the talk shows blame the religious wing for that. Since the conservative Christian "base" of the party does turn out to vote and are now firmly in control of the GOP on the local and state level, the only way things change is if disaster strikes. As it stands now, it will be Christian conservatives who will choose the next candidate for 2008, and you can bet it won't be Steve Forbes, and even John McCain wouldn't work for them.

> Bottom line as far as talk-radio goes: I think Randi Rhodes
> and Michael Savage have just a few years left unless they
> develop more substance and less screaming. The act on both
> sides of the political aisle is getting old and tiresome.

Randi has been doing the same thing for years and years now and I don't see that changing. Savage isn't in radio except to make a buck and when the shtick gets tired, he'll peddle some more vitamins or something.

> See the paragraph above. Maybe Colmes should just bide his
> time. Or maybe he should run for the Senate.

Alan Colmes remains marginalized until there is a knock-down drag-out on a Hannity & Colmes where Colmes paints the floor with Hannity. Until there is some backbone there, nobody is ever going to trust the guy.

> Medved is one of the guys most favored by the religious
> conservatives. He, unlike some of them, is genuine in his
> beliefs. But if the religious right was influencing ratings
> and revenue in the talk-radio world, Medved would be up
> there with Rush, not on the almost-unlistened-to Salem
> stations.

Medved would normally be on Christian conservative radio a-la USA Radio if we hadn't seen such an injection of religion and culture into today's talk radio. The guy is nutty in his columns and pseudo media reviews which are usually just an excuse to blame the downfall of America on Hollywood.

 

[talkjim]

Re: It's ratings and revenue...

> Tom,

I may not be a genius, but I've been around long enough to know that "what counts in this business is ratings and revenue"--I really don't come here to take any Broadcasting 101 courses that you might be teaching. But trust me Tom, or if you don't trust me, trust Clear Channel--their research indicates that Colmes has problems with more than a "very small fraction" of the progressive base--enough to keep him off virtually all of their progressive stations. And that is hardly an "insignificant" factor.

However, if you are suggesting that Colmes is the ideal liberal host for a conservative-based station that wants to throw a small bone every night to the other side...I could not agree more.

What counts in this business is ratings and revenue. Colmes
> will be appropriate for some stations that get good ratings,
> and not for other affiliates that get poor ratings.
>
> Whether some very small fraction of the progressive base of
> listeners to Colmes has problems with Colmes isn't relevant
> to radio ratings. Most talk radio listeners, who are
> conservative, are not aware of the insignificant factors
> about Colmes and FOX that you and others mention.
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'm going to make one more stab at helping you understand
> > it, and I say the following with respect for Alan as a
> nice
> > guy and a gentleman, who is not without some talent as a
> > talk host.
> >
> > But he also has some major credibility problems with the
> > liberal "base" and others. He may be perceived as Abbie
> > Hoffman by the Fox base, but by his own admission, he is
> > simply not that progressive. We are talking about a man
> who
> > enthusiastically supported Rudy Giuliani's angry reign of
> > terror as mayor of New York--so enthusiastically that Rudy
>
> > cut promos for his show on the now-defunct WEVD/New York.
> > He's talked about the fact that he has no problem with
> > public school teachers leading prayers, and the laundry
> list
> > goes on and on.
> >
> > He also wastes a lot of time talking about how he loves
> > Limbaugh and Hannity as people, but disagrees with them.
> If
> > I hear that rap one more time, I'm going to hurl.
> >
> > I've also heard Alan guest on several local talk shows
> > around the country, making the case that Fox News is not a
>
> > conservative-biased operation. I heard
> > one particularly hilarious interview in which
> > WPHT/Philadelphia's conservative morning host Michael
> > Smerconish just laughed at that--thought it was ridiculous
>
> > to suggest that Fox doesn't have a conservative bias. By
> the
> > way, even the champion critic of the so-called "liberal
> > media"--former CBS corresponent Bernie Goldberg, has
> > emphatically said that "Fox certainly has a conservative
> > attitude"--for some reason Bernie wants to use the weasel
> > word "attitude", and won't go all the way and say "bias".
>
> >
> > Many progressives also have a problem with the fact that
> > Alan simply is not as aggressive in his presentation on
> > "Hannity and Colmes" as is Sean, who selected Alan as his
> > partner-and it shows-night after night.
> >
> > For these and other reasons, the progressive base has
> > problems with Colmes and this attitude does show up in
> > research, which is why the Colmes show is not carried by
> > many of the Clear Channel progressive talkers.
> >
> > So that's it in a nutshell, Tom. I don't expect you to get
>
> > it, but at least I tried.
> >
> > As for liberals, for whatever reason they criticize
> Colmes,
> > > and I just do not understand it...
> > >
> > > What is it recently with other progressive talk hosts
> > > criticizing Colmes on their own radio shows? When
> > > syndicated liberal hosts start attacking each other on
> > their
> > > own shows then liberal radio which is already struggling
>
> > > loses some of its energy...
> > >
> > > Where are the program directors for these hosts? You
> > don't
> > > criticize someone on the same political side of the
> fence.
> >
> > > For the opposite side? Rush? O'Reilly? Savage?
> Well...it's
> >
> > > rude, but it's accepted in the industry and gets those
> > > ratings...
> > >
> > > > Laura Ingraham will also have guests on from both
> sides,
> >
> > > > even Hannity too
> > > > (and will take them on)
> > >
> > > Or also Michael Medved who has guests with opposite
> points
> >
> > > of view. It makes stimulating talk radio to hear
> > > contrasting opinions going back and forth...
> > >
> >
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by talkjim on 09/22/05 07:59 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Tom_]

Re: It's ratings and revenue...

> > Tom,
>
> I may not be a genius, but I've been around long enough to
> know that "what counts in this business is ratings and
> revenue"--I really don't come here to take any Broadcasting
> 101 courses that you might be teaching.

This board is not about politics, but you and others on the very far left on this board do not like moderate Democrat hosts (e.g. Schultz, Colmes). That's OK with me, you're entitled you your political views and your opinions. However, there are many moderate Democrats and Conservatives here who have no problem with these hosts...Most listeners to talk radio are conservative, of course...

But trust me Tom, or
> if you don't trust me, trust Clear Channel--their research
> indicates that Colmes has problems with more than a "very
> small fraction" of the progressive base--enough to keep him
> off virtually all of their progressive stations. And that is
> hardly an "insignificant" factor.


What were the conclusions of the research?

FOX does NOT exclusively have Colmes' show to Clear Channel affiliates.

> However, if you are suggesting that Colmes is the ideal
> liberal host for a conservative-based station that wants to
> throw a small bone every night to the other side...I could
> not agree more.

Yes Colmes can be on mostly conservative stations like KCMO,KVI,WRKO but also on liberal stations. So let's just agree to disagree about all of this...thanks...

 

[talkjim]

Re: It's ratings and revenue...

Please do not misrepresent my previous statements, and attempt to read my mind and tell me what I think, when you don't have a clue. I said absolutely nothing about "not liking" moderate Democratic hosts. In fact, I even explicitly said that Colmes is a nice guy and a gentleman. What I did do, in some detail, was provide some reasoned thoughts--some of them gathered from other sources, on why Colmes is a problem for the base listenership of progressive talk. And it's not just myself and others on the "far left" (whatever that is) who hold the view that Colmes is a problem on progressive talk stations. Turn on your local progressive talk station-if it's owned by Clear Channel (hardly a far-left operaton the last time I checked), and try to find Colmes' show. Chances are you won't be able to.

Get a grip, Tom.

> This board is not about politics, but you and others on the
> very far left on this board do not like moderate Democrat
> hosts (e.g. Schultz, Colmes). That's OK with me, you're
> entitled you your political views and your opinions.
> However, there are many moderate Democrats and Conservatives
> here who have no problem with these hosts...Most listeners
> to talk radio are conservative, of course...
>
> But trust me Tom, or
> > if you don't trust me, trust Clear Channel--their research
>
> > indicates that Colmes has problems with more than a "very
> > small fraction" of the progressive base--enough to keep
> him
> > off virtually all of their progressive stations. And that
> is
> > hardly an "insignificant" factor.
>
>
> What were the conclusions of the research?
>
> FOX does NOT exclusively have Colmes' show to Clear Channel
> affiliates.
>
> > However, if you are suggesting that Colmes is the ideal
> > liberal host for a conservative-based station that wants
> to
> > throw a small bone every night to the other side...I could
>
> > not agree more.
>
> Yes Colmes can be on mostly conservative stations like
> KCMO,KVI,WRKO but also on liberal stations. So let's just
> agree to disagree about all of this...thanks...
>

 

[Tom_]

Re: Philosophical Differences over Programming

Jim...We have philosophical differences over talk programming. Thanks for sharing your perspectives, and as always, I have read your posts with interest. -T

> Please do not misrepresent my previous statements, and
> attempt to read my mind and tell me what I think, when you
> don't have a clue. I said absolutely nothing about "not
> liking" moderate Democratic hosts. In fact, I even
> explicitly said that Colmes is a nice guy and a gentleman.
> What I did do, in some detail, was provide some reasoned
> thoughts--some of them gathered from other sources, on why
> Colmes is a problem for the base listenership of progressive
> talk. And it's not just myself and others on the "far left"
> (whatever that is) who hold the view that Colmes is a
> problem on progressive talk stations. Turn on your local
> progressive talk station-if it's owned by Clear Channel
> (hardly a far-left operaton the last time I checked), and
> try to find Colmes' show. Chances are you won't be able to.
>
> Get a grip, Tom.
>
> > This board is not about politics, but you and others on
> the
> > very far left on this board do not like moderate Democrat
> > hosts (e.g. Schultz, Colmes). That's OK with me, you're
> > entitled you your political views and your opinions.
> > However, there are many moderate Democrats and
> Conservatives
> > here who have no problem with these hosts...Most listeners
>
> > to talk radio are conservative, of course...
> >
> > But trust me Tom, or
> > > if you don't trust me, trust Clear Channel--their
> research
> >
> > > indicates that Colmes has problems with more than a
> "very
> > > small fraction" of the progressive base--enough to keep
> > him
> > > off virtually all of their progressive stations. And
> that
> > is
> > > hardly an "insignificant" factor.
> >
> >
> > What were the conclusions of the research?
> >
> > FOX does NOT exclusively have Colmes' show to Clear
> Channel
> > affiliates.
> >
> > > However, if you are suggesting that Colmes is the ideal
> > > liberal host for a conservative-based station that wants
>
> > to
> > > throw a small bone every night to the other side...I
> could
> >
> > > not agree more.
> >
> > Yes Colmes can be on mostly conservative stations like
> > KCMO,KVI,WRKO but also on liberal stations. So let's just
>
> > agree to disagree about all of this...thanks...
> >
>