NPI- Progressive Media forum - good video

[doc9464]

http://www.ndnpac.org/npi/npiforum/npi_forum_video.html

You dont have to agree with the politics....but i think from my viewing that it gives all of us a solid idea about how progressive radio and progressive media is moving up and moving forward and has quite a bit of potential......some of it blunts the intense criticism that is coming from the right and those here who spend their waking moments distorting news about liberal/progressive radio. Please take a look and provide commentary...or discussion material. I do not claim that this video is the end all be all for the future of liberal radio...

If you don't plan to watch...then please dont waste our time...with insults....and attacks. Thanks to all in advance who watch and provide real commentary.

 

[Les]

> You dont have to agree with the politics....but i think from
> my viewing that it gives all of us a solid idea about how
> progressive radio and progressive media is moving up and
> moving forward and has quite a bit of potential......some of
> it blunts the intense criticism that is coming from the
> right and those here who spend their waking moments
> distorting news about liberal/progressive radio. Please take
> a look and provide commentary...or discussion material. I do
> not claim that this video is the end all be all for the
> future of liberal radio...

One of the best links I've seen. First, from a technical
standpoint. Most others of similar mode seem to take a lot of
tinkering and choosing among options to get somewhere useful.
This one is very well done and user-friendly.

I won't claim to have watched every clip. Those I did watch
I found to be focused and conveying good information. "The
Man" did a good job of telling the story of AAR; the business
rather than the ideology. You gotta walk away from this one
feeling that somebody has done some business thinking; not just
political thinking.

Is he right? I'd generally say he is. I've said from the very
first that there is a place for liberal talk and that, well done,
it could be profitable. I doubt very much that anybody is
making a lot of money off it yet but it's their game to lose.
Why are stations signing up? I'd guess that the majority are
tired of doing whatever they had been doing without financial
success. OK, it's a gamble, but their old formats were proven
losers. Even CC recognizes that it can't put conservative talk
on all its' stations. First of all, though the conservative
audience has proven large, it is NOT unlimited. Best they
could do divide their audience and have two stations that barely
survive. Liberal talk is a good alternative. One needs must
hope that advertisers will see the audience rather than the
politics.

If they can keep the best of the hosts long enough there's some
money to be made. Question is, whether the investors are in it
for the money or for a bully pulpit? The former will bring
success. The latter will ultimately bring in-fighting and
failure.

I do think the right has a good thing going in that they use only
one label: "Conservative". No ambiguity. I believe the nuance
of "Progressive" is confusing to many people. For better or
worse, conservatives have morphed "liberal" into a 4-letter word
and this affectation of "Progressive" seems to amount to admitting
they've lost title to their title. Yeah, I know there are
subtle thoughts to be conveyed but it remains that the best way
to get the attention of the mule that is the populus is to
whack it between the eyes with a 4-foot long oil-soaked 2X4.
Then, once you have gotten the critter's attention you can
proceed to educate, enlighten, or whatever.

Definitely, I wish them well. Anything that keeps radio alive
and jobs available is a good thing.

 

[dampier]

All I got from the video links was:

Windows Media Player cannot play the file because the specified protocol is not supported. If you typed a URL in the Open URL dialog box, try using a different transport protocol (for example, "http:" or "rtsp:").

Anyone else seeing that?

 

[Les]

> All I got from the video links was:
>
> Windows Media Player cannot play the file because the
> specified protocol is not supported.

Worked perfectly on the WMP recently downloaded onto my e-Mac.
I suspect it may require a later version than you currently
have installed. I'm no expert (where are you Sam?) but would
try a new download of WMP before being too upset...

 

[doc9464]

> One of the best links I've seen. First, from a technical
> standpoint. Most others of similar mode seem to take a lot
> of
> tinkering and choosing among options to get somewhere
> useful.
> This one is very well done and user-friendly.
>
> I won't claim to have watched every clip. Those I did watch
>
> I found to be focused and conveying good information. "The
> Man" did a good job of telling the story of AAR; the
> business
> rather than the ideology. You gotta walk away from this one
>
> feeling that somebody has done some business thinking; not
> just
> political thinking.
>
> Is he right? I'd generally say he is. I've said from the
> very
> first that there is a place for liberal talk and that, well
> done,
> it could be profitable. I doubt very much that anybody is
> making a lot of money off it yet but it's their game to
> lose.
> Why are stations signing up? I'd guess that the majority
> are
> tired of doing whatever they had been doing without
> financial
> success. OK, it's a gamble, but their old formats were
> proven
> losers. Even CC recognizes that it can't put conservative
> talk
> on all its' stations. First of all, though the conservative
>
> audience has proven large, it is NOT unlimited. Best they
>
> could do divide their audience and have two stations that
> barely
> survive. Liberal talk is a good alternative. One needs
> must
> hope that advertisers will see the audience rather than the
>
> politics.
>
> If they can keep the best of the hosts long enough there's
> some
> money to be made. Question is, whether the investors are in
> it
> for the money or for a bully pulpit? The former will bring
>
> success. The latter will ultimately bring in-fighting and
> failure.
>
> I do think the right has a good thing going in that they use
> only
> one label: "Conservative". No ambiguity. I believe the
> nuance
> of "Progressive" is confusing to many people. For better or
>
> worse, conservatives have morphed "liberal" into a 4-letter
> word
> and this affectation of "Progressive" seems to amount to
> admitting
> they've lost title to their title. Yeah, I know there are
> subtle thoughts to be conveyed but it remains that the best
> way
> to get the attention of the mule that is the populus is to
> whack it between the eyes with a 4-foot long oil-soaked 2X4.
>
> Then, once you have gotten the critter's attention you can
> proceed to educate, enlighten, or whatever.
>
> Definitely, I wish them well. Anything that keeps radio
> alive
> and jobs available is a good thing.

A very thoughtful analysis....im not really into the news service idea so much...but I think there has to be potential in Liberal Radio...over 50 million people claim to be something other than conservative,...there has to be an option out there for those people......liberals are doing the reversal of fortune....conservatives claimed to be voiceless for the longest time..but the 30 year plan has been successful....now we liberals are looking in wanting better seating at the philosophical table....

I agree that the word liberal has been sullied by the right wing..im proud to be a liberal and i dont know if I like progressive as an alternative but until the fortunes change again...its all we got...

I wish they had presented in the presentations more details on ratings..i think we need to blunt the naysayers....a little extra info wont hurt...but it will help a LOT! All businesses must show progress....while I feel the network is doing well....we have no concrete info that will help us battle the right wing spin. I wrote a detailed letter to mr goldberg....hoping that he may actually read it...and get it...until we have more info....the naysayers will continue to pile on.....
>

 

[gr8oldies]

Individual hosts will still have to make a name for themselves. If ideology alone drew listeners, we could simply have someone reading ideological books on the air.

There are those who think America is the way it is because of talk radio, and if we have different talk radio America will swing the other direction. That's wishful thinking, but not reality.<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[robbbc]

> There are those who think America is the way it is because
> of talk radio, and if we have different talk radio America
> will swing the other direction. That's wishful thinking, but
> not reality.
>

Creating a bully pulpit for your ideas is a very effective way of changing the public perception. Propaganda has been used for centuries. Creating a mass of individuals who can repeat your talking points and convince others to share your beliefs is an effective tool for shifting policy. Phrases from "pro-choice" to "death-tax" have been created using these tools of propaganda. It is not wishful thinking, it is the high quality and tested research of republican think tanks and governments across the globe. It seems very trendy in conservative circles to poo-poo their own data on the issue. It is an overwhelmingly tested and verified notion.

Your basic point overlooks the basic concept that it only takes a small pebble to disturb the whole pond. Never underestimate propaganda and its effects.

 

[gr8oldies]

Rob, the vast, vast, VAST majority of conservative talk listeners believed they way they did way before talk radio ever came on the scene. They weren't good liberals who were "converted" by the evil Rush Limbaugh. So many people seem to think that "balance" in talk radio is neccesary, because if they can just get to those conservative listeners, they'll see "the error of their ways" and rush down to Democratic Party headquarters to register as Democrats. Not likely.<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[Les]

> Creating a bully pulpit for your ideas is a very effective
> way of changing the public perception. Propaganda has been
> used for centuries. Creating a mass of individuals who can
> repeat your talking points and convince others to share your
> beliefs is an effective tool for shifting policy.
>
> Your basic point overlooks the basic concept that it only
> takes a small pebble to disturb the whole pond. Never
> underestimate propaganda and its effects.

Please read NOTHING political into this:

The most effective use of propaganda in the last century was
executed by the Hitler movement PRIOR to WW-II. Like the
policies of National Socialism or not...and most do not...
you can learn a lot by studying what was said, how it was
spread, and the visible trappings applied. It captured the
soul of a nation and kept it captive down to the bitter end
and even beyond for some.

Thing is, propaganda can work for good or for evil. It's not,
of itself, an ideology. Problem is, who gets to define "good"?
And who gets to define "evil"?

Of course propaganda works best when an entire population HAS
to hear it and there are no alternatives. Conservative or
liberal...makes no difference...so long as the population
maintains the right to tune out or turn off. So far we're OK.
But beware those who want to slience left or right. If either
succeed, next will be an effort to keep the drumbeat constant
and unable to be turned off.

 

[robbbc]

> Rob, the vast, vast, VAST majority of conservative talk
> listeners believed they way they did way before talk radio
> ever came on the scene. They weren't good liberals who were
> "converted" by the evil Rush Limbaugh. So many people seem
> to think that "balance" in talk radio is neccesary, because
> if they can just get to those conservative listeners,
> they'll see "the error of their ways" and rush down to
> Democratic Party headquarters to register as Democrats. Not
> likely.
>
I don't dispute your point on conservatives listening to conservative talk. But you aren't just talking to them. Through them you talk to their friends, their families, their coworkers. Not everyone goes to the church, but many will hear the sermon.

I don't know who subscribes to the notion that conservatives will convert to liberals or vice-versa due to talk radio (Goldberg freely admits he preached to the choir in this video), but that shouldn't be confused with the real goal of creating the appropriate talking points and propaganda to effectively frame the debate. The goal of agenda journalism is to do this. Many Americans fancy themselves moderates- reaching that group, directly or indirectly, is far more useful than trying to convert the conservatives.

 

[doc9464]

> Of course propaganda works best when an entire population
> HAS
> to hear it and there are no alternatives. Conservative or
> liberal...makes no difference...so long as the population
> maintains the right to tune out or turn off. So far we're
> OK.
> But beware those who want to slience left or right. If
> either
> succeed, next will be an effort to keep the drumbeat
> constant
> and unable to be turned off.


Despite what the right is saying...talk radio does work....thats why the left is scrambling to the table to get an alternative out....I don't know if propaganda is the best word...but talk radio does provide a certain level of propaganda (especially if one is beating the party line without dissent).

Liberals don't want to silence the right...they just want an alternative that will be effective in delivering an alternative to the VRWC/Echo Machine. Unfortunately, and you have said this Les at least twice (and I agree) that the pendulum does swing both ways.....spending a inordinate effort to "silence" the alternative view or "balance" what doesn't be balanced....it could reflect badly....but i don't think an alternative view will convert....but Americans tend to say they are "moderate" which probably is true.. they probably take the best of both...knowing that its best to have as many views as possible out there...not just one opininon hammered in by a first tier of conservative talk show hosts....then echoed by a subpar second tier...etc....
>

 

[Tom_]

Air America Numbers from Goldberg...

The following material is from AAR CEO Daniel Goldberg on the video at the link above:

by 8/1/05 = 74 affiliates...including all top 10 markets...

says station count is superficial since a station in a small Texas town won't get as much as a larger city...

then says that it's the [potential] size of audience that counts:
39% of Americans on 1/1/05
63% of Americans on 8/1/05

then says that current number of people listening per week is 2.3 million...

for an average of 9 hours per person...

New York City: a little higher, 10hrs/ 45 mins. per week

Web site: 2.5 million hits per week

Web site streaming audio listeners: 325,000 persons per week, with 9 hours per person average

Says that this beats all other audio streaming programs

Says that 60 is average age of talk radio listener in US

Says that 47 is average age of Air America listener in US

Says that the network skews significantly younger and says that will be experimenting to lower it further

Says that 7 out of the 8 top national liberal talkers (syndicated) are on Air America

Says that affiliates have an average of 13 hours per day of Air America programs (Mon-Fri)

 

[Tom_]

Re: Questions on Numbers from Goldberg...

Please forgive me as an AM radio hobbyist for all this math:

> then says that it's the [potential] size of audience that
> counts:
> 39% of Americans on 1/1/05
> 63% of Americans on 8/1/05

*****With signal strength problems, will 74 affiliates reach...

.63 X 250,000,000 = 157,500,000 listeners per week?????

For clarification: the *ONLY* number from Goldberg on the video here is 63%.
The 250,000,000 is my approximation for the US population and I know it's wrong.
The resulting 157,500,000 is 63% of 250 million.

Is it 63%? Just because a network is in the top 10 markets and 64 others does not mean you can potentially reach 150 million per week...
e.g. weak daytimers licensed to suburbs outside the nearby major market, such as the affiliate near Chicago and the upcoming Baton Rouge affiliate next to New Orleans...Or stations that have to reduce power and/or change patterns at night...or even 50kW stations with bad nightime patterns such as 1090 KPTK / Seattle...which does not cover the rapidly growing S.E. King County Wa. suburbs that well esp. at night...compared to the other 50kW's (KOMO,KIRO,KJR) and even two 5kW-night conservative talkers in town (KVI,KTTH)...

Air America would have much more potential if they can get on better signals in several markets...Or, if they can get on a second station in the market...Doc9464 had suggested strategies for Air America earlier, and listed signal strength, this is indeed a significant obstacle to ratings...

> Says that 60 is average age of talk radio listener in US
>
> Says that 47 is average age of Air America listener in US
>
> Says that the network skews significantly younger and says
> that will be experimenting to lower it further

********Why are they trying to get younger listeners? Why do they want to be different?

> Says that 7 out of the 8 top national liberal talkers
> (syndicated) are on Air America

*********Who? And how do you define liberal?
Some would define Bob Brinker, Art Bell, George Noory,
and Doug Stephan as left leaning, and they all get millions per week.
Who are these seven Air America hosts?
Who is the 8th one referred to that is not on Air America?

 

[tbetz]

Re: Questions on Numbers from Goldberg...

> ********Why are they trying to get younger listeners? Why
> do they want to be different?

Everything I've read says that advertisers prefer a younger, more influenceable, audience. The standard theory (which many say has been discredited) is that older listeners are more fixed in their preferences, and less likely to be influenced by advertising to change brands.

This is the marketing argument that results in, for example, Oldies being replaced by Jack.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>