Philly Talk Radio: 100% Conservative, 0% Progressive

[radiophiler]

Thanks SalesWeasel. Glad someone gets it.

 

[BRNout]

*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

What do you know? Have you looked at NPR'a tax return?

15% of the money comes straight from the government. YOU look it up! And that's 100% more than any of the so-called conservative talkers get from the government.

It's not like some conspiracy theory here - this is common knowledge. Many people think its 100% funded - but it's actually more like 15%. It should be 0%, then they can say whatever they wish.

First of all, NPR is not all that 'liberal', second of all, if you have something based on facts, by all means, put up or shut up. Let's see the source of that stat. Never mind that you 'worked for them'.

And I have looked at the return. It's not 15%.

NPR is quite liberal. And, the funding figure includes direct taxpayer funding to stations, plus the federal portion of funding given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's all available publicly.

And, I will not engage in a stupid argument about semantics. If there is even $1 of taxpayer funding involved, then the station has a responsibility to not be biased in their reporting. And, NPR is liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal. Why else is it that those Saabs and Volvos on the Main Line have stickers for NPR affiliates located across the bumper from these elderly Kerry Edwards ones? Come on, we all know who listens to NPR and why. They are the non-commercial liberal counterweight to shows like Rush, Hannity, etc. And, the study conveniently didn't count member stations as "liberal" which they are.

Also, if you can refute my 90% figure on liberal daily newspapers then be my guest. In fact, if you went by subscriptions, the figure is probably far higher because almost every daily in a major city is tilted to the left. The sad thing is that I read stories about issues of which i have personal knowledge and I find an even bigger bias and selective inclusion of facts than that reported by the various websites out there. The Inquirer is horrible in this regard - worse even than the Boston Globe. And, that's saying something. Objective reporting? No way. And, that is far more dangerous than conservative talk because you know what you are getting. Commentary. Biased news reporting is far more insidious and dangerous. And, I'd like to thank Sales Weasel for doing a nice job of pointing that out.

 

[raydofan]

Turn on the radio and listen.
Common sense tells you the truth.
The report is BS

Let me tell you what doesnt work in Philly...
*Alternative formats
*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

Actually, Y-100, such as it was, had decent numbers before Radio One scuttled it. So, management doesn't always react to numbers. There are other pressures at work.

I have inside confirmation O'Reilly was a 'pay-for-play' on WOR by someone at WW1. So is the management at WPHT (which is part of the CBS/WW1/Viacom family) gonna turn down someone from the home team, especially when the pressure fo this to succeed is so high? They paid for the NY clearence, and in lieu of live and local programming, they got O'Rielly jammed into the format.

Where do you 'consult' at anyway? Are you always this well thought out?

 

[early2rise]

Good point. I forget that all the time.
I know I have to be reminded of that every now and then

 

[raydofan]

NPR is quite liberal. And, the funding figure includes direct taxpayer funding to stations, plus the federal portion of funding given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's all available publicly.

From where? Tell us what the source is so we can verify what you're saying. I can tell you what mine is because, as I said before, I have looked at the numbers.

Put the link up. Otherwise, go pound salt.

 

[raydofan]

Good point. I forget that all the time.
I know I have to be reminded of that every now and then

Thanks!

 

[BRNout]

NPR is quite liberal. And, the funding figure includes direct taxpayer funding to stations, plus the federal portion of funding given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's all available publicly.

From where? Tell us what the source is so we can verify what you're saying. I can tell you what mine is because, as I said before, I have looked at the numbers.

Put the link up. Otherwise, go pound salt.

Fine, here is one....

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_08-10.pdf

On page 1 of this document, it specifially states that public broadcasters raise 85% of their funding from non-federal sources. [thus, the reverse is true - 15% IS from federal sources...a.k.a. the taxpayers.] This refers to the NPR portion of the programming, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, it may differ for stations that don't carry the full slate.

Remember, I am talking about the network and not necessarily individual stations. That being said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to many NPR affiliates. That's because a lot of them belong to state universities and, thus, get state funding. That's not counted here. Nor are the ones actually owned by taxpayers - isn't that the case in New York City?

You can quote me one tax return from a little sub-92.0 station - but I'm talking about the big picture here. It is taxpayer funded programming. You go pound salt.

 

[carnyfeet]

Also, if you can refute my 90% figure on liberal daily newspapers then be my guest. In fact, if you went by subscriptions, the figure is probably far higher because almost every daily in a major city is tilted to the left. The sad thing is that I read stories about issues of which i have personal knowledge and I find an even bigger bias and selective inclusion of facts than that reported by the various websites out there. The Inquirer is horrible in this regard - worse even than the Boston Globe. And, that's saying something. Objective reporting? No way. And, that is far more dangerous than conservative talk because you know what you are getting. Commentary. Biased news reporting is far more insidious and dangerous. And, I'd like to thank Sales Weasel for doing a nice job of pointing that out.

I'll concede the points about disguised commentary masquerading as news, but I still don't buy the 90% liberal reporting figure. The burden of proof is on you for that one - I won't waste my time searching the 'net to refute that just because you don't want to post a link.

 

[raydofan]

NPR is quite liberal. And, the funding figure includes direct taxpayer funding to stations, plus the federal portion of funding given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's all available publicly.

From where? Tell us what the source is so we can verify what you're saying. I can tell you what mine is because, as I said before, I have looked at the numbers.

Put the link up. Otherwise, go pound salt.

Fine, here is one....

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_08-10.pdf

On page 1 of this document, it specifially states that public broadcasters raise 85% of their funding from non-federal sources. [thus, the reverse is true - 15% IS from federal sources...a.k.a. the taxpayers.] This refers to the NPR portion of the programming, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, it may differ for stations that don't carry the full slate.

Remember, I am talking about the network and not necessarily individual stations. That being said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to many NPR affiliates. That's because a lot of them belong to state universities and, thus, get state funding. That's not counted here. Nor are the ones actually owned by taxpayers - isn't that the case in New York City?

You can quote me one tax return from a little sub-92.0 station - but I'm talking about the big picture here. It is taxpayer funded programming. You go pound salt.

OK...you have to read a little more of the document than the first few pages. Look at page 12...what does that tell you?

Do you know the difference between CPB and NPR, and what portion of the CPB appropraition goes to NPR affiliates?

According to my source, which is form 990 from 2004 shows $61,288,472 in direct public support, $5,859,676 in indirect public support, and $436,167 from government grants.

What percentage is that?

There are other sources of income that I will not detail here, because they go further to support my points-this includes sales of various items and membership fees.

Further:

What is WXPN? They are mentioned in the CPB PDF as well.

B for effort, F for comprehension.

 

[Irishfl]

Air America is part of a national 24/7 syndicate and was forced to succeed or fail as an entire unit. Stations like 1210 operate individually and decide which programs to pick up / drop according to demand, plus they can drop in their own local programming like Suzanna LaFrankie and Michael Smerconish. Air America doesn't really follow the same model as conservative talk and therefore I don't think it's recent bankruptcy is an indictment of liberal talk. Plus, it never was even tried in this market.

AA was in Philly, on WHAT-AM for a while.

AA, has a national feed, however, stations aren't required to air all programs, or air them live. WHAT-AM only broadcasted AA 2 most popular shows for example.

Anyway, Conservative talk was nothing before Rush. When Rush took off, simular shows popped up, to form a full format. Now everycity has one. Without Rush, conservative talk might still be as small as it was in the early 80's.

When liberal talk finds someone who can make it take off like Rush did with conservative talk, the same thing will happen with liberal talk. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[carnyfeet]

AA was in Philly, on WHAT-AM for a while.

AA, has a national feed, however, stations aren't required to air all programs, or air them live. WHAT-AM only broadcasted AA 2 most popular shows for example.

Anyway, Conservative talk was nothing before Rush. When Rush took off, simular shows popped up, to form a full format. Now everycity has one. Without Rush, conservative talk might still be as small as it was in the early 80's.

When liberal talk finds someone who can make it take off like Rush did with conservative talk, the same thing will happen with liberal talk. That hasn't happened yet.

I was unaware of this. Thanks for the info. Agreed on the bit about Rush. I remember listening to the Phillies when I was a kid and hearing ads for RUSH on 1210 and wondering who the heck that guy was. He was a force to be reckoned with then and he's a force to be reckoned with now.

 

[Rockin Rob]

Does anyone, besides me, remember when WPHT (and, for a day or two, WPTS) first brought talk back to 1210? Diane Cridland was running the joint and it was VERY left-leaning.

It TANKED! MISERABLY!!!!!!!!

 

[BRNout]

NPR is quite liberal. And, the funding figure includes direct taxpayer funding to stations, plus the federal portion of funding given to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's all available publicly.

From where? Tell us what the source is so we can verify what you're saying. I can tell you what mine is because, as I said before, I have looked at the numbers.

Put the link up. Otherwise, go pound salt.

Fine, here is one....

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_08-10.pdf

On page 1 of this document, it specifially states that public broadcasters raise 85% of their funding from non-federal sources. [thus, the reverse is true - 15% IS from federal sources...a.k.a. the taxpayers.] This refers to the NPR portion of the programming, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, it may differ for stations that don't carry the full slate.

Remember, I am talking about the network and not necessarily individual stations. That being said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to many NPR affiliates. That's because a lot of them belong to state universities and, thus, get state funding. That's not counted here. Nor are the ones actually owned by taxpayers - isn't that the case in New York City?

You can quote me one tax return from a little sub-92.0 station - but I'm talking about the big picture here. It is taxpayer funded programming. You go pound salt.

OK...you have to read a little more of the document than the first few pages. Look at page 12...what does that tell you?

Do you know the difference between CPB and NPR, and what portion of the CPB appropraition goes to NPR affiliates?

According to my source, which is form 990 from 2004 shows $61,288,472 in direct public support, $5,859,676 in indirect public support, and $436,167 from government grants.

What percentage is that?

There are other sources of income that I will not detail here, because they go further to support my points-this includes sales of various items and membership fees.

Further:

What is WXPN? They are mentioned in the CPB PDF as well.

B for effort, F for comprehension.

I know the difference. So what about WXPN? I couldn't care less about that particular station. Do they even carry NPR programming? Every time I go there, I hear alternative rock. Hardly the type of NPR station I was referring to. I'm used to the likes of WBUR, WGBH, WEVO. Real NPR affiliates.

Ummm, you're the one who argued that NPR isn't taxpayer funded. I argued that it is. Whether the 15% figure is exact or not, it is taxpayer funded and I win for that reason alone.

Nor did you address the concept of NPR's affiliates that are publicly-owned. I have a job, so I didn't have the time to go off on a research project to address this. My goal was to grab quick proof that you are wrong and that the network is taxpayer funded. I did that. Even if $1 of our money goes to NPR, it is taxpayer funded. Clearly, the number is way up in the millions - which is millions more than you wanted us to believe.

Listen to NPR howl when funding is threatened! Limbaugh, et. al, have no such problem because they are commercially viable. If NPR's programming was so great, they'd be able to stand up without requiring taxpayer money to do it. And, frankly, I do not appreciate our money going toward such stilted programming. If it's so great, sell ads and make it work. Why should we pay for programs that we do not listen to?

No one asks you to subsidize WPHT or Fox News.

Another issue was that NPR was not included in your little liberal moonbat survey and should be counted as liberal talk. Which was my original point.

If you would like to prove to me that more than 10% of daily papers lean right, I am listening. Name just one in a top 10 metro area. Go ahead. The liberal point of view has so very many outlets that it is the right which is under fire. Not the other way around.

 

[8638]

Liberals just hate the fact that their God, Government, currently has no power to stop the barrage of 'evil' conservative commentators on the radio. They can't compete in an even playing field...just look at the 'success' of Air America, so, they have some pinko think tank 'analyze' conservative vs. 'progressive' talk.

Hey, liberals, here's the answer: program your 'progressive' talkers with stuff that people might actually want to hear. Let's face it, hours and hours of "I hate Bush' ain't exactly a cume builder!

And how did you learn to think like that? Talk radio!

>>>No. You make a gratuitous assertion by saying so. I formed my political opinions long before conservative talk became the success it is today, in the late seventies/early eighties, during the malaise of Jimmy Carter, which became the new day in America of Ronald Reagan

Liberal talk radio doesn't work because you actually have to frame the issue, there are nuances to discussing issues. The other side is sound byte fear-mongering, race-baiting, liberal-bashing-for-the-sake-of-bashing and frankly, better at framing an issue.

>>>It is interesting that terms such as fear mongering, race baiting, et al are always bantered about by liberals when describing conservatives...always without any concrete examples of same. Liberal radio doesn't work because, frankly, it is boring. I have tried listening to Air America, and periodically NPR, because I believe in knowing what my enemy is up to. AA is basically "we hate Bush," and NPR seems to be the bastion of what, for lack of a better descriptor, would be the Main Line liberal ("I'm so smart, so you should listen to and believe me, because I say so").

All that aside -- and I'm pretty liberal -- the government has NO business dictating format or content to PRIVATELY HELD COMPANIES. None. Zero. Nada. Conservative talk radio works, generates revenue, creates jobs and is very popular. This is one situation where "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" will never work, so I wish my liberal comrades would buy their own stations (put up or shut up).

>>>Praise God! I must confess, I know few liberals who would agree with you. I don't mind that you disagree with me, only that you don't try to stifle my voice.

 

[8638]

Liberals just hate the fact that their God, Government, currently has no power to stop the barrage of 'evil' conservative commentators on the radio. They can't compete in an even playing field...just look at the 'success' of Air America, so, they have some pinko think tank 'analyze' conservative vs. 'progressive' talk.

Hey, liberals, here's the answer: program your 'progressive' talkers with stuff that people might actually want to hear. Let's face it, hours and hours of "I hate Bush' ain't exactly a cume builder!

Don, I was hoping against hope that we could have a civil discussion about the issue instead of taking pot-shots at each other's political leanings. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations about what conservatives supposedly think, so I don't know why you would want to do the same to liberals.

Hey Carny:

I didn't think I was being uncivil! And I surely wasn't taking any pot shots at you. There were no sweeping generalizations, either. Every time I hear a liberal, the first thing they come out with is some anti-Bush statement. I stand behind what I wrote. Can you disprove any of it?

And, you might be surprised to learn that I don't agree with everything I hear on conservative talk radio. I listen to Sean Hannity, but we part company on the President and his performance over the past few years, specifically his war leadership. As a former Marine, I think the Commander in Chief has basically blown it.

You've started an interesting thread!

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Does conservative sell? Yes, to an extent. "Entertaining" sells even better. A better way of phrasing the question: why do the overwhelming majority of talk hosts sound so much alike, both in terms of topic selection and opinion? The answer has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the godawful lack of leadership and original thinking in the industry. 8)

 

[raydofan]

Ummm, you're the one who argued that NPR isn't taxpayer funded. I argued that it is. Whether the 15% figure is exact or not, it is taxpayer funded and I win for that reason alone.

What is that quote about the Special Olympics and the Internet?

This is what I said:

*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

What do you know? Have you looked at NPR'a tax return?

So, you want to discuss actual facts? They are, for the most part, listener supported.

Nor did you address the concept of NPR's affiliates that are publicly-owned. I have a job, so I didn't have the time to go off on a research project to address this. My goal was to grab quick proof that you are wrong and that the network is taxpayer funded. I did that. Even if $1 of our money goes to NPR, it is taxpayer funded. Clearly, the number is way up in the millions - which is millions more than you wanted us to believe.

Wow, I'm so glad your employer lets you stay on. Kudos to helping the differently abled.

The original quote was about the network not having listener support. 'Clearly'? You have no reading comprehension or math skills. Same as another 'conservative' I could name.

Listen to NPR howl when funding is threatened! Limbaugh, et. al, have no such problem because they are commercially viable. If NPR's programming was so great, they'd be able to stand up without requiring taxpayer money to do it. And, frankly, I do not appreciate our money going toward such stilted programming. If it's so great, sell ads and make it work. Why should we pay for programs that we do not listen to?

[EDIT]

No one asks you to subsidize WPHT or Fox News.

Blah blah... I'm sure there's another 'quid' courtesy of the taxpayers for that BS.

Another issue was that NPR was not included in your little liberal moonbat survey and should be counted as liberal talk. Which was my original point.

Aint much there, is there folks? Just a whole lotta hot air...

If you would like to prove to me that more than 10% of daily papers lean right, I am listening. Name just one in a top 10 metro area. Go ahead. The liberal point of view has so very many outlets that it is the right which is under fire. Not the other way around.

Who gives a crap.

[EDIT2]



[EDIT-inflammatory & vulgar content]
[EDIT2-inflammatory]

 

[imhomerjay]

For the record, I oppose ownership caps, and any attempt to revive a so-called fairness doctrine.

What I find ironic in this debate is the same shows--and listeners--who have rallied to call for the public to decide what they want, who say people are smart enough on their own to know what they want to listen to, as a general rule spend much of their on-air time ranting about how the public shouldn't have rights to decide things like their own health care and reproductive plans, who to marry, who in the government they should be able to take to task/whose decisions they can rightly challenge and whether or not the U.S. flag can be used in symbolic speech that criticizes said government. No, they spend their time bloviating about how many rights should be restricted in the name of their version of religion, but by all means, make sure people can decide what radio station they want to hear.

As to 1210's return to talk, let's see---they came off a disaster of a sports format and needed to build from scratch. Rush and Dr. Laura were on the way almost from day one, once they were done on 96.5, and the station hired Dom "Outrageous!" G.--how is that a mostly liberal station? Perhaps they were more balanced in their show selection, vs. today's lineup. The station could have come out of the gate with the all-stars of right-wing talk and still would have needed time to grow.

 

[yocco]

Fact......Let's call it what it really is. LIBERAL talk. Progressive is a joke.
Fact......Liberal Talk does not garner ratings. Radio is a business. It's about$$$$$$$$. Conservative talk delivers. Why????? see next fact.......
Fact......Radio shows are not successful if they're not entertaining. Rush, Sean, Neil B, Michael S, Laura I. and Glen B. are all entertaining. But that's not the only reason....see next fact
Fact......The liberal talkers alll talk about what's wrong with America. No sane person wants to constantly spend time with a bunch of cry babies.

Now they're crying about why there are so many conservative shows and stations. Get some talented entertaining hosts and say something good about the country for a change and maybe you'll have some success with the Arbitron voters. Instead of just bashing the President, give some real solutions to what you see are the problems. Frankly your Presidential candidates...Hill and Barack..need to do the same.

 

[8638]

Fact......Let's call it what it really is. LIBERAL talk. Progressive is a joke.
Fact......Liberal Talk does not garner ratings. Radio is a business. It's about$$$$$$$$. Conservative talk delivers. Why????? see next fact.......
Fact......Radio shows are not successful if they're not entertaining. Rush, Sean, Neil B, Michael S, Laura I. and Glen B. are all entertaining. But that's not the only reason....see next fact
Fact......The liberal talkers alll talk about what's wrong with America. No sane person wants to constantly spend time with a bunch of cry babies.

Now they're crying about why there are so many conservative shows and stations. Get some talented entertaining hosts and say something good about the country for a change and maybe you'll have some success with the Arbitron voters. Instead of just bashing the President, give some real solutions to what you see are the problems. Frankly your Presidential candidates...Hill and Barack..need to do the same.

Sums it up quite nicely, I think!