please shed some light

[rockroll0617]

This came up at a social gathering over the weekend and it's a great question
a friend posed. He said, "I just don't get all these conservative talk shows.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved (he listed
another few, the obvious names); all they do for 3 hours every day is defend us
being in Iraq AND bitching about Democrats. It's like their purpose in life is to
support Bush, defend us being in Iraq and cut down Democrats and progressives.
I just don't get the attraction".

And, I got to thinking: "he's right!". What's the purpose of basically being a
government/administration shill every day and complaining (and I mean just
plain mean-spirited bitching) about 'the other side'?

We talked about it for nearly an hour and even playing devil's advocate, nobody
could fathom a sound reason.

???

 

[Radio_Realist]

The reason is that enough people enjoy hearing it to constitute a large and lucrative enough market to make it profitable.

An anti-sports snob might ask "What's the purpose of talking about a bunch of overpaid grown men playing a kid's playground game?"

An anti-popular music snob might ask "What's the purpose of playing this modern classical music instead of playing the important classical works that are part of our cultural heritage?"

nobody could fathom a sound reason.

I guess nobody at the gathering was a capitalist or worked in radio.

It's profitable.

It doesn't need any more reason than that.

 

[rockroll0617]

So, it's really all just b.s., just "show", for the sake of making money?

 

[Radio_Realist]

So, it's really all just b.s., just "show", for the sake of making money?

That depends on who you're talking about. To the actual talk hosts themselves, they're "true believers", and mean what they say. To the station managers who actually run the transmitters, it's a business.

Would you accuse the musicians who make the music played on music format stations of all being just b.s., just "show", for the sake of money? Probably some of them are only in it for the money, but most of them are in it for the music.

Are the baseball players that work their way up through the minor leagues, making crappy money and a less than glamourous lifestyle only in it for the money?

Sure, platinum selling musicians, major league baseball players, and the handful of talk hosts who made it to the top are making huge piles of money. But they didn't make it to the top without paying their dues, and being serious about what they did.

So, even though I'm pretty sure you won't like my answer, I'm confident that it is correct. The suits who run the radio stations and networks, and the music recording companies, and major league ball teams are probably only in it for the money, or at least mostly for the money. But the actual talent is probably all "true believers" in what they are doing.

 

[OldiesCat]

shed some light

This is a fascinating topic.

I recall one day after the 2006 mid-term elections, Limbaugh was on his show admitting he was doing everything he could to make Republicans running for office look good just so they'd get elected and hold a majority; I couldn't believe my ears. He said he was "tired of carrying their water" and asailed them for not being "conservative enough" and said he was done doing their work for them. What I took from that is that he lied in hope they'd win their elections. That doesn't sound to me like he believed in what he was saying. It was not surprising he did so but it was stunning that he admitted he didn't believe half of what he said leading up to the elections.

Just sayin'.

 

[rockroll0617]

So, even though I'm pretty sure you won't like my answer, I'm confident that it is correct. The suits who run the radio stations and networks, and the music recording companies, and major league ball teams are probably only in it for the money, or at least mostly for the money. But the actual talent is probably all "true believers" in what they are doing.

It just all seems so obvious and disingenuous. They literally come off as publicity arms
of the R.N.C. Talk radio is supposed to be about a variety of subjects and issues- these
are the exact same thing, hour after hour, day after day, and all pro-Republican, pro-Iraq
and anti-anybody-who's-not. Such a narrow-minded approach to talk radio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

What I took from that is that he lied in hope they'd win their elections.

Then you weren't listening closely. Rush was admitting that he was being selective in what he said because he wanted to achieve a certain outcome in the elections. Not that he lied, not that he said untrue things. But that there were some truths he kept to himself because he wanted to see the conservatives, as a group, win the election.

That's the difference between being a steady listener of any particular programming and just tuning in for a quick random sample. One seldom gets the true picture of any radio talk program by only checking out a short sample of a program.

Talk radio is supposed to be about a variety of subjects and issues-

Sez who? Is that written on some tablet of stone somewhere? Is there a grand design for radio that was handed down from on high?

That's like saying "Music radio is supposed to be about a variety of musical styles and genres", and then whining because some stations play classic rock, and others play CHR, and others play country.

all pro-Republican,

Clearly, you weren't listening when the conservative talk hosts ripped the Republicans (including the President) a new one over the illegal alien amnesty bill.

Conservative talk host are (listen carefully on about this) conservative. They support any and all politicians who support conservative causes when they are supporting conservative causes. If a conservative politician strays from the reservation and backs some liberal cause, like amnesty for illegal aliens, the conservative talk hosts will turn on them. Conservatives talk hosts don't support RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) like Arlen Spector. Conservative talk hosts would support conservative Democrats if there were any (and Joe Lieberman comes close).

How is that different from sports talk show hosts who won't ever talk about gymnastics, or track and field, Olympic swimming, soccer, NASCAR, the Arena Football League, or any other sport that isn't Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, The NBA, or the NFL? Aren't those other sports also "sports"? Such a narrow-minded approach to sports radio!

How is that different from a music format station that only plays a carefully researched playlist of a relative handful of similar sounding songs? Where are the stations who'll play Barry Manilow, Metallica, and Dolly Parton back-to-back-to-back? Such a narrow-minded approach to music radio!

 

[rockroll0617]

Conservative talk host are (listen carefully on about this) conservative. They support any and all politicians who support conservative causes when they are supporting conservative causes. If a conservative politician strays from the reservation and backs some liberal cause, like amnesty for illegal aliens, the conservative talk hosts will turn on them. Conservatives talk hosts don't support RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) like Arlen Spector. Conservative talk hosts would support conservative Democrats if there were any (and Joe Lieberman comes close).

Then why does Fox NEWS Channel not call themselves "Fox Conservative Channel"?
Several studies on their content have revealed at least 73% of their content is not
news but OPINION. The radio talk hosts are on supposed News/Talk stations but
using your logic they should perhaps call themselves News/EDITIORIAL stations, 'cause
that's what they are. When you have Glenn Beck followed by Rush followed by Hannity
followed by Savage, there's nothing "news" about it- it's Opinion Radio.

And, again I'll ask: what is the point? I get the "making money" thing, but for a bunch
of people who scream "liberal media bias" all day every day, I think they actually have
it backward. On talk radio in America, it definitely leans heavily conservative.

 

[OldiesCat]

Not just opinion radio but clearly and obviously opinion that favors the current administration. Why hide or deny it? It's SOOOOO blatant.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Then why does Fox NEWS Channel not call themselves "Fox Conservative Channel"?

That wouldn't help their ratings. It's no different from CBS not calling its news program "Liberal news with Katie Couric".

And, again I'll ask: what is the point? I get the "making money" thing,

Then you shouldn't need to ask any more. You asked a question, you got the answer.

On talk radio in America, it definitely leans heavily conservative.

Yes, talk radio leans conservative. TV news leans liberal. Newspapers tend to cover a wider range of biases.

So?

AM radio stations that still play music tend to lean towards oldies and "The music of your life". Commercial FM stations that play music tend to lean more towards modern music. "Public" radio stations tend to lean towards classical music. Music programs on television lean towards female performers who look good in videos, regardless of how they sound.

That's the nature of broadcasting. Get over it.

opinion that favors the current administration. Why hide or deny it? It's SOOOOO blatant.

Who attempts to hide it?

When the President does something that conservatives agree with, then they express their agreement. When the President does something that conservatives disagree with, like supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, then the conservatives jump all over him.

 

[robbbc]

Rush was indicating slant in saying that he minimized discussion of topics he disagreed with republicans on, not bias. But you can debate that until the cows come home. As for immigration- I can't help but feel that talk radio has tapped into something populist that it can can use to show that it is independent from the Republican Party. The only issue I have is, why, after 10 years of Republican control of the house and senate is this issue soooo important now? Maybe because the republicans aren't in control? Does anyone in radio know how much ending illegal immigration will cost? The cost of higher food prices, higher hotel prices, decreased profits for our service economy, increased union power- it's a republican nightmare and we haven't even discussed the amount of money it would cost to secure the borders, deport people, and enforce laws on employers many of whom write large checks to the Republican party every year. There is a reason the republican party doesn't want this to be the issue du jour on talk radio.

 

[photog]

Conservative talk radio is on the air because it has an audience The print media and television both slant to the left. I think it is way more incidius when the network news pretends to be fair and just giving you the news. At least with talk radio, you know where the hosts are coming from. There is left leaning radio too. Look at NPR, which is subsidized. Liberal radio is not popular because libs don't listen. Period. If they did, it would be on the air. If they try to squelch it with say the fairness doctrine, it will go to pay radio and the internet. There is a demand for it, so it will survive.

As far as the comment by robbbc, the price to stop illegal immigration will not be a high as you think. When you add in the cost of these people.......health care, education, increased cost to our insurance due to accidents by unlicensed, insured drivers. The costs for my city, Houston, are huge!! I'd gladly pay extra for goods. I would suppport a guest worker program, where people could come here, documented, work and pay taxes and leave. The illegals here have NO alligance to America and don't want to become American.

 

[smedge2006]

Conservative talk radio is on the air because it has an audience The print media and television both slant to the left.

Be sure and mention that to all the people who are stuck with the Orange County Register and the Daily Oklahoman/Jokelahoman as their local newspapers, or get their news from a station owned by Sinclair Broadcasting (in a number of U.S. markets), Fox, or Media General, whose newspapers have never endorsed a Democrat for president in modern times.

Or check out the Writers Guild of America website that explains how the newswriters were told by their bosses at the so-called "liberal" alphabet networks (including the radio networks) to avoid any anti-Iraq war stories.

There is left leaning radio too. Look at NPR, which is subsidized. Liberal radio is not popular because libs don't listen. Period. If they did, it would be on the air. If they try to squelch it with say the fairness doctrine, it will go to pay radio and the internet. There is a demand for it, so it will survive.

There's nothing insidious (learn how to spell) about the alphabet networks who give so much time to conservatives, especially on Sunday morning, except from the left point of view. NPR is not liberal, certainly not in the way that talk radio is conservative.

Liberal radio is not popular because libs don't listen. Period.

Why don't you take a moment and look through the posts on this site and see how that has been refuted again and again. The weak signals on which liberal formats have been stuck....
the program directors and managers who took liberal formats off the air in Atlanta, Cincinnati and Columbus and put on formats that drew LOWER ratings... The fact that Orlando has four conservative talkers even though ONLY TWO OF THEM get ratings at all... Quit repeating talking points. (Of course if everyone did that, there'd be no such thing as conservative media.) If you are going to pontificate and engage in punditry about liberal talk radio, at least know your subject and read something that doesn't come from sites with an obvious incentive to strangle the baby in its crib.

Read up on Atlanta, Cincinnati and Columbus... look at the Chicago station that outdraws WIND despite having a daytime only signal... look at the strong-signal liberal talkers that are doing well... THEN come back and debate. If you're going to quote garbage from Human Events, American Spectator and other non-radio sources that don't have a clue about the business... just forget it.

 

[rockroll0617]

Rush was indicating slant in saying that he minimized discussion of topics he disagreed with republicans on, not bias. But you can debate that until the cows come home. As for immigration- I can't help but feel that talk radio has tapped into something populist that it can can use to show that it is independent from the Republican Party. The only issue I have is, why, after 10 years of Republican control of the house and senate is this issue soooo important now? Maybe because the republicans aren't in control? Does anyone in radio know how much ending illegal immigration will cost? The cost of higher food prices, higher hotel prices, decreased profits for our service economy, increased union power- it's a republican nightmare and we haven't even discussed the amount of money it would cost to secure the borders, deport people, and enforce laws on employers many of whom write large checks to the Republican party every year. There is a reason the republican party doesn't want this to be the issue du jour on talk radio.

I don't doubt conservative talk radio drove the Illegal Immigration issue. But, we're
supposed to REFLECT public opinion, not form it, which the righty talkers clearly did
and I wholeheartedly believe they made it THE issue for a couple of weeks to take
attention off the major failure of a war in Iraq.

Even Fox News' Rupert Murdoch has publicly stated that it was his goal to have Fox
News mold and form public opinion on Iraq, the 2006 midterms and all issues favorable
for the conservative movement.

 

[Radio_Realist]

But, we're supposed to REFLECT public opinion, not form it,

Where did you find that piece of information? Where is it written that radio isn't supposed to form opinion? And since when do conservative talk radio hosts form opinions? People like Rush, Hannity, and the rest are generally doing the same thing that all other broadcasters do, which is preach to the choir.

Conservative talk hosts appeal to listeners who are already conservatives, and who enjoy having their existing opinions confirmed or validated. The only thing that conservative talk hosts actually accomplish is energizing the conservative base, and improving conservative voter turn out.

If you actually listened to Rush on those rare occasions when he puts a caller on the air, if the caller admits that they used to be a liberal, nine times out of ten they'll say that they became conservative, then started listening to Rush.

Even Fox News' Rupert Murdoch has publicly stated that it was his goal to have Fox News mold and form public opinion

Every media mogul who ever lived had as his goal getting people to accept his point of view. Benjamin Franklin pushed his own opinions in his papers back in Colonial times. Horace Greeley pushed his point of view, as did Hearst, Pulitzer, Ted Turner and every other person involved in the news business. Hell, even Perry White pushed for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

The media is not now, and never has been, unbiased. Even the brief fling with so-called "objective journalism" was nothing more than a cheap stunt carried out by Pulitzer as part of his circulation wars with his arch-rival, Hearst. Pulitzer was no more "fair and balanced" than his competition, but he seized upon it as a gimmick to peddle more papers. Murdoch tried the same stunt a century later with Fox News.

There's no more truth to Fox's "Fair and Balanced" than there is to the New York Times' "All the News That's Fit to Print". It's all just a bunch of hollow slogans, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[rockroll0617]

The media is not now, and never has been, unbiased.

So, why all the outrage when it is (as you purport) all biased to some degree? Sean Hannity
every night on Fox News and every day on his radio show rails against the "lib'ruhl media", yet
his brand of media is biased to the far right. Isn't this very hypocritical?

 

[OldiesCat]

They're all phonies, cat. It's as fake and contrived as can be.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So, why all the outrage when it is (as you purport) all biased to some degree?

It's all part of the schtick! Why did Top-40 DJs back in the day all talk a mile a minute? It was part of the schtick.

Conservative listeners like to hear conservative talkers bash liberals. Sports fans like to hear sports talkers bash the home team's arch rivals.

Why can't you grasp that simple fact? The broadcasting business is a business. Duh!! If you work in the radio business (which somehow I doubt), I presume you collect a paycheck. Or if you're like me and work in an industry that's only semi-related to radio, I still presume you collect a paycheck. Did you ever wonder where the money for that paycheck came from?

It came from the people who write you that check doing what needed to be done to take care of business and make a profit. That's how business works.

If you don't like the way the radio business works, then don't accept any money from it.

Isn't this very hypocritical?

Not nearly as hypocritical as biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[rockroll0617]

Not nearly as hypocritical as biting the hand that feeds you.

Frankly, I think it's pretty disingenuous to so minimize this, as if it's a jock talking up
a song intro. When it comes down to it, this is a movement designed to push a political
agenda on a mass basis, especially when you see that there are dozens of national
conservative talk shows and just a few progressive shows, only to have the conservative
hosts bark "lib'rl media" hour after hour, day after day.

As radical Islam is hijacking the Muslim faith, this movement is attempting to hijack the
American political landscape. They are both radical movements.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Actually, I don't believe politics has that much to do with it. Broadcasting, like many industries has always suffered from a "follow the leader" mentality. Talk radio has always been a bastion (or maybe the better word is sanctuary) for conservative populism, but lately the format has become homoginized to the point where the current crop of talkers are mostly interchangable (not at all unlike what happened to the Post-Drake era AM Top Forty of the sixties).
One problem is that the folks who run the biz (and that includes the Wall Streeters who bankroll it) hold a very narrow, provincial notion of what "talk radio" is supposed to sound like.
In the long run, we in the broadcast biz have only ourselves to blame for this situation.