• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Progressive talk v Public Radio

M

mwebster

Guest
Public radio (NPR, PRI, APM, et al) appeals to liberals more than conservatives.
Now commercial progressive talk radio (Air America Radio, Democracy Radio, Pacifica, et al) is targeting the liberal audience.
Progressive talk radio's style might be described as a combination of smart-ass, arguementative and confrontational.
Public radio's style might be called more deliberate, thoughtful and reasonable.

Progressive talk radio's approach is to out-Rush Rush; to adopt the style of conservative talk radio. And my sense is the kind of people who tend to be liberal may not be comfortable with or attracted to that kind of talk radio.

Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off some/many liberals? Not too mention swing voters with no attachment to the left or the right (and who for all practical purposes decide elections)?
 
"Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off some/many liberals?"

Not me or my friends, we love the likes of Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, ect.
 
> Public radio (NPR, PRI, APM, et al) appeals to liberals more
> than conservatives.
> Now commercial progressive talk radio (Air America Radio,
> Democracy Radio, Pacifica, et al) is targeting the liberal
> audience.
> Progressive talk radio's style might be described as a
> combination of smart-ass, arguementative and
> confrontational.
> Public radio's style might be called more deliberate,
> thoughtful and reasonable.
>
> Progressive talk radio's approach is to out-Rush Rush; to
> adopt the style of conservative talk radio. And my sense is
> the kind of people who tend to be liberal may not be
> comfortable with or attracted to that kind of talk radio.
>
> Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off
> some/many liberals? Not too mention swing voters with no
> attachment to the left or the right (and who for all
> practical purposes decide elections)?
>


Does right wing talk radio turn off swing voters? Do swing voters even listen to talk radio?<P ID="signature">______________
FOX News does NOT speak for me.

Being a racist or hate monger is not diversity of opinion.</P>
 
Could be.
Probably not.

That wasn't my question and that's not my concern.
It's unfortunate that when someone raises legitimate concerns about one side, some people on that side only respond "the other side does it, too!"

Given the idealistic and ethical underpinnings of liberal political philosophies, liberals need to hold themselves to a higher standard.


>
>
> Does right wing talk radio turn off swing voters? Do swing
> voters even listen to talk radio?
>
 
> "Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off
> some/many liberals?"
>
> Not me or my friends, we love the likes of Stephanie Miller,
> Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, ect.
>


Ahh yes, the ol' Lying sack jingle is stuck in my head for the rest of the day now, and this after I've been avoiding the show for that reason.
 
> Public radio (NPR, PRI, APM, et al) appeals to liberals more
> than conservatives.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise on which you're basing the rest of your argument.

That assertion may have been true 20 years ago, when there really was that whole "white wine and Brie" vibe to a lot of the programming on public radio. But the rest of the radio universe has changed pretty dramatically in the interim, and it's my perception (backed up by a fair amount of audience research that I've seen) that the makeup of the public radio audience has shifted, too.

What's happened, in effect, is that the NPR news product has expanded to fill the gap left behind by the withering of the commercial radio news services. CBS and ABC still have a lot of good people working there, but they've both suffered significant affiliate erosion. NBC and Mutual are gone, except as names on Westwood One product. CNN Radio and Fox News Radio are bare-bones operations that depend heavily on repurposing their sister TV networks. And of course local news on the radio has become an endangered species in too many markets.

That created a vacuum for long-form reporting and for serious coverage of world news and other topics that rarely get more than a 20-second headline on commercial radio. Public radio saw that need and filled it, and while you can argue that the shift to a news-heavy programming diet on many public stations displaced other worthy programming, it also clearly addressed an audience that wasn't being sufficiently served by commercial radio.

Is that audience more liberal than conservative? You say it is, without providing any support for your position. The research I've seen suggests that while that may have once been true, the news programming today draws audiences from across the political spectrum. (It bears noting that in the whole fight over CPB funding for public broadcasting, it's public TV that's being targeted for more conservative programming. Nobody on either side of the aisle is accusing public radio of being unbalanced, and in large part that's because the DC insiders long ago recognized that NPR is one of the few places where they'll get in-depth coverage of Congress, regardless of political affiliation.)

If progressive talk radio stands to erode any audience from public radio, I'd expect that loss to come less from the straightforward (I'd say "fair and balanced," but...) news programs like ATC and Morning Edition and more from the talk shows like Diane Rehm and Talk of the Nation, which do tend to lean a little more to the left, though in a completely different vein from what you'd hear on commercial progressive talk. Even there, the styles are so different that I'm hard pressed to imagine Diane Rehm and Randi Rhodes sharing that much audience.

And of course there's plenty of programming still left on public radio (including the vast majority of the product from PRI and APM) that's not political at all and really has no relevance to this discussion at all.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
> Could be.
> Probably not.
>
> That wasn't my question and that's not my concern.
> It's unfortunate that when someone raises legitimate
> concerns about one side, some people on that side only
> respond "the other side does it, too!"
>
> Given the idealistic and ethical underpinnings of liberal
> political philosophies, liberals need to hold themselves to
> a higher standard.
>
>
You made a statement about swing voters and progressive talk radio. I picked up on that thought. It was legitimate follow up question.

I don't subscribe to the idea that one side has to hold themselves to a higher standard than the other side. They should both be held to the same high standard.

<P ID="signature">______________
FOX News does NOT speak for me.

Being a racist or hate monger is not diversity of opinion.</P>
 
> Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off some/many liberals?

I listen to both progressive talk (Franken, Schultz, sometimes Rhodes) and public radio daily (local public radio talk in the morning, Talk of the Nation, local public radio talk in the afternoon, and On Point (taped)).

I would make three points in relation to this discussion:

1.) I decide which to listen to by what I think is the best show at that time slot.

For example, I feel that the local public radio morning show is better than Morning Sedition and Stephanie Miller, so I listen to public radio then.

2.) When I listen to progressive talk - I listen for what information is getting excluded in the mainstream press about issues, what are the conservatives doing that is bad that isn't being covered, and what are the liberals doing good that is being covered.

3.) When i listen to public radio - I'm listening for what can I learn about a topic (that I don't know much about) today?

4.) Progressive talk and public radio might not be as distinct and mutuall exclusive as you think.

I find there are similarities between the Franken show format (usually each segment has an interview with a liberal figure) and public radio format (which also usually has segments with interviews).

I listen to the Franken show daily because it has a format similar to public radio that I prefer. Though some other progressive talk hosts - do very few interviews, and instead rely more on callers (e.g. Stephanie Miller).

The only difference is that Franken predominantly interviews liberals, while public radio usually tries to get interviews with 2,3,4 sides.
 
> Public radio (NPR, PRI, APM, et al) appeals to liberals more
> than conservatives.

I think it's more of an economic class than a political one. I sense the higher educated and more wealthy among us trend towards NPR more than a simple liberal/conservative label.

> Progressive talk radio's style might be described as a
> combination of smart-ass, arguementative and
> confrontational.

And conservative radio isn't? Two words: Ann Coulter.

> Progressive talk radio's approach is to out-Rush Rush; to
> adopt the style of conservative talk radio. And my sense is
> the kind of people who tend to be liberal may not be
> comfortable with or attracted to that kind of talk radio.

As a progressive, I am attracted to these programs, if only to FINALLY discover there are plenty of folks who feel as I have who have been ignored for more than a decade.

> Does progressive talk radio's style and approach turn off
> some/many liberals? Not too mention swing voters with no
> attachment to the left or the right (and who for all
> practical purposes decide elections)?

This almost sounds like a Fox News question. It's a year old. It's way too early for people to start wondering what's wrong with libtalk, particularly from those like yourself who have been highly critical of much of the format and AAR. Surprise, you may not be in the target audience.

The fact that the radio is shrill and polarizing attracts an audience that seeks out talk radio. The days of the generic "Opinion Program" or C-Span style call-ins ended with the Fairness Doctrine. Those that tried it during the late 80s and early 90s had no listeners and no ratings.

In Rochester, Jack Kinnicut used to host WHAM's "Opinion Program" during the Fairness Doctrine era. Most of the time, it wasn't obvious where he stood on issues. After the Fairness Doctrine, WHAM quickly headed to the right with Limbaugh and Kinnicut's new show left absolutely no doubts where he stood, right down to a memorable tirade about how AIDS could be spread by insects and was a homosexual disease. No wet finger in the wind required to guess the direction there.

He had listeners who tuned in to hear the anger and outrage, which is exactly why Savage was invented for the Hot Talk format.
 
> Given the idealistic and ethical underpinnings of liberal
> political philosophies, liberals need to hold themselves to
> a higher standard.

What? Well, at least we now see admissions that libtalk is being held to different standards than conservatives. What, do the conservatives deserve more leeway and freedom to spew hate, but liberals have to always be contemplative? Do that and you get conservatives attacking liberals for being weak. This doesn't make any sense in the context of the talk radio business.
 
> I listen to the Franken show daily because it has a format
> similar to public radio that I prefer. Though some other
> progressive talk hosts - do very few interviews, and instead
> rely more on callers (e.g. Stephanie Miller).

Actually Stephanie takes calls only coming out of commercial breaks, and they are mercifully short and to the point, and typically coherent. Miller is running a comedy political show - probably a more militant liberal version of something like the Daily Show - lots of lampooning and parodies.

Miller's show is going to be most comfortable for the Gen X crowd and younger. Her humor is probably a little too juvenile for the 50+ crowd.

Franken's show definitely skews older and more closely resembles public radio, perhaps because of Katherine's influence, having come from MPR in Minnesota. I find Franken's humor too subtle for my taste... I prefer the more brash stuff coming from Stephanie and Randi.

> The only difference is that Franken predominantly interviews
> liberals, while public radio usually tries to get interviews
> with 2,3,4 sides.

NPR loves to interview establishment inside-the-beltway guests on their talk and news shows. It was this that drove me away from NPR - I am weary of hearing endlessly from the Norm Ornstein's, the Bill Kristol's, the David Brooks, and the same media celebrities I can see on their respective networks without NPR. I personally think they have gotten WAY to cozy with the beltway. We need a little more outsider attitude, without the bias of Pacifica.
 
Dampier,

I agree with you on 2 of 3 points you made, but I definitely disagree with you on Stephanie Miller.

> Miller is running a comedy political show - probably a more militant liberal
> version of something like the Daily Show - lots of lampooning and parodies.
> Miller's show is going to be most comfortable for the Gen X crowd and younger.
> Her humor is probably a little too juvenile for the 50+ crowd.

I'm definitely a Gen X'er (I just turned 30 a few months ago), and I absolutely love watching the Daily Show (my spouse and I hardly miss a show).

But it seems to me like Miller's show is nothing but fluff - nothing to it, she doesn't interview prog/lib guests, and she essentially just repeats what is in the newspaper and online (she seldom provides any "new" prob/lib information to listeners to take with them: home, to the water cooler, out with friends).

I listen to Miller a couple times a week - and all I hear from her is a few jokes from her and her sidekicks that they find far more funny themselves than I do, and a bunch of call-ins seeing if Miller has heard "this or that" reported online or in some local newspaper.


> I find Franken's humor too subtle for my taste...

I agree with you here - I listen primarily for the information his guests provide, his humor is very catch-and-miss, sometimes entertaining and funny, and other times not-so-funny. Case-in-point - I turned the channel in respone to his "Mastocasion(sp?) Theatre" today (eating food while doing radio bit).


> I prefer the more brash stuff coming from Stephanie and Randi.

I like Randi's brashness - it's definitely part of her signature radio style, but I don't find Stephanie to be militant or brash - rather I find her to be just the opposite, she's too fluff-ish for me.
 
> > I think it's more of an economic class than a political one. I sense the higher educated and more wealthy among us trend towards NPR more than a simple liberal/conservative label.


Great point dampier! I was reading Jack Mitchell's book on the History of NPR a few weeks ago (and another History of NPR book written by one of Mitchell's former students who is now a Communications Professor somewhere like Vermont or Delaware).

Mitchell talks about internal NPR survey research that found that NPR listeners who pledge money were more likely to be: a.) "highly educated" (which frequently also means, economically well-off; but not always, e.g. teachers, social workers, etc.), and b.) more "socially-conscious" than the general population.
 
> Miller's show is going to be most comfortable for the Gen X
> crowd and younger. Her humor is probably a little too
> juvenile for the 50+ crowd.

My wife and I must be really juvenile, then. I'm 50+, she's just barely 50-. Though she doesn't air here, we both enjoy Miller's webcasts/podcasts.

> Franken's show definitely skews older and more closely
> resembles public radio, perhaps because of Katherine's
> influence, having come from MPR in Minnesota.

It will be interesting to see where Franken goes with the show once Katherine leaves. I can't imagine that he goes solo, as he has always seemed lost when forced to do so by her absences. Does he bring in Rachel Maddow to co-host?

No hint so far.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
> I like Randi's brashness - it's definitely part of her
> signature radio style, but I don't find Stephanie to be
> militant or brash - rather I find her to be just the
> opposite, she's too fluff-ish for me.

Sometimes ya just gotta have some cotton candy. <P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom