Rush Revere

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It's a rigid envelope you're crafting (and lamenting in Rush, et al) because you are the sole determiner of what is "truth" and what fits inside YOUR matrix of what is truth/reliable/allowable.
You are the sole arbiter of what constitutes "integrity" under that matrix. Just because someone disagrees with you on what should be broadcast doesn't mean they can't engage in mature conversation, are deviant people, or whatever. It just means that they think differently than you do, and maybe, well, likely, they aren't as rigid in their expectations as you tend to be, especially when it comes to holding conservative talk hosts' feet to the fire you created, and around which only a few others have gathered (mostly people with an axe to grind against Rush/Hannity/etc. already).
Radiotalking politicos are doing opinions, not something vaguely qualifiable and quantifiable like traffic reports, ball game statistics, elections results, lunch menus, police blotter reports, etc......

What is the clichè we often use: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts!" The opinion people on radio are going beyond opinion... they are supporting their opinion with "made up facts" quite often.

The times have changed radically. 40 years ago I opened a business and I found we had a problem keeping our customers happy that only the legislature could solve. I became a 'citizen lobbyist'. (not paid, not registered.) I went down and gave a 90 second presentation before the Taxation Committee of our state legislature. I heard heavy breathing behind me. When I sat down, the heavy breather leaned up over my shoulder and said: If you are going to do this, let me teach you how. He turned out to be "The Dean of Lobbyists" in that state at the time. His first advice: NEVER, NEVER lie to these people. It will kill you. You will lose your influence. Obviously, that is no longer true.

I did that for four years. I made a couple of trips to Washington for the same purpose. Things have changed. Today representatives and lobbyists apparently lie to one another, and in turn they lie to us. I don't have any confidence that a civilization can exist long-term if we try to build it around who can lie the loudest and the longest. History if full of tales about great empires and great civilizations who have ended up in the crapper.

By the way: the guy who leaned over my shoulder, offered to train me, which he did.... turned out to be my primary adversary. He eventually "bought" the value of standing by and allowing the tax change to happen, and he became my ally as we jointly went to my secondary adversary. The job eventually "got the done".

Are you trying to convince me you are thrilled about living in a civilization where accepted humor is: "How do you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: "When his lips are moving."

I run into people I have seen for a couple of years. They start off-loading their politics on me. I push back and suggest that I might have a different view. I ask: "Where did you come up with that fact/statistic?" Well, that's what the guy on the radio said. "And you believed him?" Yeah, he's got all the facts. You should listen to him sometime.

Heaven help us!!!!

 

[quadraphonic]

I don't think it's quantifiable, at least not if you're speaking in generalities and innuendo.
There are different ways of doing things. Unless one becomes illegal, it doesn't really help to bemoan the past, which is always more halcyon in our minds than in reality.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Isn't this a radio forum? The thread quickly turned into a hate Rush vs. Love Rush tennis match.

Just like every other thread. Except I have to correct you. It's a Hate Rush vs. People Who Understand the BUSINESS of Radio argument.

Where's the beef?

A bunch of failed hosts and people who listen to 18 hours of radio a day and think they know everything, yet couldn't even operate a board. That's where the beef is. Any successful host is pilloried here.

 

[flybynight]

A bunch of failed hosts and people who listen to 18 hours of radio a day and think they know everything, yet couldn't even operate a board. That's where the beef is. Any successful host is pilloried here.

Ladies & Gentlemen, the childish generalizations mentioned above, are what you will typically see around here whenever you don't show love to a conservative talk radio host.

Fact is, the hosts, being "pilloried" often deserve it for many of the reasons given in this thread. It's not their ideological position that is at issue, but rather their knack for misrepresenting fact in an effort to get an unsuspecting audience to get angry and agree with them. It doesn't take a lot of skill to lie to get ignoramuses fired up. Stop being so naive and defending this nonsense just because you happen to agree with their politics.

FYI: I have known quite a few successful large/major market programmers and hosts over the years who acknowledge this problem within the format, unfortunately few do anything to change it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't think it's quantifiable, at least not if you're speaking in generalities and innuendo.
There are different ways of doing things.

Unless one becomes illegal, it doesn't really help to bemoan the past, which is always more halcyon in our minds than in reality.

I sense that you have painted the conversation into a simple binary situation: There is illegal, and everything else is good.

Some of us see life as a multi-color experience. In addition to illegal, there are some things that are rude, there are some things that are immoral, there are some things that are tasteless, some things are hurtful, some things that can be said are unproductive, some things bring about healing, some things are just purposeful 'rubbing salt into the wounds' because one can, some things are threatening, and some things make people fearful. (Granny may still be having nightmares about the commercial where they were simulating push another granny off a cliff somewhere.)

Part of the mystique of the American lifestyle is that we care about each other, we take action to help each other, we break up fights even when the children are not our own, and when war comes, we go off to war voluntarily.

We are having a discussion about a form of radio broadcasting that does not sound particularly American... it sounds more like the behavior of some Eastern European Republic that most of us have never heard of before. You know, the kind of country that begets the bad guys we see in "Person of Interest" now and then who have no soul. Just like Talk Radio.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Ladies & Gentlemen, the childish generalizations mentioned above

Followed immediately with a post full of actual childish generalizations. So, which are you? A washed up host or a wannabe program director?

Plenty of people acknowledge many problems with the talk format. Aging demos, copycat hosts, etc. The people who don't know jack about radio just make personal attacks and parrot what they read on blogs.

 

[stevensonair]

It is a valid point that many "progressive talk" stations were put on weak signals and left in the care of managers that were openly hostile, or dismissive of the format. It's hard to win with a product management is biased against.

 

[MC]

After all the hype, see what happened to Mark Levine's last book. You can pick it up for next to nothing on the net. There is always a lot of hype for talk radio books, and bulk buying of them as well. See what Michael Medved's last ebook is doing too. the one that predicted Romney was going to win by a landslide???

 

[Small Market Guy]

It is a valid point that many "progressive talk" stations were put on weak signals and left in the care of managers that were openly hostile, or dismissive of the format. It's hard to win with a product management is biased against.

It's hard to win with a format that is already being done by hundreds of non-commercial stations that aren't encumbered by commericals, and have snapped up the best talent. The public radio networks are what liberals listen to. Whether you think they're liberal or not, they're what left leaning people listen to.

The "weak signal" excuse is not true. The "someone else is doing it better" excuse is absolutely valid.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The public radio networks are what liberals listen to. Whether you think they're liberal or not, they're what left leaning people listen to.

The "weak signal" excuse is not true. The "someone else is doing it better" excuse is absolutely valid.

It is interesting how we all turn ourselves inside-out when this canard is plopped down like an un-dessed fish in the middle of a conversation.

A few years back when Air-America made a run for it and when stations made a concerted effort to see if Liberal Talk could gain the kind of traction Conservative Talk had achieved, NPR had not achieved (.... in most of the nation ) the shift from classical music to talk that we see today. Some of us live in communities where the NPR signal is a bit marginal... just like the Air-America AM station signals were marginal or non existent in our communities.

When you take a really messed up photo and throw it into Photoshop (the camera had messed up settings, the lighting was corrupted) you start cleaning up the view by adjusting the obvious extremes. Make sure the blacks are as black as possible without over saturation. Make sure things in the photo that are white are really white. Then check the color curves and make your wife's red dress look the proper shade of red, etc. and the entire picture will begin to snap into place.

If you will sit down at the TV and sample MSNBC several evenings in a row and then go back and listen to NPR for a few hours, my feeble little brain says: "To use a photographer's vocabulary.... NPR is a LOT closer to a neutral gray than it is to liberal blue." But Conservatives, not wanting to appear as a "Bull Fighter's Red Banner" in garish conservative red keep pointing at NPR and exclaiming excitedly: "Look how leftist they are."

Kind of reminds me of the stories we hear of young teen and pre-teen girls bullying each other with texted gossip on their cell phones. "If we bully them enough, maybe they will disappear.... maybe even commit suicide. Good riddance!"

 

[FredLeonard]

The nice thing about moving up from small markets is not having to work with certain kinds of people any more.

Mister I - and only I - understand the business of radio either does not know what the <bleep> he is talking about or deliberately lies to make a point.

(1) The NPR audience is about equally divided between self-reported liberals and self reported conservatives. This is from independent and published audience studies.
(2) The NPR audience is also about equally divided between people who perceive a liberal bias and a conservative bias. The conservative bias is generally attributed to NPR's (directly and through "member stations'") economic dependance on corporate sponsors.
(3) NPR member stations are "encumbered" by enhanced underwriting announcements, which to most listeners are indistinguishable from commercials.
(4) NPR "snapped up" news talent. Not call-in ideological talk show talent.
(5) The "weak signal excuse" is true. In some markets progressive talk did get decent AM signals but AM is not the place to launch a new format even under the best circumstances. In any case, no station that has dropped progressive talk has improved its audience numbers with the format (or formats) which replaced it. In most markets, the major conservative talk hosts are on long-established AM "flame-thrower" stations, which evolved gradually from full service formats over several decades. Progressive talk did about as well generally as secondary conservative talk stations taking programming from sources like TRN, Radio America, Westwood/DG, Fox Radio, or Salem.
(6) Many major advertisers refused to allow their spots on progressive talk stations, claiming it was too "controversial" (although right-wing talk was not so labelled at the time). More recently, many of those same advertisers have placed Rush and his clones on their blackout lists.

 

[flybynight]

The nice thing about moving up from small markets is not having to work with certain kinds of people any more.

Mister I - and only I - understand the business of radio either does not know what the <bleep> he is talking about or deliberately lies to make a point.

(1) The NPR audience is about equally divided between self-reported liberals and self reported conservatives. This is from independent and published audience studies.
(2) The NPR audience is also about equally divided between people who perceive a liberal bias and a conservative bias. The conservative bias is generally attributed to NPR's (directly and through "member stations'") economic dependance on corporate sponsors.
(3) NPR member stations are "encumbered" by enhanced underwriting announcements, which to most listeners are indistinguishable from commercials.
(4) NPR "snapped up" news talent. Not call-in ideological talk show talent.
(5) The "weak signal excuse" is true. In some markets progressive talk did get decent AM signals but AM is not the place to launch a new format even under the best circumstances. In any case, no station that has dropped progressive talk has improved its audience numbers with the format (or formats) which replaced it. In most markets, the major conservative talk hosts are on long-established AM "flame-thrower" stations, which evolved gradually from full service formats over several decades. Progressive talk did about as well generally as secondary conservative talk stations taking programming from sources like TRN, Radio America, Westwood/DG, Fox Radio, or Salem.
(6) Many major advertisers refused to allow their spots on progressive talk stations, claiming it was too "controversial" (although right-wing talk was not so labelled at the time). More recently, many of those same advertisers have placed Rush and his clones on their blackout lists.

Great points. You make an actual radio argument against an ideologically motivated position. I don't prefer any ideologically oriented format, but this notion that one is superior to the other is garbage and shows a lack of historical knowledge of the evolution of the talk format over the past 25 years.

Many of those same heritage talk stations did at least as well when they weren't far right-wing echo chambers. It used to be about personality-driven radio. Rush Limbaugh fit into that, as he was not your run-of-the-mill talk host. Using their incredible lack of insight, programmers decided Rush was great because he was conservative---so they hired lots more of him. Then they were off to the races, systematically skewing all programming toward Rush's ideology. Brilliant.

The talk format is so poisoned now that I don't believe it will ever recover in the eyes of the public. The right-wing nuts were always there. They didn't need to be pandered to exclusively. All that did was run off anybody normal who might've been listening.

Just brilliant.

I've known many talk programmers and most have a few things in common: uncreative, lazy and cowardly.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I've known many talk programmers and most have a few things in common: uncreative, lazy and cowardly.

That can be said for most people in any business.

 

[Small Market Guy]

It also hasn't gotten past me that no one actually addressed my point that DESPITE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT NPR (AND OTHER PUBLIC RADIO) BIAS, IT IS WHAT LIBERAL FOLK LISTEN TO.

Instead, the same old tired "NPR is neutral" talking point.

I don't care if NPR is neutral or not. It's irrelevant. It IS what liberals listen to.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

O.K. I'll bite.

A significant number of liberal people listen to NPR. What does that prove?

Probably it proves than all the rest of radio broadcasting put together in not creative enough interest the liberal listener.

It does not prove that NPR is the 'Cathedral for liberal orgasms.' It just proves that the rest of broadcasting is a barren wasteland for people who are liberal.

What does that prove?

How does it help us to have a discussion and prepare ourselves to be a little cog in the gears that grind out the future of radio?

 

[fybush]

I don't care if NPR is neutral or not. It's irrelevant. It IS what liberals listen to.

Is that the chicken, or is that the egg?

I live in a county of just under 700,000 people. In 2012, my county voted for Obama, by an 18% margin (58-40). We sent a veteran Democrat back to the House by almost the same margin (57-42), over the strong candidacy of a well-known, well-liked county executive. There's not even a Republican running for mayor of the central city in the market this year.

Now imagine that you're one of the 178,000 people in the county who voted for Obama, and you want to listen to some spoken-word programming on the radio. The heritage full-service AM in the market still does a fairly balanced news-heavy morning show, but after 9 AM the lineup includes a local host who sells T-shirts and stickers that read "FUBO," followed by Rush, Hannity and Savage. The other AM-plus-translator in the market runs Quinn & Rose, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dennis Miller and a local host who's also a Republican state senator. Two AMs with impaired signals run Fox Sports and ESPN, and two other AMs with even more impaired signals run Bloomberg and CBS Sports Radio with almost no local content.

If you're one of those 178,000 people in my county who voted for Democrats in 2012 - assuming that fits your definition of "liberal folk" - are you going to feel comfortable listening to the Rush-Hannity-Savage-FUBO station, or the Beck-Quinn-Ingraham station? Or are you going to gravitate to that one other place on the dial in town that's not constantly telling you about the evils of the guy you voted for, which happens to be the NPR talk outlet?

It bears noting that in markets with strong commercial spoken-word choices that are not ideologically driven, those commercial stations often are among the highest-rated and highest-revenue signals in town. Look at WTOP, WINS, WBZ (during daytime hours) and KCBS. Where they're available as a choice, those stations ARE what liberals (and moderates, and conservatives) in their markets are listening to, too.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The point you miss is an almost equal number of conservatives also listen to NPR. True conservatives. Smart conservatives. Not Tea Dummies and Dittoheads. People who read William F. Buckley and watched him on public television, and who read George Will in the Washington Post; conservatives who even read actual books.

Speaking of Tea Books: Bill O'Reilly was on 60 Minutes tonight promoting his book. He says the Holy Ghost told him to write it (appropriately enough, along with his ghost writer).

I live in the county that is in an alternate universe from what Scott calls home. When I moved here 15 years ago, in the first election results I read in the local paper, 92% voted Republican, 8% voted Democratic.

The most recent presidential election showed dramatic change. It is now 82% Republican, 18% percent Democratic.

I live in the THIRD MOST Conservative/Republican Congressional District in America. Just a few years ago our county was rated THE MOST REPUBLICAN County in America. The last I heard I think there may be a county in Texas that has outdone us.

I have lived in other places that were more politically balanced. At least they used to be. From what I can see from election results, some of those communities have gone absolute poitically nuts these days.

Here is the problem. I have no doubt that I have neighbors who are sensible Republicans. Some of them probably (behind closed doors) listen to NPR. But the climate here does not allow them to say that out loud in public!!!! When they go down to the bar or the coffee shop for some social contact, they are going to pretend to be 100% Wool genuine Tea Party loyalists... whether they are or not.

If you are a true independent... or if you are a liberal... and you live where I live... you end up going to your pastor and asking: "Tell me about hell. Is it true that people who go there have to listen to Rush Limbaugh around the clock for eternity? And your pastor responds: "No my son, it has been determine that people who go to hell would enjoy hearing Limbaugh. Instead they spend eternity watching the Ed Schultz broadcast. That my son, is the ultimate picture of eternal damnation."

Being something of an incurable amateur theologian at heart, this newest book from O'Reilly is on the list of things I must absolutely read. I want to see for myself if he has a serious and trustworthy side.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Is that the chicken, or is that the egg?

Doesn't matter. That's the point.

 

[flybynight]

Is it possible for you to make an honest point without insulting anyone?

You may want to answer that as well.

 

[flybynight]

There are only certain types of people who enjoy hearing their own opinion regurgitated back at them in various voices all day long. Talkradio didn't depend used to depend on them, but unfortunately have painted themselves into such a corner, they have to cater to them now---because they've successfully driven most others away, probably for good.

Personally, I prefer a lineup of interesting people with strong opinions---not an echo chamber---left or right. I find Randi Rhodes almost as disingenuous as Hannity. But nobody beats Sean in the shallowness department.

So tired of the talkradio borefest.