I posted a lengthy response to his article, but since I'm not an RBR subscriber, I'll repost it here for benefit of discussion.
Tradup likes to cloak in nobility the simple fact that conservative talk currently makes money. All fine and well. But to pretend that you're taking the high ground rather than defending simply what makes your bank is the height of hypocrisy.
He's also inaccurate on numerous points:
1. Tradup portrays talk radio as viewed as one of two things - either knuckle dragging malcontents or "enlightenment." However, he ignores that many of us view it as a medium with much potential that is often tone-deaf to all but one specific ideological bent. While it's not the government's place to force that - it's also not a proud moment for talk radio that in many instances, they pick the weakest opponents of their ideological opposites. Talk radio is not generally the place one turns to for factual debate with intellectual equals. It is a place those who agree with the hosts tune in to hear their views verified and their opponents made to look ignorant at best, and evil at worst.
2. There is legitimate debate that talk radio does not function as "outside one's circle of friends" but instead functions as an instrument of confirmation bias. Research has shown that the conservative talk audience (and the liberal audience likely, to the extent that it's given a radio platform) tunes into their program of choice NOT to be challenged on facts or sharp debate from the opposition, but more as a clubhouse to amplify their views and make one feel they have a "voice" or "champion" in the media. Rush Limbaugh himself credits his success to the fact that people felt that when he came along "they had someone speaking for them, speaking to their values." This does not suggest the ideological perceptions of the audience loyalists are expanded by talk radio, merely affirmed. No one tunes in to entertain the idea that Obama may not be destroying America, or that George Bush wasn't a war-hungry idiot. That isn't the role it plays.
3. Tradup claims talk hosts "add" to the national dialogue. In sheer volume, yes. But one could debate if the national dialogue has benefitted or suffered from the tone, the slander, the selective use of facts, and the "slut shaming" and other such trash talk aired on many programs. The conservatives I know have standards, and Mr. Tradup's employer claims to be Christian - which should make them especially cautious about the tone and attitudes towards those they disagree with that are broadcast on their stations, if Christian is in fact a core value of the company, rather than a marketing concept. I encourage readers to look at the statements made by hosts such as Janet Mefford for examples of how the dialogue is actually degraded by much of Salem's talk programming.
4. Tradup being a radio professional completely misrepresents the image of left wing hosts. He uses the Air America cliche to blame the ideology rather than the presentation style and management of the company. As a broadcaster, Mr. Tradup should recognize that ideology is not the cause of bad product, bad product is still bad regardless of if it's conservative, liberal, or libertarian. Meanwhile, he fails to address that with there being such a thing as blue states, blue markets, and Democrats and liberals winning elections, there is a market out there for non-conservative product - and some survives, including local hosts on very powerful radio stations, along with products such as Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz which produce results in the free market. In addition, there are successful products for the liberal audience in television, web and print media. To blame the ideology rather than the medium or business strategy is incredibly short sighted.
5. Mr. Tradup is obviously not a very close follower of his own industry or concerned with factual postings, as the "new generation" of FM talkers he cites is a blatant falsehood. The Philadelphia FM was a ratings failure, even with Limbaugh in the lineup. It is being sold to a Christian organization that programs a format of positive music and edifying messages that its own listeners support with an average contribution of $40 a month. It's a stark contrast to the negative and poorly performing "new generation" that preceded it. Many FMs owned by larger broadcasters have abandoned conservative talk because of the lack of added younger listeners even when placed on an FM signal. As to the FM signal he cites in Columbus, well. We'll get to that in point #6.
6. Tradup would most likely concur that the measure for talk radio should be free-market results. And being a broadcaster of such pedigree, he would recognize that ratings are the standard measurement for broadcast success on a mass scale. Examining the stations of his employer, Salem, any objective observer would conclude that most people are not listening to them. Salem talkers routinely stun in the ratings. Stunning in their basement level lows. Many of them struggle to get 1 percent of the audience in major markets with decent signals. That means that most conservatives, not to mention most listeners, are not listening to Salem's talk programming. The Columbus station he cites as proof of a "new generation of FM talk" - is failing to gain new listeners. If that's Mr. Tradup's concept of the future, it appears that future is so cloudy that my shades can remain safely in my pocket.
In conclusion, Salem is no different than Air America in one sense. They are a company with poorly performing talk programs driven by a dedication to a specific and narrow ideology. Salem may well succeed in a billing sense, or by the national reach of their platforms - but by any objective measurement that most of us in commercial broadcasting answer to on a daily basis, their stations fail to reach and connect with younger listeners, or listeners beyond their specific religious and sociological core. They aren't widening the tent. They're huddled in it, sheltering against the coming torrential rain called demographic reality.
Talk radio is a grand format in principle - but withering away in its current execution. One hopes those of us who care about the future of the format and of the dialogue in this country will not navigate said future by Mr. Tradup's dimming beacon.
