Sports Radio Hosts On Talkers' 2011 "Heavy Hundred" List

[KMGX]

KM- Interesting you should bring up Stern as the No. 1 all time talk show host.

There are many things I believe one can credit Stern for, such as making lesbianism acceptable, but as far as the top talk show host of all time . . . sorry, gotta stick with Rush here.

I've noticed, social lefties tend to champion Stern in this debate, but really, there is no comparison. Limbaugh is on in every market, Stern is still taboo in the vast majority of markets in this country (not that I think he should be). Limbaugh has shaped all of political talk radio, and while you mention Stern as a hot talk pioneer, I would say that hot talk is a struggling industry whereas political talk rules the airwaves.

Limbaugh saved AM, Stern can't even get ON AM! Stern was carried on maybe 10 percent of the number of stations Limbaugh was in "The King of All Media's" syndicated heyday.

A ton of lefties will come on and try to discredit Limbaugh whenever they can. But the man has been a major influence in American politics and continues to be, whereas Stern's foray into influencing politics has always resulted in failure, be it Jim Moran or George W. Bush.

I suppose I should preface by saying I'm not a "lefty", I'm not really a "rightie" either... I'm not so easily branded into the binary labels that so many people seem to fall into, that said I'll always defend the pioneers of radio before immitators.

Rush Limbaugh was a failed jock--as many of his type were back in the 80s. Howard Stern had the seemingly simple, yet exceptionally unusual idea of speaking his mind on the radio... not just sex talk and "making lesbianism acceptable", but to also talk politics. To my knowledge, Stern was the first to syndicate a MORNING SHOW, and the first to make talk acceptable on music stations. Rush Limbaugh, and many others heard this groundbreaking idea of aspousing harsh opinion on the air and followed. Stern not only pioneered talk, but spawn an entire genre of immitators and single handedly changed the face of morning radio.

Now, before I totally crush the pill-popper, I will say that his show was excellent in the early days, filled with parody and satire, a show that didn't take itself too seriously, yet expressed hard-hitting political opinion in a fun, but informative way... unfortunately over a decade ago the parodies were all but gone and the satire was replaced with simple talking point, beating the dead horse style of talk radio we have now... Rush would never be a success if he were starting his show today... shows like his are a dime-a-dozen.

As to your other points.. Howard could get on AM or FM right now but choses not to... and if I were given the choice of creativity and a potential of 20+ million subscribers or constantly having to watch my back from the FCC and fighting for and with affiliates constantly while my creativity is stiffled by the pressing of a delay button every minute, I would chose the former every time. Do you think Rush Limbaugh could bring 10 million people to satellite radio? Could he bring 10,000? Probably not.

How many shows like Howard's are there really? Sure there are immitators, but how many shows are just like his that command the audience that he does? Meanwhile I could--off the top of my head--list 20 shows like Rush nationally, probably dozens more in local markets.

Admittedly I only respect a small group of people in the radio business, those that have truly pioneered the industry, and my top two are always Howard Stern and Phil Hendrie. Hendrie should really be #2 on the talkers list--by the way--he took an existing and increasingly stale talk brand and totally satirized it to the point where he exposed just how stupid some of the talk radio audience really is... brilliant! Just about anyone else is an after thought.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Rush Limbaugh, and many others heard this groundbreaking idea of aspousing harsh opinion on the air and followed.

Except for one small fact...Rush had not even heard Stern live until he moved to NYC in 1988.

Before that, Rush was in Sacramento, and Kansas City, and Pittsburgh, all pre-Stern syndication.

By the time "The Rush Limbaugh Show" premiered on WABC/770 and a handful of affiliates (50 or 60 at launch, I believe), and Rush was able to hear Stern, it was already basically the same show Rush had been doing for years in Sacramento.

I have heard an aircheck of Rush's local show on KFBK circa 1986, and it's pretty much the exact same show he'd do for the rest of the 80s, and beyond...right down to the same catch phrases and even the same theme music ("My City Was Gone") that a KFBK production staffer found for him in 1984.

Take out the call letter mentions and time checks, and you'd have to listen closely to the topic selection to place it in Rush's early career, either before or after Stern.

You and your opposite number are letting your personal opinion of the hosts (yours, pro-Stern and anti-Rush, the other poster, pro-Rush and anti-Stern) cloud your observations.

Both men deserve their high place in their respective realms of talk radio, whether you like them or not.

 

[Preacherdude]

Rush is still brilliant, but his current program doesn't compare to what he did in the first few years in syndication. His satire and production was excellent and cutting edge. I remember sitting in my office (at a radio station) and listening to a small AM rim shot through a lot of static to hear Rush. I probably wouldn't do that now.

As for Stern, no doubt he is talented. But when a previous post points out how he had to move to satellite to avoid the bleeps and censors of broadcast radio, you are telling me that this is a man who is not too confident in his own talent and will fill in the blanks with the lowest form of communication: profane language and subject matter.

I do miss the old Larry King night show on Mutual. My first real introduction to talk radio. I thought he was great on radio, and the fact that I could only hear it on skywave at night from far, far away made it sound even more exotic and special.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

About the "could Rush bring 10,000 to satellite radio" comment, no, probably not.

But Rush and Stern are two different radio animals, despite having some things in common. For one, Stern's move to satellite promised a whole new "uncensored" flavor to the show - "no more FCC battles!", was the cry.

Stern's frequent battles with the FCC were a show element in the terrestrial days, of course.

Rush is not cutting edge in 2011. He's reliable, dependable and pretty much doing the same show he's been doing since 1984, give or take a few name changes of his targets (Clinton to Obama, etc.). There are plenty of other choices for conservative talk, and Rush's high-level clones/successors are compatible enough for the audience looking for "red meat" right-leaning talk.

Meanwhile, most of Stern's legion of imitators are even less talented than Rush's clones. There's not really much of a "high-level clone" aspect there...what, maybe O&A? Bubba? What else?

Look at the mess that happen when they tried to replace Stern on over-air radio.

* O&A came back, after the "sex in a church" thing, but eventually died on the vine.
* David Lee Roth was someone's nightmare brought to a radio microphone.
* Adam Carolla is doing podcasts now (and actually fairly successful at it, but a podcast is still not at the same level of a large market/syndicated radio show).
* And Rover tucked his tail between his legs and came back here to Cleveland, where indeed, he is successful at a new radio station - as a LOCAL host (give or take the folks listening in Rochester on the side).

 

[Pratte4Life]

Harsh opinion hardly started with Stern.

Having people advertise their midget-throwing business did, but harsh opinion? Hardly.

One other comment. I do think Rush could get 10,000 subscribers to satellite radio. I remember when his show was carried on short wave in the '90s that people started buying up short wave radios in rural areas to listen to his show.

You can say that Rush isn't the host he once was without the homeless updates and such, and I think you'd be right. Still, it seems like everytime I log on to my computer I have a story about the left being outraged about something Limbaugh said. Stern does not have this kind of attention on the masses.

Limbaugh has 600 affiliates, Stern at his height had maybe 30.

Stern went after Bush in 2004 and one in 50 registered voters said that what Stern told them would have an impact on their vote. Limbaugh is a king maker in the Republican party and has been given lots of credit for Republicans taking over Congress in 1994. I personally think his labeling of Mike Huckabee as a populist derailed his campaign.

This is not to knock Stern. But telling me that Stern is the all-time radio personality because David Lee Roth didn't make it isn't exactly a convincing arguement.

 

[KMGX]

Harsh opinion hardly started with Stern.

Having people advertise their midget-throwing business did, but harsh opinion? Hardly.

One other comment. I do think Rush could get 10,000 subscribers to satellite radio. I remember when his show was carried on short wave in the '90s that people started buying up short wave radios in rural areas to listen to his show.

You can say that Rush isn't the host he once was without the homeless updates and such, and I think you'd be right. Still, it seems like everytime I log on to my computer I have a story about the left being outraged about something Limbaugh said. Stern does not have this kind of attention on the masses.

Limbaugh has 600 affiliates, Stern at his height had maybe 30.

Stern went after Bush in 2004 and one in 50 registered voters said that what Stern told them would have an impact on their vote. Limbaugh is a king maker in the Republican party and has been given lots of credit for Republicans taking over Congress in 1994. I personally think his labeling of Mike Huckabee as a populist derailed his campaign.

This is not to knock Stern. But telling me that Stern is the all-time radio personality because David Lee Roth didn't make it isn't exactly a convincing arguement.

Who was doing Stern's style of radio before 1980?

I never said anything about David Lee Roth. As for affiliates, Stern at his height had about 50, and in every single one of them he eventually became number one, not just with the target demos, but overall... he did something that Rush, nor Glenn Beck, nor Sean Hannity could pull off... #1 in New York City, frequently exceeding a 10-11 share and even moreso in the money demos, Rush couldn't have a wet-dream where he attained those type of numbers. Stern was on in 50 markets and had the same size audience as Limbaugh who was on in 12 times the number of markets.

Sure, we're sort of comparing apples and oranges here, but I wouldn't really go and say that Rush is influencing the masses very much. How did that 2008 election turn out? What about congress being taken over by Democrats in 2006, how did Bill Clinton get elected twice if Rush is this grand influence? This speaks to a larger point that radio isn't as influencial as many of the paranoid folks on both sides think that it is... radio is entertainment, period. By the way, Stern had a #1 movie, two best-selling books, #1 in every market he was on, two highly successful/rated TV shows; not to mention his hundreds of appearances on other shows, his bits being reused by countless radio personalities.

As for newsmakers; Rush is discussed continuously on this board that's for sure and in radio circles he is king... Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Millier devote half of their shows to him every day. There's no question that in political circles he is still relevant--not like he was (as the ratings would bare out as well), but a force to be sure. Meanwhile Stern speculates about hosting American Idol and it's front page in the New York press, on Drudge, Fox News, etc ... over a simple on-air discussion.

It's odd, I've been labeled sort of a Rush hater in this thread and yet in another one I'm a "Ditto head"; I admire Rush for what he's been able to do, anyone that can be on so many stations and stick around for such a long career has to be acknowledged and should be reveared for their accomplishment. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't--the same can be said for most hosts really. Rush's early years were excellent, but it just seems like noise nowadays--his show is like 1,000 other shows on both the right and the left. Truthfully it's like most sports shows as well... very few are creative, most people just scream, yell and have callers that read from notes or are so interested in themselves and their own shtick that there's no audience participation and you're listening to a live read of a box score.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Who was doing Stern's style of radio before 1980?

Cleveland's Gary Dee, who from 1973 to 1984, mixed country music with raw talk (and was later in the headlines for abusing his then wife, TV anchor Liz Richards).

And then there's Neil Rodgers, better known in Miami as "Neil-God." In 1977, Neil came out of the closet in protest of Anita Bryant and became a legend. He kept talking at different stations in Miami until June 2009. He was a direct influence on Phil Hendrie when both of them worked at WIOD.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

And since Nathan mentioned Gary Dee, you could branch off in Cleveland at around the same time to sports talker Pete Franklin, who ruled the evening roost on the old WWWE/1100 "3WE" for decades.

Harsh, open, "don't care what anyone thinks about what I say" talk? Both men built their careers on it.

 

[Pratte4Life]

I admire what Stern has been able to do as well. Damn, do I love to see girls kissing! Thank you Mr. Stern!

However, I think you need to check your facts. I don't believe in Pittsburgh Stern hit No. 1 in the morning ahead of WDVE.

I think also you need to look at the idea that because Bill Clinton was elected twice Limbaugh doesn't have effect. I don't think a talk show host with 20 million would have the ability to totally eliminate victories by one party or another. I don't know if one with 300 million listeners would.

But I will say that as recently as 2008, I think Limbaugh had a HUGE impact in destroying the Huckabee campaign.

As late as November 2007 I remember Limbaugh pointing to Huckabee as a conservative, not a populist. When he was climbing up the polls for the Iowa caucus he even asked "What if Huckabee wins?" in response to the idea that nobody in America wanted to give their government to conservatives, as McCain and Romney both carried the "moderate Republican" tag.

Then, in the middle of Dec. Huckabee did a silly thing. He essentially tried to distance himself from Limbaugh. I forget the exact statement, but it was along the lines of Michael Steele saying Limbaugh was an entertainer and the like.

So ended the romantic treatment of Huckabee by Rush. Huckabee immediately was labeled not a conservative who wanted to do away with the IRS for a flat tax, but a populist.

It was enough for Huckabee to get very little momentum out of Iowa.

Personally, I think whoever wins the SC primary is going to win the nominations. It's to modern day Presidential campaigns what New Hampshire used to be. But it points the way to Super Tuesday and Florida.

Where I'm going with this is I do think that without the Rush dig, Huckabee can pick up the three extra points he needs in SC to beat McCain. If Huckabee beats McCain in SC, it's a whole other ball game. I think Huckabee gets the nomination myself.

Limbaugh is a king maker in the Republican Party. No question. Chris Mathews has spent countless hours discussing this.

Now, I can see Stern as being a king maker in Hollywood and the like. But when it comes down to this guy has a major influence in who is the President and this other guy is a major influence in what song gets played on the big screen or something, then I gotta go with the political gabber.

And say what you will, but we could get Limbaugh in San Francisco and Greenwich Village. You couldn't get Stern in Podunk during his terrestrial days, and even now on satellite this arguement is kind of like arguing NBC vs. TBS.