Who Gets Credit For Progressive Talk Radio?

[fred flintstone]

Air America Radio remains in bankruptcy with no word on supposed negotiations with a prospective buyer in weeks. However, articles about AAR (and comments here) often credit Air America Radio - whatever happens next and whatever future it has - with having established the progressive talk format.

Did they?

Michael Jackson was doing a very popular progressive talk show in LA starting in the early 60s (continuing through the 90s). When Rush arrived at WABC in 1988, two progressive hosts were there ahead of him: Lynn Samuels (currently on Sirius-Left) and Joy Behar (currently on ABC-TV's The View).

AAR is not even the first national progressive talk radio network. Although most seem to have forgotten, that credit goes to I.E. America. If AAR is the Columbus of progressive talk, I.E. America is Leif Erikson.

And I.E America's hosts still continue to be prominent in progressive talk radio...

Peter B. Collins. Syndicated in the early evening slot by Nova M.
Thom Hartmann. Morning drive in Portland, Or AND mid-mornings in national syndication.
Mike Malloy. Syndicated in late nights by Nova M.
Doug Stephan. Syndicated mornings on over 500 stations. His weekend shows have even more affiliates. Today he announced signing talk powerhouse WRKO in Boston.
Peter Werbe. Sunday night show in Detroit; does fill ins for AAR.

As Harvard Business professor Ted Levitt has pointed out, often the first company in a new field or industry is eclipsed by the second entrant. But I.E. America's experience does show that even if a network folds, good talent will still find a place.

 

[evnlee]

And I.E America's hosts still continue to be prominent in progressive talk radio...

and fail at politics, see Skinner and Trupiano.

Who want's to tell Franken?

 

[raccoonradio]

Jerry Williams was considered a liberal in the old days. Later he became what he called a populist
(railing against patronage in government, high taxes, etc.) In Radio Hall of Fame.

http://www.jerrywilliams.org

 

[Gnarlodious]

The United Auto Workers and ieAmerica.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Shouldn't the title be "Who Gets the Blame for Liberal Talk Radio"?

 

[Scott in DE]

Shouldn't the title be "Who Gets the Blame for Liberal Talk Radio"?

Rats! You beat me to it! LOL! ;D

 

[fred flintstone]

Shouldn't the title be "Who Gets the Blame for Liberal Talk Radio"?

Rats! You beat me to it! LOL! ;D

Scott, you seem to be thoughtful guy. Do you really want radio in which only one political viewpoint is represented?
It's one thing if you don't want to listen to talk shows with which you don't agree. But it sounds like you don't want them to exist. You have something to which you want to listen but apparently nobody of differing views can have something to which they want to listen. Am I hearing you right?

AM radio is dying. Conservative political talk a format has peaked.
AM radio needs new formats (plural). Progressive talk. Lifestyle talk. Fem talk. Black talk. Maybe something completely new. The alternative is the AM becoming nothing but brokered preachers and infomercials. Think about it.

 

[AKLes]

AM radio is dying. Conservative political talk a format has peaked.
AM radio needs new formats (plural). Progressive talk. Lifestyle talk. Fem talk. Black talk. Maybe something completely new. The alternative is the AM becoming nothing but brokered preachers and infomercials. Think about it.

Another alternative....

How about government-mandated diverse formats? Unfunded mandates, of course. The next logical step would be to mandate each diverse minority to spend a minimum number of hours listening and, perhaps that each business owned by a member of the appropriate minority be required to advertise on "their" station.

I dunno....the brokered preachers and informercials sound better to me.

But wait, there's another approach - the one being developed in Canada - where AM's are mandated silent and each displaced owner is handed an FM frequency!

There even might be mandated "American" content, just as Canada does to protect Canadian talent..........

 

[fred flintstone]

Another alternative....

How about government-mandated diverse formats?

Les, maybe you wouldn't be so afraid of the government if you didn't so blindly follow a government that keeps moving to centralize power. Somebody looks for some way to improve something (with no mention of the government) and you drag out the government like some kind of bogey man. Somebody waves the flag and y'all respond like Pavlov's dogs and fall into line.

I've seen you post from time to time about how radio used to be better.
Maybe the rules in place back then had something to do with radio being better - more listeners, more listener satisfaction, more jobs, more owners and - best of all - more stations making money.
The NAB lobby paid a ton of money to get deregulation through and now the industry is in trouble. Much the same happened with air travel.
Those 1960s rules are starting to look pretty good.
Might even mean more Standards stations, which I gather you'd like.

 

[Scott in DE]

Scott, you seem to be thoughtful guy. Do you really want radio in which only one political viewpoint is represented?
It's one thing if you don't want to listen to talk shows with which you don't agree. But it sounds like you don't want them to exist. You have something to which you want to listen but apparently nobody of differing views can have something to which they want to listen. Am I hearing you right?

No, not at all. Yes, I do like some conservative talk shows, but not all. I want to be able to listen to the shows I like, but, I can only listen to one station at a time. I don't care what is broadcast on other stations. I think there are many reasons why Progressive (Liberal) talk radio does not do well. It's not for the lack of progressive/liberal radio listeners. So why do you think progressive/liberal radio listeners don't gravitate to talk radio? I'd like to hear your opinion and then I'll tell you mine.

AM radio is dying. Conservative political talk a format has peaked.
AM radio needs new formats (plural). Progressive talk. Lifestyle talk. Fem talk. Black talk. Maybe something completely new. The alternative is the AM becoming nothing but brokered preachers and infomercials. Think about it.

If AM radio is dying, as you say, I don't think a change to the other formats you mentioned will help. I think that would only accelerate the death, in my opinion.

 

[fred flintstone]

So why do you think progressive/liberal radio listeners don't gravitate to talk radio? I'd like to hear your opinion and then I'll tell you mine.

A late start. Rush started in syndication in 1988. At the time, there were liberal hosts on the air but with Rush's success, programmers tried to do/get more shows like his. Block programming does not work. You can't do three hours of country and three hours of classical and expect to build an audience. Neither can you do three hours of "conservative" talk and three hours of liberal talk and build an audience. Your audience turns over for each show and the station has no identity. It took 16 years for anybody to try progressive talk as a distinct format.

Weak signals. By the time progressive talk came along, most of the good radio real estate was already taken and most of the audience never tuned to FM anyway.

Bad programming. Air America Radio made some bad choices in the hosts and programming they put on. People with no radio experience and little respect for the art of doing a radio show. And they tried to copy Rush's style rather than come up with a unique approach for the liberal audience. Part of that was the backers of progressive talk operating under the delusion that talk radio actually influences people and they thought they could convert Ditto-heads.

The belief among many in radio that progressive talk can't work which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This includes sales people reluctant to sell the format to advertisers. And programmers who say it can't be done while acknowledging that nobody has ever really given it a good shot.

The lack of any local programming on most progressive talk stations.

Progressive talk started just as audience interest in political talk - all political talk - declined. The entire partisan political talk format is dying.

The fact the backers of progressive talk made politics more important than entertainment; this was a crusade, not a radio show.

It's difficult for anything new to get a toe-hold in radio now.

The radio medium seems better suited to the ways conservative views are typically expressed. The medium has long fostered ideologus like Father Couglin, Fulton Lewis, Joe Pyne, Paul Harvey, Wally George and scores of fundamentalist preachers who were able to rouse followers over the radio in a way liberals did not or could not. Demagoguery works well on the radio.

NPR. Setting aside the often debated issue of NPR bias, NPR does present news and talk in a way that appeals to many liberals. Just as Rush and others present news and talk in a way that appeals to many conservatives.

 

[Scott in DE]

Fred, here are my thoughts:

A late start.

No. If it had a chance, it would take off no matter when it was introduced.

Weak signals

Nothing to do with it.

Bad programming

Well, yes, but not for the reasons you probably think.

Self-fulfilling (defeat) prophecy

No, liberals believe their ideology is supreme

Lack of any local programming

Nothing to do with it.

Political talk format is dying

I don’t think it is dying

Backers of progressive talk made politics more important than entertainment

Well, if it were the other way around, it wouldn’t be a political talk show. It would be Howard Stern.

NPR

Nothing to do with it. Can’t use another format’s success as an excuse.

Better suited to the ways conservative views are typically expressed

Getting closer, but I don’t believe you know why conservative views are better suited.

Now for my answer:

Because you come from a radio-insider background, you listed a number of technical reasons that are meaningful to you. However, I believe there is a larger and more fundamental reason why progressive/liberal radio listeners don't gravitate to talk radio and conservative listeners do.

To understand the radio listener differences, you first must understand the differences between liberals and conservatives in general. Now, please don’t view this as a political rant. That is not my purpose here.

The majority of liberals don’t even know what they are. (Thus the need for the term “Progressive”) If you go out on the street of any major city, you are far more likely to encounter liberals than conservatives. If you ask the people you find on these streets who the Secretary of State is, you will get a lot of blank stares! If you ask them who recently was photographed without panties, you will get a lot of correct answers. Get my drift?

If you go to the conservative or “Red State” areas of the country where you are more likely to find conservatives on the street, you will find people who not only will tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they will give you their opinion and question your motives for asking!

There are really a very small number of liberals that are interested enough in politics to become educated in our government and politics. The average liberal is more likely to be interested in Howard Stern. Do you disagree with that?

Now, couple that with the fact that there are very few other places for conservatives to get news and information in a manner they feel are unbiased. Therefore, when they turn on the radio and hear people saying things they believe, they stay tuned in.

Another major reason is also fundamental. If you are liberal you may not want to hear this. As I said earlier, I am not saying this to rant.

Conservative listeners in general are more likely to think about what they are told and are less likely to believe it without question. That’s what makes talk radio so attractive to them. They hear an opinion expressed or a fact reported and they decide for themselves if that makes sense. Contrary to popular belief, they are not mind-numbed robots! They are more likely to question something that does not make sense. They take the time to fact check. They go online and look things up for themselves. They recognize when people aren’t telling the truth. They remember what people said yesterday and compare it with what they say today.

That’s what makes conservative talk radio a perfect fit for conservative radio listeners.

Liberal philosophy is rooted in feelings and impressions. Talk radio is all about spoken words that need to be understood. Serious political topics don’t make people feel good or give them a good impression.

Conservative philosophy is rooted in thought, rather than feelings. That is perfect for talk radio. You have to actually listen and think about what is being said.

These differences between liberals and conservatives are not going to change. So, until there are other outlets to occupy conservative radio listeners, there will always be a demand for conservative talk radio. There just isn’t that same demand for liberal/progressive talk radio. That’s really the bottom line. ;D

 

[kaufcom]

When are you going to crawl back into the right-wing hole you habitated before coming of here to post on the Mark Levin string. You know that opinions that you bloviated about have nothing to do with reality

First you say "this is not a poltical rant

To understand the radio listener differences, you first must understand the differences between liberals and conservatives in general. Now, please don’t view this as a political rant. That is not my purpose here.

Then you proceed to make a series of blantantly political and unsubstantiated statements containing nothing but your personal biases.

The majority of liberals don’t even know what they are. (Thus the need for the term “Progressive”) If you go out on the street of any major city, you are far more likely to encounter liberals than conservatives. If you ask the people you find on these streets who the Secretary of State is, you will get a lot of blank stares! If you ask them who recently was photographed without panties, you will get a lot of correct answers. Get my drift?

This is nothing more than your opinion. No sources, no third party authentification. Actually the opposite is true. A Gallup poll last year found that 60% of conservatives thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The same poll found that only 15% of liberals held that opinion.

If you go to the conservative or “Red State” areas of the country where you are more likely to find conservatives on the street, you will find people who not only will tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they will give you their opinion and question your motives for asking!

Once again, your opinion. This is just not a fact.

There are really a very small number of liberals that are interested enough in politics to become educated in our government and politics. The average liberal is more likely to be interested in Howard Stern. Do you disagree with that?

No, I don't. Surveys of Howard Stern's listeners find they are mostly young males more interested in sex than politics from both sides of the political spectrum

Now, couple that with the fact that there are very few other places for conservatives to get news and information in a manor they feel are unbiased. Therefore, when they turn on the radio and hear people saying things they believe, they stay tuned in.

Are you talking about cable news where Keith Olbermann is the only liberal with regular gig, while right-wingers like Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, John Gibson, and Joe Scarborough have regularly scheduled shows.

Conservative listeners in general are more likely to think about what they are told and are less likely to believe it without question. That’s what makes talk radio so attractive to them. They hear an opinion expressed or a fact reported and they decide for themselves if that makes sense. Contrary to popular belief, they are not mind-numbed robots! They are more likely to question something that does not make sense. They take the time to fact check. They go online and look things up for themselves. They recognize when people aren’t telling the truth. They remember what people said yesterday and compare it with what they say today. That’s what makes conservative talk radio a perfect fit for conservative radio listeners. Liberal philosophy is rooted in feelings and impressions. Talk radio is all about spoken words that need to be understood. Serious political topics don’t make people feel good or give them a good impression. Conservative philosophy is rooted in thought, rather than feelings. That is perfect for talk radio. You have to actually listen and think about what is being said.

I think I'm going to barf

 

[fred flintstone]

Fred, here are my thoughts:

Why do I get the feeling I just got back a test paper?

Because you come from a radio-insider background, you listed a number of technical reasons that are meaningful to you. However, I believe there is a larger and more fundamental reason why progressive/liberal radio listeners don't gravitate to talk radio and conservative listeners do.

Those things may not be important to you but they do largely determine the success of one station or program over another. Take out politics and look at why The Big Talker in Philly does better than Salem's WNTP. Look at why WPHT gets mediocre numbers compared to stations in other markets which carry the same shows. Why will two stations with the same music format show very different ratings and sales figures?

To understand the radio listener differences, you first must understand the differences between liberals and conservatives in general. Now, please don’t view this as a political rant. That is not my purpose here.

The majority of liberals don’t even know what they are. (Thus the need for the term “Progressive”) If you go out on the street of any major city, you are far more likely to encounter liberals than conservatives. If you ask the people you find on these streets who the Secretary of State is, you will get a lot of blank stares! If you ask them who recently was photographed without panties, you will get a lot of correct answers. Get my drift?

If you go to the conservative or “Red State” areas of the country where you are more likely to find conservatives on the street, you will find people who not only will tell you who the Secretary of State is, but they will give you their opinion and question your motives for asking!

There are really a very small number of liberals that are interested enough in politics to become educated in our government and politics. The average liberal is more likely to be interested in Howard Stern. Do you disagree with that?

Now, couple that with the fact that there are very few other places for conservatives to get news and information in a manner they feel are unbiased. Therefore, when they turn on the radio and hear people saying things they believe, they stay tuned in.

Another major reason is also fundamental. If you are liberal you may not want to hear this. As I said earlier, I am not saying this to rant.

Conservative listeners in general are more likely to think about what they are told and are less likely to believe it without question. That’s what makes talk radio so attractive to them. They hear an opinion expressed or a fact reported and they decide for themselves if that makes sense. Contrary to popular belief, they are not mind-numbed robots! They are more likely to question something that does not make sense. They take the time to fact check. They go online and look things up for themselves. They recognize when people aren’t telling the truth. They remember what people said yesterday and compare it with what they say today.

That’s what makes conservative talk radio a perfect fit for conservative radio listeners.

Liberal philosophy is rooted in feelings and impressions. Talk radio is all about spoken words that need to be understood. Serious political topics don’t make people feel good or give them a good impression.

Conservative philosophy is rooted in thought, rather than feelings. That is perfect for talk radio. You have to actually listen and think about what is being said.

These differences between liberals and conservatives are not going to change. So, until there are other outlets to occupy conservative radio listeners, there will always be a demand for conservative talk radio. There just isn’t that same demand for liberal/progressive talk radio. That’s really the bottom line. ;D

Guess what? Liberals describe conservatives the same way you describe liberals. And probably with as much justification.

But let's keep this a radio rant. I have heard thought based arguments from Bill Buckley, sometimes from Rush, often from Medved. But from the rest of the pack I hear appeals to hate, anger and fear of some designated enemy. When I took speech in college, those were emotional appeals. If you don't believe me, read Aristotle. Not only are these appeals to emotions, they are appeals to visceral emotions. Rush is often funny and self-deprecating. But he, like Howard, is a radio pro, who did over 20 years "town to town, up and down the dial" in Top 40 radio. He knows (1) Radio is to entertain and (2) People have to like you. The rest of the crowd doing right-wing talk radio - the ones off the street with a talk show in their heads - are strident, boorish, rude and seldom (if ever) rise about insults and cheap shots. Progressive talk took a wrong turn to the extent it imitated this approach.

I wonder if you listen ever to NJ101.5 (you can get it in most of Wilmington) and, if so, your reaction.

 

[Radio_Realist]

There are really a very small number of liberals that are interested enough in politics to become educated in our government and politics. The average liberal is more likely to be interested in Howard Stern.

Bingo! That's exactly the point I made in Flintstone's other thread on this exact same topic. I said:

Conservative talk hosts succeed because they set out to make a profit by determining the wants and needs of a market segment, then by supplying those wants and needs. Liberal talk hosts tend to fail because they set out to persuade the market that the market needs them. They put the cart before the horse.