• 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

"Why Is Talk Radio So Conservative?"

raccoonradio

raccoonradio

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1526566/posts

"...Another, more serious, factor is straightforward: America is, essentially, a conservative nation on most issues."

"To compete with a government-subsidized behemoth like NPR, Air America would need so much funding that they would have to steal the money or something."

"Thus, when something different did arise, it had a ready-made audience in the millions of people that were sick of the left wing axis of drivel, ABC-CBS-NBC.
So talk radio became conservative because it could, and because there was a market for it when it did. Dan Rather helped create Rush Limbaugh."
 
Another Blog Groupie

Maybe because you people who read blogs and listen to talk radio so uncritically are born suckers. Maybe Barnum under-estimated when he said there is only one born every minute. Apparently there are people, like you, who will believe anything from someone telling them what they want to hear. And, boy, do advertisers love people like you. Rush is excellent sucker bait for his own stuff and for Verbal Advantage (People can tell how ignorant you are when you open your mouth), E-Harmoney, various rip off health insurance companies (who benefit greatly when health care reform fails) and other assorted con artists.

And the Dark Side is very attractive and conservative hosts excel at speaking to the worst qualities in people.
 
And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

That when you talk an issue out the conservative viewpoint generally makes more sense.
 
Re: Another Blog Groupie

> Maybe because you people who read blogs and listen to talk
> radio so uncritically are born suckers. Maybe Barnum
> under-estimated when he said there is only one born every
> minute. Apparently there are people, like you, who will
> believe anything from someone telling them what they want to
> hear. And, boy, do advertisers love people like you. Rush
> is excellent sucker bait for his own stuff and for Verbal
> Advantage (People can tell how ignorant you are when you
> open your mouth), E-Harmoney, various rip off health
> insurance companies (who benefit greatly when health care
> reform fails) and other assorted con artists.
>
> And the Dark Side is very attractive and conservative hosts
> excel at speaking to the worst qualities in people.
>


To be honst with you I dont see any reason to read blogs. Most of them are full of thoughts with no real support. You can say ANYTHING and accuse ANYONE of whatever you feel like. Whenever someone quotes a blog I immediately dismiss it.
 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1526566/posts

Freepers... gotta love 'em. I'm gonna deal with this using the "legitimate radio perspective" code. :)

> "...Another, more serious, factor is straightforward:
> America is, essentially, a conservative nation on most
> issues."

American AM talk radio listeners are essentially conservative 40-45+ white males. That's why talk radio is so conservative.

> "To compete with a government-subsidized behemoth like NPR,
> Air America would need so much funding that they would have
> to steal the money or something."

Humor is still a concept that eludes so many of my friends on the Free Republic right.

> "Thus, when something different did arise, it had a
> ready-made audience in the millions of people that were sick
> of the left wing axis of drivel, ABC-CBS-NBC.

Which is mostly the same demo that listens to the radio side. But even Murder, She Wrote reruns would draw a larger audience on CBS than your run of the mill conservatalk show.

> So talk radio became conservative because it could, and
> because there was a market for it when it did. Dan Rather
> helped create Rush Limbaugh."

And the 45+ demo that was still listening to AM for the farm report, standards, sports talk and local talk never left their comfort zone when conservatalk was born. On the FM side, put Howard Stern up against Sean Hannity with the 25-44 money demo and let's see what happens.
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> That when you talk an issue out the conservative viewpoint
> generally makes more sense.

How many times have we heard someone like Hannity ask a simple question of a liberal, and he/she keeps trying to change the subject. "Are we better off with Saddam out of power?," for example. It was that way with Dennis Kucinich the other day. He simply would NOT answer the question!!

They don't want to discuss the issues, and when they have to, they weasel out of them.

I still remember a Laura Ingraham show where she had someone from "Lawyers Against the War" on. It didn't last long;
Laura asked the same "are we better off now with Saddam
out of power" and the guy refused to answer it. Finally he hung up in disgust. Laura asked her producer to call the man back. The man SWORE at the producer. Nice.

Does Franken take calls, by the way? I had heard he often didn't (or would make sure it was a "friendly caller"...) I _did_ tune in, once a long time ago, and he
did talk to a caller (debating whether he should keep calling his show
"The Franken Factor"; Stuart Smalley replied that he was thinking of calling it
"Franken Sense, and Mirth".
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> power?," for example.

Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
What conservatives won't admit

A conservative viewpoint only makes sense to conservatives.

A conservative host on a conservative show is playing with their ball and in their ballpark. It's their game and their rules.

They frame the issues with their assumptions. Their entire purpose is to trip up the guest and since it's not a level playing field, it is easy for the host to do.

These hosts want to put everything in simple black and white, yes or no terms. Maybe not everybody sees things so simplisticly.

And whatever a guest answers, the host is ready to trip them up - take a break when they are ready to make a point - pot them down so they can't reply.

Two people shouting at each other is not a good way to decide anything, it's just entertainment for angry, bitter and frustrated people.

The better question is why anyone with a viewpoint contrary to the host would ever agree to get into one of these bear traps.

Talk radio is windbagging, entertainment. Sports talk does not affect the outcome of a ballgame. Political talk doesn't mean anything either. Politics is just another sport to you people.
 
Conservative ownership = conservative talk

For example, in Tampa, which has three conservative talk stations, two are owned by companies controlled by Christian fundamentalists who don't do any other type of talk on their stations. (Salem and a local company called Genesis Communications.) Salem's rep is well known. Genesis is owned by a man named Bruce Maduri who is legendary for not allowing his air talent to say "hell" or "damn."

In Orlando, which soon will have FOUR conservative talkers, two are owned by Salem (WORL) and Genesis (WAMT). Only Cox, owner of WDBO, which has historic ties to the Democratic party, could be considered a "liberal" company, and that outlook does not translate to its talk radio stations.

Maduri runs conservative talk on WAMT even though it has never drawn ANY numbers in O-Town with all the competition. Tell me that isn't ideology triumphing over business or programming sense.
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> A conservative viewpoint only makes sense to conservatives.
>
> A conservative host on a conservative show is playing with
> their ball and in their ballpark. It's their game and their
> rules.
>
> They frame the issues with their assumptions. Their entire
> purpose is to trip up the guest and since it's not a level
> playing field, it is easy for the host to do.
>
> These hosts want to put everything in simple black and
> white, yes or no terms. Maybe not everybody sees things so
> simplisticly.
>
> And whatever a guest answers, the host is ready to trip them
> up - take a break when they are ready to make a point - pot
> them down so they can't reply.
>
> Two people shouting at each other is not a good way to
> decide anything, it's just entertainment for angry, bitter
> and frustrated people.
>
> The better question is why anyone with a viewpoint contrary
> to the host would ever agree to get into one of these bear
> traps.
>
> Talk radio is windbagging, entertainment. Sports talk does
> not affect the outcome of a ballgame. Political talk
> doesn't mean anything either. Politics is just another
> sport to you people.
>

Why are you preaching? Did I miss you convocate your D.D. in Political Talk Radio Theology?

Please stop with the "you" and "you people". We're not adherents of your religion, whatever it may be. If I want to be preached at, I'll plug in Brother Stair or old re-runs of Jimmy Swaggart, B.C. (before crying).
 
Is evolution valid?

> American AM talk radio listeners are essentially
> conservative 40-45+ white males. That's why talk radio is
> so conservative.

If we accept that premise for AM listenership, what (if anything)
do we know about FM listenership? If it essential female? Of
what age group? Is it essentially liberal male? Of what age
group?

If there IS a golden stereotypical FM listener what is going
to happen as talk migrates to FM....which it HAS begun to do!
Will conservative 40-45+ white males follow it to FM? Or to
they only "do" AM, and refuse to tune to FM? Will they, too,
migrate to FM and, if so, what happens to the "golden
stereotype"? Of course then we have to get into dividing
FM listenership between "FM talk listeners", "FM music listeners"...

But wait! How about "FM classical music listeners", "FM rock
music listeners", "FM Hip-Hop listeners"....and on ad nauseum.

Now we're back to whether there are any other major stereotypical
classifications of people who listen to AM....other than all those
40-45+ white males.


Makes my poor old head ache!<P ID="signature">______________
In government, as in gardens:

Moles are far more intelligent than are gophers!</P>
 
I'll take a stab at it.

Many radio programmers and syndicators believed Rush Limbaugh was so popular because he's conservative.

Sure, that matters to his core listeners. But people also listen to him because he's entertaining and informative (entertaining is the biggest reason, IMHO).

But, with the mistaken notion it was conservatism not entertainment value that made Rush, the copy-cats sprang up.

One more factor: In the 90s, AM radio stations were looking for something other than adult standards as a viable format. Sports talk is one option. Only top ten markets appear to be successful with true 24/7 all-news stations.

So, with so many syndicated second-rate conservative talk hosts out there (can't get Rush? Put on O'Reilly), it's easy for station operators, who are concentrating more on their FMs, to plug in a bunch of "free" (accept for the commercials you have to clear) syndicated conservative talk hosts on the air, and get some under-55 listeners, rather than run a music format that gets either all 55+ or 65+ listeners.
 
Re: Conservative ownership = conservative talk

The successful companies are putting on shows that bring in ratings and revenue. Salem is all about ideology and having "conservative talk stations" rather than "good talk stations" and the same can be said for AAR. The article was correct in saying that at the time Limbaugh came along, there was a market that wasn't being served by the media that was dominant at the time. Plenty of conservative hosts came before him, and either weren't entertaining enough or weren't distributed widely enough (or both). Ideology alone isn't going to get anyone ratings..I also agree with the point that liberalism is about changing the direction of society as opposed to reflecting it. Not a job talk radio is ever going to be able to do.
 
Re: I evolution valid?

Despite Stern's Bush bashing, all of his positions haven't been liberal (his sexual positions may be a different matter). There will no doubt be a talk format that will emerge on FM, and don't be surprised if it doesn't skew heavily conservative..maybe not "all politics all the time", but even 20-year-old idealists become much more conservative when they're paying the taxes, mortgages, and worrying about what they're kids are watching on TV.
 
If you had only heard Pre-Rush conservative talk...

A few generalities...

Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows opened with "Stars and Stripes Forever"

Most pre-Rush conservative talk show hosts hated rock 'n' roll, blaming it for promiscuity and the promotion of liberal values

Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows got their talking points from the John Birchers and other conspiracy theorists and books... Fluoride is corrupting our precious bodily fluids, and refined white sugar is making teenagers want sex before marriage... The Trilateralists, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations... It was the collective wail of being out of power.

Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows were 1) Gun control and 2) Abortion. Rinse, lather, repeat....

Most pre-Rush talk shows, conservative, liberal, or opinion-free moderators, could not go three hours talking about race without some unreconstructed cornpone using the N-word... which was not bleeped in those days...

Most pre-Rush talk show hosts read articles on the air... a lot... badly.

Most pre-Rush talk show callers read articles on the air... a lot... badly... and slowly.

Most pre-Rush talk show callers left their radios turned up. (To experience this kind of talk radio in the 21st century, tune in KDWN 720 Las Vegas when in range...)

Most pre-Rush talk show hosts had only the morning paper for show prep.
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > power?," for example.
>
> Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
>

And the answer is...
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> How many times have we heard someone like Hannity ask a
> simple question of a liberal, and he/she keeps trying to
> change the subject. "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> power?," for example. It was that way with Dennis Kucinich
> the other day. He simply would NOT answer the question!!

Sean Hannity usually doesn't ask questions he actually wants an answer to, and half the time he cuts off the person trying to answer anyway. Kucinich's appearance was far more entertaining when he called Hannity on his paper and list-waving, saying he had his own papers and lists.

Often Hannity's "questions" are really more distractions. Make valid criticisms about the WMD and mushroom clouds and Hannity asks the broad Saddam question. It's sort of like saying you don't like girl scout cookies and Hannity demands to know why you hate girl scouts. Other times the stuff on his lists turn out to be wrong, but unless you are Encyclopedia Brown, it's hard to call him on it from a remote with four people on the show vying for time.

Fox's format is hardly conducive to intelligent discussion about anything anyway.

> I still remember a Laura Ingraham show where she had someone
> from "Lawyers Against the War" on. It didn't last long;
> Laura asked the same "are we better off now with Saddam
> out of power" and the guy refused to answer it. Finally he
> hung up in disgust. Laura asked her producer to call the man
> back. The man SWORE at the producer. Nice.

I never heard of the group. The record holder for hangups has to be Dick Morris who makes hypocritical comments about family values and then hangs up when someone asks him about his own encounter with the toe sucking ladies of the evening.

> Does Franken take calls, by the way? I had heard he often
> didn't (or would make sure it was a "friendly caller"...) I
> _did_ tune in, once a long time ago, and he
> did talk to a caller (debating whether he should keep
> calling his show
> "The Franken Factor"; Stuart Smalley replied that he was
> thinking of calling it
> "Franken Sense, and Mirth".

Ho ho... more of that right wing humor thing falling flat again.

Franken occasionally takes calls but his show is not really formatted as a traditional phone-in.

Franken enjoys needling O'Reilly ever since the ridiculous lawsuit Fox tried over Franken's book. It lives because O'Reilly constantly fumes about Franken and that amuses Franken to no end.
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > power?," for example.
> >
> > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> >
>
> And the answer is...
>
No. We were better off and safer with Saddam in power. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's and two thousand Americans would still be alive today (not to mention the wounded) and Iraq would be safer. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to us or our interests in the middle east. Iraq was no fan of Iran and the two of them could have continued to be at each other's throats. Now, they will be good friends- a new member of our Axis of Evil, courtesy of the US government. Not to mention a new source of terrorists. No high minded erudite Conservative faith based response can refute that.

But no Democrat will say it because democrats are too scared to state the truth on these shows (look at Mertha (sp?), the only guy in the house that seems to get it on the war- Kerry and Hillary both ran from his comments, when they should have embraced them).

Until Liberal talk starts addressing the conservative talking points it will be playing second fiddle. Right now only a few liberal blogs and independent newspapers are going that far.
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> Why are you preaching? Did I miss you convocate your D.D.
> in Political Talk Radio Theology?

So Johnny, based on what you are calling preaching, wouldn't you want to think that the article posted is "preaching". This post from Free Republic is based on ideology and is definately "fact free" but loaded with plenty of "belief calories". Im surprised at your recent lack of reason...when these discussions occur.


> Please stop with the "you" and "you people". We're not
> adherents of your religion, whatever it may be. If I want
> to be preached at, I'll plug in Brother Stair or old re-runs
> of Jimmy Swaggart, B.C. (before crying).

Talk radio preaches to its respective audiences. Why aren't you jumping on raccoon who a couple of posts earlier said "They don't want to discuss the issues, and when they have to, they weasel out of them." This isn't fact based and I know with common sense isn't true. Statements like this come from many talk radio hosts and pundits. Its my strong belief that many of these statements come from the ilk of Hannity, Ann Coulter, and others.

I would also feel comfortable saying that a significant majority of these "flammable" quotes come from conservative pundits, hosts, and otherwise. Conservative radio seems to be "grey free". There tends to be only black and white in many discussions. If there is nuance on conservaive radio, i'd like to hear from you a host that really gets deep into the issues.

A google search or lexis/nexis search on items of conservative hyperbole would probably make this clearer. Thats why we get Ann Coulter claiming that New Yorkers are "cowards" and why Hannity regularly claims that disagreeing with the current administration "supports terrorism". These are samples of "grey free" "fact free" hyperbole,..with the escalation of words going higher and higher to satisfy an audience that possibly seems to be bored easily or cannot digest a steady stream of fact.

Finally, Id like to ask you why conservatives on Fox and the shows always try to define what the liberal is? Why do the shows need weak people like (Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Mara Liassen, Susan Estrich, and others who would not be considered strong liberals to help the conservative audience form an incorrect view that liberals are "milquetoasts". Is Hannity so incapable of making his point that he fails to allow Colmes (as show policy) to not confront him? Why does the Fox News pundit show on Sunday bring in the heavy hitters but doesnt have the guts to put a real liberal on the air with Bill Kristol and Brit Hume?

These are legitimate questions because it has been alleged that liberals don't want to discuss the issues...one last example. Al Franken, who many of you malign, has done what Hannity and others are very reluctant to do...bring on someone who is strong at the opposite view. Franken had on Brent Bozell as well as David Brock, he simulcasted with G. Gordon Liddy, he brought pundits from LGF, Powerline, and other RW blogs. This doesn't sound like a reluctance to discuss the issues. See how easy it is to debunk those "grey free" statements.
This is only a small example of what could be debunked with detailed searches.
Dampier does it all the time...to the chagrin of many.

I think you need to look at who the conservatives are bringing on to "defend" the other side. I would believe Ive made my arguement that the quality of challenging guest is much weaker on the conservative side.


We all know that talk radio targets its "true believers" as its main audience. Conservatives tend to "stack the deck" rather than let the view go to the audience clearly. If you take a look for yourself, I doubt you will disagree.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom