Why Rush disses Mitt Romney?

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Though my intent here was to-talk-about-talking, conversations here inevitably veer-off into talking-about-politics.

In keeping with Holland's original concept of "talking about talk radio" and the techniques that work, that are questionable, that DON't work.....

imagine a world that suddenly had a talk vacuum. Maybe in this make believe work one of the major talkers died suddenly from heart failue, one of the major talkers was asked to be the front-man for some major think tank.... you can fill in other make-believe reasons why the entire current team of talkers suddenly were not available.

So you are attending a clandestine meeting or broadcasters who have decided to review talk radio. Should we revive it with new talent? She we as an industry agree to some ground rules and ask the FCC to bless them so we don't return to the scorched earth days of talk radio.

Share with us the tid-bit of wisdom you would share with your fellow broadcasters if you were in the conference. Would you reinvent talk radio to be just like today's version, or would you propose a whole new paradigm of "spoken word programming" for the brave new future?

I can remember years ago when Rush would say: "Thinking is hard work." Share your product of some hard work with us all.

 

[jas2525]

Share with us the tid-bit of wisdom you would share with your fellow broadcasters if you were in the conference. Would you reinvent talk radio to be just like today's version, or would you propose a whole new paradigm of "spoken word programming" for the brave new future?

For starters, I would look to "personality" as a rule-of-thumb over ideology every time. Years ago, ideology was often incidental to persoanlity, until one personality came along who was so dynamic (Limbaugh), that everybody decided to hire people just like him. Unfortunately, they hired people who had his political opinions, NOT people who were as proficient at being personalities. And before you knew it, conserva-clone radio was off and running.

And here we are.

 

[Open Source]

Share with us the tid-bit of wisdom you would share with your fellow broadcasters if you were in the conference. Would you reinvent talk radio to be just like today's version, or would you propose a whole new paradigm of "spoken word programming" for the brave new future?

This is an interesting idea. There's also a difference between what has been proven to work and what we would personally like to see. Personally, I wouldn't do political talk at all if I had my sandbox of a station to play in. The hosts might talk about politics, but it would be incidental to the personality side. Unfortunately, transmitters cost money. Talent costs money. That snazzy van with the colorful wrap costs money. Certain things just don't work. Having a "balanced" lineup usually doesn't work because listeners like their radio formatted. Left leaning talk doesn't work on commercial radio because it has a commercial free competitor of high quality.

Personally, I would do a hot talk station that would try to appeal to both men and women. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to hear a station like that, I also know it would last about 3 weeks before getting flipped to Salsa music.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is an interesting idea. There's also a difference between what has been proven to work and what we would personally like to see. Personally, I wouldn't do political talk at all if I had my sandbox of a station to play in. The hosts might talk about politics, but it would be incidental to the personality side.

That has always been a challenge for radio from the beginning. Do I do what I think I would enjoy listening to. Do I do what seems to be working for other people in other markets though it seems a bit odd and/or harsh?

And when you reference "what has been proven to work" a lot of questions arise. Has it been proven to work... and that it works better than anything else? Or since it works rather well, we have quit looking for something that might work equally as well or better, but we stop looking because we like what is working.

You list some assumptions in your post as being fixed or fact if you please, but we don't know yet that they won't work and we won't know until some more experimentation is done. I interpret what you said to indicate that NPR already does liberal talk and I challenge that. I've heard some liberal radio.... and NPR does not do anything close to that. But we don't know how viable truly liberal talk may be and very few investors are willing to spend a lot of time or money finding out how viable it can or can't be.

I guess I need to get up to speed on this term "hot talk" which I don't fully understand. That sounds like something that would work in some parts of the country better than other parts of the country. We used to think there were some types of programming that would not fly well in the "Bible Belt South" and in the midwestern Northern Bible Belt. But there are cities in the south that have tolerated some bad-by radio, shock jocks and whatever more than I thought they would. I guess "the times are a changing".

But in watching the current presidential candidate debates which are taking on a flavor I don't think we have ever seen before, this may go down as the year that things began to change in the world of Talk Radio. This may be the year we find out if either political party has grown-ups who are in charge. And if there are truly some grown-ups in the parties, it is possible the grown-ups could go to the broadcast industry and make it clear they are tired of having their organizations corrupted and disoriented by Talk Radio as we know it. I'm not predicting that will happen. I'm not holding my breath until that happens. But I bet the leadership of both parties will have some back room meetings in which they discuss how to get the campaigns out of the gutter... and who do we have to take out behind the woodshed to make that happen.

 

[borderblaster]

There were a couple of occasions where the real possibility existed that Rush would not have been able to continue, and I'm sure back room meetings were held to discuss the future. It wasn't clear if he'd be able to continue after the hearing loss, or if the prescription drug issue would have forced him off the air. 1000 hosts and 1000 syndicators would have appeared out of nowhere to be "the next Rush Limbaugh". No one would be able to, of course, pull that off. (Not a real died-in-the-wool Coast to Coast fan, but IMO no one can be Art Bell but Art Bell).

We do have to remember that Rush Limbaugh's rise to fame wasn't the result of focus groups, strategic planning, or anything that might go into launching any kind of new product, radio show or TV show. It all just...happened. Then, as a previous poster indicated, management folks figured if they couldn't find another Rush, they'd find someone who said the same things Rush does. Despite focus groups and millions of dollars spent, the left has so far not been able to pull that success off. There are shows that have a modicum of success now, but there is no "secret formula" in talk radio.

I'd like to see a Gary Burbank-type personality show up again, mostly comedy and lighter topics, but the ability to skewer both sides of the aisle without being all that blue humored. Who is out there who could even do that?

 

[Legend City]

What kills me about Rush is, if you went to him when he was an uneducated community college drop out desperate for a radio job and told him he had to be a liberal voice on talk radio, he would have done it, and done it well. Because talk radio is just like wrestling, they tell you to be the villain or the hero, just put the tights on. He idolized guys like William F. Buckley, but had no desire to get a degree then an advanced degree, then actually write and opine and be published (his own writings, not a ghost writer), all along, he knows he is a phony, he doesn't have the bona fides to be someone that people should listen to and trust, he is a huckster.

Now, to the multiple marriages, yeah, he wants to live that "moral family man" life, but its just a charade. Each wife has talked him into some craptastic scam to sell stuff, ties, newsletters, TV show, and mail order tea (WTF?). Does the guy have issues? Absolutely, he is a drug addict, to the point he lost his hearing, he had to fly to DR to get laid (along with contraband Viagra), and he has to put a phony persona up every day. Christ, he never even voted until he became Mr. Radio celeb.

If he were a DJ in a medium market, making $60K a year, he'd probably be a hell of a lot happier, and more adjusted, his whole career has been one big smokescreen.

Talk radio = form a connection with the listeners "I am just like you! (except for the limos, the private jets and the $$$), Get you mad, get you so mad about things you were never mad about, and things you have no reason to be mad about, just get you mad, and keep you thinking that you are part of a small, but educated minority that "gets it" and you are gonna change things with your anger!

Talk radio, its wrestling without the tights.

 

[jas2525]

If he were a DJ in a medium market, making $60K a year, he'd probably be a hell of a lot happier, and more adjusted, his whole career has been one big smokescreen.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Are you implying that there's a medium market DJ somewhere making 60K a year?

 

[Holland Cooke]

Sweet deals ARE out there...

YES THERE ARE comfy gigs, in medium and small markets. Secure on-air jobs, in desirable cities. These stations tend-not-to-be owned by big publically-traded companies drowning-in-debt. In some cases, these folks are market or station lifers; in other cases, these are "retirement" jobs for talent that's previously worked The Bigs. And those who hold these coveted positions -- some earning six fogures -- have one thing in common: They sell.

 

[Silkie]

Limbaugh WANTS Obama to get re-elected:
http://open.salon.com/blog/holland_cooke/2011/10/16/why_rush_limbaugh_disses_mitt_romney

He got Bill Clinton elected in 1992 as well, and then claimed it was a joke to illustrate a point. Point taken: Elitists who like their hundreds of millions in terms of dollars also like liberals in office. Since that day I have never again tuned him in deliberately. That said, given the media exposure of the candidates in the Republican field, who make sure they get the media exposure via debate schedules, whoever ends up being the nominee will probably become the next President of the United States, with or without the support of Rush Limbaugh. People are hearing all manner of good ideas coming from good people in those debates, all of whom demonstrate the diversity of thought that comprises the American people. They have their own ideas - again, with or without the support of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[MC]

As someone pointed out, Limbaugh left college to spin records, not do political talk. He might have had political views, but that did not make it to the radio till after the stint as a marketing guy with a football team.

"Frontline" did a biography on Limbaugh and they said that the guy that hired him in Sacramento was "gay" but allowed him to use derogatory terms to describe gays. When Rush went national he dropped that practice, showing he is more than happy to modify his behavior and views for career success.

Issues like trade, and "free trade" have been problematic
for Rush. Remember when Al Gore told Ross Perot "respected broadcaster Rush Limbaugh supports Nafta..." Therefore, if Limbaugh gets in a box, use humor to dodge the issue, after all he is a entertainer, not a politician.

 

[country24]

"We as an industry" don't decide anything. We as individuals try whatever we're able to get on the air and listeners either listen or not. Broadcaster and FCC reviews won't come up with a successful formula for "reviving" talk radio if listeners don't buy it. A successful talk show host is a combination of many things. Personality and ideology are two of the main ones. Enough passion in what he talks about to spend a lot of time doing research is another major factor.

Rush would never have been a good liberal talk show host. Unless he really were liberal. A talk show host may survive being inconsistent or factually wrong occasionally, but trying to keep up with and defend what someone thinks the public wants to hear is a losing battle.

The next Rush won't come out of nowhere. Sean Hannity will probably be the next Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle or someone like them who we're all familiar with will probably be the next Saen Hannity. When the current top tier of talk show hosts retire, the next tier will move up, and newcomers will start at the bottom like the current top tier did. Rush was able to come from nowhere because no one was above him. That situation no longer exists for those just coming into the profession. Even someone with Rush's amazing talent and tenacity wouldn't be able to go from nowhere today to number one tomorrow in today's environment.

Why does Rush "dis" Romney? Rush says what he thinks about everyone he talks about. Romney is the front runner and has been for a long time. He's the least conservative of the leading candidates which means Rush has the most disagreement with him. And Romney is the least grass roots (anti-establishment) of any leading candidate. Considering all those factors, why wouldn't you expect him to draw more criticism from Rush than any other candidate?

 

[Holland Cooke]

"the next Rush Limbaugh"

There won't be a "next Rush Limbaugh."

People no longer need a radio voice, or a radio, to dialogue. They Tweet, they blog.

FCC-licensed transmitters are no longer the scarce "attention franchise."

 

[jas2525]

Re: "the next Rush Limbaugh"

There won't be a "next Rush Limbaugh."

People no longer need a radio voice, or a radio, to dialogue. They Tweet, they blog.

FCC-licensed transmitters are no longer the scarce "attention franchise."

Holland, Holland, Holland.

In your quest to be cutting edge and up with-the-Jones's, you failed to acknowledge one little thing:
The social networks and internet blogs you speak of are highly fragmented and disorganized.

If you go to those sources for any kind of a dialogue, you'll be pretty disappointed---as I have been. Talkradio is so much more effective and polished. There is little charm in the sloppiness and inconsistency of the chaos you see online. Participating in that turns out to be more work than entertainment.

Seriously, Holland. I know it's fun to be ahead-of-the-curve, or riding high on-top-of-the curve, but keep your eye on the ball. It's about ENTERTAINMENT. And whether you want to admit it or not, many radio people are entertainers and work hard to keep an audience. Internet bloggers and tweeters are participants it what often amounts to a borefest of incongruent statements and non sequiturs.

Let's not give them more credit than they are due.

 

[MC]

I seem to remember the term "water carrier" came up in conjunction with Rush. He changed quite a bit when he went national. His show was pretty "raw" in Sacramento and he changed to fit the national syndication.

I can appreciate people who respect talent and success, but idol worship of a radio personality, politician or celebrity is something I don't understand. "Everything Rush says is something he believes?" I guess some people believe in "Saint Rush."

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: "the next Rush Limbaugh"

There won't be a "next Rush Limbaugh."

People no longer need a radio voice, or a radio, to dialogue. They Tweet, they blog.

FCC-licensed transmitters are no longer the scarce "attention franchise."

Holland, Holland, Holland.

In your quest to be cutting edge and up with-the-Jones's, you failed to acknowledge one little thing:
The social networks and internet blogs you speak of are highly fragmented and disorganized.

This little "sub-conversation" rolls into one little ball a description of our wobbly and staggering society.

As long as most of us can remember we have depended on certain influences to help us see where we are and where we are headed. I once subscribed to Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report and felt like by mashing them together I could understand my world. Some of us looked to Walter Cronkite or Paul Harvey to help us interpret the world. Our view of faith issues put us into a triangle formed by Bishop Fulton Sheen, Billy Graham and The Lutheran Hour. Some of the ladies looked to Julia Childs and the Frugal Gourmet and Emeril for charting the geography of good eating.

Along came Rush Limbaugh. He was not quite like anything we had ever come across. We let him carve out his own little place in the public square and he joined some of the long standing "authority figures" in our life.

There is a lot of talk that the TV networks can no longer build anyone into the taller-than-life position people like Cronkite held. The cable news networks seems to be developing into something where the moderator, the host, the commentator has all the stature in our world the driver of the bus has in your city transit system.

If it was assumed by the people who make their living operating radio and TV that "there will be a next Rush" then we would see them also developing a Rush-equivalent for people who want "an entertainer" for other views. They would be scooping up Huckabee or someone to be Rush to the more pious-but-rowdy church crowd. We see MSNBC dabbling with finding a Rush-equivalent for the left-of-center crowd but so far their effort looks more like the bus driver or airline pilot scheduling system. Watch Ed Schultz a few nights and you get the idea he is the traffic co-coordinator for ther Social Media experiments.

jas2525: it seems that those who expect that there will be a next Rush are all ideological-groupies for the "theology of the right". The politics and operation of things-of-the-right are dependent on a leader, a pied-piper, a king-of-the-mountain. Other ideologies seem to bristle at the idea of having a king-of-the-mountain on a permanent basis. They like to assign duties to a "project task manager" who steps aside when his/her task is done. The other ideologies might have greater traction if they could rally around a long-term leader... but that seems to violate their ideology.

Media owners and manager can see this picture much better than I can. Rush happened more than "Rush was planned". The next Rush can only happen with the input and blessing of the media. The next one cannot "just happen" like the first one. And media knows that if the next Rush comes about because he/she is anointed by media, they will have to give comparable energy to anointing comparable voices for other ideologies. I'm not sure media ownership/management has the stomach for the total task.

And if Holland is right about social media, it is out of the hands of the media managers anyway.

 

[Holland Cooke]

The Man has lost control.

At last week's "The Future of Talk Radio in the Car" presentation at the Los Angeles Press Club, my show-N-tell item was the $69 cord I bought at The Apple Store.

Plug-one-end-into what-we-used-to-call "the cigarette lighter," plug the other end into iPhone, find a quiet FM channel.

Other than C.Crain's stuff, AM receivers have gone to hell. At home in RI, I need to be damn-near Clear Channel's transmitter to hear Rush on the car radio.

Clear Channel is a company which:
a) pays for a franchise called "Rush Limbaugh" to compete with Cumulus in Providence; and
b) competes in Dallas with Cumulus, which pays for a franchise called "Rush Limbaugh."

And there I am, driving around Rhode Island, listening to Rush on WBAP/Dallas, on my car radio...hearing him via Cumulus, in-a-market-where Clear Channel thinks they hold the franchise. And nobody's breaking any laws.

I can also stream-into whatever any-kid-with-a-$300-netbook put "out there" with the software that came pre-installed.

The Man has lost control of the distribution system.

YES RUSH DOES remain the #1 act of the 5-share Talk Radio format.
He's got "incumbency" alrighty.

 

[country24]

"There won't be a 'next Rush Limbaugh'".

There may never be anyone with the stature Rush has in the profession, but there will always be someone who's #1. And he or she won't be appointed by anyone. They'll be whoever is able to attract the most listeners. Just like Rush.

Far too many contributors to this message board seem to think most Rush's listeners tune in to find out what they're supposed to think. Any host--Rush, Chris Matthews or anyone else--has a few like that. But most talk show listeners view the hosts they listen to as interesting commemorators who are occasionally or maybe even usually right, or at least interesting. Have you never noticed that most callers, including conservatives, call in to disagree with the host about something. Talk show hosts are very poor at forming public opinion, and most of them know it. But they are good at identifying and calling attention to various viewpoints. They're also good at informing the public about what's going on that the news media misses and at presenting new ideas for discussion.

 

[jas2525]

They're also good at informing the public about what's going on that the news media misses and at presenting new ideas for discussion.

...or distorting or completely fabricating information to bolster an uninformed viewpoint---as long as it creates the proper strawman to fulfill their ideological bent.

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE "Rush, Chris Matthews or anyone else"

Best-distilled explanation I've heard of Rush Limbaugh's success was BY Chris Matthews: "Phone sex for the Chicklets rep."

That sure reflects how Limbaugh's show is consumed by its heaviest users...modern-day Willie Loman characters, trudging through 16 retail sales call stops today, being told "no" over and over. And there, riding-along with him is Rush, telling him: "It's not YOU...it's THEM. YOU have it right. THEY are wrong."

 

[Silkie]

If that statement in its entirety came from Chris Matthews the fact that it is some obnoxious kid with a cowlick, who never makes any sense anyway, would be understandable. Other than that, you aren't real good with analogies, Holland.