Why is Conservative talk radio so prevalent?

[drankin]

Discussion:

And there is very little Liberal talk radio?

 

[lalbatros]

Because of a tradition of conservative preachers in the US communities.
And as second reason the church business that has been promoted by the authorities.

I observed the same for podcasts.

 

[russ_watters]

And there is very little Liberal talk radio?

That's a statement with a question mark on the end and it is largely meaningless (what is "very little"?).

Also, while it is certainly true that conservatives hold many of the highest rated radio shows, liberals have some of the highest rated tv shows and newspaper columns. So the deck is still stacked to the left.

To answer the question in the title, though, it is a simple reflection of listenership:

Pew researchers found in 2004 that 17% of the public regularly listens to talk radio. This audience is mostly male, middle-aged and conservative. Among those who regularly listen to talk radio, 41% are Republican and 28% are Democrats. Furthermore, 45% describe themselves as conservatives, compared with 18% who say they are liberal.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio

Here, just to make sure we have some facts, are some actual fall 2006 ratings: http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

 

[ptabor]

I'm a little surprised to see Savage ahead of Boortz.

While Savage is a volatile character and it's hilarious to hear him fly off the handle, Boortz is actually capable of holding an intelligent conversation.lalbatross,

will you please explain your second statement? Church business promoted by the authorities?

 

[drankin]

Thanks for the grammar lesson, Russ. I would be rambling unintelligable strings of nonsense without grammar cops like yourself. j/k

Pardon me. It was meant to be a continuation of the first question.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not trying to be the grammar police, but when you do that, there are several possible things that you could have meant. You could have been asking "Is there...?" or "Why is there...?" or you could have actually been intending to make the statement. I pointed it out because I wasn't sure what your point was.

 

[Plastic Photon]

My grandma. I had never heard talk radio or seen a CNN show until I spent the summer with my grandparents several years ago. The elderly crowd (retired and 65+) are the reason talk show, cable news, and other medium exist and explains why they have a shift toward what you may say is liberal or conservative.

 

[ray b]

sheep sheepel and very few who think or question the LIES

 

[edward]

Rush Limbaugh ranks the highest because he has learned how to pull the strings of; the hawks , the religious right, and just plain old fashioned conservatives. The guy can take a minor issue, add a few lies and distortions, and turn it into a major issue.

He was at his best when he was on drugs. perhaps he still is.

A lot of people listen to talk radio while commuting.

 

[drankin]

My personal take on a few:

Rush Limbaugh - the father of Conservative talk radio. Pretty much a has been though he still holds an audience.

Bill O'Rielly - he does a few good things actually and has some good points but needs a dose of humility. He's no genius.

Micheal Savage - hard core old school, too outspoken for regular television and can really hit at the core of Conservative angst. Amidst his musings touches on some very profound American pie ideals. Not afraid to be un PC. Most entertaining. My personal favorite.

Dr Laura - A woman who actually knows how a man thinks! I'd hate to be her husband. High standards, high ideals, not tolerance for bimbos. Shoots with both barrels.

 

[Cyrus]

You forgot G. Gordon Liddy. I am not conservative, but I do enjoy his show (or used to). I don't really listen to talk radio anymore and he switched over to AM radio. He was conservative, but was respectful about others on his show. He wasnt a loud mouth ass like O'reilly who thinks he knows everything, but actually knows nothing. Keith Oberman constantly SLAMS O'reillyon MSNBC...AWSOMEEEEEEEEE!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You forgot G. Gordon Liddy. I am not conservative, but I do enjoy his show (or used to).

While head of the National re-elect Nixon campaign, at the Republican National Convention he had planned to kidnap some number of the protestors, presumably the leaders, drug them, take them to Mexico, and let them go. These are his words! Then they figured that the abductees would just think they had a bad [drug] trip.

He viewed the election as part of a greater civil war; where the laws were just “operatives”.

Nice guy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it interesting that the most uninformed people that I meet [like people who still think Saddam attacked NY] are often huge fans of hate radio. The way that I see it, the conservative talking idiots like Rush are largely responsible for the mess we're in now.

 

[edward]

I find it interesting that the most uninformed people that I meet [like people who still think Saddam attacked NY] are often huge fans of hate radio. The way that I see it, the conservative talking idiots like Rush are largely responsible for the mess we're in now.

Hate radio kept on fanning the flames of "Saddam attacked NY" Long after they knew that it wasn't true. I have a sister -in-law who still believes it.

 

[edward]

Dr Laura - A woman who actually knows how a man thinks! I'd hate to be her husband. High standards, high ideals, not tolerance for bimbos. Shoots with both barrels.

Dr Laura has her own moral skeletons in the closet. At one time her own standards were pretty low. Most probably that is the way she learned how a man thinks.

 

[Cyrus]

While head of the National re-elect Nixon campaign, at the Republican National Convention he had planned to kidnap some number of the protestors, presumably the leaders, drug them, take them to Mexico, and let them go. These are his words! Then they figured that the abductees would just think they had a bad [drug] trip.

He viewed the election as part of a greater civil war; where the laws were just “operatives”.

Nice guy.

Im well aware of his past. Though I don't agree with all his views (Pro Isreal, religion), I do think he has a respectful show.

 

[drankin]

Should something be done about Conservative radio in the US?

Is it anti-American?

Is it really "hate" radio?

Is it a threat to national security?

Or is it simply an exercise of free speech that we all have to live with?

 

[BillJx]

Discussion:

And there is very little Liberal talk radio?

Democracy came about when the public discovered that the pen was mightier than the sword. When powerful corporations replaced powerful families as the centers of wealth, they simply bought the pen.

 

[edward]

Democracy came about when the public discovered that the pen was mightier than the sword. When powerful corporations replaced powerful families as the centers of wealth, they simply bought the pen.

So that's how Dick Cheney got the freaking pen.

 

[russ_watters]

Should something be done about Conservative radio in the US?

What could/should be done?

 

[Moridin]

What could/should be done?

Liberals could be doing the exact same thing, only better.

 

[Maxwell]

Nothing should be done at all. Just because liberal radio shows can not compete, does not mean the government should be made to strong-arm the owners of the radio stations into promoting crap.

And this is coming from a (mostly) liberal!

There is no - NO - reason why there should be any government interference in conservative radio. The liberal radio programs either need to step up and offer quality shows, or shut up.

One of the big problems with liberal radio is that they put on complete socialist wackos. Like that Randi Rhodes from Air America Radio. She barely offers ANY new ideas - all she does is bash President Bush. I'm no fan of the president at all, not a single bit, but the bashing is immature and needs to stop IMMEDIATELY. I'm at the point where I cringe every time I hear some insane want-to-be liberal say something stupid about the president. If you are not going to offer any real criticism and supply an alternative idea, then please, please, please shut your mouth.

There are very, very few strong liberal personalities that have something to offer besides criticism and insults.

I would really like to see Anderson Cooper have a radio show. He would be very good. Alan Colmes has a radio show, but he is sort of quiet. I wish he were tougher against Hannity on their show, or just tougher in general. He does know his stuff and often argues with Hannity or insane conservative guests, but he needs to be more aggressive.

This radio issue highlights a big problem in the Democratic party. The problem with our party and liberals (not the annoying socialist/anarchist fake liberals) is that we lack strong personalities. Conservatives have intimidating loud mouthes like Hannity, O'Reilly, Levine, etc. While I do not always agree with these people (especially Hannity), they make radio interesting and do propose their own views. I truly believe they would have their opinions regardless if there were people who believed the complete opposite. I'm not sure I can say the same for many liberal ideas.

In all my time listening to Liberal media, I can't recall any time I've heard someone propose a completely new, original plan or idea for something they are criticizing.

We need to get tougher. We need to propose bold, strong ideas that are not conjured up just to piss off conservatives - but to truly push classical liberal idea processes.

In short, we lack balls right now. We've lost our strength and we have let complete nut-jobs take control of our party. I'm ashamed to be a part of the same political spectrum as some of these crazies.

 

[BillJx]

Nothing should be done at all. Just because liberal radio shows can not compete, does not mean the government should be made to strong-arm the owners of the radio stations into promoting crap.

I think that England has laws against spreading lies as news. The US doesn't. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the judiciary to decide what's true or untrue on the news and in any case the American public would reject it as an attack on free speech.

But lawsuits might be possible. If I'm watching the news, there's an implied contract between me and the station. I allow them to subject me to advertising and they provide me with information. If a news program knowingly lies to the public, there should be grounds for a class action suit.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Liberals live in poor cold and poor states and therefore cannot broadcast radio or television programming across the country.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that England has laws against spreading lies as news. The US doesn't. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the judiciary to decide what's true or untrue on the news and in any case the American public would reject it as an attack on free speech.

I'll have to think about that, but I may be ok with intellectual honesty, ethics, or accuracy rules for the media - targeted at the news, as you say. Things like Rathergate could be worthy of sanction as fraud or slander.

Regardess, such laws would not apply to talk radio as talk radio is not news. There is no more promise/requirement of intellectual honesty from Rush Limbaugh than there is from Howard Stern or George Noory.

 

[russ_watters]

Liberals live in poor cold and poor states and therefore cannot broadcast radio or television programming across the country.

I'm not sure if you were actually serious there, so I'll refrain from comment...are you serious?

 

[Maxwell]

I think that England has laws against spreading lies as news. The US doesn't. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the judiciary to decide what's true or untrue on the news and in any case the American public would reject it as an attack on free speech.

But lawsuits might be possible. If I'm watching the news, there's an implied contract between me and the station. I allow them to subject me to advertising and they provide me with information. If a news program knowingly lies to the public, there should be grounds for a class action suit.

But these conservative radio hosts are spreading misinformation, they are talking truth as they see it. If you were to monitor them, you'd have to monitor religious radio as well, because there is no guarantee that they are speaking truth either!

The government should have no control over what is said on the radio beyond monitoring for curses, etc, like the FCC does right now - which is a little over-the-top anyway.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I'll have to think about that, but I may be ok with intellectual honest, ethics, or accuracy rules for the media - targeted at the news, as you say. Things like Rathergate could be worthy of sanction as fraud or slander.

Regardess, such laws would not apply to talk radio as talk radio is not news. There is no more promise/requirement of intellectual honesty from Rush Limbaugh than there is from Howard Stern or George Noory.

Could you then/now make a radio show called "Daily information with Healey01" and intentionally discuss false topics as if they were news? Basically war-of-the-worlds-esque.

There should be at least some sort of board of journalistic integrity that would award you the title of "journalist" upon completeion of an audit of their past work. Basically like a membership club/license that will make an elite level of journalist that people can respect and trust. Then all these people that push unfounded rumours as valid news would be denied and could never claim to be a "licensed journalist" and hopefully the intelligent and not-so intelligent listeners could question "why ISNT this guy a licensed journalist?"

This way you avoid any anti-constitutional intervention by using a non-governmental third party to dole out these "licenses" that "certify" it's real news. Then all you would have to do is regulate the corruption within this IBJI (International Board of Journalistic Integrity).

Or am I out of the loop and this already somehow exists and/or has been tried.

 

[russ_watters]

Could you then/now make a radio show called "Daily information with Healey01" and intentionally discuss false topics as if they were news? Basically war-of-the-worlds-esque.

If you say it is news and it isn't news, it is a lie.

There should be at least some sort of board of journalistic integrity that would award you the title of "journalist" upon completeion of an audit of their past work. Basically like a membership club/license that will make an elite level of journalist that people can respect and trust. Then all these people that push unfounded rumours as valid news would be denied and could never claim to be a "licensed journalist" and hopefully the intelligent and not-so intelligent listeners could question "why ISNT this guy a licensed journalist?"

This way you avoid any anti-constitutional intervention by using a non-governmental third party to dole out these "licenses" that "certify" it's real news. Then all you would have to do is regulate the corruption within this IBJI (International Board of Journalistic Integrity).

Or am I out of the loop and this already somehow exists and/or has been tried.

I don't agree that journalists should be licensed, but I do agree that they should be held to certain ethical standards. How, I'm not really sure. There is a little bit of self-policing in practice already (they report each others' mistakes).

 

[drankin]

Could you then/now make a radio show called "Daily information with Healey01" and intentionally discuss false topics as if they were news? Basically war-of-the-worlds-esque.

There should be at least some sort of board of journalistic integrity that would award you the title of "journalist" upon completeion of an audit of their past work. Basically like a membership club/license that will make an elite level of journalist that people can respect and trust. Then all these people that push unfounded rumours as valid news would be denied and could never claim to be a "licensed journalist" and hopefully the intelligent and not-so intelligent listeners could question "why ISNT this guy a licensed journalist?"

This way you avoid any anti-constitutional intervention by using a non-governmental third party to dole out these "licenses" that "certify" it's real news. Then all you would have to do is regulate the corruption within this IBJI (International Board of Journalistic Integrity).

Or am I out of the loop and this already somehow exists and/or has been tried.

It doesn't matter how "certified" a journalist is, he/she is going to have his or her personal bias, opinion, or perspective. All it would do is make the so-called certified journalistic perspective more influential whether it is right or wrong. "It's right because a certified journalist said so".

 

[K.J.Healey]

On a similar but different note, how do you think TV news, both local and national, would change if became that all "News" shows must air without commercials or ads anywhere. Thus possibly removing stories that are only there to get people to watch. The networks would have no reason to fight for ratings since they make no money off of it. (though it wouldn't affect party bias at all)

 

[russ_watters]

...all "News" shows must air without commercials or ads anywhere. Thus possibly removing stories that are only there to get people to watch. The networks would have no reason to fight for ratings since they make no money off of it...

...and therefore have no reason to exist!

Why on Earth would a TV stationsdo this?

 

[Mk]

I think it was just luck, or scurrying viewership. The liberals got television talk-news radio, the conservatives got talk-news radio

 

[Ronnin]

Apathy has really set in if you need someone on the radio, TV, or print to tell you what your opinion should be. The electorate in this country has simply gotten politically lazy. I love to complain and watch/listen to these guys on the tv/radio, but I don't vote in primaries or even show up to my neighborhood associations meetings. I along with countless others don't make my government's policies my personal responsiblility. I'm content with letting others make the decisions so I can plug away with my day by day. I have gotten the exact government I deserve and now all I can do is complain about the very thing I helped create. I will put the soapbox away now.

 

[Mk]

I have gotten the exact government I deserve and now all I can do is complain about the very thing I helped create.

That basically sums it up for every country in the world.