Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?

[SAYIT]

Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?

Yeah, there's chronic failure, Dennis Miller but he can't even get arrested.

So?

How does that explain the failure of Lib talk radio? You wouldn't be deflecting, would you?

 

[SAYIT]

A caller on Rush's show said that, not Rush.

What Rush did state is why, when it was known all these years, why did the Media ignore Sterling's Racism.

Further, knowing that everyone knew about Sterling, Rush ask's why was the NAACP awarding Sterling a Lifetime achievement award, after giving Sterling awards in the past.

Whatever. I admit that I did not listen to the show. In fact, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to his show.

I've listened to bits and pieces. Its entertainment for the brain dead. Really.

By his own admission, he says what he is paid to say. He's just a fat, drug/alcohol addicted whore. He has found his niche - stupid people who react with knee jerk hatred for what they don't understand.

Whatever the shortcomings of Con talk radio - and there's many - it generates enough listeners to attract sponsors. Are you really saying there's not enough stupid liberals who react with knee jerk hatred to do the same for Lib talk radio? Evidently not enough smart, thoughtful libs either.

 

[HenryBHough]

Musing on a silly scenario of about five years ago.

In a relatively small American city a failing AM radio station - I have no idea what the format was - was sold at a bargain price to a trade union.

The format became liberal talk with some of the "big" names mentioned above but local hosts dealing with local issues went over better.

Pretty well, in fact.

Then the local staff attempted to go union. There was a rather nasty battle. Some local hosts were silenced. Strangely, the union owners didn't want their employees to unionize.

Go figure.

It wasn't long before the station was sold and the liberal talk went away. I believe the next iteration was all sports. I say "I believe" because I did occasionally listen to the lib-talk (know thine enemy) but have no interest in all-sports so I changed the buttons on the car radio and haven't kept track of the station since. Should anyone really want to know I guess I could check around and see what the format is today but I'm not interested.

The car radio doesn't get much use outside of traffic hours these days. I need the traffic reports and can tolerate the all-news (not commentary) format of the station that does the best work with traffic.

Oh, the radio button that got changed? It went over to the last remaining station in the market that was playing a variation of the Music of Your Life format. Shortly thereafter the no sponsor/falling numbers bug bit there and now that station is all sports all the time.

Other phenom I've noticed in several markets: When a station runs through about 4 format changes in 2 years and still fails it is sold. In the case of AMs to local churches. In the case of FMs to national religious entities like the K-LOVE group. I can't say whether those religious stations have the numbers and commercial sponsorship to survive or whether they're subsidized so as to continue to preach to the converted.

Hey, they're providing at least a few jobs, giving people choices, and aren't forcing anyone to listen.

 

[SAYIT]

Musing on a silly scenario of about five years ago.

In a relatively small American city a failing AM radio station - I have no idea what the format was - was sold at a bargain price to a trade union.

The format became liberal talk with some of the "big" names mentioned above but local hosts dealing with local issues went over better.

Pretty well, in fact.

Then the local staff attempted to go union. There was a rather nasty battle. Some local hosts were silenced. Strangely, the union owners didn't want their employees to unionize.

Go figure.

Funny how capitalism is soooo evil until the workers get their hands on something. Then they act just like capitalists ... in their own best interest.

 

[Nosmo King]

You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.

Do you think that talk show hosts should be more humble? Like Rush Limbaugh humble?

This is the problem with liberal talk radio, they have to lie and attempt to be anything but their true selves. Hence liberal talk radio is nothing but insults and epithets hurled against freedom and all that is good in the usa.

Is Rush Limbaugh the humble host missing in Liberal radio? Is Rush Limbaugh a humble host?

 

[Papageorgio]

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[ogibillm]

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

explain glen beck then. end of the world is his bread and butter

 

[Papageorgio]

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

explain glen beck then. end of the world is his bread and butter

I don't listen to Beck, why don't you tell me more about why you listen to him.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[HenryBHough]

My curiosity got the best of me this morning. One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive. Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.

The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd. I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!

The station is now a FOX affiliate with a network schedule generously leaning toward the right as one might expect. BUT the local hosts in between the "big names" carried by FOX are largely liberal! Some of them carry-overs from the most Marxist-leaning days of the former owners.

This all makes sense!

There are three other right-leaning stations in the market, each carrying the really big names in conservative talk and with strongly conservative local hosts. This station's carry-over liberals represent the most entertaining of those who got their start in the all-leftist-all-the-time days of union, anti-unionist ownership. The chaff is gone but the wheat remains. A couple of them really do put some effort into making left-leaning commentary on LOCAL issues. It's not "party line" - they really do put some thought into it and some of their points are valid and well taken. They do it well. The others are so virulently Marxist - applying Obamalogic (if there is such a thing) to local issues where it's obviously hard work to have that pertain. But they're so comically leftist that they're amusing to hear.

I used to listen more than just occasionally to those particular professional liberal hosts and sort of missed them when they disappeared. True, much as one might miss a case of shingles were it to suddenly be healed, yet the good ones are good enough that they're worth giving some ear to and the comics - well laughter is said to be good in moderate doses.

My belief (there's that word that so troubles the liberals again) is that some "capitalist bastard" has found a way to make lemonade out of what was once the most sour of lemons and will make a decent buck off the format. And that's gotta realllllllly piss off some liberals. But they'll listen 'cause it's the only game in town. Maybe in protest they'll boycott businesses who sponsor the liberal talkers? That'd be about their intelligence level. Never saw a liberal unwilling to gnaw on the hand that feeds it.

 

[SAYIT]

My curiosity got the best of me this morning. One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive. Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.

The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd. I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!

The station is now a FOX affiliate with a network schedule generously leaning toward the right as one might expect. BUT the local hosts in between the "big names" carried by FOX are largely liberal! Some of them carry-overs from the most Marxist-leaning days of the former owners.

This all makes sense!

There are three other right-leaning stations in the market, each carrying the really big names in conservative talk and with strongly conservative local hosts. This station's carry-over liberals represent the most entertaining of those who got their start in the all-leftist-all-the-time days of union, anti-unionist ownership. The chaff is gone but the wheat remains. A couple of them really do put some effort into making left-leaning commentary on LOCAL issues. It's not "party line" - they really do put some thought into it and some of their points are valid and well taken. They do it well. The others are so virulently Marxist - applying Obamalogic (if there is such a thing) to local issues where it's obviously hard work to have that pertain. But they're so comically leftist that they're amusing to hear.

I used to listen more than just occasionally to those particular professional liberal hosts and sort of missed them when they disappeared. True, much as one might miss a case of shingles were it to suddenly be healed, yet the good ones are good enough that they're worth giving some ear to and the comics - well laughter is said to be good in moderate doses.

My belief (there's that word that so troubles the liberals again) is that some "capitalist bastard" has found a way to make lemonade out of what was once the most sour of lemons and will make a decent buck off the format. And that's gotta realllllllly piss off some liberals. But they'll listen 'cause it's the only game in town. Maybe in protest they'll boycott businesses who sponsor the liberal talkers? That'd be about their intelligence level. Never saw a liberal unwilling to gnaw on the hand that feeds it.

The funniest humor is dipped in truth..
The comment in bold is similar to the reason for the failure of Lib talk radio stated in the OP.
That is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.

 

[HenryBHough]

The funniest stories must be dipped in truth..

The comment in bold is similar to the reason for the failure of Lib talk radio stated in the OP.

That is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.

Now some jackass will hobble along and try to derail the thread by demanding you be punished for "editing" my original post by adding the bold-faced emphasis.

To them I say: "Piss Off". I am in no way upset by the addition of the bold face emphasis. Indeed, I am most pleased!. I should have done it originally to assist liberals with their ongoing comprehension problem. Thank you for making it easier for them!!!!

 

[MaryL]

I just listened to Limbaugh's show on the Sterling issue about racism and liberals. I don't like Rush, but I wondered from the onset about the whole Sterling affair if this wasn't just blacks/liberals over reaction. Sterling paid people (blacks) millions of dollars to play a children's game. Sterling never ever hurt anyone. I noticed how nobody offered to return the money he paid in their outrage. Liberal radio does just fine on NPR. They push agendas too, and I can live with that. But as for a balanced approach, not perceiving it anywhere accept on the internet. Facts don't follow agendas or party lines.

 

[Pogo]

Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.

Silliness. Commercial talk radio like any commodity is intended to MAKE MONEY or, as in the case of NPR, at least break even. If you have a successful Lib talk show you will get sponsors. The truth you claim to want made public is that socialism, like Lib talk radio, is an abject failure. Get off your butt and help pull the train ... there's a lot of peeps riding it who genuinely need our help.

I have yet to see you address the question but it's looking like you believe the purpose of radio is to sell things.*

We already know the purpose of advertising is to sell us things we don't need (things we do need, we're already seeking). Therefore in your view radio has no purpose but advertising, which is to say, you apparently believe radio has no constructive purpose at all.

And if that's the premise, then content on that radio is irrelevant, except as it serves ratings. And ratings measure attention, not assent; and attention is won by controversy and drama and strong emotion -- certainly not by rectitude or accuracy. Therefore ideology is irrelevant. It's all in how the message is framed, i.e. the style. If one treats radio as nothing more than a commodity, then what "sells" that commodity is not liberal talk or conservative talk or sports or any genre of music ---- it's how well the psychological manipulation of attention-seeking is executed.

In other words when Lush Rimjob declares his "talent on loan from God", he doesn't win listeners for his alleged "talent" -- he wins listeners for his overabundant arrogance. And that's got nothing to do with his subject matter; it's personal.


*(Not that I agree at all with that assessment of the purpose of radio; I think it hopelessly boxes itself in with a slavish commodity mentality -- a Ferengi world where everything has a price and must be transacted in order to have validity. "Flop", after all, derives from a world of top 40 music radio --- a world where art is reduced to a commodity for sale. And that's the problem with the whole pretense of the question; it's invalid. Discourse is not a commodity.)

 

[Pogo]

Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?

Yeah, there's chronic failure, Dennis Miller but he can't even get arrested.

So?

How does that explain the failure of Lib talk radio? You wouldn't be deflecting, would you?

That's not a deflection at all -- it reignites my musing earlier on why the audiences on the right seem to respond more to vitriol while those on the left respond to humor. What I mean to suggest is that maybe liberal radio (as commodity) "flops" because it's trying to use the wrong tools.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever. I admit that I did not listen to the show. In fact, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to his show.

I've listened to bits and pieces. Its entertainment for the brain dead. Really.

By his own admission, he says what he is paid to say. He's just a fat, drug/alcohol addicted whore. He has found his niche - stupid people who react with knee jerk hatred for what they don't understand.

Whatever the shortcomings of Con talk radio - and there's many - it generates enough listeners to attract sponsors. Are you really saying there's not enough stupid liberals who react with knee jerk hatred to do the same for Lib talk radio? Evidently not enough smart, thoughtful libs either.

What you seem to be saying then is that the political talk format, as established by conservatives, is by nature an exercise in dishonesty. The logical conclusion then is that liberals (by which I still think you mean leftists) are just not as good at dishonesty.

Is that where you're going with this?

 

[Pogo]

My curiosity got the best of me this morning. One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive. Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.

The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd. I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!

The station is now a FOX affiliate with a network schedule generously leaning toward the right as one might expect. BUT the local hosts in between the "big names" carried by FOX are largely liberal! Some of them carry-overs from the most Marxist-leaning days of the former owners.

This all makes sense!

There are three other right-leaning stations in the market, each carrying the really big names in conservative talk and with strongly conservative local hosts. This station's carry-over liberals represent the most entertaining of those who got their start in the all-leftist-all-the-time days of union, anti-unionist ownership. The chaff is gone but the wheat remains. A couple of them really do put some effort into making left-leaning commentary on LOCAL issues. It's not "party line" - they really do put some thought into it and some of their points are valid and well taken. They do it well. The others are so virulently Marxist - applying Obamalogic (if there is such a thing) to local issues where it's obviously hard work to have that pertain. But they're so comically leftist that they're amusing to hear.

I used to listen more than just occasionally to those particular professional liberal hosts and sort of missed them when they disappeared. True, much as one might miss a case of shingles were it to suddenly be healed, yet the good ones are good enough that they're worth giving some ear to and the comics - well laughter is said to be good in moderate doses.

My belief (there's that word that so troubles the liberals again) is that some "capitalist bastard" has found a way to make lemonade out of what was once the most sour of lemons and will make a decent buck off the format. And that's gotta realllllllly piss off some liberals. But they'll listen 'cause it's the only game in town. Maybe in protest they'll boycott businesses who sponsor the liberal talkers? That'd be about their intelligence level. Never saw a liberal unwilling to gnaw on the hand that feeds it.

Safe to say if Millie Henry's posts were a radio station, these endless diatribes yammering on and on and on about da evul liburruls and what his last fart smelled like would qualify as a "flop"....

 

[SAYIT]

Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.

Silliness. Commercial talk radio like any commodity is intended to MAKE MONEY or, as in the case of NPR, at least break even. If you have a successful Lib talk show you will get sponsors. The truth you claim to want made public is that socialism, like Lib talk radio, is an abject failure. Get off your butt and help pull the train ... there's a lot of peeps riding it who genuinely need our help.

I have yet to see you address the question but it's looking like you believe the purpose of radio is to sell things.*

We already know the purpose of advertising is to sell us things we don't need (things we do need, we're already seeking). Therefore in your view radio has no purpose but advertising, which is to say, you apparently believe radio has no constructive purpose at all.

And if that's the premise, then content on that radio is irrelevant, except as it serves ratings. And ratings measure attention, not assent; and attention is won by controversy and drama and strong emotion -- certainly not by rectitude or accuracy. Therefore ideology is irrelevant. It's all in how the message is framed, i.e. the style. If one treats radio as nothing more than a commodity, then what "sells" that commodity is not liberal talk or conservative talk or sports or any genre of music ---- it's how well the psychological manipulation of attention-seeking is executed.

In other words when Lush Rimjob declares his "talent on loan from God", he doesn't win listeners for his alleged "talent" -- he wins listeners for his overabundant arrogance. And that's got nothing to do with his subject matter; it's personal.


*(Not that I agree at all with that assessment of the purpose of radio; I think it hopelessly boxes itself in with a slavish commodity mentality -- a Ferengi world where everything has a price and must be transacted in order to have validity. "Flop", after all, derives from a world of top 40 music radio --- a world where art is reduced to a commodity for sale. And that's the problem with the whole pretense of the question; it's invalid. Discourse is not a commodity.)

You've certainly seen my description of radio's purpose (post #168) but you seem more interested in ignoring it and putting your words into my mouth. I assure you, to the owners of radio stations their asset exists to earn money but just to show what a good sport I am, even in the fact of willful obstinance, I will repost:
"The market determines the utility and value of products ... Radio's utility has been info and entertainment. Talk radio is a mixture of the two. Get it right and you have a successful show. Get it wrong and you have Lib talk radio."

 

[SAYIT]

I've listened to bits and pieces. Its entertainment for the brain dead. Really.

By his own admission, he says what he is paid to say. He's just a fat, drug/alcohol addicted whore. He has found his niche - stupid people who react with knee jerk hatred for what they don't understand.

Whatever the shortcomings of Con talk radio - and there's many - it generates enough listeners to attract sponsors. Are you really saying there's not enough stupid liberals who react with knee jerk hatred to do the same for Lib talk radio? Evidently not enough smart, thoughtful libs either.

What you seem to be saying then is that the political talk format, as established by conservatives, is by nature an exercise in dishonesty. The logical conclusion then is that liberals (by which I still think you mean leftists) are just not as good at dishonesty.

Is that where you're going with this?

Well, that's not what I was saying (you do expend much effort reading your thoughts into my posts rather than just taking them at face value) but I'll play.
Most adults, with varying degree of success, manage to determine what is truth and what is BS. As such, Lib talk radio fails to attract & hold an audience large enough to be commercially viable.

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine what a success a liberal radio format might enjoy if it were 24/7 devoted to aberrant sexual practices with anal emphasis!

I mean, it's a subject that, in the thread above, is obviously dear to their little hearts. And other parts, too.....

 

[Pogo]

Imagine what a success a liberal radio format might enjoy if it were 24/7 devoted to aberrant sexual practices with anal emphasis!

I mean, it's a subject that, in the thread above, is obviously dear to their little hearts. And other parts, too.....

Oh that already exists. It's called the "the shock jock". And when it ventures into the political it's called "The Glenn Beck".