Posted on 09/17/2006 2:07:58 PM PDT by DuxFan4ever
In 2001, ABC Radio Networks gave its brash, young WABC/New York afternoon host a shot at the brass ring by launching him into national syndication. Sean Hannity grabbed that ring and a few more over the next five years. Today, he’s heard by millions on more than 420 radio stations nationwide. n It came as no surprise to industry observers that Hannity was called up to radio’s big leagues. At WABC, he racked up stellar ratings for the ABC Radio news/talker since 1997 while also gaining national attention from his nightly role as co-host of Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” and from frequent fill-in stints for Rush Limbaugh.
In short, the unabashed conservative with boyish good looks and Irish charm seemed primed to take on the challenge of anchoring a daily national talk radio show. Little did Hannity or ABC realize at the time how a history-changing event would shape the future of the show and its host when the network debuted “The Sean Hannity Show” on Sept. 10, 2001.
I recently caught up with the seemingly always-on-the-run Hannity to talk about how his show, his life, the country and our world have changed since he first began hosting his syndicated program five years ago.
R&R: Are you surprised it’s been five years already? SH: I personally cannot believe this period of time has gone by as quickly as it has. In many ways it seems like yesterday that it all began. It has been the greatest time of my life, and I can say honestly that I love what I am doing more than ever. I’m fortunate to be doing a job every single day that I love, and I try hard never to forget that. It never becomes routine to me.
R&R: How do you think you and the show have changed in the past five years? SH: I’d hope that we’re a little smarter, a little more mature and a little bit better than when we started, but those are really little changes. The biggest change came on our second day in syndication—Sept. 11, 2001—because our world, what we do and what we talk about all changed that day. In late summer of 2001 the big story was Gary Condit and the Chandra Levy incident. Sort of seems superfluous when you look back at it now, doesn’t it?
Since the show launched in 2001, we’ve gone through war and all the politics that surround that, Katrina, the 2004 elections, the Terry Schiavo case, immigration and so much more. It’s been an unprecedented news cycle. We’re living in really transformative and consequential times, and from that sense, there is nothing I would rather do than be on the radio every day talking to people about the events and issues that impact our lives.
Another big change has been access to information. When I started out at WVNN in Huntsville, Ala., my only sources of information were the local newspaper and all the magazines I could read. Looking back, I don’t know how it was even possible to do a talk show. Today, I spend hours every night and each morning going through every imaginable Web site and reading every obscure newspaper looking for stories that listeners will relate to. I firmly believe that in the age of the Internet a host should never have a slow news day.
R&R: How have you managed to avoid the pitfall of losing your local success in the transition to national host? SH: I didn’t really change the show at all when we went nationwide. I was already doing a show that was more focused on national issues to begin with because that’s where my natural area of interest lies. I’ve always talked about national politics and issues, so I don’t think listeners in New York are hearing a show that’s really any different than what they were used to.
R&R: You frequently credit ABC Radio VP of news and talk Phil Boyce for some of the success you and the show have experienced. What kind of a role has he played? SH: I have always had the good fortune in my career to work for people who believed in me and supported me. It was Phil who really wanted to syndicate the show more than I did. I didn’t really have a great desire to do it at the time, but Phil had a vision and he believed in the program. He overcame my own fears and doubts about syndicating it, and he has been a rock-solid supporter since day one. I really give him as much credit for the success of the show as anything we’ve done.
R&R: How do you respond to critics that say you and other conservative talk hosts simply parrot so-called Republican talking points? SH: I’d say people who would make that assertion haven’t listened to the show. I don’t do my show for critics, program directors or anyone except the audience. The reason I think I’ve been able to connect with and build an audience is because they know I am going to be honest with them and true to what I believe.
I don’t consider myself a Republican. I’m a Reagan-type conservative. Did I want George W. Bush to win the last election? Absolutely. Do I think he was the right man for the job? Definitely. Am I proud I voted for him? I think he’s had a backbone of steel, and he’s never wavered on the most important issue of our time, and I’m proud I voted for him.
With that said, I have been openly critical—even more harsh on Republicans than Democrats—on issues like immigration, spending, the growth of government, the Dubai ports deal, Harriet Miers and other issues where I’ve found myself having an honest, intellectual disagreement. Frankly, I think the biggest vulnerability to Republicans today is that too many have abandoned their Reagan-conservative principles.
R&R: Whenever there’s a lull in ratings for news/talk, pundits are quick to suggest that listeners are tired of political talk. I take it you’d disagree? SH: What’s always amazed me is that there are people in this business that don’t really understand what our business is. Our business is the news and talking about the news. If the news just happens to be in a slower cycle, then the format may not have the highs it gets during an intense election year or a major crisis. There is always a natural ebb and flow to news/talk’s ratings.
Sure, after five years on a war footing in this country, I think there is probably some day-to-day fatigue by listeners on the issues surrounding that, but there will be other events—probably sooner than later—that will capture the entire nation’s attention and news/talk’s ratings will reflect that. I think, for example, we are heading into the Super Bowl of all elections in 2008. It will be an election where who we elect will probably be more important than at almost any other time in our lives.
R&R: Are you optimistic about talk radio’s future? SH: I am more optimistic about this format’s future than ever. I think we can say that phase one of talk radio’s success is what we would all call the Rush revolution—the period from about 1988 when he went on the air until now—when Rush, rightfully so, is credited with saving AM radio.
I think we can probably also say that phase two is beginning right now as talk begins to replace music on the FM band with many different forms of personality radio. I really think the format is headed for another major growth spurt, and the future of personality talk radio looks very bright to me.
Hannity is a wanna-be. He mimics Rush and Levin. He is a completely unoriginal parrot. You can play 15 minutes of his show in a continuous loop and people would be unable to tell the difference.
Sean is a great American! :-)
I have to credit Hannity for bolstering my conservatism when I first became one. I used to love him on H&C. Now, though, it just seems that Hannity is incapable of independent thought, like most self-proclaimed conservatives these days.
There is no depth there. Can't listen to his show.
Sorry, we listen to Howie Carr in that time slot.
That great American business is stupid.
Can't listen for much more than ten minutes. Why is every edition of his program a "special edition"?
I don't listen to Hannity much anymore, mostly because my schedule no longer allows it, but IMO he puts on a good show. Sure, Rush is better, and I've been listening to Boortz since I was kindergarten.
But like him or not, he hit the airwaves on the absolute right day to bring a conservative message to a country that desperately needed as many conservative messengers as she could get.
One of many. Radio sucks.
Ditto that. Rather listen to Medved. I don't think Hannity is a bad guy, I just don't find him engaging enough to want to listen to him.
On a side note, I got a huge laugh at how Mark Levin ripped into Savage the other night. I would love to see those two debate each other. That would make for some great comedy.
Sean is great. He is more chearleader then debater though. He dosen't call people on not giving true facts or fallacies in their logic, but just calls them really bad. That has a place though, I think. I think its good to get the pure emotions going sometimes as long as I get my hardcore logic in with Rush, Levin and reading Coulter.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could generate that hardcore logic yourself?
You would be independent! How cool is that???
Excellent point, well taken :p
Thing is, you have to go somewhere for your info. Say what you want about Ann Coulter, but she gives some really great facts and quotes on lunes who hate America. Never heard of Alger Hiss in my entire life before Treason.
Who are you, Socrates? What's wrong with hearing what someone else has to say then making a decision of your own on what the person said?
Rather than sounding humble, you sound like the kind of person who is afraid to have his beliefs and views challenged.
Some 12.5 million people in radio-land out there don't see it your way. I guess they aren't as sophisticated as you. You're right, Hannity is just a rube construction worker with no substance.
I listen to other pod casts.
You have unwittingly veered into the truth. Hannity has no substance, no originality, and no charisma. He keeps calling Rush a "good friend" but I don't hear the same from the Maha Rushie. Every broadcast of his show is a "special edition" (*yawn*), and he has called the last three elections "the most important election" in our lifetime. It gets old.
Oh, I'm sure canned opinions are fine for those who have none of their own.
The "someone else" is a radio talker whose trade is words designed
around a specific ideology, hardly objective or original.
Spin is bad, either leftward or rightward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.