Why the Right Rules the Radio Waves

New York Times ^ | 12-08-2002 | John Leland

[bigaln2]

The traffic is murder out there, and Ed on the car phone wants to know: Why can't those liberal weenies mix it up?

Translation: when you're backed up on the expressway and a radio voice is howling at you, why isn't that voice ever a liberal?

For much of the last decade, conservative talk radio hosts built carnivorous empires by gorging on the foibles of Bill Clinton. Now, two years into the Bush administration, liberals and Democrats are still waiting for a syndicated carnivore of their own.

As Mr. Clinton said in a speech last week, referring to a range of conservative media: "They have a destruction machine. We don't have a destruction machine."

What Democrats do have is a yammer gap.

At a time when the public is pretty evenly divided politically, conservative talk radio, long led by Rush Limbaugh, continues to grow.

New or newly syndicated programs featuring the conservative television talk show hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made their debut on 200 to 300 stations in the last year. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, G. Gordon Liddy and other conservative hosts are still going strong. Meanwhile, one of the few longrunning liberal hosts, Gloria Allred, was sacrificed to poor ratings in October after 14 years in Los Angeles, joining Jim Hightower, Mario M. Cuomo and Alan M. Dershowitz.

"I can't think of a single card-carrying liberal talk show syndicated nationwide," said Ron Rodrigues, editor in chief of Radio & Records, a trade magazine.

The question is: why can't liberals create blast-furnace entertainment for their causes? The answers may inhere in the nature of liberalism, said Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University. Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values." In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."

Like other forms of news and entertainment, talk radio is a numbers game. Conservative talk radio, which arose from the Federal Communication Commission's 1987 repeal of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, releasing stations from the obligation to provide balanced opinion, "is a result of radio being a niche medium," said Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers, a trade magazine. Stations look for heat, not breadth.

"The hosts that light the fire tap into a vein of consciousness that is not given the proper attention elsewhere," said Phil Boyce, program director of WABC in New York, which carries both Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hannity. "When conservative listeners first heard Rush Limbaugh, they said, `Eureka, someone is finally saying what I think.' "

Mr. Limbaugh has had the most popular radio program since the early 1990's. Heard on more than 600 stations, he reaches about 14.5 million listeners each week, according to an analysis of Arbitron ratings by Talkers magazine. Mr. Hannity, a rising second, reaches about 10 million. "That's not a mass audience when compared to other media," Mr. Harrison said. "More people watch the World Wrestling Federation." But for niche media, being small is part of the appeal. The bond listeners feel to their favorite talk show is that of members of an aggrieved minority.

Even with a Republican administration, liberals will have a hard time claiming this same grievance. As long as network sitcoms, mainstream movies, public radio and some major newspapers are identified with liberal views about sex, family and tattoos, conservatives can cast themselves as outsiders, no matter who is in the White House, said John Mainelli, a talk radio consultant and former program director.

And this tilt may be politically significant.

David C. Barker, a professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, is the author of a new book, "Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion and American Political Behavior" (Columbia University, 2002), which surveyed listeners and non-listeners. While he could not measure the impact of Mr. Limbaugh's program on elections, he said, "If you take a group of people who never listened to talk radio before, and then look at their attitudes six months later, you'll see a clear change" reflecting the views of Mr. Limbaugh.

And not just more conservative — more specifically like Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Barker said. On topics that Mr. Limbaugh generally doesn't address, like gay rights or abortion, his listeners were indistinguishable from Republicans at large. But on the host's pet topics, like health care or John McCain, the listeners were much more conservative than other Republicans.

Whatever the effects of the conservative dominance of the radio dial, there's no one on the left who can carve meat like Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Hannity. As for the earnest Ivy League variety, ever eager to engage in serious debate over significant issues, they can always go write for "The West Wing." Its ratings have been falling, by the way.

[bigaln2]

This is the story that was featured on "Washington Journal" this morning.

[Always Right]

Hard to believe a fairly honest piece on Rush in the New York Times.

[anniegetyourgun]

Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values." In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."

Contrarywise, NO ONE has to MAKE liberals look mealy-mouthed. It's a natural state.

[Wonder Warthog]

Hey, John-Boy Leland---the Democrats "DO" have a "destruction machine", and you work for one cog of it. The Republicans have talk radio, the Democrats have the print media, television, and most university faculty. Sounds like the "propaganda advantage" STILL goes to the Democrats.

What a maroon!!!!!

[PLK]

As for the earnest Ivy League variety, ever eager to engage in serious debate over significant issues, they can always go write for "The West Wing." Its ratings have been falling, by the way.

Good one.

[martin_fierro]

The NYT -- liberal "Newspaper of Record" -- whines about conservative control of the radio airwaves. Pardon the irony.

[goldstategop]

The liberal Landrieu won in Louisiana by pretending to be a conservative. Which is exactly the point. We do rule even in defeat!!!

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[A_perfect_lady]

Translation: when you're backed up on the expressway and a radio voice is howling at you, why isn't that voice ever a liberal?

This is called the Free Market. Wow, huh? Never heard of that, did ya? This is what you get when you offer people a CHOICE rather than deluge them with state-funded (or Ted Turner-funded) propaganda 24/7.

[moneyrunner]

Not so honest. I refer you to the close: "As for the earnest Ivy League variety, ever eager to engage in serious debate over significant issues, they can always go write for "The West Wing."

[Kerberos]

Then there is also this line.

""If you take a group of people who never listened to talk radio before, and then look at their attitudes six months later, you'll see a clear change" reflecting the views of Mr. Limbaugh."

Which to me is another way of saying that conservatives don't know what to think until they listen to Rush. The liberal Rushbot idea.

[leadpenny]

Bump.

[fporretto]

The Times has a gift for missing the point and presenting its prejudices instead.

Conservative talk radio tends to be contentious, impassioned -- and highly interactive. Conservative hosts engage their callers, often getting back as good as they give.

Leftists cannot do this. The reasons should be obvious -- and they make utter nonsense out of the Times's contention that leftists' embrace of "diversity" is less entertaining than conservatives' "hard distinctions between right and wrong."

You will never, ever hear a leftist admit to being wrong. You will never, ever hear a leftist admit that he might not have all the answers. And you will never, ever hear a leftist concede the moral equality of anyone who disagrees with him. Of course these things don't fly in talk radio!

But don't look for any such analysis in the pages of the New York Times.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com

[Arkie2]

I notice the "fairness doctrine" popped up in this article. Rush has mentioned it a few times on his show, as in, the only way they can compete is to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Wonder if the socialists ( I've decided to stop calling them liberals ) will start a campaign to put it back in place? "The Republicans are in charge and it won't happen" you say? Well, they're patient. If the noise level about the fairness doctrine ( like the SUV chorus has ) goes up, expect it to be on the agenda the next time Dims get an opportunity.

[CurlyDave]

There are very few liberal talk radio hosts because of their poor ratings. The poor ratings come from the fact that there are very few liberal talk radio listeners.

Why is this? Very simple, most people who listen to talk radio do this in their car during the commute. What distinguishes these people from others?

They all have a job and they all pay taxes. Otherwise they would not be commuting.

These people are the backbone of America. We are the ones who actually go out and work for a living, producing something of value for the rest of the country.

[thedilg]

"The NYT -- liberal "Newspaper of Record" -- whines about conservative control of the radio airwaves. Pardon the irony."

The irony is all persuasive. The liberals also own the universities, hollywood, almost all national newspapers and the mainstream TV, a huge proportion of the think tanks, most of the big philanthrophic organizations. They have a powerful nexus with the UN. They also own the grammar and high school educational systems.I could continue, but that is enough. It is their common strategy, accuse the others of doing what you do.

I believe that this is the prelude to put a muzzle on talk radio.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[johnnyb93]

It is pretty easy to understand why conservatives rule the airwaves. They are consistent in their views and passionate in their approach. Liberals, by definition, are not "true believers" as are conservatives. They, by definition, are open to change and are, as so many in this forum describe them, "meally mouthed". They are more willing to admit they do not have any answers and the typical commuter in traffic wants answers, not questions. Liberals, by nature, think that there is a better way to do things, while conservatives, in general, believe that there is little to improve on the traditional ways, so new things must be assaulted with passion. It makes better radio.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is an almost-correct article from the New York Times. It notes that conservatives are successful on air, but liberals are not. It notes that this is a market-driven medium, so success depends solely and immediately on drawing and keeping an audience.

The one glaring error is the quote from the so-called expert that "liberals" are too "tolerant of differing viewpoints" to develop the hard edge that conservatives use to succeed. Obviously this maroon has never listened to the persistent bias of the Rt. Rev. Jesse Jackson on "Both Sides." Obviously this fool has never listened to a single sentence of the venom that has poured out of the mouth of James Carville for 11 years now.

The article is good, except for its bottom line. Liberals have a "yap gap" because the audience doesn't like them or their ideas. That's the truth. But like many truths in America today, it is one the Times is afraid to face, or print.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Enrons Are Everywhere" Also posted on FR.

Click for latest book, "to Restore Trust in America"

[CurlyDave]

conservatives don't know what to think until they listen to Rush

The alternative explanation is that after listening to a few months of sound reasoning and sensible opinions, people tend to agree with the opinions presented.

[PaulJ]

...the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values.

What a crock! That is why liberal radio hosts can't make it?? It's such a typical meaningless bunch of words that explains nothing.

Conservative radio works because conservatives like ideas. Liberals prefer emotion and feel good platitudes.Symbolism over substance. And that type of thing just doesn't make for good radio.

[canuck_conservative]

"...they can always go write for "The West Wing."

Sure, but you have to bring your own supply of magic mushrooms.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Some years ago, 50,000 watt WHO radio in Des Moines featured a liberal woman (an Austrailian, I think)as a mid-morning talker. She had to beg for callers.

[martin_fierro]

As long as network sitcoms, mainstream movies, public radio and some major newspapers are identified with liberal views about sex, family and tattoos, conservatives can cast themselves as outsiders, no matter who is in the White House...,

Talk about ignoring the elephant in the living room.

I love how the NYT tiptoes around actually naming those newspapers.

It also words the sentence in the passive voice: "Those newspapers are identified with liberal views (not that there's any truth to that)."

[jtcribbs]

Nobody's ever heard of NPR?

[my right]

You are absolutely right, I believe there is an agenda here that is interwoven with what Clinton, Gore, Daschle and I'm surprised, John McCain hasn't joined in yet in saying. I'm not much of a conspiracy adherent but I smell something here.

[tet68]

Ah, the "Fairness doctrine" I remember when that was in place. What a mishmash of pap we received then. If anything
defines liberal enforced "diversity" that does.
I would venture to say that instituting the FD again will
only cause clandestine talk radio to spring up across the land. We have the technology.

Here is a horror to think about, FreeRepublic on FD.

[eno_]

Nobody's ever heard of NPR?

Nonfat pork rinds?

[thucydides]

Note the comment that Ivy Leaguers earnest about the serious discussion of issues would turn to the rigidly ideological left wing show "West Wing." Now there is a great deal of serious consideration of issues on Limbaugh, and his demographic is above average in income and education. This "Ivy Leaguer" comment is really an insinuation that Limbaugh's audience is poorly educated, or not interested in the serious discussion of issues, which is a lie. By the way, I am one of those "Ivy Leaguers," with undergraduate and doctoral level degrees, and enjoy Rush's show enormously. And I would never watch "West Wing:" too cliched, predictable, and boring.

[Kerberos]

"The alternative explanation is that after listening to a few months of sound reasoning and sensible opinions, people tend to agree with the opinions presented. "

Yeah but somehow I don't think that is what is being promoted here.

[Tacis]

This is a silly argument.

The ultra-liberal, extremist left wingers can make it in a market driven presentation of ideas because they are genetically incapable. Liberals/democrats are liars! Pure and simple, they will always revert to dishonesty. They will hue to the party line no matter what the facts are and will never dispute the left most leader.

Willie is the perfect example. The White House sewer instructed the lefties to lie and they all did. It was a loyalty thing with them. The lefties on CNN, Clift, the fat black pig, all the other lefties did what they were told. To have done otherwise would have meant being labeled "revisionist" or what ever term the communists used for failing to be doctrinally pure. That is what lefties do.

The most vicious conservative commentators during the Willie filth and corruption were Leno and Letterman. They did what all talk radio folks do, simply talk about the obvious. There was nothing partisan about Streisand's idiocy, Belafonte's stupity, the great democrat joy over Wellstone's, Dashole obstructionism, and Leahy's lie. These were facts. You listen to the talk radio guy who talks about these circumstances in an interesting or amusing way. You know the left winger will lie!

[Shenandoah]

Liberals would never be able to survive a talk show because they would have to open themselves up to debate, and their positions would quickly fall apart under scrutiny.

[ricpic]

And all these years I thought that what I was hearing from liberals was gobbledeegook.
Turns out their message is too subtle for me to get my tiny peasant mind around.
Ah'll jis' have ta try harder ah giss. Duhuh.

[Alberta's Child]

Having listened to talk radio in New York for some time and heard the whole variety of talk radio hosts over the years, I've reached a simple conclusion about why conservatives are so much more successful in this medium. The answer is two-fold:

1. Conservatives connect with listeners because they approach most issues as if their position is completely logical. When someone on the radio says, "Tax cuts are good," "Affirmative action is blatant racial discrimination," or "Illegal immigration is bad," a listener knows that he agrees with the host on some very basic principles that are as obvious as knowing that 2 + 2 = 4. Liberals by definition, on the other hand, take such idiotic positions on issues like these that it doesn't take more than a few minutes for a listener to realize that he is listening to someone whose point of view does not work in the real world.

1. Conservatives connect with listeners because they bring such a good sense of humor to their shows. This, in my opinion, is what makes Rush Limbaugh the best talk radio host in the country. The combination of a light-hearted approach and the self-certainty I described in Item #1 makes a conservative talk radio show very entertaining. There is no need for a conservative radio host to rant about liberals -- he can simply point out that Al Gore is such a dope because he truly believes that 2 + 2 = 5.

LIberals by definition cannot be entertaining because most of their positions are so illogical that they must spend too much time either trying to rationalize them or complaining about anyone who opposes them.

[July 4th]

Heard on more than 600 stations, he reaches about 14.5 million listeners each week, according to an analysis of Arbitron ratings by Talkers magazine. Mr. Hannity, a rising second, reaches about 10 million. "That's not a mass audience when compared to other media," Mr. Harrison said.

They've got far more listeners than most cable channels have viewers. (Ahem...MSNBC...I'm looking in your direction...)

[BeAllYouCanBe]

NPR

I call it National Proletariat Radio.

It is actually more left-winged than Pravda in the old Soviet Union days. It is strange but they seem to have many segments about disadvantaged "poor people" in many African/Asian countries and their solution is always the United Nations involvement and increased UN funding. As if taxpayer money grows on trees – BUT to them taxpayer money is free and infinite supply.

[Reactionary]

In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."

And mealy-mouthed translates into dishonest among ordinary people. Why? Because ordinary people understand that vague language is misleading. Paraphrasing Orwell, the need for euphemism in political discourse belies the desire to subvert the truth.

Liberals are masters of euphemism, and one gets the distinct impression that they lack the desire to make themselves clear because their motives are not what they say they are.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"LIberals by definition cannot be entertaining"

Most liberal shows do revert to gutteral humor. In the San Francisco there is an afternoon drive-time show where two goofy 20-somethings talk about variants of sex and bathroom behavior. They do touch social issuse but only to demonize Republicans. One time I listened they when they were "baptizing" a person with the Roman Catholic liturgy in a toilet -- then they flushed. (I got sick and outraged.)

In afternoon drive-time I listen to Savage who is much more entertaining than Rush.

[SKI NOW]

"...(S)aid Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University. Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values."

Perhaps this clymer at Syracure University can tell us about the diversity offered up to conservatives on college campuses. Where conservative publications are stolen and conservatve speakers are routinely shouted down or are not even allowed to speak.

[Bob Mc]

"Because ordinary people understand that vague language is misleading."

"Depends on the meaning of is, is."

[Paladin2]

There are at least two NPR shows (the Diane Rehm Show and Talk of the Nation) that seem to fit the general description of talk radio.

They are syndicated (only to NPR stations AFAIK).

They don't seem to have any shortage of 'Rats calling in.

They seem to be financially successful.

Apparently the 'Rat leadership doesn't listen to them though as Clinton/Gore/Daschle don't recognize the shows' existence.

[pepsionice]

Its safe to say that most folks really don't want to hear a far left-wing Calfornia talking liberal on the radio. And thats the problem. If democrats understood this and simply found some 'John-boy' type from Virginia, who was middle of the road democrat...who had a simple environmental talk...who was pro-union but also understood the relationship of the economy to good business...who was supportive of families and communities...who didn't constantly push for pro-homosexual stances...who could talk sports or current events on occassion...and actually was intelligent...then they could take on Rush and the current crowd. But they haven't found this kinda person. The person exists...and there are probably 100s like him out there...but the left simply doesn't want that type of Democrat to be the speaker of the party...too centralist...too family-oriented...weak environmental double-talk...etc. So...for the time being...Rush is it. And you can't play in the major leagues unless you have the firepower to do it.

[TonyRo76]

Conservative talk radio is successful for two BIG (but not the only) reasons:

1. Guys like Rush, Sean and others truly validate what most real people think, rather than parroting the canned crap that mainstream media elites want to feed us.

2. Liberals on the radio are so freakin' booooorrrii...z-z-z-zzzzzz... /Huh?!/ Oh, sorry...I'm awake! Anyway, conservative hosts engage listeners in a way that's funny and entertaining as well as informative. We actually have fun being right!

(Ahem...MSNBC...I'm looking in your direction...)

Should we start an MSNBC death watch sortof like the one we've got going for Salon?

[sinkspur]

They seem to be financially successful.

The only way that NPR can be said to be "financially successful" is that it is subsidized by the taxpayers.

Isn't that interesting? The only way liberals can maintain a nationwide syndication for their views is to ride the backs of American taxpayers!

[litehaus]

How bout this?

Liberals need pictures(TV,Natl Enq etc)

Conservatives can understand words(radio,books w/o pics)

Need I say more..has something 2 do with IQ maybe?

[orfisher]

Radio is entertainment, pure and simple. Conservative radio speaks to the choir. I have been conservative for as long as I can remember and personally I find Rush a bore.

[The Old Hoosier]

Well, I first identified with conservatism by listening to Rush. I think it's mostly because I'd never thought about those issues before, but a knowledgeable voice can do a lot of good in solidifying what's already there.

[irv]

Every analysis on this thread overlooks one point: Liberals listen to Rush (and others Conservatives) too.

I have a friend who is quite liberal. She listens to Rush. He drives her crazy - she disagrees strongly with almost everything he believes (and everything I believe) but she listens.

I believe one reason his opinions don't drive her away is that he is polite even to people who disagree with him. Liberals, OTOH, tend to insult those who disagree with them (and their humor tends to be either crude or mean). They drive away everyone who doesn't agree, and wind up with lower ratings.

[Kerberos]

"Radio is entertainment, pure and simple. Conservative radio speaks to the choir. I have been conservative for as long as I can remember and personally I find Rush a bore."

And to each his own, that's the great thing about living in a country that tries to practice the principles of freedom. If you don't like Rush, then you don't have to listen to him.

Radio does have a certain amount of entertainment value to it but it is also a media that can convey useful information. One of the reasons I listen to Rush is because I like the entertainment value that he has to offer. I particularly like the environmental update theme song that has a blues band with a chainsaw doing the lead. I've got to get a copy of that to send to an old high school friend who since high school has moved to Oregon and adopted many environmental views. I'm sure she will not appreciate it.

The name of the game in radio, and or TV for that matter is numbers. So yes, to a certain degree Rush probably does preach to the choir as you say, in that his how he keeps his numbers up. But at the same time he has consistently exhibited a very well defined set of critical analysis skills that I find interesting. Although I might not always agree with his conclusions, he does have a logical and reasoned approached as to how he arrives at them. Not an emotional tirade that usually tends to be void of reason that many commentators have.

That is why I listen, to be both entertained and informed and find different ways to think about various issues.

[Eric Esot]

Why the Right Rules the Radio Waves

It’s not about conservative or liberal – it’s about the message and how successfully debated the message can be in it’s chosen media outlet.

As an example - If one where to say that it is more important to save the hump back whale than it is to protect the American people from terror; on television or in print, that message would go unchallenged; but on radio, where the public has access, that message would be challenged and commonsense would beat out the rhetoric.

[Anticommie]

As Mr. Clinton said in a speech last week, referring to a range of conservative media: "They have a destruction machine. We don't have a destruction machine."

You ARE (IS) a destruction machine, also you are a PERSONAL DESTRUCTION machine.