August 21, 2007

"New left-wing radio network that plans to appeal to women listeners and counter the dominance of conservative talk radio."

Dominance uncountered. GreenStone, the Gloria Steinem-Jane Fonda radio network folds after less than one year.

67 comments:

Slim999 said...

"[Steinem] also said talk radio was "overbalanced toward the ultra-right.”

With stunning insight such as this, is there any wonder it failed?

Exactly how can something be "overbalanced" if it leans one way.

Would such a thing not be overly unbalanced?

But here's the thing: People don't listen to Rush Limbaugh because he's a conservative Republican spouting the party line. They listen to him because they agree with most of his points of view - which quite frequently diverge from the party line.

There's a subtle difference there which the lefty partisans just cannot and never will be able to comprehend.

They march in lockstep, and so think must also be doing that. But it isn't so. If you want independent critical thought, you find it in conservative talk ... not Steinem.

Hoosier Daddy said...

This is why many on the left want the Fairness Doctrine. If you can't compete with the right in the marketplace, get a government mandate to do it.

One has to wonder with so much BSD and how the country is so polarized between left and right, you'd think one of these lefty talk shows would make it.

Pogo said...

Fonda and O'Donnell badly misjudged the desire for soft-left political radio (a market already saturated by NPR), by confusing the presence of Rush with dominance in the media. Most people know that the NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, Mpls StarTribune, Seattle PI, LATimes, AP, Reuters, BBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC swing left.

It's like Jane and Rosie and Gloria came in at the end of a hot dog eating contest and asked, "Who wants more?"

But far worse than this is how they treated the women working for them:
"According to two new reports, the Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Rosie O'Donnell- backed outfit appears ready to ditch its staff without providing severance payments or offering other assistance." How do they explain that? By denying it.

As for returning to the 1970s when leftism owned all broadcast media, the only hope they have is by government takeover of the airwaves a la Venezuela, by reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (an Orwellian phrase).

Theo Boehm said...

Another reason people listen to Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts, such as Michael Graham and Laura Ingraham, to name a couple we get here in Boston, is because they're entertaining.  Even if they didn't talk about politics, many of the right-wingers are simply good at radio.

As an old Jean Shepherd fan, Althouse has made this point as well.  Limbaugh is something of an heir to Jean Shepherd, although Shepherd never said a thing about politics.  Limbaugh could have made a career in radio if he had done the same thing.  Michael Graham doesn't talk about politics all the time, and he can be screamingly funny when he doesn't.  In fact, as someone who disagrees with a lot of his political conclusions, I find his funniest bits are when he isn't trying to hump some political topic de jour.

I'm sorry to say that there are very few left-wing political entertainers anymore.  Most of them are forced, didactic, and often just embarrassing.  Where is Mort Sahl when we need him?

What I'd really like to have is a Lenny Bruce for these times, but I know that is asking too much.

The Drill SGT said...

Pogo already said it, but I came to post it, so I will :)

The reason their network failed is because the "Talk Lefty" market only has room for one network and it's called NPR.

and of course it is subsidized by the Feds so a private Lefty network has a second problem.

Andrew said...

This is the second “liberal” radio network to tank in recent memory. I agree with the gentleman above who recognizes Limbaugh’s gift for humor and parody. So much of Air America’s daily fare was overwrought sanctimonious preaching that any enjoyment was accidental.

Additionally, it’s hard to take the fairness doctrine seriously when liberalism has a publicly funded 24-hour radio network called NPR. If and when the democrats succeed in promoting censorship in the name of “fairness” I’ll be on the phone demanding that NPR and PBS both lose all federal funding.

If liberals want a truly level playing field then let’s start by removing the taxpayer funded life-support system that keeps NPR and PBS on the air.

hdhouse said...

Boys and girls its all about clearances and the cash machine. Rush stays on the air because his cost per station to clear his show is very low. He buys station time and shares revenue. The fact is that he established himself in this format and a look the other way congress did away with fairness and he got his clearances and now generates the requisite cash to sustain. He is not a world beater in revenue...thats Imus and Stern...but he fills up the mid-day with a profit and that is all that matters.

That the left wing can't get traction on radio isn't a matter of the "left wing" but more a matter of clearances and establishment. You can actually look at the ratings and figure this out but don't read too much into it...it is a $ thing first and foremost.

P. Rich said...

As soon as the loony Left ventures into a free market, its glaring lack of intellect and creative imagination dooms it do an early demise. This makes a positive statement about the American people that Lefty pols don't want to hear, so their solution is to snuff out the free market.

Dem economic theory, compliments of President Reagan:

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Pogo said...

Re: "more a matter of clearances and establishment"

That is, no one wanted to listen to Jane's radio bleatings. I wonder why, if not their material and lack of entertainment value?

jane said...

I'm hurt, Pogo.

Pogo said...

Hurt?

jane said...

Couldn't we just call her Fonda? Or that other Jane?

Fen said...

Most people know that the NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Globe, Mpls StarTribune, Seattle PI, LATimes, AP, Reuters, BBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC swing left.

Exactly. This is what the left-wing talk radio people don't understand: there's not a market for them, the MSM already fills that need.

Conservatives started AM talk radio because their views were not fairly represented by the networks, they needed a parralel venue to express themselves and exchange ideas. Talk radio exists as an alternative to the Left-biased MSM, to break that monopoly of information brokers.

David said...

The people who are in their cars for any length of time between 12 and 3 are middle-class, middle-aged, largely male and largely white. They tend to be salesmen, small business owners or work in the trades. The most successful radio in the time slot is entertaining conservative politics and sports talk radio.

How shocking.

George said...

Did anyone else hear the excruciating 50-minute interview last week on "Fresh Air" with Jane's brother, Peter? The man was so boring that his description of how he shot himself as a child put me to sleep.

And don't get me started about yesterday's NPR obituary of "joybubbles," the blind telephone storyline phonephreaking ur-geek.....

rdkraus said...

David

The Liberals aren't exactly lighting it up in the other time slots either.

knoxwhirled said...

the dominance of conservative talk radio

Convenient choice of words. What they are really talking about is the popularity of conservative talk radio, but that doesn't have quite the same nefarious ring to it.

Pogo said...

jane,
Oog. You're right. That was unfair.

How about UnFonda?

Hoosier Daddy said...

hdhouse said but he fills up the mid-day with a profit and that is all that matters.

No kidding. Maybe he makes that profit because 20 million people listen to him and advertisers pay good money for a slot during his show.

That the left wing can't get traction on radio isn't
a matter of the "left wing" but more a matter of clearances and establishment.


Help me out here cause this makes no sense. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if no one listens to them, its a matter of 'clearances and establishment'. Well if the Left can't 'establish' an audience, maybe, just maybe it has something to do with thier message?

And what about Sean, Laura, Savage, Jeff Beck, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller. All of these guys rake in good sized audiences yet other than a government subsidized NPR, the Left can't keep a station on life support beyond one year.

hdhouse said...

Fen said...
"Talk radio exists as an alternative to the Left-biased MSM, to break that monopoly of information brokers."

And yet another display of abysmal ignorance of the real world.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Rush frequently makes the point that he is an entertainer first, and a political activist second. No wonder that he is much more engaging to listen to than a bunch of screaching feminists.

I am not sure what is my favorite part of Rush's show over the years. I have enjoyed the singing parodies, like "I am a philanderer" about Ted Kennedy sung to the tune of "Wanderer". Or, possibly, the SUV update, when news reports have SUVs driving themselves into all sorts of interesting situations.

I can, and do, find edgy conservative talk radio. But I am rarely angry enough to listen to it very long. So, when I am killing time in the car, driving somewhere during the day, I most often end up back listening to shows where I can get a laugh.

hdhouse said...

Hoosier Daddy said: "Laura, Savage, Jeff Beck, Jerry Doyle, Dennis Miller. All of these guys rake in good sized audiences yet other than a government subsidized NPR, the Left can't keep a station on life support beyond one year.'

AHHH NO THEY DON'T. Sean is the minor exception but he was launched by ABC Radio (MSM remember????) into 300 plus stations out of the gate.

If you carefully look...and that is beyond you but bear with me...these are sequential programs on almost all the coverage stations...the audience doesn't move the dial....Laura's audience is spill from Savage...etc. It shows up in almost all the Arbitron reports.

if you know something then write about it. if you know nothing, Hoosier Daddy, keep your trap shut.

SteveR said...

Jeff Beck does conservative talk radio?

Bruce Hayden said...

I have heard liberals spout similar stuff to what we are hearing from hdhouse here, that the only thing keeping liberal talk radio from flourishing are structural problems.

But that ignores that these conservative talk show hosts mostly build their station networks one station at a time. They don't wake up one day and all of a sudden are making oodles of money. Rather, they work their way up over an extended period of time (ok, Hannity and O'Reilly were able to leverage their TV audiences into radio audiences, but I consider them the exception).

The structural problem is that I scan the radio waves or check the Internet when I am driving through other cities, looking for shows that I know I like, like Rush's. So, yes, these women didn't have that. But if they had put out a decent product that people really really liked, they might have. They didn't.

Getting back to structural issues - I think that the alleged Fairness Doctrine is just another example of liberals trying to override the market through government action. After all, people, esp. really smart people like them, should be better than the markets at figuring out this sort of thing.

Original Mike said...

I stopped listening to Air America because the programs left me with an overwhelming urge to slit my wrists.

Fen said...

Fen: "Talk radio exists as an alternative to the Left-biased MSM, to break that monopoly of information brokers."

hdhouse: And yet another display of abysmal ignorance of the real world.

No hdhouse, fall back on your petty insults all you want, but its a fact: conservatives were shut out of the MSM and flocked to AM talk radio as a parallel venue to express their ideas.

Thats why people like Rush were so successful - conservatives did not feel their views were fairly represented by the MSM and so were hungry for any format that did so.

Liberals don't have the same need. Their views are fairly addressed by the MSM. The market for Leftist talk radio is not the same, thats why they keep failing at it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Hdhouse is right that to some extent, the conservative talk shows are consecutive or serial. You know that some stations are going to play mostly non-stop conservative talk shows.

But let me suggest that this is also often not the case. In Colorado here, 850 KOA, the 50kw radio station, with a range, late at night, of supposedly 38 states, Canada and Mexico, plays Mike Rosen for three hours before noon, and Rush for three hours after noon. Mike is somewhat funny, very articulate, and is reliably conservative. But before that, you have the light morning drive fluff for three or four hours, and after Rush, you have four hours of sports talk by local sports celeb Dave Logan. Rosen and Limbaugh are sitting there in the middle on the most powerful station in a several state region because they pull audiences. Dave Logan then has his four hour sports talk show because he is one of the best known sports announcers in Colorado (local boy who did ok in pro football, etc.) I should note that though I have friends who knew Logan well in HS (he was 3 years behind me), I never listen to his show.

That is one of the things that the liberals who whine about structural issues ignore - that, yes, Rush has an awful lot of stations, but more importantly for his ratings, he has a lot of the really big stations, the ones that don't do continuous conservative talk, but rather pick the most successful shows for a given time slot, with the scheduling often varying around the clock.

Indeed, I would suggest that it is the weaker stations that tend to run continuous conservative (or liberal) talk radio.

Hoosier Daddy said...

hdhouse saidIf you carefully look...and that is beyond you but bear with me...these are sequential programs on almost all the coverage stations...the audience doesn't move the dial....Laura's audience is spill from Savage...etc. It shows up in almost all the Arbitron reports.

So what is your pointhouse? The audience doesn't move the dial because there is some diabolical force keeping them tuned in? If Laura is getting spillover then that means people obviously want to listen to what she says. I mean is that a completely alien concept to you? If no one was tuning in to Laura et al, how long do you think they'll last?

if you know something then write about it. if you know nothing, Hoosier Daddy, keep your trap shut.

hdhouse, why are you such a bitter man? Did your mom or dad not give you much attention? I posed a legitimate question and all you did was act like a snippy kid. Maybe you should look at yourself as a prime example of why left talk radio doesn't work. Rather than rationally discuss something, turn to rudeness and invective.

Too bad we can't clone Cyrus. He at least can hold an intelligent conversation.

Fen said...

Bruce: I think that the alleged Fairness Doctrine is just another example of liberals trying to override the market through government action.

It is. If they wanted the Fairness Doctrine to be truly "fair", they would apply a similar law to the networks and cable. If they did so, there would be no need for conservative talk radio.

But they never will. Because the Fairness Doctrine is all about Leftist facists trying to control free speech they don't like. They know that AM stations will lose listeners and revenue if forced to host an equal amount of Air America stuff. So its really not about equal time, its about shutting down a venue they can't compete in.

Original Mike said...

Maybe you should look at yourself as a prime example of why left talk radio doesn't work. Rather than rationally discuss something, turn to rudeness and invective.

He does kind of remind me of Randi Rhodes.

jane said...

GreenStone claimed it would deliver "de-politicized, de-polarized talk radio by women hosts for female listeners”

What a marketable idea- aural cardboard for dumb, sensitive women who like to listen to other women talk about tofu, recycling and how badly they’re treated by men, society, and their gynocologists.

Steinem said it would offer an alternative to current radio talk, which she described as "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated.”

Well, they got that part right. Females don’t argue to the death, do they?

Synova said...

Women hosts for female listeners would probably do fabulously on a Christian network targeting stay at home mothers with inspirational messages interspersed with praise music unlikely to wake up napping children.

I'm betting this isn't what they tried to do.

I don't even listen to music if I'm doing something that requires creative mental effort (writing, generally) though music without lyrics or with lyrics in a language I can't understand is possible. I can't listen to talk radio and do anything at all... except, perhaps, shingle the garage.

Not everyone is ADD like I am. I had a friend who left the television on because she liked voices in the house... it made me nuts to walk through her door. If I hear voices I have to try to understand them (except for foreign languages which I can tune out... except for Dutch, which sounds like English for some reason.) On the other hand, I don't think I'm that strange either and doubt that most women could do the work they do while listening to talk radio without being distracted. (I do think most people could listen to music, however.)

I could only listen to talk radio if I could *listen* to talk radio.

And if I was in a situation where I could *listen* to talk radio, I can't imagine wanting to listen to feminist, even of a soft and cuddly nature, talk radio. I probably wouldn't want to listen to the inspirational programs either. The fact that something is marketed for women is the strongest indicator that I'm not going to enjoy it at all.

hdhouse said...

Bruce Hayden said...
"But that ignores that these conservative talk show hosts mostly build their station networks one station at a time"

NO THEY DON'T. They buy into or work through syndicated networks.

what is it about FACT that stumps you rightwing jerks?

Original Mike said...

OK, everybody. House's new nickname is "Randi".

andthenblammo! said...

"The Unamazing Randi"?

SteveR said...

what is it about FACT that stumps you rightwing jerks?

The jerk store is running out of rightwingers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

OK, everybody. House's new nickname is "Randi".

He simply cannot admit that leftwing talk radio doesn't survive in the market. Instead, he rants on and on about how Sean, Rush et, al. 'establish' themselves and how the networks run conservative talk in 'sequence' as if that somehow explains how left wing talk can't make it.

But it doesn't require much thought or effort to call someone a jerk.

I don't know about you but if I am listening to classic rock and the station then decides to go with 3 hours of continuous rap, I switch the dial.

David said...

rdkraus: NPR does fine. But even NPR's audience is predominately middle-class middle-aged men. Heck, 29% of NPR's news audience self-identifies as conservative or very conservative, basically the same as the number that identifies as liberal or very liberal (31%).

(Source for the NPR audience statistics.)

knoxwhirled said...

OK, I'm trying to follow hd's thesis. Conservative talk radio is successful because:

1. They simply "buy station time," get "clearances;" they "share revenue" and "get established." (Unfair. Congress shouldn't allow it!)

2. Conservative talk is on the radio in the middle of the day. Only white men listen to the radio in the middle of the day. All white men are conservative, natch.

3. Every conservative show follows another conservative show. Hold on a minute: NONE are actually popular...they all just get "spillover" audiences from the previous show.

4. Conservative listeners aren't physically capable of changing the station. (I have to say, this is quite a revelation. I mean, I seem to remember changing my radio station... I'm pretty sure I've even turned off the radio at times... even when listening to Dennis Miller. I must be mistaken. Maybe I'm STILL LISTENING NOW and just not aware of it.)

5. Conservative shows are released on whole bunches of stations at once. Therefore they *automatically* get audiences and high ratings. (I think that's his point, not sure.)

to be continued, no doubt....

Roger said...

And the fundamental point HD is not addressing is this: those stations would not be running those shows is they didnt generate AND MAINTAIN audience share--HD has, in his usual warm and fuzzy way, defined how they get played initially. He has failed utterly to explain why they keep getting played.

We are all waiting HD for you insight and wisdom packaged elegantly in witty reparte.

AllenS said...

I want to hang out with all the jerks here, and, oh, I gotta go, time for Rush Limbaugh in mere minutes!

jane said...

Be involved in construction, and on site you will either have to listen to rightwing talk radio or to mariachi. I tolerate both.

rdkraus said...

David

You missed my point. The conservatives are doing in great in all the time slots, not just midday.

How do NPR's mumbers compare to the leading conservatives in each market?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Jeff Beck does conservative talk radio?


I meant Glenn Beck.

Synova said...

I don't *like* listening to Rush Limbaugh. It's something about his tone of voice because I can read his show in transcript and it's much less annoying.

I say this because I wonder how many people in this thread listen to him at all or listen to conservative talk radio at all?

Some do, I'm sure, but I'm betting that a majority do not. But that doesn't mean that just because I don't like to listen to Rush that I can't tell why he's popular or why a version of talk radio aimed at liberal women is going to be a dismal failure.

Revenant said...

Why would anyone assume that conservative views don't appeal to women? Many conservative positions, especially on social issues, are even more widely held by women than they are by men (e.g. views on prostitution and porn, or on protecting children from harmful influences).

Theo Boehm said...

jane:  I'm trying to imagine rightwing mariachi--maybe the Horst Wessel Song played by guys in sombreros?

David:  Interesting statistics.  I listen to a lot of NPR, and I fall into mushy middle somewhere between that 29 and 31%.  But, yes, I am middle-class and middle-aged.  At the rate things are going, the "middle class" part will need revision soon.

Original Mike said...

Hate to be the one to break it to you, Theo, but that "middle-aged" part is going to need revision soon enough, as well.

jane said...

Re Horst Wessel Song

Ha, Theo. In my experience, Mexican construction workers (maybe they’re documented---) are too busy with work, friends and family to be very politically oriented. I’m just grateful they pretend to understand a gringa’s Spanish and put up with my lectures to watch American TV and football.

Mariachi does sound a lot like the polka, tho’- German, Polish?

SteveR said...

Hoosier Daddy: couldn't resist the dig, we have to get some fun out of the fact that we know who he is or can accidentely use his name. Blow by Blow, great album for ending a night.

Theo Boehm said...

Mike: I know! I know!  That I expect!

Jane:  I'm always amused by how much like German oom-pah music some of those Mariachi two-steps sound.  I'm sure there are some good Producers-style jokes here, but I'm too rushed to think of any.

jane said...

Take your time, Theo.

Meanwhile, I meant to write a limerick for Pogo's UnJane but got distracted.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm trying to imagine rightwing mariachi--maybe the Horst Wessel Song played by guys in sombreros?

My God Theo I almost spit my coffee on the monitor. Hysterical.

Then again, if you watch The Three Amigos, their outfits have a certain SS/Gestapo look about them.

The Drill SGT said...

I have a solution to both the hdhouse dilemma and to Hanoi Jane's problem about what to do with Ted's bags of money.

Let Jane and Ted buy NPR and put on whatever programming they think the market wants.

win win win win

1. The taxpayers unload a radio network and cut the deficit
2. hdhouse gets a pre-built national network with a full schedule and ready made audience
3. Jane gets to broadcast programming that women will listen to
4. Ted won't have to worry about estate planning, because after having to sell the NPR off later, his estate will be smaller.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm trying to imagine rightwing mariachi--maybe the Horst Wessel Song played by guys in sombreros?

Obviously none of you have ever been to Argentina. Lots of guys running around with first names like Helmut and last names like Diaz who know all the words to the Horst Wessel.

lee david said...

If the premise and object of the Fonda show was to attract a large audience of women, the successful format is well known. It seems to be gossipy, pop-psych, emotional, soap opera type chit chat.(think Opera) If there is another format that has ever attracted a large audience of predominately women, I have never heard of it. If you want a large audience of people of both sexes, there are many successful models on display, drawing mixed audiences in varying percentages. However, negative, humorless ranting of any stripe has never been successful, and I don't wonder why. One begins to suspect that nothing would ever produce any positive response or a hint of joie de vivre from such a person. It's unpleasant and very depressing. The novelty wears off quickly.

See; Air America, LOS

lee david said...

You would have a hard time going broke if you had a corner on the market for trumpets and accordions in Germany and Mexico.

jeff said...

I think I know what the issue is. Most of us, me included, have a radio in the car or at home of portable that have those new fangled "presets" in them. hdhouse has one of the big console radios that sits in the living room with the knob missing and no one can find the pliers. (probably on the channel knob on the b&w tv) That explains the delusion that no one can change stations.
I think Rush would be most surprised to find out he actually started in a large number of markets before building up his current coverage. Learn something new every day. Personally, I listen to Bob and Tom in the morning, and Don and Mike in the afternoon. I assume both shows also spontaneously started on wide networks as well. In the middle of the night when I am traveling it's Coast to Coast with or without Art Bell. I am guessing hdhouse is a frequent listener to that show as well.

Methadras said...

Liberals and leftists are funny creatures. They fawn and moan and whisper begrudgingly about how they want things to be fair and open within the dialogue of talk radio, while appearing to be faux outraged that they couldn't corner the market on the power of talk radio's appeal to conservatives and the wholesale rejection of the liberal/leftist ideology as claptrap. Instead they make feeble appeals to resurrect the fairness doctrine to have equality of time forced down the free markets throat with the sole objective to squelch and then eventually squash talk radio, because of it's right-wing and conservative appeal, only to be left with what? Dead AM radio and getting the hammered by leftist/liberal television because that's all that left to watch or listen to and in the end have what they wanted all along, their own leftist/liberal voice without opposition.

Paddy O. said...

Maybe it's the fact LA has a great local NPR station in KPCC, but I much, much, much prefer to listen to NPR than any conservative talk radio.

And Car Talk on Saturdays? Blows everything else away.

B said...

Paddy O.,

This conservative agrees with you that KPCC is a great station (even if it is still left leaning).

But Car Talk, to this guy, is way past it's glory days. Jumped the shark about 4 -5 years ago.

On Saturday mornings, prefer Bill "Handel on the Law" on KFI. Hillarious.

hdhouse said...

The Drill SGT said...
1. The taxpayers unload a radio network and cut the deficit"

Ahhh instead of listening to "radio deliverance" (think about it Drill...its a subtle joke)? Of course you are aware that the Fed contribution to NPR is about 2% of their annual budget right? and that the ordinary citizens and businesses contribute 15 times that amount directly and another 15 times that amount locally to support this thing you hate.

2. hdhouse gets a pre-built national network with a full schedule and ready made audience"

Harris survey gives NPR the top rating in trustworthy news. All things Considered and Morning Edition are the 2nd and 3rd most listened to radio programs. hmmmm

3. Jane gets to broadcast programming that women will listen to"

Actually the audience is pretty evenly split, skews far younger than say Rush or Sean, has a far higher education demographic...shall I go on?

4. Ted won't have to worry about estate planning, because after having to sell the NPR off later, his estate will be smaller."

With the going rate for FM station licenses in US it would hardly be a bad investment.

You see, Drill, people cut you some slack due to your obvious war affiliation and head injury, but it would be helpful to the general discussion if you attempted just a modicum of fact checking before you spewed forth.

hdhouse said...

B said...
"But Car Talk, to this guy, is way past it's glory days. Jumped the shark about 4 -5 years ago."

It is interesting that car talk is in, what, its 30th year this year and still draws a couple million listeners on Saturday morning, normally the worst possible radio audience time.

hdhouse said...

Roger said...
"those stations would not be running those shows is they didnt generate AND MAINTAIN audience share--"

Well Roger take a look at Rush et al's demographic clearances and efficiencies. The flagship talk radio station in the US is WABC out of NYC. It's most efficient demographic is M65+...males over 65. That means it is the primary audience reached by the programming and "best buy" in advertising.

Lo and behold, the Rush et al best audience demographic nationally is M65+. One of the reasons you see an advertising lineup heavily represented by m65+ products is exactly these skews.

Now your premise is that these audiences are great because they listen and they obviously buy product. that is true. but you fail to comprehend that these audiences are significant but niched. they represent 20million or so souls but the major demographic is white/male/65+. that is the norm and the core. that he has them in his hip pocket is profitable and perhaps regretable but that audience isn't typical.

hdhouse said...

Methadras said...
Instead they make feeble appeals to resurrect the fairness doctrine to have equality of time forced down the free markets throat......."

perhaps my favorite post of all on here...go read it. the poster has zero idea of what the fairness doctrine was, how it was removed, how it was removed to open the gates for political/religious editorializing without opposition, etc. and how Raygun and BushI vetoed it under the guise of deregulation....and how the "free market" worked just fine with the doctrine for 25 years (established under Nixon) and that it keeps the "news" establishment from editorializing without the opposite voice so, and this is the big deal that you neo-con, neo-geo-p'rs gloss over...

WOULDN'T THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE HAVE A MUCH MORE HEIGHTENED EFFECT ON YOUR "MSM"...FORCING EQUAL TIME...while your poor Faux Noise ...because it is cable...would not have to offer the same consideration....

Isn't the hatred and fear of the fairness doctrine just a guise to keep the "other side of the story" OFF the airways your side now controls? Isn't that the game?

Roger said...

HD--of course all audiences are niched. That is most certainly a blinding flash of the obvious. I would not expect 20 somethings to be listening to politically oriented talk radio; nor 20 something black audiences. Here's the point that I am sure you could agree with: Liberal talk radio has crashed because whatever niche demographic it appeals is not profitable for advertisers. That M65 plus audience you cite is significant not only because it is profitable--it also votes regularly and has quite a bit of political clout.

And BTW: when you drop the silly name calling and juvenile ad hominems, you make a lot of sense and have a lot to offer this forum. Too bad you can't restrain your inner asshole.

From Inwood said...

You listed, in a previous thread, three good reasons why this 2007 Loony-Leftist, Stepford Wives’, all PC Liberal stuff, all the time didn’t work:


Weirdo, Boring, Dumb.