NYC TALKRADIO RATINGS
JULY-SEPT, SUMMER 2006
HOST'S PEAK HOURAGES 12+
LIMBAUGH 342,000
HANNITY 322,900
CURTS/KUBY 318,600
IMUS 279,600
GAMBLING 257,100
LEVIN 245,700
OPIE/ANTHONY 197,100
SAVAGE 175,600
O'REILLY 157,800
INGRAHAM 127,600
AL FRANKEN 122,300
RANDI RHOADS 115,300
LIONEL 86,700
Okay, smart liberals...explain to me how this happens....
We have Ron on here giving conspiracy theories about why liberals fail in talk radio...So, we have a very, very liberal city, yet conservatives still rule...why is that?
The answers given here are correct...
1. The entire media is liberal, so anyone who thinks that way can go anywhere to get their point of view represented...conservatives have to go to talk radio...
2. liberal emotional rants are not interesting...
If I am wrong tell me how liberals can not do well even in a very very very liberal city?????
Posts
9 comments:
I was right you didnt read anything I wrote. I didn't postulate any conspiracy theories here. I said that liberals aren't use to getting their information in this way so they have used other ways to get their information beyond radio. It has not yet become a habit like the long standing conservative programs. I have also said that the conservative programs are on the big wattage and regional(lower end of the dial) while the liberal talkers(the few there are) by in large are on the lower wattage and local(higher end of the dial) stations. Rush and Hannity and Ingraham are on a 50 thousand watt station at 770 on the dial while air america-(wlib) was 10 thousand day and 30 thousand night on 1190. They had far fewer people in the metro area and beyond as a potential audience. Again I say, look at the sports stations. They are largely in the same boat with the same or worse ratings in most markets with a far longer history to build upon.
That said yes more righists listen to radio for their information. I would say it is out of a habit that has not been developed in the liberal community rather than and beating of the "liberal media" conspiracy.
Is that smart enough for you?
Ron...That has to be one of the most silly posts I've ever read. Libs base their opinions on emotion...Conservatives base their opinion on facts and logic.
Let me ask you this. The markets are at an all time high. The deficit is shrinking. Wanna-be Speaker Pelosi has vowed to rescind the Bush tax cuts which has created this economic situation.
Does this make sense to you or do you just want to "Tax The Rich"?
If you say "Tax The Rich" then we know EXACTLY where you stand.
Ron,
Which came first, the 50K watt stations to broadcast the message, or the message attracting listeners enough to justify putting it on the 50K watt stations? Is Howard Stern lib or con? He draws (or at least he did on standard radio) and got the good gigs. The draw comes first, then the placement. When a new guy comes on the scene, doesn't he get the crappy time slots until he proves himself? If people in the middle of the night listen in large numbers, isn't it likely that the station might try him in a better slot to see if he does as well if not better?
I don't think too many libs care enough to really dig into issues like cons do. It's not in their nature. I have a couple lib friends who do, but most of my lib friends never do. Most of my consev friends listen to at least a little talk radio.
badger, I have no idea how to relate what you said to what I said. What did I say that was so lame, you didn't even address that. You just went on a totally unrelated rant? \
Right marshall and like I said the liberal talk is NOT yet established. It is new. Liberals are not in the habit of getting their information this way and the general public has not heard them enough to make a decision on wheather they prefer them or not. This kind of loyalty takes time to build. Howard Stern didnt do it in a year or two, neither did Rush Limbaugh. Conservative radio is well and long established. This is exactly a part of the point I was trying to make. Liberals may never choose this medium as a part of their "community".
Most of the liberals I know dig deeply into the issues. Quite often they disagree on a number of issues(why the right thinks they have no core-as a group they dont, they are independent thinkers) and are more than happy to debate with each other and the right.
Most liberals I know dig into the issues far more than the conservatives I know. Most of the rightists i know just repeat talk radio which I feel is one disadvantage to the overwhelming talk radio"edge"..be it fact or not you all sound the same to those who are uncommitted or unconvinced in the conservative cause. Talk radio just reenforces this lockstep thing with those people..be it true or not.
Part of the problem with liberal radio is this.
One, it takes more than ideology to make talking on the radio for several hours work. It takes a specific skillset appropriate for the medium. Al Franken's Limbaugh book, for example, is hilarious, but his presence on the air was an absolute snooze.
Secondly, it is difficult for the Democrats to get substantive without alienating the broader audience. Bumper-sticker soundbites work good on T.V., but if they were to talk in detail about their ideology, Democrats would repulse most of the country. When Democrats talk about "two Americas" they really mean the bourgeois and the proletariat; when Democrats talk about no war for oil they're referring to Leninist theories of imperialism; when they ask about the root causes of terrorism Democrats are prompting Marxist economic determinism as an answer; when they talk about corporate greed they're really pushing for the government to take from those according to their ability and giving to those according to their need; when they talk about the ruling class brainwashing stupid rednecks to vote against their economic interest, they're referring to Marxist theories of false consciousness --- no one wants to hear this Soviet crap.
Democrats can't be who they are, so their capacity to engage in substantive discussion of their socialist agenda is limited in this regard. At best, they can be clear what they're against, but as to what they're for, they need to be sloganish as possible to keep gullible people like Jim in the dark.
Ron,
Like you, most liberals I know are as shallow as the thickness of your average loose leaf paper page. They do not reason, they scream their emotions and when confonted with facts and reason, they scream their emotional nonsense even louder. You are nothing different. All you did here was scream louder.
Ron,
If you please, I'd like you to provide two or three examples that illustrate your point about libs digging deeper and cons parroting any talk radio hosts. I'd counter by saying that the cons agree with the points and probably did before they heard it on the radio. That hardly proves they are without the capacity to reason. On the contrary, more often than not the fact that they say the same as what is heard on conserv talk radio is that they've already come to those conclusions on their own. Many of the positions your average conservative will take is hard to debate because it's so damned obvious. Libs SEEM like they're deep thinkers due to the necessity of rationalizing their positions. I say the sky is blue and ask only that you look up to see it's true. The lib must come up with a good tale in order to convince one otherwise. It is so with most lib viewpoints, particularly on social issues.
As you tell of your experiences in radio, do you think time is the only way to see lib radio expand to equal conservative radio, or do you think there's other ways. It would seem to me, that despite our agreement that it takes time to get an audience, I would think that libs have an edge by having something to counter, that being the existing conservative sources. The right had newsprint and the major television news outlets to counter and they are of a different genre. I think that dynamic helped Fox News take off. It had the immediate comparison possibilities, that is one TV show vs another. In talk radio, there wasn't truly that type of talk radio. There were at best, local stations who might have had night time issues talk, but nothing like Limbaugh. His was somewhat pioneer-like in it's growth, but his message I believe, appealed more than his personality or entertainment side. So now that he and those who followed have created the genre, I would think it easier for libs to provide a counter, and it's been tried, but they never seem to garner the numbers. What say you?
Here's an interesting liberal "rant".
I can give you a great example, Marshall:
A few weeks ago Jason, I think it was, posted a comment wherein he ranted about the so-called myth of recycling. The general idea was that the benefits of recycling were baloney and that it was ludicrous for the government to promote it.
I had never heard anything about this before so I did some "digging." I Googled it and found that almost all references supporting the "myths" came from a single article by a man named Daniel Benjamin who apparently gets funding from the same group that put out the anti-global warming ads for the oil companies.
On the other hand, there exist multiple pages on the net with counter arguments exposing the anti-recylcing agenda backed by packaging, waste disposal and landfill interests.
So Jason presented a bogus hit piece cited by many right wing sources and I dug into the facts to expose it.
Here's another one. Many of you came out reciting the Republic talking points about North Korea's supposed nuclear capability was all Clinton's fault. I'm willing to bet that NONE of you dug into any of the recent history of the US/NK relations to learn about what the Agreed Framework was all about, how it came to be, how it was working right up until the time Bush undermined it by withdrawing from it. 1996-2002 under the Agreed Framework: No NK nukes. 2002 Bush withdraws: 4 years later...NK nukes.
This comes from research, you know, digging. Not from talking points.
Is two enough for tonight?
Post a Comment