Asymmetrical Information

There's no liberal coutnerpart of a good reason: liberals don't listen to talk radio that much. Overall liberals are more educated than conservatives. Hence, we listen to NPR. We'd rather hear another educated person tell us about something than just listen to some loudmouth down the street vent.

This radio station won't last past the presidential election.

"First, I've never understood why there's no liberal counterpart to Rush"

Have you never seen a standup comedian? Rush's counterparts aren't on radio, they're in other forms of entertainment. But they exist in droves.

Zach, that's a common belief among liberals, but not supported by the facts. Democrats are disproportionately represented among the uneducated, who should, by your metric, be avid consumers of talk radio. They are also disproportionately represented among some forms of graduate education -- but the number of the former swamps the latter.

There were some liberal alternatives to Rush. They all crashed and burned: Larry King made the jump from late night to daytime. Jim Hightower, a rare flaming liberal from Texas, had a radio show, but is now down to a two minute commentary that is syndicated to a few stations in the US. They mainly seem to be public/college radio stations, BTW. As you point out, Rush understands radio and how to use it - compare with the lukewarm success he had on TV.

Yeah, Franken is a TV guy, but unfortunately he was never that good on TV. He was a good writer, but not a good performer.

I hope he does better on the radio.

Rush didn't set out to become a conservative icon; he just did what he loved doing, which was entertaining people on the radio. The success came almost incidentally, after many failures. All entrepreneurs recognize this familiar recipe for success.

Franken, in contrast, is nothing but a bitter leftist; bitter because Algor got caught trying to steal the election in 2000 through unconstitutional selective recounts. It's time for angry leftists like Franken to move on.

By what definition is Larry King a liberal talk show host? The man seems very apolitical to me, eager to land big name guests. I see very little evidence that he ever thought about ideology in any serious way.

I'm by NYC which is probably the capital of talk radio. My favorite non-conservative host was Lionel (he never gave his last name), who was a lawyer and very funny. The best talk radio conservatives appear to be like Rush, talented people who have done it a long time. Bob Grant and Mike Savage, for example.

I'll let other people read into this but one thing about talk radio is that it is given to simplistic statements and shouting. Mike Savage noted this once when a caller complained that he was too mild on his short lived TV show. He said the things that work in radio like shouting and waving your hands around make you look like a nut on TV.

What is interesting is WABC (770 AM) had two shows that were liberal-conservative match ups. The first was Steve Mosberg vs Rich Bey and the second (which is still going) is Curtis Silwa vs radical left wing lawyer Ron Kuby. Both of those shows were more interesting than most of the wanna-be Rushs. Even more interesting was that the more radical Kuby is better than the moderate leftie Bey. It very well may be that talk radio is ideal to radicals while print and television is better for moderates.

It isn't so much that the market is conservative. I somehow doubt a 'George Will show' could beat Al Franklin, for example. New York City is a huge market for right-wing radio yet the this area is typically elects either Democrats or very left wing republicans.

Overall liberals are more educated than conservatives. Hence, we listen to NPR.

While that is an excellent condemnation of public education, it has no bearing on the absence of a liberal counter to Limbaugh, Hannidy, Liddy, Beck, etc. Conservative talk radio succeeds on commercial radio because the shows address topics and provide content that the listeners want.

What are the liberal counterparts going to provide on the AM frequency that they can't already get on the mega-brain oriented NPR? What sort of content are they going to deliver? Is there really a large market for the likes of Franken and his views that is screaming to be served? I seriously doubt it.

Actually Franklin has two things going for him. The first is that he is dogmatic and can express his opinions in a brief and witty manner. The second is that he can think on his feet fast enough to defend himself against callers in an entertaining fashion. Also part of talk radio's appeal is the undeclared war of the callers versus the host. The host is expected to use the callers to entertain the audience and not get showed up...not unlike how a standup comic is expected to out-wit hecklers.

All these things Franklin has going for him. It's impossible to predict who will become a star but I think he has more talent than, say, Sean Hannity.

"Yeah, Franken is a TV guy, but unfortunately he was never that good on TV. He was a good writer"

Don't give too much credit,he was writing for Belushi,Acroyd,Radner,people who could have made a PBS fundraiser entertaining.

"By what definition is Larry King a liberal talk show host?"

He always called himself one on the radio,should I have disbelieved him?

" Actually Franklin has two things going for him. The first is that he is dogmatic and can express his opinions in a brief and witty manner. The second is that he can think on his feet fast enough to defend himself against callers in an entertaining fashion "

The few times I've seen Frankin in a forum(Crossfire,etc),he was way out of his league,struggling to think of something to say,anyting but witty and nimble.

No,Frankin will crash and burn,people like Zach will sneer and blame it on the stupidty of the masses and go back to re-reading "Stupid White Men".
Word of advice,Zach,it's hard to pose as a Modest Champion of the Prolitariat when you can't hide your contempt for the working trash.

*There's no liberal coutnerpart of a good reason*

Let me second HBChrists condemnation of public education.
Zach,that sentence is both miss spelled and incoherent,I don't think anyone who reads that will be intimidated by your powerful intellect.
The Al Frankin show should be right up your alley.

I believe that as men become more educated they are more likely to tend to the conservative/Republican side. Conversely, higher educated women tend to libera/Democratic.

Indicating that Zach and Jane should switch places.

Although the post talking about the rapture of NPR as a place for the enlightened to gather is rather priceless.

Boonton,
Kuby was better than Bey on WABC because Kuby can think on his feet and he doesn't sound stupid like Bey did most of the time.

Personally, I'd love to hear a program hosted by Chris Hitchens.

Based on resume alone (I haven't read his book or heard him speak much, if any), I'd say Franken has a better shot than the washed-up Dem politicians that have tried to take on Rush before.

I'm not saying that Franken will beat Rush, just that he stands the best chance of staying on his feet. At least he has been in entertainment so he should have some idea of what's needed to attract and hold an audience.

I don't think I'd count him out based on appearances on the shouting head shows. He'll have much more control over a show he's headlining. The times I've listened to Rush, he's taken relatively few listener calls. My hazy recollection is that over a 3 hour show Rush takes maybe 6-10 calls. With a good call screener, Franken should be able to handle that.

Jane wrote: "They [liberals] are also disproportionately represented among some forms of graduate education "

Is there some sort of statistical analysis of this that anyone is aware of? I've often heard liberals throw around the line that "people with grad-school level educations are more liberal", but my guess is that political affinity would depend on the *type* of grad school: eg people with advanced degrees in finance, engineering, accounting, the hard sciences, etc., would lean more to the right, while the folks with advanced degrees in areas like sociology, education, ethnic studies, etc., would lean more to the left. But I'd like to see some sort of survey/data that would prove or disprove my hunch.

Talk-Radio ain't us dumb male republicans.

In fact, as any salesperson will know - the talk radio listener is more educated, makes more money, and is better informed on the issues than any other outlet.

Why do you think 97.1 has been doing so well in so many markets?

"Talk radio has a vast audience, with 47 percent of adults saying they listen occasionally and 17 percent tuning in within the past 48 hours. Of these frequent listeners, 40 percent are women. Only 38 percent identified themselves as Republicans, 23 percent as Democrats and 39 percent as independents. Frequent listeners "are disproportionately better educated" as 39 percent have a college degree compared to 21 percent of all adults, and while 20 percent of Americans earn more than $60,000 annually 30 percent of talk show listeners take home that much. "

Rush has an audience of 20 million. Franken is never going to come close.

As for liberal talk show hosts - there are many, many self-identified talk show hosts. They're just not good enough to get picked up out of more than local or regional markets.

I think Franken will do fairly well if making mis-steps along the way. He has a very dry wit, he has a decent radio voice, and he is quick on his feet.

His show may not beat Rush but I bet he will do well against Hannity, O'Reilly etc.

Quick advice that was pointed out above would be to get the callers vs. host battles going. Take sports talkradio with Mad Dog of the fan. He lives to piss off his audience and has made quite a career of doing so.

A couple reasons why I think that liberal talk radio will be a flop. First of all is political correctness. A conservative talk show host can take shots at everyone in the world except for jesus and his audience will love him for it. A liberal has to watch what he says about women for fear of alienating a significant portion of his audience. Watch what he says about hispanics or blacks. There just aren't a lot off acceptable targets for liberals except for white males and it will hurt the show.

Second is the tendency of liberals to think that the average american has below average intelligence. Many times when liberals try and explain why something is happening the first instinct is to say that the people doing it are stupid. I am thinking that won't make for very good radio.

Ed Schultz, the long-time liberal radio talk show host in Fargo, ND is apparently the next Limbaugh of the Left. I heard a rumor about this when I went back for New Year's, but I didn't know it'd happen so soon.

When Franken's book came out, I heard about 3 different radio interviews with him, each at least 30 minutes long. I've been on the radio for over 30 years, and because there was already talk of Franken's possibly becoming a radio host, I listened specifically for his on-air chops.

He doesn't have any. Regardless of Franken's politics, he just doesn't have what it takes to engage a radio audience. His thoughts, however good, come to him slowly. Lots of pauses, dead air. Kiss of death.

It's possible that with the proper radio boot camp, Franken might be whipped into shape, if he's willing to sublimate what I perceive as a well-developed ego. It could happen. But without a LOT of training, he has not a chance.

When Franken's book came out, I heard about 3 different radio interviews with him, each at least 30 minutes long. I've been on the radio for over 30 years, and because there was already talk of Franken's possibly becoming a radio host, I listened specifically for his on-air chops.

He doesn't have any. Regardless of Franken's politics, he just doesn't have what it takes to engage a radio audience. His thoughts, however good, come to him slowly. Lots of pauses, dead air. Kiss of death.

It's possible that with the proper radio boot camp, Franken might be whipped into shape, if he's willing to sublimate what I perceive as a well-developed ego. It could happen. But without a LOT of training, he has not a chance.

It's possible that with the proper radio boot camp, Franken might be whipped into shape, if he's willing to sublimate what I perceive as a well-developed ego. It could happen. But without a LOT of training, he has not a chance.

Posted by Don at January 14, 2004 10:47 PM.

This is why I read this blog. Knowledgeable people sharing what they know. Great stuff!

Is there some sort of statistical analysis of this that anyone is aware of? I've often heard liberals throw around the line that "people with grad-school level educations are more liberal", but my guess is that political affinity would depend on the *type* of grad school: eg people with advanced degrees in finance, engineering, accounting, the hard sciences, etc., would lean more to the right, while the folks with advanced degrees in areas like sociology, education, ethnic studies, etc., would lean more to the left.

Not coincidentally, I think one will probably find that the faculty for those disciplines tend to lean in the same noted directions.

Boonton asks,

> By what definition is Larry King a liberal talk show host?
> The man seems very apolitical to me, ... I see very little
> evidence that he ever thought about ideology in any serious
> way.

He's liberal by the modern American definition of the word. Perhaps you could explain why you are conflating liberal and ideological?

I have some old video tapes of SNL and Franken & Davis. They were the weakest links in the chain. There's no justification for calling him a comedian. Calling him an entertainer would be more historically correct.

Can anyone explain how a radio show determines the number of people listening to a show at given time?
I don't doubt that Rush has 20M but I don't understand how that number is determined.
So, my real question is: how will Al Franken know that his show is a success or failure?
Continued Ad sales and more markets picking up his show or some technical means?

There are very good reasons why there will never be a liberal answer to Rush. The last time someone tried to create one, UC Davis economist (and personal friend of Limbaugh) Tom Hazlett explained the facts of life:

http://reason.com/9503/col.RUSH.text.shtml

--------quote------------
What propelled Limbaugh? Ratings. Somehow, Rush got tons of people to spin that dial to KFBK, 1530 on the AM dial. But did any national network or syndication snatch him up? Nay. No one would touch him. Too controversial. Too right-wing. Too opinionated. Too...never went to Harvard.

The makeshift distribution chain that put Limbaugh on 55 radio stations in August 1988 was entirely ad hoc--and people tuned in en masse. Now, with 650 stations and 22 million weekly listeners, Limbaugh is the King of Talk. He went on TV in September 1992, and ratings are similarly amazing, as his ragtag syndication pulls in viewer numbers rivaling Jay Leno's--which are backed by the National Broadcasting Corporation.

This is the audience talking, but all the Clinton wunderkinder hear is Limbaugh's rant. It haunts them, and they know: If they could just get their own mouthpiece, all their Great Plans would succeed and the people would love them! But liberals roam talk radio: Michael Jackson of Los Angeles's KABC failed in heavily marketed national syndication by ABC Radio just before Limbaugh's Excellence in Broadcasting launched. Jim Hightower, Gloria Allred, Jerry Brown, and Tom Leykis spit their anti-Republican venom daily. But where are the numbers?

What the White House does not understand, and will not understand even after I explain it to them, is that the key to Rush's success is the very totem they insist on dragging out to save themselves. It is the liberal media dandies off whom Rush plays, whom he mocks with unending glee and merciless buffoonery. There have been other conservative talk-show hosts. But Rush--each and every time he takes to the air--gives the listener some politics and a bonus: He sticks his finger in a liberal's eye.

He does it not by meanness, as the clueless wine-and-cheese crowd whines. He does it by joyously celebrating the existence of an alternative medium--his parallel universe--where the prevailing pieties of the liberal elite carry no weight whatever. The condescension of the elites is Rush's launch pad. He blasts off at the very moment his show begins, bellowing that his is the "only information superhighway you'll ever need."

The boastfulness strikes much deeper than the liberals will ever know. When Rush barks that listeners tune only to him, "because I'll tell you everything you need to know, and I'll tell you what to think about it to boot!," the anguished White House monitors and their electorally challenged minions cry that legions of mindless "dittoheads" are taking their orders from a talk-show lunatic.

In fact, Limbaugh is sparking a huge reaction by mimicking the very liberals who decry him: This is Rush's impersonation of the all-powerful network news anchorperson, saying out loud what is the subtext in any of the auspiciously introduced and expensively produced national news shows. Their rectitude, their certainty, their values spark Rush's counter-attitude. He's just as cocksure, and he's actually honest about his edge. It is a spoof, and the spoofees don't get it. Ha, ha, ha!

------------endquote---------------

Overall Conservatives are much more educated than liberals.

Case closed. And with about as much evidence or reason as Zach has provided.

Overall Conservatives are much more educated than liberals.

Case closed. And with about as much evidence or reason as Zach has provided.

There will never be a liberal version of Rush until liberals realise what they're doing wrong.

They're not trying to get an interesting witty leftist opinion out there-they're trying to refute Rush. They're coming to do nothing but exist in opposition to something.

They've tried and failed, several times. Why do they think this time will be different?

There's a term for people who keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes.

That word, Zach, is not 'smart'

one reason why those with grad degrees tend to be more "liberal" and trend dem is the disciplines that trend to grad school

most liberal arts majors and fine arts majors need a grad degree to get a job... MBA, law school, MPscyh, MFA, etc

engineering, science, accounting, business you can work straight out of undergrad. so 4 years of calc or finance, vs 4 years of post modernism, followed by work vs more school... guess who ends up more liberal?

Also, those disciplines that draw a high proportion of liberals are more likely to produce people who never exit the comfortable evirons of academia to work in the real world. Grad school is just a step in becoming permanently embedded within a world where ideas aren't subjected to genuine tests that make the difference between beloved theory and demonstrable fact.

As far as I can tell with no sources of information other than the internet (hey don't knock it), a fairly large proportion of Limbaugh's audience is made up of liberals who tune in specifically in order to be outraged. I don't see Franken catching this demographic, so as far as I can tell, he will have a show calculated to appeal to precisely nobody.

"There's no liberal coutnerpart of a good reason: liberals don't listen to talk radio that much. "

That would be horrible news for Diane Rehm, Terri Gross, and Tavis Smiley

"Overall liberals are more educated than conservatives. Hence, we listen to NPR."

Well, THAT would be good news for Rehm, Gross, and Smiley.

There seems to be a contradiction here. How shall we resolve it? That none of NPR's favorite talk shows are "not listened too that much"?
That these hosts are NOT "liberal"? That liberals listen to NPR for the music? That these shows are not "talk shows"? I'd be fascinated to hear explorations of how these two seemingly incompatible statements can be reconciled.

Hmm...Whenever I hear about the Dem's trying to launch a "counter-to-Rush", I always hear about the group in question trying to raise funding, build a network, etc. In my judgement, the fact that their product can't hold its own in the market on its own merits tells me all I need to know about the prospects for Mr. Franken's little venture.

If Rush did not exist, would conservatives dominate talk radio?

Isn't it interesting that Rush is famous because of the free market, whereas Franken is being appointed by central planning?

Liberal talk radio?

What would be the message? We dumb-ass middle class Americans don't pay enough taxes. And we're stupid (please see the first comment).

Why would the middle class want to listen to the latest "Hate-America" rant from some leftist idiot?

Sure it will succeed. Yeah, right.

The success of right-wing talk radio is the direct result of the repeal of the Fairness in Media Act in the late 80s. Until then, radio stations had to provide some balance in their programming. Two hours of Rush's propaganda and outright lies had to be followed by fifteen minutes of an honest response.

Because conservative ideology is so bereft of any logic and inherently contradictory (e.g., states should be free to enact their own laws and regulations without federal pre-emption except when the local regulations mean stricter environmental regulations or more protections for workers), any somewhat fair debate demonstates the intellectual bankruptcy of the right-wing.

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Ingraham, Liddy, Savage, and the rest don't have to worry about an honest debate. They're now free to spin their lies and half-truths without fear of contradiction.

Comments are Closed.