I remember 1994, after the Republicans took over Congress, when the new freshman class started referring to Rush Limbaugh as the “majority-maker”. I’ve heard it suggested that talk radio would drive this gubernatorial race. And I’ll tell you, in my one foray onto the airwaves — right after the Ben LaGuer $#!+ hit the fan, the right-wing talk radio guys went nuts. This was bloody meat to them, their moment to whip up public hysteria, to drive the agenda.
So what happened? The public shrugged:
Talk radio only has a slice of the general public listening to it, said Michael Harrison, publisher of the Springfield-based Talkers Magazine. Rush Limbaugh beat up Bill Clinton for eight years and Clinton got elected twice.
Harrison said its not the role of talk radio yakkers to get people elected – or unelected. Its the role of talk radio to have listeners and to make money, he said. Healey might lose by less than she would have. Can talk radio turn an election? Only if its close.
Harrison said theres a tremendous conservative element in current news talk radio. . . . but you cannot make the public change its mind if the public is set on something.
Now, we can complain about the fact that talk radio is near-exclusively rabidly conservative. (Rockefeller Republicans don’t get ratings, apparently.) Or … we can be happy that the rest of us don’t care to tune into lunacy and venom, and that they’re getting their information someplace else. The question then is: How worthwhile and reliable is that “someplace else”?
I’m happy that Air America (including our own Boston’s Progressive Talk) tries to provide the public with a lefty alternative to right-wing yakkers; but folks who reject the Howies and Severins are looking for something different in quality, not merely the same thing with swapped-out ideology. Liberals stereotypically listen to NPR; conservatives to Limbaugh. Maybe it says something about the liberal temperament. Or maybe not.
But I can’t help but think that the apparently limited grasp of right-wing shoutfest radio, and the deteriorating circulation figures of the dead-tree dailies, leave a gap to be filled by vital, engaging and serious discussion. High-falutin’ vs. lowbrow is not really the issue; the question is whether the content is relevant to people’s lives, such that folks prioritize and make an appointment with that medium.
Talk radio has been in its own self-created bubble this year; as Adam says, the newspapers may have blown their chance to dial up the Zeitgeist and be relevant again. Doesn’t it seem like there’s a big gap to be filled by someone, somewhere? Hey, maybe it’s the blogs. Maybe Jack Welch and Co. know. Maybe Chris Lydon’s gonna do it. It sure seems like there’s an opportunity out there.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that Eileen McNamara said much the same yesterday. Originality is hard, folks.
A vote for Lydon from this guy. Radio Open Source is awesome, and is available as a podcast as well. I have it set in iTunes to dowload automatically every day.
Well, yeah, of course. Chris Lydon is excellent and worthy of your support. As one who listened to “The Connection” for years, that’s a given for me. I also consume Radio Open Source by podcast, but I don’t get quite the same buzz from this new show. Lydon is cranking them out so fast he doesn’t have as much time to do the incredible in-depth preparation that I came to expect from “The Connection”. Nevertheless, he remains one of the most perceptive and well-informed radio interviewers out there.
I don’t have that kind of history with him and his work, but I really enjoy what he is doing now. I actually just tuned in a few weeks ago on the suggestion of a friend who was briefly by Lydon about his time in Oaxaca, Mexico. At any rate, I’ve found his approach to be great, particularly with things like the election profiles in different states. Particularly, I really enjoy the format. For example, his recent breakdowns of MT and PA really gave me some insight into the areas of the state and the effect of this on the voting patterns. I’d have never gotten this information anywhere else that I know of.
We used to have Jerry Williams, Gene Burns, and most notably David Brudnoy. I didn’t agree with them often, but they did not insult my intelligence either.
Most of the bloviating hatemongers of right-wing radio prey on people’s fears and hatreds. Brudnoy believed in open and civil discourse. which is why I could stomach his libertarian/Republican views.
I am progressive, I do listen to Air America and NPR, but I regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I used to listen to Brudnoy! I miss the guy. He was rare. I’m afraid the likes of Brudnoy seem to be in a minority. Most Conservative talking heads are simply propagandists. You can listen to NPR like Morning Edition and All things Considered and you get Journalism. When you listen to Rush Limbaugh you get pure commentary. It’s amazing how many conservatives will say they listen to Rush for all their news. He doesn’t deliver news. I’ve been amazed how many ‘facts’ and figures he throws out there that has to be completely made up, but makes his case more plausible on any given topic. I am amazed how half the country can be fooled by that because you can here ‘dittoheads’ quote ‘republican talking points’ verbatum by Rush, Glenn Beck, and Drudge. They all say the same thing! If their positions are valid,and they truly believe in them, why do they feel the need to make up statistics, use propaganda language or such inflammatory rhetoric? They are skilled, however. They managed to take a time honored junior high school tradition of bullying and insult talk and make it culturally acceptable. When you call a commentator on idiotic, immature behavior they cop out by claiming you are just ‘being politically correct’ In fact Glenn Beck had a recent diatribe saying the ‘political correctness will be the death of us.
I wouldn’t want to run some of Al Franken’s assertions through Price/Waterhouse, if you know what I mean….
If you think presenting the facts about this scandal-laden administration is “bashing”, you’re listening to too much Rush. Habeas corpus anyone?
<
p>
BTW there are very different personalities on Air America. You’d probably like Rachel Maddow’s style because she’s measured, erudite and witty. Your head would probably explode listening to Randi Rhodes. 🙂
<
p>
I’m going to vote my straight Dem ticket now, and then going to makecalls for MoveOn. Have a great day!
…but that doesn’t seem to prevent them!
So far I haven’t heard of a lefty talker who lies, but if you could point out some of the lies that you’ve heard, I’d be interested in the views of a non-reality based community member. 🙂
…and fantasise about him questioning Deval. Sigh.
<
p>
All the hosts you mentioned had something in common – even more than intelligence. They were ENTERTAINING. God help us, HOWIE is entertaining. Chris Lydon is so self-absorbed, so obviously waiting for the other person to stop speaking so HE can talk, that he is BORING.
<
p>
This is the great fault of liberal talk radio. It veers between juvenile Bush bashing and sanctimonious lecturing. It is RARELY entertaining. And, it is often condescending to its listeners.
for your comment about Lydon., I agree. He could help the guest explore an idea, but no, he turns it to what he wants to say.
“L, R & C” is pretty good. It’s usually Robert Scheer of the SF Chronicle and truthdig.com from the left, Tony Snow from the Washington Times on the right, the “moderator” is in the center (forget his name, but he is usually center-right — he thinks Reagan was God), and Arianna Huffington from the “fourth dimension.”
<
p>
The show is available as a podcast on iTunes, although it doesn’t always get updated automatically and I have to resubscribe to it.
<
p>
The gap you describe exists everywhere in the media. Even the level of analysis on the blogs tends to be on the shallow side. I’m not saying that I’m any genius. But I just wish the level of discourse were higher in general.
<
p>
Over at TPM, Stirling Newberry riffs on Michael Kinsley’s riff in the NYT Book Review about the state of the discourse.
<
p>
…instead of just reminiscing about the Days when there were Giants among us – Yes, I DO think that blogs are filling that gap.
I live 5 miles from the transmitter and I can barely receive the signal after dark. I usually stream it. I also think that their current lineup needs an injection of steroids. If they had a stronger signal and put Randi Rhodes on opposite the Howie/Severin three-hour hatefests, her ratings would likely blow theirs away. I also like Rachel Maddow and Sam Seder, and though Ed Schultz may play well in ‘the heartland’ (wherever the hell that is), he doesn’t reflect the Massachusetts-type liberalism.
I like Maddow and Schultz. Ed gets good guests. Don’t know Seder. Hate hate hate Rhodes … she was much better when playing with Ozzy.
<
p>
You’re dating yourself, young man! 😀
<
p>
Many people find Randi abrasive. I personally like her because she knows her stuff. I find Ed factually deficient at times, though I agree he gets great guests. You’d probably like Sam Seder. He’s passionate and cogent, AND he’s originally from WUS-TAH!
His show was fast moving and he sniffed out programmed right-wing callers well. He did his own good comedy routines–great mimic. He was on WRKO for a while on Saturday night. His show drew a lot of angry wingnuts.
<
p>
Johnny Wendell has a show in California. He was from Massachusetts originally. He did a fill in stint opposite Scott Allen Miller but I think he was to hot for regular RKO listeners to handle.
<
p>
It will be a long time before we get an agile host like Jerry Williams or David Brudnoy were. I was partial to Jerry Williams because of his intense gut-level logic. People who only know him from his anti- state tax stances may not be aware of his incredible controversial — debates with Malcolm X and incessant anti-Vietnam war shows. Then the next day he could do something completely light-hearted and often hilarious.
<
p>
Johnny used to be in a band called the Blackjacks, and before that he was in a late ’70s punk band called Thrills. He has filled in for Stephanie Miller from time to time, and does a great job. I would hate to be a wingnut on the other end of the phone with Johnny!
He filled in the morning show for a couple weeks with Scott Allen Miller. They must not have known what they were getting themselves into. Miller is not the brightest bulb. The only debating technique he could use was the usual rightwing rambling refusal to stop talking. The wingnuts came out of the woodwork.
…as the same thing as right-wing talk, only with a liberal bent.
<
p>
My experience listening to Air America’s slate of programs here is that their talkers don’t have to LIE all the time to back up their rhetoric.
<
p>
Face it, there’s so much bad news, scandal, corruption, and incompetence in D.C. that it’s easy picking for the LW talkers on Air America.
<
p>
Now, if a Democrat wins back the White House in ’08, and Air America, if it’s still around, starts pumping out mendacious, right-wing-style propaganda, I’ll be the first to shut it off.
<
p>
But, Air America isn’t the left-wing answer to right-wing talk.
I agree, talk radio isn’t the be all end all that some people think it is in terms of effecting elections. For example, while 33% of Americans get their news primarily from talk radio, chances are they probably weren’t going to vote Democratic anyway.
<
p>
However, that doesn’t change the fact that talk radio can and does highly influence public debate. So frequently the media reports what talk radio personalities say as news – for example, when Rush Limbaugh said Michael Fox was faking, it became a legitimate news story. That’s going to effect people and make other people think Michael Fox was faking beyond Rush’s typical listeners. Most importantly, it legitimizes stories that aren’t really legitimate to begin with. So there’s the real danger in talk radio.
when wbur first started carrying bbc world, it seemed so exotic. now you can tune it in (at least for a couple of hours a day) in oklahoma. the only source that i know of that could even hold a candle to the bbc on international reporting would be the new york times.
<
p>
a typical comparison from a couple of days ago;
wbur/bbc – reporting on the growing trade relations between china and the african continent. included background history, import/export figures, prognostications for the next ten years or so. then reporters in both senegal and beijing interviewed both merchants and shoppers in local markets to gauge their feelings about the products and intentions of the other nation(s).
during approx. the same time on wtkk 96.9; why john kerry and democrats hate our troops.
<
p>
it so refreshing to listen to only 10 minutes of radio, and come out on the other side feeling more knowledgeable than you were before. does the status of the tamil tigers insurgency in sri lanka have any real relevance to my life? well, about as much as does the parole status of ben legeur.