The Democratic Party Is Losing the Propaganda War (AM Radio)

Great Debates
1

I live close to my office, so I seldom spend much time in the car. Over the last couple of weeks, however, I’ve spent more time on the road, and consequently, more time listening to the radio. Specifically, AM radio.

Now of course, I knew that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the other conservative voices were out there, but I don’t think I truly realized the extent to which Republicans (and their cousins the Libertarians) have managed to saturate AM radio. Nor did I realize the full measure of the venom toward Democrats that is flowing in a steady stream across the airwaves.

Flipping around the dial, I heard Limbaugh, I heard Hannity, I heard Boortz, and I heard many local radio wannabees, but not a single Democratic voice.

I know many people (way too many people) whose only source of news and information is AM radio. This represents a huge chunk of Middle Americans who are out driving around in their cars, either on long commutes, or as part of their jobs every day of the week.

It seems to me that the Democratic Party is in a state of denial about this phenomenon. They content themselves with smug dismissals of Limbaugh (surely no one takes him seriously), and return to their hand-wringing over whether Democrats should move to the left or to the center.

Well that whole “left or center” debate misses the point. Whether Democrats move to the left or to the center, it is a certainty that their positions will be distorted and their politicians will be demonized by the pundits of talk radio. And it is equally certain that this huge chunk of the electorate which takes talk radio as gospel will never get a fair reading of the Democratic position.

We Democrats are losing the propaganda war. This has been going on for some time. The power of talk radio is there for all to see. Witness the demonization of the Clintons. For those who have been around a few years, notice the way the word “liberal” has been turned from a badge of honor to an epithet in the popular consciousness. Note the way the word “conservative,” which in the 70’s conjured up (for most, I’d say) images of dusty, tight-assed old men, has become a moniker of pride.

I say that until the Democrats wake up and establish a serious presence of their own on talk radio, they are doomed to continue to lose ground. As it stands, they have no effective mechanism for combatting in the public mind the deceptions and distortions of the Limbaughs of the world.

Am I right? Do Republicans have a better propaganda arm? Or are Republicans really winning on ideas? Thoughts?

2

The GOP has the moral high ground on all the hot oversimplified buzz-word issues–“Abortion stops a beating heart, and killing babies is wrong!” etc. It’s hard for the Dems to counter that without sounding like they’re saying, “Kill babies!”, especially on sound-bite-focused AM radio.

3

It’s not lack of trying. There have been many liberal talk-radio hosts, even Mario Cuomo. For some reason, none have come close to Limbaugh, Hannity, Bob Grant or Dr. Laura in popularity. The listening audiences have tended to choose the conservatives.

I suppose it’s possible that Limbaugh is uniquely entertaining, but I cannot believe that all four of these people plus the others mentioned in the OP are all vastly more entertaining than any liberal. So, I don’t think the reason is that conservatives have more skillful propogandists.

Limbaugh’s theory is that TV news is mostly liberally bias. conservatives have to listen to talk radio to find a source from their POV.

He also claims that liberals have fewer ideas than conservatives. I think there’s some truth to this. Most of the liberal agenda has been enacted over the last 40 years. The most important task now is, arguably, to find those bits that didn’t work as intended and adjust them. E.g., welfare reform.

Another theory is that conservatives are more sophisticated than liberals. Although it’s the opposite of what many like to believe, those who listen to Limbaugh, et. al. are policy wonks. At least compared with those whose daytime media choices are Oprah, quiz shows, soap operas, music, etc. PBS listeners, mostly liberal, are also policy wonks, but there are fewer of them.

IMHO the Democrats got intellectually lazy because they enacted their agenda, because they were dominant for so long. Look at the decline of left-wing magazines. There’s The Nation and a few others, but they’re barren and uninteresting compared with the right-wing National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.

4

Conservatives, generally given to moral absolutism, find that lying about liberals is justified by the rightness of the conservative position. Liberals, generally given to moral relativism, are more reluctant to lie about conservatives because they feel it detracts from the rightness of the liberal position.

Since lying makes better radio than the truth, conservatives get to keep their radio shows.

5

Huh? AM radio “sound-bite-focused”? Just the opposite in my view. Republicans use AM radio to air their views at length and in depth (albeit with a grossly partisan slant."

Meanwhile, Democratic responses in the mainstream media are reduced to unappealing soundbites.

In other words, unlike Republicans, Democrats have no forum for discussing their positions in depth with the American Voter.

Advantage: Republicans.

6

Right-wing talk radio originally proliferated in response to widespread perceptions that reporting in major media outlets was biased to the left.

Now that there are a gazillion right-wing talk-show hosts, a stable of conservative commentators on Fox and multiple Internet sources to gratify the hearts of right-wingers, you’d think the radio end of things would have reached saturation. Not yet, apparently.

Left-wing talk/commentary on the radio is a rare and refreshing phenomenon. The Left needs to stop griping about Rush et al and generate some personalities of its own.

7

december wrote:

I sure haven’t heard these “many” liberal hosts in these parts. Can you name some (besides Cuomo)?

I don’t think a real bulldog of a Democrat has been given a chance. Democrats need a tough guy on the air. One who will go toe-to-toe with Limbaugh and combat his distortions.

Nametag wrote:

Maybe, but I don’t think lying is necessary to create populist appeal. For example, a bulldoggish Democratic radio host could appeal to the middle class by pointing out the unfairness of the Republican tax cuts, and how those tax cuts (particularly the estate tax repeal and the proposed cuts in capital gains taxes) mean that the working middle class will be carrying the lion’s share of the nation’s tax burden.

It’s hard to make that point in a sound bite. “Tax cuts for the rich” just doesn’t do it justice. You really need a couple of hours on the radio to explain to voters just how they are being hoodwinked. And I think a truthful examination of this issue would have some appeal.

You could call Republicans all sorts of nasty names, and be telling the truth. Heh.

8

Whose theory is this? The only people I know that listen to Rush and his cronies are the right-wing’s version of the Oprah watchers: bible-thumpers that are either stay at home wives, or work in an office, or the dim-witted gun nut that lived in my dorm a couple of years ago. This is with my limited experience, but I haven’t met anyone I would describe as an “intellectual” that I knew listened to Rush (because they agreed with him). Maybe I’m just running with the wrong crowd.

9

<pause here for chorus of “The Battle Hymn Of The Republic”>

10

Just give James Carville a radio slot. He’ll eat Limbaugh for breakfast.

11

Carville is the type of commentator I have in mind. I.e., someone who isn’t afraid to call 'em like he sees 'em in the most blunt terms. I’m not sure Carville himself is the man for the job, but someone with his brand of plain-speaking is needed.

The few (very few) liberal voices I’ve heard on radio are too high-minded to dirty themselves with this stuff. I sure can’t imagine Cuomo getting it done. (Not that I ever heard his show 'round here.)

12

On a local basis, there’s former N.Y. mayor Ed “How’m I doin” Koch. Handles himself pretty well on the air.

13

Spoke wrote:

I’d just like to tell my cousins how grateful I am that they are implementing the Libertarian Party’s plan to open up immigration, repeal all laws of prohibition, free nonviolent felons, allow gays to marry, rescind all executive orders with legislative effect, discard the new Homeland Security department before it starts, stop the War on Americans I Mean Drugs, dismantle the IRS, close the Federal Reserve, and end corporate welfare.

You Republicans rock! :smiley:

14

Lib’s post reminds me of an interesting argument I read in a recent article: namely, that modern conservatism is a somewhat strained coalition between laissez-faire/libertarian/fiscal conservative types and traditional social conservatives. The Republicans have been trying to persuade both of them that they belong in the Republican Party, but as an ever broader spectrum of conservative views gets more and more mainstream airtime, they are going to start hearing each other and getting rather shocked and upset. At some point, the Republicans are going to have to decide which way the cat will jump.

15

Let not your heart be troubled, spoke-.

that’s a joke

The fact is that Hannity and Limbaugh are entertaining. Mario Cuomo is not entertaining. Ed Koch is entertaining if impatient and crotchety is your style. People listen to Hannity and Limbaugh because they like to get riled up one way or the other. They’re provocative. Whether you think they’re clowns, like I do, or take them seriously, which unfortunately I do as well, they get listened to. Then you have guys like Mike Savage…

Liberal (or at least not staunch conservative) talk radio folk I’ve come across and enjoyed in this area are Bill Mazer, Ron Kuby, Jay Diamond, Lynne Samuels, Sam Greenfield, and Richard Bey. It’s hard to find some of them, though. Bey and Kuby are on WABC. Samuels was, but got fired. Bill Mazer and Sam Greenfield, a comedian, were on WEVD before it became all sports (I don’t know what they do now) and Jay Diamond, who was incredible, was on WEVD as well but self-destructed. He’s bounced around a few stations.

I don’t listen to Limbaugh much anymore but I listen to Hannity quite a bit and if his callers are any indication of his fan base, I would not for a moment classify them as policy wonks or sophisticated.

16

In SF there is a radio liberal called Bernie Ward that used to tell this story early in the 90’s: His show is syndicated to many markets and many times it gains good ratings, usually he gets cancelled anyhow. Why? He asked, we showed them the rating standings, the good feedback, etc. his agent replied: yes the people like you, but the owners/producers/advertisers of the stations did not.

I think the turning point was shown/symbolized by the last attempt of fairness I heard: right after 15 minutes of right wing amusing Paul Harvey news, there used to be a three minute radio commentary by populist Jim Hightower, it was like a breath of fresh air, unfortunately he dared criticize the Disney takeover of ABC so, it was Hightower out but Harvey still remains.

I recommend, just for fairness sake, to check from time to time, what he has to say about current topics:

http://www.jimhightower.com/

17

Well, I know quite a few liberals who would refuse to classify any conservative as an “intellectual” by virtue of the fact that he’s a conservative. Read into that what you will.

The callers taken on radio shows - or any shows - are not necessarily representative of the fan base. Callers are typically selected so as to boost ratings and be entertaining. Typically, buffons are more interesting than the sophisticates. Thus, for every person who calls in to make a good point, you get ten who call in to tell Hannity that he’s an idiot, or spout some ludicrous conspiracy theory. Alternately, you get those who can proclaim, in ten words or less, how much they adore Rush. I listen to Eric Hoag frequently, and while he’s generally intelligent sounding, and provides many a compelling argument, his callers are generally halfwits.

I will also agree with december’s hypothesis that conservatives currently have more in the way of compelling ideas than liberals. The liberals are essentially interested in keeping things the way they are, while the conservatives are having colorful discussions on how to change things - in that way, their roles have been reversed. There also seems to be less adherence to the party line among conservatives - there’s wide disagreement on how things should be done. For example, visit The Nation, and check out their views on the war. Every piece written on it says: “We should stay out. Republican hawks are evil.” How many ways can you say the same thing? Who wants to read the same spiel ad infinitum? Now, go check out National Review. You’ll find the following views:

  • We should stay out of the war, because the costs will be too high.

  • We should stay out of the war, because it’s doubtful that the US will have the resolve to stick around and see the regime change through to the end, and it’s better to not do this at all than do it half-assed.

  • We should attack ASAP without UN approval, because we won’t get it, then stick around and institute a democracy.

  • We should try our damnedest to get UN approval, but if we can’t, attack anyway, then stick around and institute a democracy.

  • We should, instead of a democracy, go for a benevolent dictatorship with democratic elements, because Iraqis are not ready for democracy.

Etc.

Which sounds like the more compelling discussion to you?
Jeff

18

spoke-, don’t worry about AM radio - there is still TV to indoctorinate the populace with liberal propaganda, plus public schools and universities.

19

ElJeffe and december,
This OP is about talk radio. Let’s stick to it. Would you say talk radio lead by Limbaugh, Hannity etc is actually a breeding ground for new ideas and intellectual debate a la the magazines you mentioned? (which is what you are positing as the reason for right-wing domination of am radio)

20

El Jeffe,
Could you point out any piece in the Weekly Standard which argues against war? For that matter I would like to read the anti-war National Review pieces you mention. IIRC the only dissenting voice is William Buckley. Are all the pieces written by him?

As for different views on the war you have hawkish articles in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic etc. In fact TNR, though considered a Democrat magazine is usually close to the neo-conservative position on many foreign policy issues especially in the Middle East.