Something does not compute when I flip on the radio and hear a constant barrage of arrogant right wing ideologues hammering away at “the liberal media”. What liberal media? Limbaugh has at least 15 hours a week of national airtime all to himself in practically every market in the U.S. to spout his views, does anybody on the left side of the political spectrum have that kind of media access? Every city I’ve ever been to has a multitude of neocons on several radio stations. Other political viewpoints are few and far between. Is this really reflective of a “free market” of ideas, or is there something else at work? Does right wing ideology dominate political dialogue of the general population so much in the U.S. that there is a virtual monopoly of neocons on the airwaves?
Because right wing politics gets better ratings than left wing politics. See Air America.
NPR not only gets a share, but gets government funding. And the fact that they are not shrill liberal bashers makes it Liberal Radio.
Much confusion ensues when people lump talk radio, interview programs, Drudge, Oprah and what have you, in with major news outlets. Fewer and fewer seem to be able to distinguish editorializing and entertainment from what’s supposed to be straight news, and this includes the public as well as those in the news business.
Fortunately, we now have a huge assortment of biased and unprofessional news sources catering to ideologues of every stripe, so everyone can be happy.
One should not ignore the advantages Right wing radio is getting:
http://www.wegoted.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=65
Before Air America appeared, Bernie Ward in San Fransisco mentioned similar cases by radio stations, that just “coincidentally” are owned by conservative owners, also pulling the plug for his radio show in some markets. Regardless if ratings were good.
Because conservatives live in a well of self doubt, and require constant reinforcement and justification of their beliefs, while we liberals can go about our daily lives in the serene self confidence of the righteous.
Oh, almost forgot: " 
"
That’s the “free market” aspect. (Right wing radio - like any call-in show - is a product. The hosts create a persona and endless controversy to drive listenership, therefore ratings, therefore higher revenues. It’s all a circus.) If a left-wing blowhard could capture an audience as successfully as a right-wing blowhard, you’d hear it nationwide.
When the right wing talks about the “liberal media” they are pretty much talking about the major newspapers and national tv networks. Rush an his ilk dominate radio, IMHO, because you can have instant listenership feedback (via call-ins), an aspect not really possible in the papers or on the NBC Nightly News. The listeners feel like they’re part of the process, instead of being “told” what reality is. But, remember, creating controversy drives listenership.
Man, talk about opening a can of worms! This ought to be good! 
These days its probably more a buzzword than a rallying cry. The Right Wing types are still able to milk this IMO because it WAS true for so long. That its really not true anymore is beside the point, since its still part of the collective consiousness in the US.
Of course. Did you think that Fox and Limbaugh (etc etc) were not paying concerns and were losing money? Or that they have some kind of monopoly on the air waves? There are a few examples of ‘liberal’ talk radio/broadcast TV out there. If there was a bigger market there would be more of them (i.e. if they made money in the same realm as Fox and Limbaugh then corporations would be beating a line to their doors).
Appearently so…for now. These things tend to self correct and I suspect that the rebellion from being spoon fed tripe from the Left has nearly worn off. IIRC things like NPR are starting to actually have some impact out there, and if the Left can successfully bring to the publics consiousness that the tables have turned and now its the Right thats dominating the air waves then I would guess that more folks will want to hear what the Left has to offer. And since money is the key, if enough folks WANT to hear what the Left has to say…well, I’m sure you can guess the rest.
Time will tell.
-XT
I have a theory about this. I believe Liberal radio is doomed to failure (with a couple of exceptions) because of a couple of reasons.
The left is not a unified entity. There really isn’t any particular issue which unites the left, like religion and the persecution complex, does the right. In other words; if a person gets on the radio and goes on about abortion, the war, the deficit, the gay rights, etc, part of the audience isn’t going to agree with them.
More importantly, and I know this is going to raise the hackles of some of our resident conservatives, and I apologies in advance, but I think it comes down to liberals being more thoughtful. I don’t want to hear only one side of the argument. I want to hear both sides, in full sentences, without interruption. I don’t think it’s nice to hang up on someone because you don’t like their side of the discussion. I don’t want to hear people insulted. I don’t want to be told what to think. I don’t want to be lied to.
Basically I think the “new right” isn’t very bright. The new right are the people who have switched party affiliation because of the constant barrage of mis-information, spoon fed to them by AM radio. I think these people are not intellectually curious, and I think they’re often naïve.
I’ve tried Air America, and I don’t like it any more than the Right wing crap. Pissing and moaning, is just pissing and moaning, no matter who does it.
People on the left may be there for different reasons. It might be political. It might be environmental. It might be social. It might be a combination of several issues. Aiming programming at “the left” would be like trying to shovel smoke.
The biggest problem at Democratic conventions seems to be finding issues that everybody will agree on.
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
- Will Rogers
On the other hand “the right” seems to share enough similar opinions (and the liberal main-stream media is one of 'em) that you can put people on the radio to justify or reinforce those opinions.
Look at the latest poll numbers. The President is tanking in popularity. Yet there is a core of approx. 20 to 25% of people who believe he’s doing a great job. That core is the base for network talk radio. It’s consistant. It gives conservative talk numbers to sell.
Do you know what the word “neocon” is supposed to mean? Do you honestly believe that Rush Limbaugh a neoconservative?
If “neoconservative” just means “conservative”, why not just use the word “conservative”? What exactly makes a conservative a neoconservative instead of some other variety of conservative?
I’m just tired of this usage. “Neo” does not mean “very”. Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly aren’t neoconservatives. If neoconservative means anything it means something different than conservative. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a neoconservative talk show.
He had a national show at one point; according to him, he was told to his face that management didn’t care about his ( high ) ratings; they didn’t like his politics. They replaced him with a lower rated right winger.
Sounds like a great business opportunity then! There have got to be some liberal out there somewhere with some cash. Buy a radio/TV station and put them on and rake in the dough from the huge mass of American’s yearning to hear the left wing message! After all, appearently these conservative stations are willing to lose money just to keep that message from spreading. Not very good capitalists I’d say.
-XT
You had me up until the
The pundits have not learned to shit in the toilet yet, so they spew their little balls of defecate derision over the airwaves for their followers to catch in their beaks.
Well then, in the spirit of a double negative, let me add this:
I never understood this idea that “there’s no liberals on radio”. Every town I’ve ever lived in (in VT and FL mainly) has had at least one “progressive” radio station that would play a lot of folk music/bluegrass/etc about 3/4 the time and have some sort of liberal commentary/news show of varying quality on during the rest of the time. While these shows seem to be less centralized then right wing radio (there isn’t one figure like Rush Limbaugh that sort of personifies them) I think there more or less as widely available, at least in any place with a moderately large population.
Or rather, to the OP, do we have any numbers that support
If you want an honest answer, I think it’s mostly Rush Limbaugh. He got on there with a right wing point of view and just took off, becoming insanely popular (and he still is. He’s still the most listened to talk show host out there). And his success spawned imitators.
Talk radio is essentially socially irresponsible. It encourages the public to form opinons based on practically nothing. It exists to make money and to play to the dark side of our natures. The side that loves to get vicariously outraged over things we really don’t have any right to even have an opinion about because we don’t have enough information, the side that loves consensus, scapegoating and feeling smart because we’re smarter than the utter morons on our radios. You would have to be conservative not to see that it’s socially destructive.
I haven’t listened to Air America much but it was offputting to me because I thought it was too close to that type of circus to be worth my time. I mostly listened to Al Franken and it was somewhat okay to the degree that it was satirical but I was eventually just put off by too much of the same shallow format that other radio shows have. Part of it is the call-in stuff. Listening to the average joe talk out of his ass can only either make you feel angry or smugly superior and neither is a healthy way to amuse yourself. It just breeds contempt.
I think it goes hand in hand with the reason liberal humorists are usually good natured. Kidding on the square is pretty gentle and it’s uplifting even if you decide you disagree with the premise. I don’t think many liberals will fall for things that appeal to their fears or ignorance or contempt because it doesn’t play to their self-image as compassionate and thoughtful. Put another way, they’re easily offended. Talk radio is obnoxious and offensive. If liberals are attracted to anything for unflattering ego reasons, they are attracted to things that make them feel socially responsible, intelligent and reflective.
The Atlantic (formerly monthly) did a piece on this about six moths ago. The answer to the OPessentially boils down to: “because liberals are satisfied with main stream media.”