Could liberal talk now be a viable option?

With half the country up in arms, could it be that liberal talk's time has come?

Where would the money come from?

TheBigA said:

Where would the money come from?

Click to expand...

Good question. As Wall Street has shown this week, there's a lot of optimism about the business-friendly nature of the incoming president and Congress. Hard to see many advertisers (businesses) rushing in to back talk programming opposed to nearly everything about Trump and the GOP. Or large radio syndicators willing to take a chance on it and risk losing the advertisers who now support their right-wing hosts.

This is not the time to start any new format in a dying industry. It's reached the point where it's almost impossible for stations to hold an audience, let alone attract and build one.

Major advertisers already avoid right-wing talk. Even if radio were still an effective advertising medium, it's hard to see them embracing another source of controversy. And it's hard to see progressives responding to the kind of "bottom-feeder" ads which keep right-wing talk going.

Might see some progressive talk podcasts starting up from the major podcast distributors.

Oscar Madison said:

This is not the time to start any new format in a dying industry. It's reached the point where it's almost impossible for stations to hold an audience, let alone attract and build one.

Major advertisers already avoid right-wing talk. Even if radio were still an effective advertising medium, it's hard to see them embracing another source of controversy. And it's hard to see progressives responding to the kind of "bottom-feeder" ads which keep right-wing talk going.

Might see some progressive talk podcasts starting up from the major podcast distributors.

Click to expand...

And how would the reach of a podcast in any given market compare to the cume of even a "dying" over-the-air talk radio station? Podcasts preach to the choir. OTA talk at least has the potential of changing minds.

CTListener said:

OTA talk at least has the potential of changing minds.

Click to expand...

Huh? It's preaching to the converted. Admittedly.

TheBigA said:

Huh? It's preaching to the converted. Admittedly.

Click to expand...

But at least a curious moderate or liberal could tune in, if only to hear what the "enemy" is saying. That's not going to happen with a podcast.

CTListener said:

And how would the reach of a podcast in any given market compare to the cume of even a "dying" over-the-air talk radio station? Podcasts preach to the choir. OTA talk at least has the potential of changing minds.

Click to expand...

Right-wing talk radio only preaches to the choir, too. All political content preaches to the choir. People tune in for agreement, not to have their minds changed. For confirmation, not information. This is essentially why the long-standing or "heritage" talk stations dumped all liberal hosts. Even people who were already listening to the station tuned out when the host didn't represent what they wanted to hear.

And nobody has found a talk radio format that appeals to progressives. Air America Radio tried doing Rush-style talk but with progressive viewpoints. It didn't work. Public radio comes closest but it also appeals to educated, affluent traditional conservatives. And we are about 60 years too late for the "solidarity forever" approach that once worked for unions. And the "we shall over come" approach only works with members of "disadvantaged" victim/entitlement groups.

I agree. The reason that seemed to resonate with me on the difference between the right leaning and left learning sides was that it was easier to reach consensus among the right leaning than left leaning.

b-turner said:

I agree. The reason that seemed to resonate with me on the difference between the right leaning and left learning sides was that it was easier to reach consensus among the right leaning than left leaning.

Click to expand...

Yep, "like herding cats" is the cliche often used to describe getting Democrats to march in lockstep on anything including the time of day, and it's true more often than not. That's why we were getting a decent amount of amusement out of the GOP's internal agonies this elections cycle. Until Tuesday night.

One of the few long running libtalkers,WXXM in Madison, changed to Christmas the day after the election and will go to an all music format after that. Decision had already been made. I think they're iHeart.Madison, the home of the now gone public radio show Whad Ya Know.Well, whaddaya know? (Not much, you?) Aging demographic for talk radio for both left and right.

In Boston conservative talk does OK and continues but other than a couple shows on a station in Lowell MA, prog talk on commercial radio doesn't exist.Stations in Brattleboro VT and Bangor ME (owned by Stephen King) still have it.
Meanwhile in Barre VT conserv talk ended on WSNO...because station owners wanted to put a CHR on a new translator and had to change the AM's format to fit the rules.
Politically New England is very blue other than a couple moderate Republicans.Even in the new age of Trump, there are targets of local pols as well as national should Donald not follow through on his promises.Or criticism of the mainstream media.

Why would now present any better of an environment that during the GW Bush administration? It was tried then, with lots of capital on the form of Air America. NPR already fills this niche. There is neither room nor demand for another player. Perhaps a single show could emerge if the right talent and circumstances converge, but you already have the aforementioned NPR (spare me the contention that they aren't liberal talk), Allan Colmes, Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller on the air. Frankly, this isn't an underserved market, there apparently aren't many more listeners than these programs already handle.

umfan said:

Why would now present any better of an environment that during the GW Bush administration? It was tried then, with lots of capital on the form of Air America. NPR already fills this niche. There is neither room nor demand for another player. Perhaps a single show could emerge if the right talent and circumstances converge, but you already have the aforementioned NPR (spare me the contention that they aren't liberal talk), Allan Colmes, Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller on the air. Frankly, this isn't an underserved market, there apparently aren't many more listeners than these programs already handle.

Click to expand...

A close election - and consistent political research results - indicate the number of right-wing and progressive "listeners" is about the same - or more accurately, potential listeners. The kind of demagoguery and hate speech that forms the basis of right-wing talk, just won't work with progressives. Progressives respond to appeals to their "better angels," not to anger and bigotry.

There have been successful local progressive talk shows until management purged them from their schedules. The fact is corporate owners and local management did not want progressive talk to work. Except for a few token efforts to stave off regulation and reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, corporate radio did it's worst to eliminate progressive talk - including in the aforementioned Madison market.

Colmes, Hartmann and Miller (plus Big Ed) never worked for Air America Radio. Colmes, ironically, works for Fox. Fox put Colmes on late at night (weakest time period) and put him on TV for a time as Sean Hannity's punching bag. As a result, he has almost zero credibility in the progressive community.

And spare me the contention that NPR is liberal talk. That's a lie. NPR is two - and only two - programs: Morning Edition and All Things Considered (three if you also count Weekend Edition). And audience research shows those programs have about equal numbers of self-identified liberal and conservative listeners. That's not to say NPR does not have a consistent bias. But there biases run in both directions. Political correctness on the one hand. Pro-military and pro-corporate (where most of their money comes from) on the other. They try to please all of the people some of the time.

It seems you would be more likely to be a fan of Bob Jones, Liberty, Regent or ORU.

umfan said:

you already have the aforementioned NPR (spare me the contention that they aren't liberal talk),

Click to expand...

Name all the talk show hosts on NPR. And by that I mean NPR only, not public radio in general.

Oscar Madison said:

A close election - and consistent political research results - indicate the number of right-wing and progressive "listeners" is about the same - or more accurately, potential listeners. The kind of demagoguery and hate speech that forms the basis of right-wing talk, just won't work with progressives. Progressives respond to appeals to their "better angels," not to anger and bigotry.

Click to expand...

Bill Maher doesn't fuel anger and bigotry?

Oscar Madison said:

And nobody has found a talk radio format that appeals to progressives. Air America Radio tried doing Rush-style talk but with progressive viewpoints. It didn't work.

Click to expand...

Good point..I would say that liberal talk trying to take the approach that conservative talk does doesn't work. The audiences aren't the same. I think that's why Ed Schultz circled the drain...he was trying too hard to be the liberal Limbaugh and think people endured it more than listened.

CTListener said:

Yep, "like herding cats" is the cliche often used to describe getting Democrats to march in lockstep on anything including the time of day, and it's true more often than not.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you were to try and describe a liberal audience using a venn diagram, it might look like a complex balloon animal while the conservative representation would look more like a very rounded cloud with it's tightly grouped circles.