[BC] Talk Radio losing influence?

[Rich Wood]

------ At 03:02 AM 1/31/2008, Donna Halper wrote: -------

>I think it depends on the host-- Limbaugh, like him or not, is still 
>the subject of intense scrutiny, and when he talks, people not only 
>listen but they react.

That's where we part company. It's been shown repeatedly that 
Limbaugh doesn't have much clout. As I've mentioned before, he's had 
Republican guests on a show that doesn't have guests when they saw 
themselves in trouble. Bush #1 appeared when he saw he was losing. He 
lost. During the recent scandals there were Republican high officials 
trying to explain it all away. They're now either out of government 
or guests of the government. Talk Radio is about venting and 
inventing controversy.

I've also mentioned before that the vast majority of hosts on both 
sides have no training or experience in the areas they blather about. 
They're proctologists performing brain surgery which might be 
appropriate considering the location of many of their followers brains.

>But there's more competition now, and more opportunities to get a 
>variety of opinions, even if on talk radio, the opinions are still 
>mostly right-wing.  Studies show that the audience is feeling they 
>aren't getting enough NEWS or enough localism-- which, 
>interestingly, has driven a large number of righties (more than 30%) 
>over to (gasp) NPR.

Beyond Newspapers and TV, I have no idea where I'd find local news 
I'd trust on radio in my market. There actually isn't much being 
done, leaving me with WBZ, Boston, as the closest State, National and 
International news source. No local. In the grand tradition of 
voicetracking, Clear Channel once proposed to move all their local 
newsgathering (there's not much) to Hartford and do a news version of 
Metro Traffic. Springfield, MA is a city riddled with crime (until 
recently the 20th most dangerous city in the nation), corruption and 
financial problems that caused the state to take over its finances. 
With all that going on we probably have enough nefarious activity to 
support an all news station. Maybe a station like WWV would work with 
beeps interrupted by a count of the latest shootings.

>And it's tough for the Limbaughs and O'Reillys to keep making the 
>case that the media are liberal when more than 90% of all talk shows 
>are still identifiably conservative.  Also, the fact that the 
>President is so deeply unpopular with both the right and the left -- 
>and opinion polls continually point this out-- makes it a tougher 
>sell when a Limbaugh or a Hannity spouts off the usual talking 
>points.  Only the "true believers" remain to nod their heads in 
>agreement.  Everyone else is busy worrying about making the mortgage 
>payment or having enough money for heating oil.

True. There's a terrible disconnect between hosts who brag about 
their wealth and who they golf with and the average listener. The 
"liberal Media" mantra is our version of the big lie. I'm always 
amused when I hear Limbaugh with over 600 stations claim he's not 
part of the mainstream media. Same with Hannity, O'Reilly and the 
other folks who have syndicated radio shows and are impossible to 
avoid on cable. It's all schtick. Old schtick. Tiresome schtick. 
Pseudo patriotic schtick.

I'll repeat: even in the headiest times of Talk Radio, the national 
hosts have had virtually no significant influence. Local hosts who 
actually live in their markets and deal with local politics might 
have a bit more. It's still schtick. Old schtick. Tiresome schtick.

Beyond marching Liberals off to some Gulag they have no solutions. 
They don't have the backgrounds to provide any.

Rich