Why do liberal radio and tv shows do so poorly?

[code1211]

Over the past 40+ years our society has become more and more liberal.

Conservatives, especially social conservatives like to be told over, and over, that they are not alone in believing in their 1950's 'White Suburbia only'' ideology.. So they turn on the AM talking heads, and Fox and are told over and over that gays and Muslims should neither be seen, or heard. . And the evil Liberals have declared war on Christianity.

Well, completely wrong. It's interesting that you have no idea what you are talking about, but believe it very strongly.

 

[code1211]

Really? If someone calls themself 'conservative', you can predict with near-certainty what they think about any subject. If someone advocates more laws, they're probably a conservative. If someone says to you, "What are you worried about if you have nothing to hide?", conservative. Liberals are far less predictable. A liberal is more likely to be conservative on some issues than vice versa.

I'm a Conservative and I am strongly in favor of a weaker Federal Government, fewer Federal laws, less Federal regulation and moving the power of government away from Washington and closer to the people. Moving it to the lowest level possible that still gets the job done.

"Power to the people" is a strictly Conservative direction.

How does this square with your misunderstanding of Conservatism?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Over the past 40+ years our society has become more and more liberal.

Conservatives, especially social conservatives like to be told over, and over, that they are not alone in believing in their 1950's 'White Suburbia only'' ideology.. So they turn on the AM talking heads, and Fox and are told over and over that gays and Muslims should neither be seen, or heard. . And the evil Liberals have declared war on Christianity.

I used to listen to Ed Shultz and got the impression that the liberals were always pissed off. These shows are entertainment, but both sides invest way too much emotional energy into them.

 

[code1211]

Liberals as people don't like to to do TV or radio. So it doesn't surprise me.

Liberals don't like to do TV or radio? Wow!

What planet do you live on?

 

[code1211]

On the contrary, many appear to love being lied to.

Anyone who is a declared member of a political party likes to be lied to.

 

[roguenuke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

Tried to post the table, but it exceeds the limit for a post.

This article shows the top rated/listened to radio shows nationally.

Not sure it proves any point, but Limbaugh is the top of the heap.

Because he is a shock jock. He pisses people off and confirms most of what his followers want to hear. It isn't because there are fewer liberals. It is because liberals are much less in step with each other than conservatives. Conservatives generally want to keep things as they are or maintain "traditional values" while liberals generally want to change things. It is far easier to get a group to agree on things being kept a certain way than it is to get people to agree on a direction to change things.

 

[roguenuke]

Are you saying that the popularity of Rush Limbaugh is based solely on his personality and has nothing to do with his point of view or beliefs?

It's a combination of both but it also has to do with the lack of conformity found on the other side.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I used to listen to Ed Shultz and got the impression that the liberals were always pissed off. These shows are entertainment, but both sides invest way too much emotional energy into them.

Nope, it's not both sides nor are libs 'always pissed off'. As an old white male who knows many other older white males I can say with 100% certainty that old white males are by far the most pissed off and angry demographic in the country. And if you look at the demographic that listens to conservative radio and TV shows you will see the majority are older, white males.

There's a reason for that correlation. The Beck's and Hannity's and Limbaugh's aren't idiots, they know who listens to them, and they are all millionaires because the know and carter to that angry demographic.

 

[code1211]

As concerns the success or failure of political media, I was addressing what you seemed to be implying, and I called you on it. But if you weren't implying that, I'll let it go.

To more directly address the question in the OP, did you try Googling around a bit? From the Denver Post:

The consolidation of ownership of radio stations is at least partly responsible for the statistical dominance of conservative political talk radio.

"Toxic Talk" by Bill Press, is a prickly takedown of the "destructive power of Rush, Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, O'Reilly and the other polarizing figures of talk radio." The book's subtitle says it all: "How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America's Airwaves."

According to Press, "the key is ownership. Follow the money." In the case of Clear Channel, he notes, the company owns 145 news-talk stations and also owns Premiere, the top syndicator of conservative talk shows, which syndicates "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Sean Hannity Show," and others. Clear Channel, in turn, is owned by (Mitt Romney's former venture) Bain Capital.

The biggest U.S. radio station owners — Clear Channel, Entercomm, Cumulus, Salem, Cox and CBS — establish their 50,000-watt blowtorches, like KOA in Denver, as the home of conservative talk. "And you wonder why it's so hard for a liberal to make it as a talk radio host?" Press writes.

Talkers' Harrison argues that anyone who wins ratings, regardless of viewpoint, would be welcomed by a financially driven corporation. It's about drawing audiences, regardless of ideology. That's been the Clear Channel stance for years. Press disagrees. A liberal talk radio icon is an impossibility, he suggests, due to the corporate ownership of the media.

There are more Dems than Republicans...and while more identify as "conservative" than as "liberal", when it comes to the social aspect of the ideologies, we're now split evenly...and the momentum clearly shows that social conservatives are diminishing over time as social liberals are increasing over time. All of which means that there's no reason why liberal talk radio can't compete when it comes to raw numbers of listeners. That's why the above reference is so important - there's more to the story than just the number of listeners.

But there's a silver lining for us liberals - I think it's safe to say that while conservatives still have a choke-hold on talk radio, we liberals are much more successful when it comes to talk shows on television. Oh, I know, y'all have Bill O'Reilly...but I'm referring more to the daytime talk shows and the late night talk shows that do lean significantly to the left. Yeah, they all claim to be politically neutral...but it doesn't take a genius to see where their political hearts are. They just have to maintain a razor-thin veneer of non-partisanship.

So...y'all go ahead and keep the radio waves - we've got the non-Fox television giants. See y'all in November!

So the ownership of a station dictates what the people want to hear coming out of their radio?

Programming, in your mind, is what drives what people want, not the other way around?

This is the kind of mind set that creates Liberals.

 

[code1211]

The RW favours marching in lockstep. Liberals are like herding cats.

Really!

Name the liberals in politics that vociferously oppose abortion.

 

[DamnYankee]

Conservative radio and tv shows do really well for the most part, liberal shows...usually the opposite. Why?

Mostly because leftists are boring. They all are the same parrot saying exactly the same thing, and I mean exactly the same thing.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Does NPR survive on it's own in the free market or are they subsidized?

irrelevant.

NPR could well survive on it's own, but the point is, as a publically funded entity it is providing content unbiased by big corporate advertisers

 

[ocean515]

The standard of living is generally higher in blue states. Blue states generally have not just lower poverty rates, but higher rates of educational attainment, lower violent crime rates, higher percentages of health care coverage, longer life expectancies, lower teenage pregnancy rates, and lower divorce rates.

Dig through all the data like I did, and you'll find the same thing. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, blue states are better off than red states as described above.

There was only one area I could find where red states were generally better off than blue states - drug use. It's generally higher in blue states than in red (and this was before marijuana was legalized in WA and CO). But in all other areas, from poverty to education to violent crime rates to health care coverage to life expectancy to teenage pregnancy rates and divorce rates...people in blue states are generally better off than those in red states.

I know you don't want to believe that for a moment...but that's what the hard data say.

LOL.

Then present your data Glen, otherwise, it's just your opinion.

One fly in your ointment, California. Remember, 1 out of 8 people living in the United States lives in California. California is unquestionably the most liberal/progressive "Blue State" in the United States. It has been ruled completely by liberal/progressive legislatures going back for decades.

California has the highest supplemental poverty rate in the United States. It has produced some of the highest unemployment rates in the country for at least a decade. Currently it's ranked 36th. Do you know how many people 5.5% represents?

California Poverty Rate Highest In Nation Based On New Census Department Figures

Unemployment Rates for States

Of course, at the end of the day, the Red State/Blue State identifier is probably one of the most politically lame definitions ever conceived by the liberal/progressive media. After all, if a Blue State was run into the ground, and voters just kicked the fools out of office in favor of a Republican majority, is the state now Red, and therefore an example of "Red State" failure?

All in all, the Red/Blue issue is a lesson in intellectually vacant thinking.

 

[code1211]

I don't watch FOX, unless it's a movie on their commercial network.

I thought the Daily Show was pandering...I loved the Colbert Report.

I also like the BBC and occasionally NPR because both try to be middle of the road news without political spin. I wish we still had the likes of a Walter Cronkite who I actually had the privilege of working with briefly as a young student journalist back in the 70's.

Through his career, it seems like Cronkite always reported with a point of view.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I think another reason is many conservatives simply take their politics more seriously. Same with religion. I know many liberals who are religious, they believe in God, but they don't take their religion nearly as seriously as many cons I know do. Some of the cons I know their religion is a way of life, as is their politics.

 

[roguenuke]

Mostly because leftists are boring. They all are the same parrot saying exactly the same thing, and I mean exactly the same thing.

Have you ever listened to conservative shows? They do the exact same thing. The difference is that their listeners actually want to hear the same things over and over while liberals tend to have many differing viewpoints. Some certainly are more extreme than others, but fewer are lockstep extreme even when this is true. They are generally just more extreme on certain issues or a group of certain issues.

Besides if they are failing due to the shows talking about the same things all the time that would indicate their listeners don't want to hear that.

 

[ocean515]

irrelevant.

NPR could well survive on it's own, but the point is, as a publically funded entity it is providing content unbiased by big corporate advertisers

Actually, that is not what NPR thinks. While taxpayer funding has been critical, it certainly hasn't stopped NPR from being biased.

NPR Exec: NPR Would Be Better Off Without Federal Support : NPR

And given this bias...

Worthy Cause, Controversial Funding Source : NPR Ombudsman : NPR

...it's pretty easy to see why liberal/progressive tune in.

The interesting fact is, as admitted by NPR itself, they couldn't survive without handouts, which pretty much plays to form for the whole liberal/progressive agenda.

 

[roguenuke]

So the ownership of a station dictates what the people want to hear coming out of their radio?

Programming, in your mind, is what drives what people want, not the other way around?

This is the kind of mind set that creates Liberals.

It all plays a part especially so though in something like radio. Radio is a limited media avenue. There are only so many stations, particularly stations that people can listen to or that are available for talk rather than music.

It isn't much different than those that point out who owns the tv stations and news stations in the country and show how most of them, in their view, are liberal.

 

[countryboy]

'Course I do. Don't you see the irony, you repeating what I said about conservative commentators repeating things?

Since there's no irony in my response, no.

 

[code1211]

The standard of living is generally higher in blue states. Blue states generally have not just lower poverty rates, but higher rates of educational attainment, lower violent crime rates, higher percentages of health care coverage, longer life expectancies, lower teenage pregnancy rates, and lower divorce rates.

Dig through all the data like I did, and you'll find the same thing. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, blue states are better off than red states as described above.

There was only one area I could find where red states were generally better off than blue states - drug use. It's generally higher in blue states than in red (and this was before marijuana was legalized in WA and CO). But in all other areas, from poverty to education to violent crime rates to health care coverage to life expectancy to teenage pregnancy rates and divorce rates...people in blue states are generally better off than those in red states.

I know you don't want to believe that for a moment...but that's what the hard data say.

The Blue states seem to be anchored by large and very Blue metropolitan centers surrounded by Red counties in most states.

Election maps
<snip>
[h=3]Election results by county[/h]But we can go further. We can do the same thing also with the county-level election results and the images are even more striking. Here is a map of US counties, again colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic majorities respectively:



<snip>

Those who enjoy the crowding of the population crushed together about them seem to enjoy the notion that there is no solution that is based on the strength of individual effort.

Those who enjoy the satisfaction of individual effort to overcome challenge seem to also enjoy the freedoms found in less densely populated areas.

The DC Area has the highest household income in the country. Also very dense population, crime, violence and individual anonymity.

The devaluation of the importance of the individual's importance and value seems be very strongly associated with the dominance of Liberalism in any area.

In Mayberry, everyone knows everyone. In DC, not so much. Maybe individuals gravitate to the areas that support their world view and maybe their world view grows out of the local environment.

Probably a good topic to study using a Federal Grant worth about a billion dollars. I've got some free time to devote to the expenditure of this grant.

 

[Fletch]

Because he is a shock jock. He pisses people off and confirms most of what his followers want to hear. It isn't because there are fewer liberals. It is because liberals are much less in step with each other than conservatives. Conservatives generally want to keep things as they are or maintain "traditional values" while liberals generally want to change things. It is far easier to get a group to agree on things being kept a certain way than it is to get people to agree on a direction to change things.

Which is why liberals enjoy and employ the use of force to get the things they want. Further, Limbaugh is not a 'shock jock.' That is the sort of charge that only comes from liberals who have never listened but like to pretend they know what they are talking about.

 

[DamnYankee]

Have you ever listened to conservative shows? They do the exact same thing. The difference is that their listeners actually want to hear the same things over and over while liberals tend to have many differing viewpoints.

ROTFLMAO...No leftists DON'T want to hear different viewpoints. LMAO

 

[LowDown]

Conservative radio and tv shows do really well for the most part, liberal shows...usually the opposite. Why?

Most conservatives would say that the majority of the media has a liberal bias. Conservatism is confined to just a few venues such as talk radio. For the most part liberal media does well. It's when it has tried to emulate talk radio, for example, that it has often fallen flat. This is because there are so many other liberal alternatives in the media that are better. Liberal talk radio is superfluous. And when MSNBC tried to emulate Fox (badly) it also fell flat because there are so many other comfortable, well produced media outlets for liberal news and commentary.

 

[Fletch]

I think another reason is many conservatives simply take their politics more seriously. Same with religion. I know many liberals who are religious, they believe in God, but they don't take their religion nearly as seriously as many cons I know do. Some of the cons I know their religion is a way of life, as is their politics.

Are you kidding?? Politics IS the religion of the left. EVERY issue is a political issue to the left. You need to get out more.

 

[code1211]

Which one of those two wings goes to sleep at night praying for the Daddy State, the stern-but-fair authoritarian figure that demands obedience and punishes transgressors? That makes a law that you have to do everything you should do and another law that you can't do anything you shouldn't do and more laws that will put you in jail for being immoral?
By the way, liberal does not equal left. There's lots of very un-liberal stuff in the left. Illiberal, whatever.
What's your guess? Why do talk radio and TV talking heads that pander to conservatives have bigger audiences than ones that have a liberal slant? If they even do, that's just supposition right now. I'm saying, well, I said it already.

The classical definition of Liberalism and the current label that attaches to the politicians and activists who claim to be Liberal are opposites.

The folks who seek laws to dictate the control of the actions of others are from both political poles.

I feel that government should be like abortion: legal, rare and available. Sadly, government has become oppressive, omnipresent and intrusive.

There is evidence everyday that there are two legal codes in this country: One for the elite and chosen and the other for the disconnected and oppressed.

This is not the vision that was advertised in the Revolution, but, sadly, was the actuality of that day as well. "All men are created equal" obviously, at the time, was understood to be "All (White) Men (excluding all minorities and genders not popular in the minds of those of here at this Convention) are created equal". This would have destroyed the cadence of the sentence. Probably good that they were not all that specific...