From the wildly objective Columbia Journalism Review…
Occasional advertising boycotts of Rush Limbaugh’s program notwithstanding, political talk radio has been wildly successful in recent years—in terms of both revenue and ratings. Of course, political talk radio generally means conservative political talk radio, especially since the demise of the liberal Air America network in 2010. The most popular political talkers, like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, are all conservative. So you might be inclined to think that political talk radio’s recent success reflects increasingly conservative values among the general public.
This is sophistry, plain and simple.
Oh my. What a steaming pile! Methinks the authors haven’t been outside NYC for a really long time. If ever.
Woodporter at August 7, 2012 3:05 PM
Indeed.
Ya beat me to it….
This from the poltical wing of climate science….an oxymoron….
Of course the academic asshats miss the obvious logical conclusion – the popularity of political talk radio (dominated by conservative hosts who offer uncensored instant listener feedback) is because consumers have abandoned both the print dailies and TV news because these media are schills for government/cprporate propaganda- opinion which is not in alignment with their thinking.
Like the internet, talk radio is part of the alternative media. The media is the message.
Stupid eggheads.
Ask the President of Carbonite if dissing Limbaugh has any business impacts.
I’ve thought of this before, and I believe that the Right-wing slant on Talk radio is because typically speaking, those on the Left are not interested in the news; thus, the low demand for liberal talk radio.
It’s my observation that if you are a concerned and informed citizen, you are likely a conservative of some stripe. If you are an unconcerned and uninformed(or misinformed) citizen, you are likely a liberal of some sort.
“Da proof is da proof”. It’s all about the market, and demand.
Good point Homez. Also people such asbLimbaugh have a sense of humour that is not nasty. They are also interested in the truth. All together it is a compelling package and it is no wonder they are so successful.
The only ratings that matter are the ones taken in November.
There is an important dynamic at work here that few folks appreciate. The key to talk radio’s success rests on the ability of listeners to, well, listen. Liberal talk radio has the challenge of finding a like-minded audience and listening is not a liberal strength.
Looks like these profs are “adjusting” the data to fit their hypothesis. It certainly can’t be because more people are listening to conservative radio.
One thing mentioned that reeks of Big Brother: “Portable People Meter, a device that looks like a beeper and detects automatically which radio stations are within a listener’s earshot. ” Scarier than that old lady with the snooping ear set pretending it is a bluetooth.
I chuckled when I read the positioning statement on the linked page : “Strong Press. Strong Democracy”. It’s absolutely true. Problem is, the Press is far from strong. Also true: “Crooked Press, Crooked Democracy”.
Dare I suggest that the left of the spectrum just plain lacks any sense of humour?
Why are there so few Cammille Paglias and Christopher Hitchens out there?
Or is being a leftist too serious a business?
Speaking of rightwing pundits, you know what ol’ P.J. O’Rourke says: “Seriousness is stupidity sent to college.”
The academics pretending to writing an objective study presupposed that conservatives are simple automatons that deterministically listen to talk radio more because there are more stations not through free will and choice. The same authors then conclude that progressives are content in exercising their “discriminating minds” by the nature of an overwhelmingly predominant “progressive” mainstream media.
If they followed the simple observation that Rupert Murdock’s genius was in recognition of the “niche” market of 50% they wouldn’t have anything to do to justify tenure and overpaid existence.
There’s a lot of deception in this article. For example, it refers to Limbaugh’s “modest” growth of 11%. Given his already huge listener base, that’s a huge increase. By contrast, Beck had a huge growth of 80 % over the period, but then he started the period with very little.
This is a good indication that the good profs are trying to avoid dealing with the demand side. As others have noted, they would then have to explain why the MSM audience is collapsing and why Air America collapsed.
As others have noted, there’s been a large increase. Regardless of rebroadcast trickery, it wouldn’t exist if the advertisers and listeners weren’t supporting it.
There may have been a large increase in the past, but growth has stagnated and even declined. Advertisers are passing Limbuagh up. He is not as powerful as his supporters and enemies make him out to be.
Most Talk radio is about people, listeners and the host questioning and challeneging the messaging to get at the real story, to explore the real news and actual partake in real journalism it speaks to those on the right who distreust centraized authority. The Left never questions the message and does not care for the real story so consequently the Left does not like Talk Radio.
KGO (San Francisco) one of the most left wing broadcasters ever was recently acquired by Cumulus who promptly fired all the talk-radio hosts and went to an all-news format. Sad – I found them all quite entertaining in a perverse kind of way.
And here, I thought it was all about people who work and care having some background sound that makes sense to them.
Actually, what happened is that Reagan removed the socialist/fascist idea that you have to give the other opinion a free time on a commercial radio.
So when these two characters that never got out of school say that
“Telecommunications Act’s deregulation of the industry allowed businesses to own more radio stations in individual markets and across the country as a whole”
Seems to be a wishful thinking, the major effect of a free and fearless thought is the main factor here.
For the most part, the statement is a “running interference” rather than giving credit to the popularity of the three commentators, notwithstanding the introduction.
This is what one can call an intellectualizing of bullshit. It means nothing thought them academics have credentials to proclaim bullshit and it has an excellent chance to be picked by The Columbia Journalism Review and other “journalists”.
Them academics should study things like, are the so called liberal commentators supported by a variety of rich, socialist aristocrats or are they supported by the advertising revenue.
One wants to know.
As someone already mentioned, it’s the number of listeners and advertising revenue that keeps the commentators on the air. No listeners, no money.
It is also true that those that are socialists/fascists/communists and other such, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, in order to get to the truth. They obviously cannot trust those of the same persuasion since they know they are lied to so in order to spread the propaganda they pay lip.
Speaking of Rush, he did a talk today, about Dem Sheila Jackson, who was visiting the Johnson Space Center today, and was watching the new Martian Rover… She asked if it was close to where the astronauts planted the flag? The tittering and giggling in Huston must be generating about a Richter 6 earthquake right about now..
The statements about the telecom act and the effect of changes leading to more talk and news are absolutely true.
The fact that the authors try to use those facts to diminish the accomplishments of CONSERVATIVE radio programming just proves that they are intellectual pipsqueeks.
Liberals … always find a way to get it wrong.
Did I miss something? I thought boycotts against Limbaugh only made him more popular?
No, something is not right….
To quote Kate’s comment on her side bar.”Why this blog? Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”. In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”
This is why right-wing talk shows are so popular and this is why I listen to them and come to this site. I was so tired of the left-wing lies fed to me for so many decades.
I, as a voting American, know that we managed to get it right in 2000 (despite all the MSM) when we did not elect Al Gore. He would have been worse than the Pimp/Punk Chicago Man-Child with a smart Teleprompter…Tipper Gore dumped that loser & she was smart to get her money before big AL got gored..
Real People don’t vote for stupid & Obama is starting to flame out….Mitt will win going away
JMHO
Of course American values haven’t become increasingly conservative. They elected Barack Frigging Obama in 2008, didn’t they?
B. Hussein-Obama walked into an American university without an adequate background check, and no indication that he was insane except for a Che Guevara t-shirt.
He obtained a law degree and used it to go on an activism spree that ended up draining a trillion dollars out of the U.S. economy.
Crazed loner, or part of a greater problem?