Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?

[MarcATL]

Why don't you back up your claims with facts and while doing so please provide some evidence that the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers.

FACT: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 lifted ownership limits for radio stations, leading to incredible consolidation of radio station ownership. One company alone, Clear Channel Inc., owns 850 radio stations across the country. Before the change, a company could not own more than 40 stations nationwide. Several large stations owned by Clear Channel briefly banned the music of the Dixie Chicks because of their critical comments about then-President George W. Bush. Stations owned by Infinity have also banned certain musicians based on their political views. - See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear Channel owns MOST of the radio stations in the country.
Source: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear channel is owned by Bain Capital
Source: Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bain Capital is owned by Bill Bain & (drum roll please) MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah...the most recent REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Yes, it's nothing but a bunch of RWers that own practically ALL radio stations.

You THINK they want to hear Liberal Talk espoused on their airwaves whether it's popular or not?

Clear Channel carries several liberal talk shoes, the ratings suck, Tom Leykis had a good liberal show and ratings but he went to shock radio, more or less. KGO in San Francisco had lots of liberals and was successful up until 2005 or so and switch to all news because of decreased ratings.

As far as the Republican owned BS, in TV, where Republicans own many stations, liberals have owned the programming and as long as it is popular. It's the bottom line.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Their ratings don't suck, they beat many other RW talkers that have been and continue to be on the air.

But you're married to that idea, so I imagine there's no penetrating that thick bubble you've amassed around your skull on that subject.

 

[MarcATL]

Why don't you back up your claims with facts and while doing so please provide some evidence that the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers.

FACT: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 lifted ownership limits for radio stations, leading to incredible consolidation of radio station ownership. One company alone, Clear Channel Inc., owns 850 radio stations across the country. Before the change, a company could not own more than 40 stations nationwide. Several large stations owned by Clear Channel briefly banned the music of the Dixie Chicks because of their critical comments about then-President George W. Bush. Stations owned by Infinity have also banned certain musicians based on their political views. - See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear Channel owns MOST of the radio stations in the country.
Source: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear channel is owned by Bain Capital
Source: Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bain Capital is owned by Bill Bain & (drum roll please) MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah...the most recent REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Yes, it's nothing but a bunch of RWers that own practically ALL radio stations.

You THINK they want to hear Liberal Talk espoused on their airwaves whether it's popular or not?

Clear Channel carries several liberal talk shoes, the ratings suck, Tom Leykis had a good liberal show and ratings but he went to shock radio, more or less. KGO in San Francisco had lots of liberals and was successful up until 2005 or so and switch to all news because of decreased ratings.

As far as the Republican owned BS, in TV, where Republicans own many stations, liberals have owned the programming and as long as it is popular. It's the bottom line.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

OH, and why do you call it "Republican owned BS?"

I've just PROVEN that they ARE REpublican owned.

Plain and simple.

Here's a simple rule. When you own something, you get to CHOOSE what happens on it/with it. In the case of radio stations, the owners CHOOSE what they want on the air.

You're telling me that a Presidential Candidate will just allow opposition talking points to be spewed on HIS airwaves with him not doing anything about it?

If you believe that tripe, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Clear Channel owns MOST of the radio stations in the country.
Source: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear channel is owned by Bain Capital
Source: Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bain Capital is owned by Bill Bain & (drum roll please) MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah...the most recent REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Yes, it's nothing but a bunch of RWers that own practically ALL radio stations.

You THINK they want to hear Liberal Talk espoused on their airwaves whether it's popular or not?

Clear Channel carries several liberal talk shoes, the ratings suck, Tom Leykis had a good liberal show and ratings but he went to shock radio, more or less. KGO in San Francisco had lots of liberals and was successful up until 2005 or so and switch to all news because of decreased ratings.

As far as the Republican owned BS, in TV, where Republicans own many stations, liberals have owned the programming and as long as it is popular. It's the bottom line.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

OH, and why do you call it "Republican owned BS?"

I've just PROVEN that they ARE REpublican owned.

Plain and simple.

Here's a simple rule. When you own something, you get to CHOOSE what happens on it/with it. In the case of radio stations, the owners CHOOSE what they want on the air.

You're telling me that a Presidential Candidate will just allow opposition talking points to be spewed on HIS airwaves with him not doing anything about it?

If you believe that tripe, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.

Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then.

The simple truth is ratings, ratings win, the rest walks. You get listeners, you get advertisers, you make money. That's how it works, pure and simple.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.

Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then.

The simple truth is ratings, ratings win, the rest walks. You get listeners, you get advertisers, you make money. That's how it works, pure and simple.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

And I'm saying your partisanship has blinded you to the obvious.

Ratings don't matter when better rated shows are being discarded while lesser rated shows are still on the air.

How do you explain that?

Also, how do you explain where the same show is played on two different radio stations, at the same time in the same geography? That's radio...how do you explain that one?

Let me help you, it's what the owners get to do when they are PURPOSEFULLY get to push what THEY want on the air, ratings be damned.

Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed, it all went to pot, that's when Clear Channel bought up everything in sight and the airwaves changed, where they could monopolize and control what's on the air, regardless of the ratings.

These are facts sir.

Are they getting through to you?

 

[Pogo]

There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
Any other logical reasons?

If you're SERIOUS about the ansewr, I'll give it to you.

For 1, the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers themselves...including most of the...actually, all of them. There are no radio stations owned by a LWer.

Secondly, political talk radio STARTED as RW radio. It was a response to their perceived persecution complex of a "librul meedya" and birthed a naturally in-bred environment where they were told what they wanted to hear, whether true, half-true or completely false, it made them feel good.

Thirdly, liberals are naturally multi-faceted consumers, so they get their news from multiple sources, least of all from the radio. The natural audience of a radio talk listener and an older, often rural individual, that slants to the right.

I could go into more, but those are some three major factors that should give a good reason why RW radio dominates.

A thoughtful person could easily figure that out IMO.

That's real sweet but the OP was not about RW radio or Lib news sources but rather the utter failure of Lib talk radio. Try to at least touch on the subject matter and thanks for playing.

Again, you have yet to define "failure". Inasmuch as it's still on the air at this moment, we can rule out "failure to exist". What's left? Failure to do what? What is so difficult about this?

 

[Pogo]

In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is one last time:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?

And where do you get the idea that some entire genre of radio "can't pay its bills"? And how do you explain that that radio is still on the air right here right now, if it "can't pay its bills"? Doesn't add up. Still looking for a non-Sheen definition of "winning" too. What's to win?

Really dude? You want a definition of what "is" is? Really?
I don't believe you are as dim as your argument makes you seem so obviously you are just being obtuse.
You wobble back and forth between denying Lib talk radio's failure and proffering reasons for it.

I've got a local station right here that has been carrying the leftist fare (and once again, it's leftist, not liberal) since the AirAmerica days, and still is. How do they do that if it "can't pay its bills"?

I can neither "deny" or "affirm" what you call failure until you can define what that means. I've asked like 35 times what your benchmark for success or failure is. I've asked you what it is you expect of radio. You don't seem to want to answer.

It's like if I say "the answer is 86. Explain why". What's the question?

 

[Pogo]

I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.

Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then.

The simple truth is ratings, ratings win, the rest walks. You get listeners, you get advertisers, you make money. That's how it works, pure and simple.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

And I'm saying your partisanship has blinded you to the obvious.

Ratings don't matter when better rated shows are being discarded while lesser rated shows are still on the air.

How do you explain that?

Also, how do you explain where the same show is played on two different radio stations, at the same time in the same geography? That's radio...how do you explain that one?

Let me help you, it's what the owners get to do when they are PURPOSEFULLY get to push what THEY want on the air, ratings be damned.

Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed, it all went to pot, that's when Clear Channel bought up everything in sight and the airwaves changed, where they could monopolize and control what's on the air, regardless of the ratings.

These are facts sir.

Are they getting through to you?

If I may interject -- ClearChannel's eating binge came about as a result of TelComm 96, not the Fairness Doctrine (Telecommunications Act of 1996) which obliterated cross ownership regulations and opened the floodgates to monopoly manipulating. And yes, that did create a huge opening for Lush Rimjob. That erosion (of diversity of voices on the airwaves) is a far bigger concern to us than Lush Rimjob or the Fairness Doctrine. Because those regulations were put in place to keep from happening exactly what's been happening - corporate consolidation and monopolization of the ether by fewer and fewer voices, to the point where a single entity was at one point running twelve hundred radio stations. Not to mention other pies their fingers are in. That is anathema to discourse.

IMHO.

And when mass media was making itself that great big ice cream cone, since it's already the entity that would be reporting on the story (i.e. reporting on its own conflicts of interest), they gave us a combined total -- all networks combined -- of nineteen minutes on the story.

And you guys wonder why I keep telling you to look up at the freaking puppet strings...

 

[MarcATL]

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

This is your belief, and no amount of facts, new information or anything will penetrate that thick skull of yours to convince it otherwise.

So you start off w/a belief, and back up into the justification of it, no matter what is presented to you.

The standard far RW fare.

 

[Pogo]

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.

Somebody made that point a while back, and as I noted at the time, you just described what Lush Rimjob does, so how do you explain that?

Of course, this again depends on what we mean by "flop" or "failure". And Limblob's knuckledragging demagoguery certainly meets at least an aesthetic definition of those terms.

 

[SAYIT]

If you look into it, you'll soon discover that radio stations are a monopoly.

Go and check, come back and tell me if it's so.

Why don't you back up your claims with facts and while doing so please provide some evidence that the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers.

FACT: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 lifted ownership limits for radio stations, leading to incredible consolidation of radio station ownership. One company alone, Clear Channel Inc., owns 850 radio stations across the country. Before the change, a company could not own more than 40 stations nationwide. Several large stations owned by Clear Channel briefly banned the music of the Dixie Chicks because of their critical comments about then-President George W. Bush. Stations owned by Infinity have also banned certain musicians based on their political views. - See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear Channel owns MOST of the radio stations in the country.
Source: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear channel is owned by Bain Capital
Source: Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bain Capital is owned by Bill Bain & (drum roll please) MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah...the most recent REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Yes, it's nothing but a bunch of RWers that own practically ALL radio stations.

You THINK they want to hear Liberal Talk espoused on their airwaves whether it's popular or not?

There's nearly 15,000 radio stations in the US and Clear Channel owns 850. I realize in your mind that is "MOST of the radio stations in the country" but that is only because you are an idiot. Have a nice night.

 

[HenryBHough]

Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?

If you look into it, you'll soon discover that radio stations are a monopoly.

Go and check, come back and tell me if it's so.

I understand it surprises when our views begin to coincide...but here we are again!

While I disagree that radio stations are a monopoly they are, in many markets, uncomfortably close to that.

I actually liked the situation better when there were clear limits on total ownership and very tightly defined limits on ownership within a single market. As it stands a handful of corporate owners each own hundreds (some may own thousands - I long ago stopped counting) and many in any single market. The number dependent on size of the market and other factors that I won't even try to enumerate 'cause it's like a puzzle with some of the pieces gone.

But not, overall, a monopoly. In any multi-station market it is not permitted that ALL the signals belong to one entity. True that in some markets all the powerful signals are under one owner and what's left is low power, poor signal stations. Not a situation I like but not one I can call "monopoly". Only real potential for a monopoly is a single-station market where there is no allocation for a second signal. Yes,there are still some but not many these days.

The two-edged sword that's out there is called "localism". That's something that was lost when gigantic group ownerships sucked up hundreds of stations and started killing off local programming. The pejorative in the industry is "bird fed" - centralized programming fed by satellite to multiple stations each of which has but a token skeleton staff and perhaps one small "studio" gathering dust. That's something that needs adjustment but, so far, the only proposals have been from the left and equate to a potential total ban on networked long-form (read "talk" or "call-in") programming. The clear intent is to silence voices of dissent. Trouble is that's the unspoken but obvious goal of both left and right.

There's some interesting stuff going on with LPFM (low-power FM) and internet-only stations but a lot of big-group money is being spent to erect roadblocks. Seems like music licensing organizations are doing their best to drive stakes through the hearts of that kind of localism. Fertile field there to be somehow regulated but vast temptation to get cack-handed and use what should encourage diversity to instead stifle points of view.

As to the politics of ownership - big corporate owners have their eye on the stock (read the buck). They'll do whatever they see as serving that goal. Right now there's money to be made in right-wing talk. I really do believe that if Korean language hymns suddenly started attracting listeners AND advertisers than you'd be overwhelmed with that within a year.

No denying that some individuals owning radio stations are doing so to advance their personal agenda. Biggest example, though, is not political - it's religious. The biggest of which I'm aware is the K-LOVE group with a huge number of stations. One other - the name escapes me now - is fundamentalist Christian but doesn't directly program religion. It does tend to right-leaning programming in many markets but runs all-sports and all-business in others. The objective there appears not to be preaching to the converted, rather to make money to spend on growing the faith.

It's interesting that churches not traditionally into broadcasting are getting their feet wet. Not just in radio but also in TV. Several Catholic radio stations have cropped up in recent years and if you have cable TV you know about EWTN. Some EWTN programming is showing up on over-the-air TV and some of the audio is carried on radio though not necessarily on church-owned stations; More on individual stations whose owners are of the faith.

I believe we can agree that the picture is pretty bleak and for some of the same reasons. Some. But not all. Trick is to fix it without turning the public airwaves into something like now exists in Venezuela where the few stations that haven't been confiscated/shut down are preaching the gospel according to the regime exclusively in the interest of survival.

Beware a government that wants that. Right or left. Beware.

 

[SAYIT]

If you're SERIOUS about the ansewr, I'll give it to you.

For 1, the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers themselves...including most of the...actually, all of them. There are no radio stations owned by a LWer.

Secondly, political talk radio STARTED as RW radio. It was a response to their perceived persecution complex of a "librul meedya" and birthed a naturally in-bred environment where they were told what they wanted to hear, whether true, half-true or completely false, it made them feel good.

Thirdly, liberals are naturally multi-faceted consumers, so they get their news from multiple sources, least of all from the radio. The natural audience of a radio talk listener and an older, often rural individual, that slants to the right.

I could go into more, but those are some three major factors that should give a good reason why RW radio dominates.

A thoughtful person could easily figure that out IMO.

That's real sweet but the OP was not about RW radio or Lib news sources but rather the utter failure of Lib talk radio. Try to at least touch on the subject matter and thanks for playing.

Again, you have yet to define "failure". Inasmuch as it's still on the air at this moment, we can rule out "failure to exist". What's left? Failure to do what? What is so difficult about this?

In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is once again:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?

 

[HenryBHough]

Somebody made that point a while back, and as I noted at the time, you just described what Lush Rimjob does, so how do you explain that?

Of course, this again depends on what we mean by "flop" or "failure". And Limblob's knuckledragging demagoguery certainly meets at least an aesthetic definition of those terms.

Please do try to get help with that sexual/anal fixation. The credibility you should have from apparent experience is dwindling.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.

Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then.

The simple truth is ratings, ratings win, the rest walks. You get listeners, you get advertisers, you make money. That's how it works, pure and simple.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

And I'm saying your partisanship has blinded you to the obvious.

Ratings don't matter when better rated shows are being discarded while lesser rated shows are still on the air.

How do you explain that?

Also, how do you explain where the same show is played on two different radio stations, at the same time in the same geography? That's radio...how do you explain that one?

Let me help you, it's what the owners get to do when they are PURPOSEFULLY get to push what THEY want on the air, ratings be damned.

Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed, it all went to pot, that's when Clear Channel bought up everything in sight and the airwaves changed, where they could monopolize and control what's on the air, regardless of the ratings.

These are facts sir.

Are they getting through to you?

Sir, I believe you are wrong, very few times do high rated shows get pulled for no reason, a lot of the time it has to do with contract and other items.

Clear Channel owns 850 stations out of how many thousands.

The only radio I listen to is Classic Radio, Laugh USA, or ESPN. Politics on radio is not entertaining anymore.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[MarcATL]

I just listened to Limbaugh's show on the Sterling issue about racism and liberals. I don't like Rush, but I wondered from the onset about the whole Sterling affair if this wasn't just blacks/liberals over reaction. Sterling paid people (blacks) millions of dollars to play a children's game. Sterling never ever hurt anyone. I noticed how nobody offered to return the money he paid in their outrage. Liberal radio does just fine on NPR. They push agendas too, and I can live with that. But as for a balanced approach, not perceiving it anywhere accept on the internet. Facts don't follow agendas or party lines.

Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?

If you look into it, you'll soon discover that radio stations are a monopoly.

Go and check, come back and tell me if it's so.

I understand it surprises when our views begin to coincide...but here we are again!

While I disagree that radio stations are a monopoly they are, in many markets, uncomfortably close to that.

I actually liked the situation better when there were clear limits on total ownership and very tightly defined limits on ownership within a single market. As it stands a handful of corporate owners each own hundreds (some may own thousands - I long ago stopped counting) and many in any single market. The number dependent on size of the market and other factors that I won't even try to enumerate 'cause it's like a puzzle with some of the pieces gone.

But not, overall, a monopoly. In any multi-station market it is not permitted that ALL the signals belong to one entity. True that in some markets all the powerful signals are under one owner and what's left is low power, poor signal stations. Not a situation I like but not one I can call "monopoly". Only real potential for a monopoly is a single-station market where there is no allocation for a second signal. Yes,there are still some but not many these days.

The two-edged sword that's out there is called "localism". That's something that was lost when gigantic group ownerships sucked up hundreds of stations and started killing off local programming. The pejorative in the industry is "bird fed" - centralized programming fed by satellite to multiple stations each of which has but a token skeleton staff and perhaps one small "studio" gathering dust. That's something that needs adjustment but, so far, the only proposals have been from the left and equate to a potential total ban on networked long-form (read "talk" or "call-in") programming. The clear intent is to silence voices of dissent. Trouble is that's the unspoken but obvious goal of both left and right.

There's some interesting stuff going on with LPFM (low-power FM) and internet-only stations but a lot of big-group money is being spent to erect roadblocks. Seems like music licensing organizations are doing their best to drive stakes through the hearts of that kind of localism. Fertile field there to be somehow regulated but vast temptation to get cack-handed and use what should encourage diversity to instead stifle points of view.

As to the politics of ownership - big corporate owners have their eye on the stock (read the buck). They'll do whatever they see as serving that goal. Right now there's money to be made in right-wing talk. I really do believe that if Korean language hymns suddenly started attracting listeners AND advertisers than you'd be overwhelmed with that within a year.

No denying that some individuals owning radio stations are doing so to advance their personal agenda. Biggest example, though, is not political - it's religious. The biggest of which I'm aware is the K-LOVE group with a huge number of stations. One other - the name escapes me now - is fundamentalist Christian but doesn't directly program religion. It does tend to right-leaning programming in many markets but runs all-sports and all-business in others. The objective there appears not to be preaching to the converted, rather to make money to spend on growing the faith.

It's interesting that churches not traditionally into broadcasting are getting their feet wet. Not just in radio but also in TV. Several Catholic radio stations have cropped up in recent years and if you have cable TV you know about EWTN. Some EWTN programming is showing up on over-the-air TV and some of the audio is carried on radio though not necessarily on church-owned stations; More on individual stations whose owners are of the faith.

I believe we can agree that the picture is pretty bleak and for some of the same reasons. Some. But not all. Trick is to fix it without turning the public airwaves into something like now exists in Venezuela where the few stations that haven't been confiscated/shut down are preaching the gospel according to the regime exclusively in the interest of survival.

Beware a government that wants that. Right or left. Beware.

Well, you have a good grasp on this issue. More detailed than me.

We're in agreement.

 

[Pogo]

That's real sweet but the OP was not about RW radio or Lib news sources but rather the utter failure of Lib talk radio. Try to at least touch on the subject matter and thanks for playing.

Again, you have yet to define "failure". Inasmuch as it's still on the air at this moment, we can rule out "failure to exist". What's left? Failure to do what? What is so difficult about this?

In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is once again:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?

Doesn't work. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, I've got such a station right here paying its bills and doing fine. Your premise is inoperative.
In order to pose the question of why something is so, you have to first establish that it, in fact, IS so. This seems to be a mystery for you.

 

[elektra]

Do you think that talk show hosts should be more humble? Like Rush Limbaugh humble?

This is the problem with liberal talk radio, they have to lie and attempt to be anything but their true selves. Hence liberal talk radio is nothing but insults and epithets hurled against freedom and all that is good in the usa.

Is Rush Limbaugh the humble host missing in Liberal radio? Is Rush Limbaugh a humble host?

I would say Rush Limbaugh is very humble.

 

[SAYIT]

Again, you have yet to define "failure". Inasmuch as it's still on the air at this moment, we can rule out "failure to exist". What's left? Failure to do what? What is so difficult about this?

In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is once again:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?

Doesn't work. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, I've got such a station right here paying its bills and doing fine. Your premise is nonexistent.

Funny how you flip-flop between posting reasons (excuses) for Lib talk radio's utter failure and denying it is a failure. Nevertheless I'm willing to concede that a few exceptions to the rule exist if you have the integrity to admit that Lib talk radio is a flop.
In fact, I'll admit that a few exceptions to the rule exist even if you lack that integrity.

 

[Pogo]

In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is once again:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?

Doesn't work. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, I've got such a station right here paying its bills and doing fine. Your premise is nonexistent.

Funny how you flip-flop between posting reasons (excuses) for Lib talk radios' utter failure and denying it is a failure. Nevertheless I'm willing to concede that a few exceptions to the rule exist if you have the integrity to admit that Lib talk radio is a flop.
In fact, I'll admit that a few exceptions to the rule exist even if you lack that integrity.

Exceptions to ..... WHAT? What is it about this question you're afraid to answer?

 

[SAYIT]

Doesn't work. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, I've got such a station right here paying its bills and doing fine. Your premise is nonexistent.

Funny how you flip-flop between posting reasons (excuses) for Lib talk radios' utter failure and denying it is a failure. Nevertheless I'm willing to concede that a few exceptions to the rule exist if you have the integrity to admit that Lib talk radio is a flop.
In fact, I'll admit that a few exceptions to the rule exist even if you lack that integrity.

Exceptions to ..... WHAT? What is it about this question you're afraid to answer?

You posed no question that I haven't answered.