Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?

[Pogo]

Silliness. Commercial talk radio like any commodity is intended to MAKE MONEY or, as in the case of NPR, at least break even. If you have a successful Lib talk show you will get sponsors. The truth you claim to want made public is that socialism, like Lib talk radio, is an abject failure. Get off your butt and help pull the train ... there's a lot of peeps riding it who genuinely need our help.

I have yet to see you address the question but it's looking like you believe the purpose of radio is to sell things.*

We already know the purpose of advertising is to sell us things we don't need (things we do need, we're already seeking). Therefore in your view radio has no purpose but advertising, which is to say, you apparently believe radio has no constructive purpose at all.

And if that's the premise, then content on that radio is irrelevant, except as it serves ratings. And ratings measure attention, not assent; and attention is won by controversy and drama and strong emotion -- certainly not by rectitude or accuracy. Therefore ideology is irrelevant. It's all in how the message is framed, i.e. the style. If one treats radio as nothing more than a commodity, then what "sells" that commodity is not liberal talk or conservative talk or sports or any genre of music ---- it's how well the psychological manipulation of attention-seeking is executed.

In other words when Lush Rimjob declares his "talent on loan from God", he doesn't win listeners for his alleged "talent" -- he wins listeners for his overabundant arrogance. And that's got nothing to do with his subject matter; it's personal.


*(Not that I agree at all with that assessment of the purpose of radio; I think it hopelessly boxes itself in with a slavish commodity mentality -- a Ferengi world where everything has a price and must be transacted in order to have validity. "Flop", after all, derives from a world of top 40 music radio --- a world where art is reduced to a commodity for sale. And that's the problem with the whole pretense of the question; it's invalid. Discourse is not a commodity.)

You've certainly seen my description of radio's purpose (post #168) but you seem more interested in ignoring it and putting your words into my mouth. I assure you, to the owners of radio stations their asset exists to earn money but just to show what a good sport I am, even in the fact of willful obstinance, I will repost:
"The market determines the utility and value of products ... Radio's utility has been info and entertainment. Talk radio is a mixture of the two. Get it right and you have a successful show. Get it wrong and you have Lib talk radio."

You continue to dance around a definition without giving one. Describing what happens if you pick from Column A and what happens when you pick from Column B, is NOT a definition.

You seem to assume above (and of course I can't put words in your mouth but it's implied) that the purpose of radio is to "sell things". Not sure why that's such a bugaboo to answer but there it is -- and to follow the statement out to the end, it also seems you see some correlation between accuracy and ratings response. And I defy you to demonstrate where that theory has any validity at all.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever the shortcomings of Con talk radio - and there's many - it generates enough listeners to attract sponsors. Are you really saying there's not enough stupid liberals who react with knee jerk hatred to do the same for Lib talk radio? Evidently not enough smart, thoughtful libs either.

What you seem to be saying then is that the political talk format, as established by conservatives, is by nature an exercise in dishonesty. The logical conclusion then is that liberals (by which I still think you mean leftists) are just not as good at dishonesty.

Is that where you're going with this?

Well, that's not what I was saying (you do expend much effort reading your thoughts into my posts rather than just taking them at face value) but I'll play.
Most adults, with varying degree of success, manage to determine what is truth and what is BS. As such, Lib talk radio fails to attract & hold an audience large enough to be commercially viable.

Same point as above, deja vued all over again. Your pretense above speaks of "stupid (listeners) with knee jerk hatred" as the requisite ingredient for ratings "success"...

Well you can't have it both ways. Either what generates more ratings is honesty and accuracy, or what generates more ratings is fakery, disingenuousness, sensationalist exaggeration and psychological manipulation. One of these is actually correct. Pick a side.


Here's a handy hint:

 

[SAYIT]

Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?

Yeah, there's chronic failure, Dennis Miller but he can't even get arrested.

So?

How does that explain the failure of Lib talk radio? You wouldn't be deflecting, would you?

That's not a deflection at all -- it reignites my musing earlier on why the audiences on the right seem to respond more to vitriol while those on the left respond to humor. What I mean to suggest is that maybe liberal radio (as commodity) "flops" because it's trying to use the wrong tools.

Now you are back to offering reasons for why it flops ("it's using the wrong tools").
You seem to think that those who produce and broadcast Lib talk radio shows aren't bright enough to figure out a winning formula. I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.

 

[SAYIT]

I have yet to see you address the question but it's looking like you believe the purpose of radio is to sell things.*

We already know the purpose of advertising is to sell us things we don't need (things we do need, we're already seeking). Therefore in your view radio has no purpose but advertising, which is to say, you apparently believe radio has no constructive purpose at all.

And if that's the premise, then content on that radio is irrelevant, except as it serves ratings. And ratings measure attention, not assent; and attention is won by controversy and drama and strong emotion -- certainly not by rectitude or accuracy. Therefore ideology is irrelevant. It's all in how the message is framed, i.e. the style. If one treats radio as nothing more than a commodity, then what "sells" that commodity is not liberal talk or conservative talk or sports or any genre of music ---- it's how well the psychological manipulation of attention-seeking is executed.

In other words when Lush Rimjob declares his "talent on loan from God", he doesn't win listeners for his alleged "talent" -- he wins listeners for his overabundant arrogance. And that's got nothing to do with his subject matter; it's personal.


*(Not that I agree at all with that assessment of the purpose of radio; I think it hopelessly boxes itself in with a slavish commodity mentality -- a Ferengi world where everything has a price and must be transacted in order to have validity. "Flop", after all, derives from a world of top 40 music radio --- a world where art is reduced to a commodity for sale. And that's the problem with the whole pretense of the question; it's invalid. Discourse is not a commodity.)

You've certainly seen my description of radio's purpose (post #168) but you seem more interested in ignoring it and putting your words into my mouth. I assure you, to the owners of radio stations their asset exists to earn money but just to show what a good sport I am, even in the fact of willful obstinance, I will repost:
"The market determines the utility and value of products ... Radio's utility has been info and entertainment. Talk radio is a mixture of the two. Get it right and you have a successful show. Get it wrong and you have Lib talk radio."

You continue to dance around a definition without giving one. Describing what happens if you pick from Column A and what happens when you pick from Column B, is NOT a definition.

You seem to assume above (and of course I can't put words in your mouth but it's implied) that the purpose of radio is to "sell things". Not sure why that's such a bugaboo to answer but there it is -- and to follow the statement out to the end, it also seems you see some correlation between accuracy and ratings response. And I defy you to demonstrate where that theory has any validity at all.

I see commercial viability or the lack of same as market validation or rejection.
Radio shows that can't afford to keep the lights on - in this case Lib talk radio - are a flop. Sometimes success means corp sponsors, sometimes it's private grants, and sometimes it's volunteers ... a formula that NPR, with a bit of public funding, uses relatively successfully.

 

[SAYIT]

What you seem to be saying then is that the political talk format, as established by conservatives, is by nature an exercise in dishonesty. The logical conclusion then is that liberals (by which I still think you mean leftists) are just not as good at dishonesty.

Is that where you're going with this?

Well, that's not what I was saying (you do expend much effort reading your thoughts into my posts rather than just taking them at face value) but I'll play.
Most adults, with varying degree of success, manage to determine what is truth and what is BS. As such, Lib talk radio fails to attract & hold an audience large enough to be commercially viable.

Same point as above, deja vued all over again. Your pretense above speaks of "stupid (listeners) with knee jerk hatred" as the requisite ingredient for ratings "success"...

Well you can't have it both ways. Either what generates more ratings is honesty and accuracy, or what generates more ratings is fakery, disingenuousness, sensationalist exaggeration and psychological manipulation. One of these is actually correct. Pick a side.


Here's a handy hint:

I do not disagree with the entertainment component in Con talk radio but this thread is not about Con radio but rather the abject failure of Lib talk radio.
As you already noted, the problem may well be the formula employed or perhaps Lib talk radio, thanks in large part to the subject matter, is just plain BORING.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that's not what I was saying (you do expend much effort reading your thoughts into my posts rather than just taking them at face value) but I'll play.
Most adults, with varying degree of success, manage to determine what is truth and what is BS. As such, Lib talk radio fails to attract & hold an audience large enough to be commercially viable.

Same point as above, deja vued all over again. Your pretense above speaks of "stupid (listeners) with knee jerk hatred" as the requisite ingredient for ratings "success"...

Well you can't have it both ways. Either what generates more ratings is honesty and accuracy, or what generates more ratings is fakery, disingenuousness, sensationalist exaggeration and psychological manipulation. One of these is actually correct. Pick a side.


Here's a handy hint:

I do not disagree with the entertainment component in Con talk radio but this thread is not about Con radio but rather the abject failure of Lib talk radio.
As you already noted, the problem may well be the formula employed or perhaps Lib talk radio, thanks in large part to the subject matter, is just plain BORING.

--- and I keep telling you, the subject matter is irrelevant. An issue that is hot at the time could be the same subject matter on both right and left talk radio. I submit that it's all about the presentation.

For example -
Who watches WWE (above) out of an interest in the finer points of wrestling technique? Very few. Make it into a scripted morality play fueled by a simplistic dichotomy of "good versus evil" -- now you have an audience. The play's the thing.

For example -
A building has a security guard outside? So what. Boring and pedestrian.

Dress that picture up as "the new black panthers" with all kinds of suggestions on how the black man is coming to get you? Now you have an audience.

 

[HenryBHough]

Could be.

Indeed there may be liberal hosts who could make it interesting.

Wake me when there is one.

 

[Pogo]

How does that explain the failure of Lib talk radio? You wouldn't be deflecting, would you?

That's not a deflection at all -- it reignites my musing earlier on why the audiences on the right seem to respond more to vitriol while those on the left respond to humor. What I mean to suggest is that maybe liberal radio (as commodity) "flops" because it's trying to use the wrong tools.

Now you are back to offering reasons for why it flops ("it's using the wrong tools").

That's assuming the implication that you think radio is a commodity to buy and sell things. In that context, it is using the wrong tools. Simply put, facts don't sell. Emotion sells. That's why when Lush Rimjob's ratings are swan diving, he goes on the air for three days calling a college student "slut". It's designed to kindle outrage, both for and against his words, and thereby hike his ratings. And that has zero to do with whether those listeners agree or not. Or are even interested in the issue. People want to watch a truck jackknife. They really don't care what the truck was hauling ---- unless of course it was toxic waste or flammable stuff which promises yet more drama.

You seem to think that those who produce and broadcast Lib talk radio shows aren't bright enough to figure out a winning formula.

Once again, we beg the question of what we mean by "winning". What exactly is the game that needs "winning"? Again this sounds like the commodity fetish, where everything is a product to be bought and sold. Do you believe that's all there is?

(and if it is, how do you explain noncommercial broadcasting?)

I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.

Again, as above, you're assuming that an audience tunes in or doesn't tune in based on content. I've seen zero evidence that that's the case. I'll say this over and over until it sinks in: ratings measure attention -- not assent.

And those traits exist independent of each other. Think about it -- is it not possible, even necessary, to pay attention to a POV with which one disagrees? If it is, how do we explain this message board? I'm certainly not in this thread because I "agree" with the premise. I have yet to even get a definition of it.

 

[SAYIT]

That's not a deflection at all -- it reignites my musing earlier on why the audiences on the right seem to respond more to vitriol while those on the left respond to humor. What I mean to suggest is that maybe liberal radio (as commodity) "flops" because it's trying to use the wrong tools.

Now you are back to offering reasons for why it flops ("it's using the wrong tools").

That's assuming the implication that you think radio is a commodity to buy and sell things. In that context, it is using the wrong tools. Simply put, facts don't sell. Emotion sells. That's why when Lush Rimjob's ratings are swan diving, he goes on the air for three days calling a college student "slut". It's designed to kindle outrage, both for and against his words, and thereby hike his ratings. And that has zero to do with whether those listeners agree or not. Or are even interested in the issue. People want to watch a truck jackknife. They really don't care what the truck was hauling ---- unless of course it was toxic waste or flammable stuff which promises yet more drama.

You seem to think that those who produce and broadcast Lib talk radio shows aren't bright enough to figure out a winning formula.

Once again, we beg the question of what we mean by "winning". What exactly is the game that needs "winning"? Again this sounds like the commodity fetish, where everything is a product to be bought and sold. Do you believe that's all there is?

(and if it is, how do you explain noncommercial broadcasting?)

I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.

Again, as above, you're assuming that an audience tunes in or doesn't tune in based on content. I've seen zero evidence that that's the case. I'll say this over and over until it sinks in: ratings measure attention -- not assent.

And those traits exist independent of each other. Think about it -- is it not possible, even necessary, to pay attention to a POV with which one disagrees? If it is, how do we explain this message board? I'm certainly not in this thread because I "agree" with the premise. I have yet to even get a definition of it.

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?

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[Pogo]

Now you are back to offering reasons for why it flops ("it's using the wrong tools").

That's assuming the implication that you think radio is a commodity to buy and sell things. In that context, it is using the wrong tools. Simply put, facts don't sell. Emotion sells. That's why when Lush Rimjob's ratings are swan diving, he goes on the air for three days calling a college student "slut". It's designed to kindle outrage, both for and against his words, and thereby hike his ratings. And that has zero to do with whether those listeners agree or not. Or are even interested in the issue. People want to watch a truck jackknife. They really don't care what the truck was hauling ---- unless of course it was toxic waste or flammable stuff which promises yet more drama.



Once again, we beg the question of what we mean by "winning". What exactly is the game that needs "winning"? Again this sounds like the commodity fetish, where everything is a product to be bought and sold. Do you believe that's all there is?

(and if it is, how do you explain noncommercial broadcasting?)

I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.

Again, as above, you're assuming that an audience tunes in or doesn't tune in based on content. I've seen zero evidence that that's the case. I'll say this over and over until it sinks in: ratings measure attention -- not assent.

And those traits exist independent of each other. Think about it -- is it not possible, even necessary, to pay attention to a POV with which one disagrees? If it is, how do we explain this message board? I'm certainly not in this thread because I "agree" with the premise. I have yet to even get a definition of it.

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?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

 

[SAYIT]

That's assuming the implication that you think radio is a commodity to buy and sell things. In that context, it is using the wrong tools. Simply put, facts don't sell. Emotion sells. That's why when Lush Rimjob's ratings are swan diving, he goes on the air for three days calling a college student "slut". It's designed to kindle outrage, both for and against his words, and thereby hike his ratings. And that has zero to do with whether those listeners agree or not. Or are even interested in the issue. People want to watch a truck jackknife. They really don't care what the truck was hauling ---- unless of course it was toxic waste or flammable stuff which promises yet more drama.



Once again, we beg the question of what we mean by "winning". What exactly is the game that needs "winning"? Again this sounds like the commodity fetish, where everything is a product to be bought and sold. Do you believe that's all there is?

(and if it is, how do you explain noncommercial broadcasting?)



Again, as above, you're assuming that an audience tunes in or doesn't tune in based on content. I've seen zero evidence that that's the case. I'll say this over and over until it sinks in: ratings measure attention -- not assent.

And those traits exist independent of each other. Think about it -- is it not possible, even necessary, to pay attention to a POV with which one disagrees? If it is, how do we explain this message board? I'm certainly not in this thread because I "agree" with the premise. I have yet to even get a definition of it.

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

I just covered the entire subject.

I guess it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion.

That answers my first statement in my response.

Have a good one sir.

*tips hat and leaves*

 

[Rozman]

Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?

 

[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.

I just covered the entire subject.

I guess it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion.

That answers my first statement in my response.

Have a good one sir.

*tips hat and leaves*

Well, you did manage to dance around it but never quite addressed the subject at hand.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

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?

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

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.