Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?

[Pogo]

I thought this thread would be good for some tongue-in-cheek posts by our twisted posters and a few laughs. As this did not occur I sought and found a MSM opinion piece on the subject at Variety Mag. The comments are even more revealing than the article. Enjoy:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0ILADg&usg=AFQjCNFsgCJac19-YGugMg09A0PpmtCp8A

So when you say "flop" or "litmus test" you're talking about.... selling ads?

If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop. Why all the squirming, Pogo? We have Lib posters here who claim Lib talk radio failure is a function of lib youth who don't tune in. A valid point but it doesn't challenge the rising of the sun as you seem wont to do.

I wanted you to define the terms you start with. I think that's a reasonable place to start -- is it not?

So you think the purpose of radio is to sell things? Is that it? Sorry, you've been asked for two days at least to define what you mean by "flop" so it's not me doing the squirming.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!

conspiracy theory? you mean the bengahzi cover-up?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Limbaugh , who determined that the entire racist incident involving Sterling was actually a set up arranged in such a way as to force him to sell his team for a pittance to an African -American.

I...well, never mind....

 

[SAYIT]

So when you say "flop" or "litmus test" you're talking about.... selling ads?

If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop. Why all the squirming, Pogo? We have Lib posters here who claim Lib talk radio failure is a function of lib youth who don't tune in. A valid point but it doesn't challenge the rising of the sun as you seem wont to do.

I wanted you to define the terms you start with. I think that's a reasonable place to start -- is it not?

So you think the purpose of radio is to sell things? Is that it? Sorry, you've been asked for two days at least to define what you mean by "flop" so it's not me doing the squirming.

Really? Your first post on this thread was little more than 24 hours ago (http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/352231-why-is-liberal-radio-such-a-flop-9.html#post9023388) in which you thoughtfully explained why you thought Lib talk radio is such a flop. You then returned about 15 hours ago and asked for a definition of "flop."
Since you didn't seem to read my definition (above in bold) I will repeat it:
If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop.

 

[Pogo]

If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop. Why all the squirming, Pogo? We have Lib posters here who claim Lib talk radio failure is a function of lib youth who don't tune in. A valid point but it doesn't challenge the rising of the sun as you seem wont to do.

I wanted you to define the terms you start with. I think that's a reasonable place to start -- is it not?

So you think the purpose of radio is to sell things? Is that it? Sorry, you've been asked for two days at least to define what you mean by "flop" so it's not me doing the squirming.

Really? Your first post on this thread was little more than 24 hours ago (http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/352231-why-is-liberal-radio-such-a-flop-9.html#post9023388) in which you thoughtfully explained why you thought Lib talk radio is such a flop. You then returned about 15 hours ago and asked for a definition of "flop."
Since you didn't seem to read my definition (above in bold) I will repeat it:
If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop.

I didn't describe it as a "flop" -- you did. I posted some musings based on assumptions but you hadn't said what you meant by "flop", so assumption was all I had.
Sorry, what you have in bold up there -- I've read it twice now -- is not a definition. It's one example of what "success" is not. Doesn't tell us what "success" is.

I don't think a question can really be explored before we find out what question we're asking. So I'll try again -- do you think the purpose of radio is to sell commodities?
That is a yes or no question. If that's not it, what is the purpose of radio? What then makes a given radio content "successful" or "unsuccessful"?

Here's why I ask: Back upthread a ways you posted this:

Why are Lib talk shows so boring that they fail the free market test?

It appears you're under the impression that radio -- talk radio at least -- exists in order to "sell" an ideology. (?)
If it is, what does music radio exist for? Or sports radio? Or news radio?
Or is its purpose to sell commodities? Or something else?

We'll pick it up tamorra.

 

[Politico]

Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?

Because it is Liberal radio.

 

[elektra]

Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!

conspiracy theory? you mean the bengahzi cover-up?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Limbaugh , who determined that the entire racist incident involving Sterling was actually a set up arranged in such a way as to force him to sell his team for a pittance to an African -American.

I...well, never mind....

A caller on Rush's show said that, not Rush.

What Rush did state is why, when it was known all these years, why did the Media ignore Sterling's Racism.

Further, knowing that everyone knew about Sterling, Rush ask's why was the NAACP awarding Sterling a Lifetime achievement award, after giving Sterling awards in the past.

 

[candycorn]

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?

When the host of right wing hate radio mischaracterizes lefties there is some residual goodness remaining. Liberalism has its flaws and what happens on talk radio is you take those flaws to extremes. When a liberal does that on the air to a conservative, it's easy to make them out to be pure evil. While the mischaracterizations are both equally off base...one sounds much meaner than the other and Americans simply don't wish to hear that in broad numbers. Keith Olbermann is probably the best example.

 

[SAYIT]

I wanted you to define the terms you start with. I think that's a reasonable place to start -- is it not?

So you think the purpose of radio is to sell things? Is that it? Sorry, you've been asked for two days at least to define what you mean by "flop" so it's not me doing the squirming.

Really? Your first post on this thread was little more than 24 hours ago (http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/352231-why-is-liberal-radio-such-a-flop-9.html#post9023388) in which you thoughtfully explained why you thought Lib talk radio is such a flop. You then returned about 15 hours ago and asked for a definition of "flop."
Since you didn't seem to read my definition (above in bold) I will repeat it:
If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop.

I didn't describe it as a "flop" -- you did. I posted some musings based on assumptions but you hadn't said what you meant by "flop", so assumption was all I had.
Sorry, what you have in bold up there -- I've read it twice now -- is not a definition. It's one example of what "success" is not. Doesn't tell us what "success" is.

I don't think a question can really be explored before we find out what question we're asking. So I'll try again -- do you think the purpose of radio is to sell commodities?
That is a yes or no question. If that's not it, what is the purpose of radio? What then makes a given radio content "successful" or "unsuccessful"?

Here's why I ask: Back upthread a ways you posted this:

Why are Lib talk shows so boring that they fail the free market test?

It appears you're under the impression that radio -- talk radio at least -- exists in order to "sell" an ideology. (?)
If it is, what does music radio exist for? Or sports radio? Or news radio?
Or is its purpose to sell commodities? Or something else?

We'll pick it up tamorra.

The market determines the utility and value of products. Viagra was developed as a hair growth drug but the market found a much better and more valuable use.
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.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.

Did you worst enemy hack your account to make you look like a tool

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

 

[Vandalshandle]

conspiracy theory? you mean the bengahzi cover-up?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Limbaugh , who determined that the entire racist incident involving Sterling was actually a set up arranged in such a way as to force him to sell his team for a pittance to an African -American.

I...well, never mind....

A caller on Rush's show said that, not Rush.

What Rush did state is why, when it was known all these years, why did the Media ignore Sterling's Racism.

Further, knowing that everyone knew about Sterling, Rush ask's why was the NAACP awarding Sterling a Lifetime achievement award, after giving Sterling awards in the past.

Whatever. I admit that I did not listen to the show. In fact, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to his show.

 

[Pogo]

Really? Your first post on this thread was little more than 24 hours ago (http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/352231-why-is-liberal-radio-such-a-flop-9.html#post9023388) in which you thoughtfully explained why you thought Lib talk radio is such a flop. You then returned about 15 hours ago and asked for a definition of "flop."
Since you didn't seem to read my definition (above in bold) I will repeat it:
If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop.

I didn't describe it as a "flop" -- you did. I posted some musings based on assumptions but you hadn't said what you meant by "flop", so assumption was all I had.
Sorry, what you have in bold up there -- I've read it twice now -- is not a definition. It's one example of what "success" is not. Doesn't tell us what "success" is.

I don't think a question can really be explored before we find out what question we're asking. So I'll try again -- do you think the purpose of radio is to sell commodities?
That is a yes or no question. If that's not it, what is the purpose of radio? What then makes a given radio content "successful" or "unsuccessful"?

Here's why I ask: Back upthread a ways you posted this:

Why are Lib talk shows so boring that they fail the free market test?

It appears you're under the impression that radio -- talk radio at least -- exists in order to "sell" an ideology. (?)
If it is, what does music radio exist for? Or sports radio? Or news radio?
Or is its purpose to sell commodities? Or something else?

We'll pick it up tamorra.

The market determines the utility and value of products. Viagra was developed as a hair growth drug but the market found a much better and more valuable use.
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.

So --- you see radio itself as a "commodity"? Kinda like movies?

Quick post, gotta run...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!

True but NPR isn't liberal.

Those who never listen to have said it is but all one has to do is actually listen to NPR to know it really is "public" radio.

We need to make sure the Rs never succeed in getting rid of it or of PBS. The cost of both are minimal and they serve a public service to those who choose to avail themselves of it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of Limbaugh , who determined that the entire racist incident involving Sterling was actually a set up arranged in such a way as to force him to sell his team for a pittance to an African -American.

I...well, never mind....

A caller on Rush's show said that, not Rush.

What Rush did state is why, when it was known all these years, why did the Media ignore Sterling's Racism.

Further, knowing that everyone knew about Sterling, Rush ask's why was the NAACP awarding Sterling a Lifetime achievement award, after giving Sterling awards in the past.

Whatever. I admit that I did not listen to the show. In fact, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to his show.

I've listened to bits and pieces. Its entertainment for the brain dead. Really.

By his own admission, he says what he is paid to say. He's just a fat, drug/alcohol addicted whore. He has found his niche - stupid people who react with knee jerk hatred for what they don't understand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.

And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.

How does one try to sound smart? I understand how some are able to 'sound' (post, actually) stupid - it is easy for most of them.

The answer to the question seem self evident, liberals are educated and able to see the world for all of its intricacies; others - the Ditto Heads and Fox News fans - need to be told what to believe and can be fooled by history rewrites and other less subtle propaganda tools used by the demagogues and charlatans who lead them.

 

[Pennywise]

Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.

And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.

How does one try to sound smart? I understand how some are able to 'sound' (post, actually) stupid - it is easy for most of them.

The answer to the question seem self evident, liberals are educated and able to see the world for all of its intricacies; others - the Ditto Heads and Fox News fans - need to be told what to believe and can be fooled by history rewrites and other less subtle propaganda tools used by the demagogues and charlatans who lead them.

You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.

 

[Nosmo King]

Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.

And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.

How does one try to sound smart? I understand how some are able to 'sound' (post, actually) stupid - it is easy for most of them.

The answer to the question seem self evident, liberals are educated and able to see the world for all of its intricacies; others - the Ditto Heads and Fox News fans - need to be told what to believe and can be fooled by history rewrites and other less subtle propaganda tools used by the demagogues and charlatans who lead them.

You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.

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

 

[elektra]

How does one try to sound smart? I understand how some are able to 'sound' (post, actually) stupid - it is easy for most of them.

The answer to the question seem self evident, liberals are educated and able to see the world for all of its intricacies; others - the Ditto Heads and Fox News fans - need to be told what to believe and can be fooled by history rewrites and other less subtle propaganda tools used by the demagogues and charlatans who lead them.

You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.

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.

 

[Pogo]

You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.

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.

Actually you've just described Lush Rimjob, who largely invented that style of attack-dog radio ("slut! slut! slut!"). When AirAmerica came up they largely tried to mimic the same thing from the other side. It just didn't fit the sensibilities of listeners on the left. (And I think the genre tried (and still does) far more to be leftist than to be Liberal.) So well does the attack-dog model work for the right in fact, that they adopt the same tactic here, a good example being the very post above. This question always makes me think of the idea behind [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Eliminationists-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982"]this book[/ame].

If we can't get a starting definition of "radio flop", perhaps this is a better question: why are listeners on the right so receptive to attack-dog radio while listeners on the left are not? I've posed that question for years and I don't claim to have an answer. Yet. On the other hand the left fares far better with humor while the right seems to view it as an obscure foreign language. Just a coupla musings...