Talk radio: more than a dial tone

How much juice does talk radio have anymore? Can talk hosts crown or defeat a candidate? Can they kill or green light legislation based on talk say-so alone?

Dean Barnett, a conservative writer and frequent guest host for Hugh Hewitt writes in the conservative Weekly Standard about the clout of talk radio. 

He's dealing with it after last week's shouting on the right that despite near "universal animosity in the talk radio community," John McCain has done well in early primaries.

Michael Medved declared talk radio "the big loser" in South Carolina; calling it "a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight."

The Medved said, as we reported, that  conservatives ignored the rantings of  "... Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others," and voted overwhelmingly in New hampshit=re and South Carolina for McCain and the other candidate they hate, Mike Huck-a-Bee.

When the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill went down humiliatingly last Spring, talk radio was given and gleefully took credit for the defeat.

It was a victory talk radio needed to boost their sagging arrogance after failing to stanch Republican bleeding in the 2006 election that left a bloodless husk of the former majority moldering in the congressional cloakroom.

It was win for a medium that's been losing audiences; enjoying scant attrition and suffering grave predictions as to its very survival.

Barnett talked to former cabinet member, and ne'er-do-great Salem talk host Bill Bennett, (KKOL m-f, 3-6a) who says that listeners lead the hosts, not the other way around. He reaffirmed Barnett's view that conservative talk radio leads national opinion or conservative opinion. "We're factors in the conversation, but we don't lead it. The interests and concerns of the people lead the conversation. It's truly a bottom-up phenomenon."

Bennett, who's best known for his blowing hard and his ineffable wisdom at the craps table, claims with all the false modesty he can muster: ""All I do is provide a dial tone."

As if these overpaid egomaniacs we call talk hosts just sit back and provide a conduit between the public and their government representatives, like some altruistic mediators for the public good.

That is, of course total bullshit, bushwa, balderol and ball wash. Talk hosts push issues onto their public every hour. If nobody bites, they push another for the next hour.

It's true, part of the talk radio art -- and it's as much the art of the producer -- is to catch a public breeze with enough potential to make it into a windstorm; but most topics floated out over the airwaves are gentle zephyrs that would hardly muss your hair.

While most talk radio topics by far are chosen strictly for their ability to keep the listener from changing the station, the ability to determine and pander to their audiences' existing prejudices and opinions is an art form. 

If a topic that makes listeners pop their buttons and call in coincides with a host's political agenda so much the better.

And also better is to overstate it, embroider it, and hyperbolize the juicy parts.   

Barnett writes: "My friend and mentor Hugh Hewitt was on the air when Republican senators released their talking points on the [Immigration] bill to friendlies in the media. Hewitt read the talking points on the air, and angrily dismissed them as 'four pages of crap.' The battle was instantly joined, and in a few short weeks, it was won."

Here was an issue that was, at the time, an issue only to people in the southern border states. It was not a national issue. It was the status quo that was the problem; and a status that had been quo for quite a while. There was no impending crisis.

Americans, when asked if they'd like to see a law enacted that would provide a legal way for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., overwhelmingly said, yes they would.

That's precisely what the bill proposed by President Bush et al, would have done.

But talk hosts Rush, and Hannity; Hugh Hewitt and Michael Savage, Billo and Glenn Beck; and many more cranked up the boogie man machines and scared the bejeebers out of talk radio listeners, many of whom are already lovingly predisposed to hate.

Barnett writes: "The month of June 2007 was all-immigration-all-the-time on the air."

Voila! Callers and hosts gave hapless politicians holy hades when they guested on the shows; congressional fax machines were clogged, the Senate mailroom was stacked-up with cards and letters; demonstrators were sent out strategically. 

The bill crashed spectacularly, of course, and a small but loud group of activists got their way over the dead body of the president they used to adore.

No, talk radio provides way more than a dial tone.

Barnett writes that the conservative talk audience is so educated and well-informed, it makes up its own mind and is barely swayed by a talk host. But it'll be interesting to see how long McCain's campaign can endure under the withering daily disdain of the Rushbo, Hannity and their imitators.

Medved may be right: talk radio loses  -- but they have little compunction about bringing the Republicans down with them.

Some day, the GOP might be wise to stop trembling when these radio gas bags pontificate; matched up to individual candidates on the Democratic side, McCain is the most electable candidate the GOP has.

Before Republicans let Limbaugh slice off their nose; maybe they'd better think about whose face it is.

Comments

[abob]

The chances of winning a lotto jackpot is about 10 million to one. Folks still buy lotto tickets in massive numbers. The public is an ass and they will continue to listen to talk radio no matter what.

[sparky]

My bet is that they all vote for Hillary..she provides wonderful job security for them and they get to be "outraged" for 4 more years. If a candidate they really like were to win, they would all fade away since their audience would not need to tune in anymore.

[Duffman]

Much the same as blogs.

[wutitiz]

The biggest problem for conservative talk radio has been the failure of R's to deliver after talk radio has helped put them in office. Talk radio played a huge role in helping R's win the house in '94, but by around '98 Newt was selling his constituency downriver. When R's gained Congress & WH in 2000, they increased federal spending faster than anyone since LBJ.

Conservatives feel like they've been banging their heads on a wall for the last decade.

Barnett is right about one thing--talk radio does not create opinion so much as reinforce it. I am pro-choice, and have been listening to conservative talk forever, but have not changed my views an iota.

[mercifurious]

Joanie, Sparks, Fremont. Note that I won't take his bait? Here's why...
Atrios on Trolls. Amen, brother:

"I cannot make anyone stop responding to pointless or nuisance comments. You have to want to restrain yourself, because you understand that the only way to get rid of them is to fail to give them the attention they want. A "troll" is not just someone whose comments you disagree with, or even just a nasty or badly-worded comment. A troll is someone who does not, under any possible set of circumstances, care what you think about him or his comments. He merely wants attention. Negative attention will do. The more you disagree with him, the more he is able to tell himself that he is persecuted and victimized or the only voice of reason or one of the elite few who has the God's-eye view of the world or whatever his current delusion is. If he isn't merely a narcissist who thrives on feeling attacked, he's just some putz who enjoys irritating other people. Therefore, you "feed" the troll by paying any attention to him at all. It does not matter what you say in response. Any response to a troll just encourages the troll."

[Duffman]

If that is in reference to me:

I told you that at the very beginning...'ignore', but you couldn't and now you've learned grasshopper; I'm proud of you!

Like I initially said, I consider it a compliment to be ignored by you! :)

[NYLucky]

"It was a victory talk radio needed to boost their sagging arrogance after failing to stanch Republican bleeding in the 2006 election that left a bloodless husk of the former majority moldering in the congressional cloakroom."

Absolutely right. Talk radio cannot change history as much as it brags that it can.

[Duffman]

Oh Oh! Sen Kennedy just announced his support of Obama. That should be a lock for Mrs Clinton. :)

[mercifurious]

Heheheh. Perfect timing. Another great post over at Atrios:

Characteristics of Trolls:

1. Transference: Trolls endeavor to shift the debate away from the topic e.g. “you say you are anti-war but you haven’t mentioned the conflict in Bratislavia. This technique relies on the impossibility of denying a negative
2. Research avoidance: Trolls rarely post links to their research. Their purpose is not to inform. Links posted usually lead to op-ed pieces lacking in fact, usually “think tank” garbage. Trolls also rarely follow up links posted by others. This allows the troll to avoid coherent debate.
3. Obfuscation: Trolls try to get posters to defend positions they have not taken e.g. “you say xyz” when the respondent actually said “mnopq” Ad homenim attacks and outright prevarication are standard troll techniques. This strategem relies on characterizing the respondent as immoral or associated with unpopular people or sites e.g. Holocaust deniers, terrorists etc. The object is to “taint” the poster and is effective despite the faulty logic involved.
4. Logically deficient. The fact that their argument defies logic never concerns a troll. They simply ignore attempts to point this out and repeat the same reason-defying inanity until the respondent either tires or is moved to make a response that the troll can characterize as unreasonable.
5. Lack of response to direct questions. A troll will simply ignore direct questions, the answers to which, would expose them.

Handling Trolls:

1. Ask for a statement of the suspected troll’s position and sources.
2. In the event that the above does not bear fruit, ignore further postings. You are most likely dealing with a T. R. O. L. L.

[Duffman]

"..ignore further postings."

HEED! :)

[joanie]

Conservatives should bang their heads on a wall. Anybody that thought Bush was a compassionate conservative didn't do his homework and deserves a head bashing.

I mean, how many failures in business and bail-outs by daddy's friends does it take?

Sometimes the greed on the right gets in the way of intelligent decision making. Oh well.

And right-wing radio targets its base via negative name-calling and hate speech. Negativity bonds. Facts get boring after a while. Remember civics in school? How many of you were paying attention?

Oh yes, the Becks, Hannitys, Savages, Billos of the world know exactly what they are doing. Building their bank accounts at the expense of the right's ignorant and greedy base.

[DMT]

Between the conservative political campaigning, and all the commercials, I hardly listen to commercial radio anymore. When I get XM in my car, I'll be totally gone.

[Schlomo]

Unfortunately, liberals prefer to get their politics from books and periodicals, and have never really cottoned up to the loud, thin arguing you hear over AM radio. Talk radio, therefore, is more of a place where the right can rally their troops, talk without much questioning and lick their wounds. As this liberal sea change comes on, talk radio will become even more ghettoized. It will shrink, too unless they can figure out how to get a younger audience.

[Loozertarian]

Has a molecule of enlightenment finally crept into Michael Medved's brain after all these years? The condition against which he rails is one he himself has contributed to - quite energetically, I might add - for as long as he has been on the radio. "Hysterical and one-dimensional" has always described Medved's own view of what constitutes not only a proper Republican but a proper American. Why the apparent sea change?

[wutitiz]

Joanie, I have to admit that you're spot on regarding George W. Bush. Here was a guy who made the bulk of his fortune from a subsidized stadium deal a the M's owners. If he had been a Dem, I would have attacked him for that, but he was making some of the right noises on other issues.

I should have known: if it walks like a parasitic NW lib, talk doesn't matter.

The other thing Bush had going for him was frankly the BDS thing. The only thing scarier than Bush was a Bush-hater. I'll never forget going to U Village Barnes&Noble in the mid-90's, and every week there was a new "hate Bush" book. There were titles like "1001 Reasons to Hate Bush," the "I Hate Republicans Reader," "Sweet Jesus, I hate O'Reilly" etc. (it turns out that progressives do get their info from books)

[sparky]

You saw all those titles in the mid-90's????
Must have been a fortune teller's store.

[wutitiz]

Ok Sparky, you got me, it was around about 2002-2003. It just seems like such a long time ago, w/ all the vicissitudes of BDS.

[wutitiz]

A different topic--according to the Feb issue of "The Gun News" Fisher recently "named a new general manager to its Seattle operations. The first casualty of his administration was the abrupt dismissal of ...Bryan Suits (a WAC member himself). Shortly after that...our ads stopped running...."

The "Gun News" is the monthly publication of the Washington Arms Collectors, which sponsors gun shows in the area, and used to be a regular advertiser on KVI. Kirby Wibur is a former WAC board member.

KVI is now refusing "all advertising for anything related to guns and shooting..."

[sparky]

Its ok, wutz. We all feel like this last 8 years has gone on forever...
The SOTU speech tonight was reallly boring.

[KS]

The conservative talkers (except for Medved) are lambasting McCain and trying to marginalize him, but they are only going on a hunch - because McCain has been liberal on the borders and he co-sponsored campaign finance reform, which has attracted George Soros and the anti-America crowd, but it has actually helped the Republicans slightly more than Democrats through 2006. Except for Guilliani, noone else is stronger for the miliary and also fiscally conservative as McCain. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, because it was missing the spending cuts - seemed reasonable to me, but Rush and many right-wing talkers were demonizing him because of that - they seemed to be ignorant about the rising deficit which is very disturbing.

Meanwhile the Dems are showing to be out for themselves (i.e. the Clintons) instead of the party. Kennedy endorsed Obama and may well be followed by Al Gore and Howard the Scream Dean.
The problem with the Clintons is that they have been doing too much manipulating behind the scenes toward others and what goes around comes around. The process is interesting this time around even if it is corrupt up the wazoo...

[wutitiz]

I agree, KS, it is interesting. Normally I don't care about which socialist the Dems nominate, but watching Hillary vs. Obama is like reading a chapter out of Machiavelli.

And this time, I'm not sure I care that much which of the socialists the R's nominate.

And Sparky, thanks & agreed. Do you think we'll get Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (and then maybe Jeb in 2016, and Chelsea in 2024)?

[KS]

"And Sparky, thanks & agreed. Do you think we'll get Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (and then maybe Jeb in 2016, and Chelsea in 2024)?"

Perish that toxic thought. I don't think Chelsea would run anyhow - just my sense. How about working to cut out the corruption instead of inviting it ? Hopefully, the Bush-Clinton cycle will be broken in 2008 and forever !

[joanie]

Got caught in a lie, did ya whats up? Next time, do what you righties seem to have trouble doing: think first.

BTW, I notice that your comparison of Bush to NW libs fails to cite names . . . hard to think of one? Hmm?

Oh, I know. Thinking isn't really your thing, is it?

Oh, and a chapter out of Machiavelli?

You've never actually read Machiavelli, have you?

Just another fraud: what's up.

[joanie]

Sparky, did you notice Pelosi reading behind him? She didn't seem particularly interested either. First thing I've appreciated about her since she took over.

I think the line that made me the most disgusted what his chastisement that Congress should fully fund the troops.

He's simply a jerk. A lying, sociopathic jerk.

Did anyone read Joel Connelly's column about Bush opening up federal land in Alaska via the "backdoor?" He is doing it without Congressional approval - just one more of his little dictatorial decisions.

"What more opportune occasion to open 2.4 million acres of Alaska's Tongass National Forest to logging and road building, on which Uncle Sam will be lucky to get back 5 cents on the dollar?"

I cannot stand that little Hitler. That anybody can condone his actions is beyond comprehension.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (I think that's her name) was on the radio criticizing Bush tonight. Later, someone called in and said he noticed on TV that she practically hurt herself getting to him to shake his hand.

What's funny about that to me is that I saw the same thing last year. I actually noticed it. She jumped over people to get to the aisle to shake his hand. I was disgusted then and I'm even more disgusted now.

Some of the Dems are such hypocrites. We need a third honest party.

[PugetSound]

Calling Bush Hitler, eh? Comparing the man who is exercising executive power to the man who gassed 6 million Jews. Love that nuanced argument. You're the same one that was lecturing Seattle Jew about historical understanding of Nazi's awhile back.
The Sheila Jackson Lee move has been going on for years. I recall Faux News commenting/laughing about it back in 2004 and every year since then they have put the camera on her, predicted her behavior, and then had a nice laugh about it.
Some of the Dems AND Repubs are hypocrites. I'll go with a centrist party OR a candidate that can draw from both and let the nutters from both sides to their own devices.