Talk radio: will it matter in 2008?

Barack Obama is our candidate, now, and we've been thinking about whether right-wing talk radio and Fox News will help Olde John in 2008, as much as it did George W. Bush in 2004.

We don't think so.

While talk radio can be influential, things have changed radically since those dark days that re-elected George Bush and brought such shame and catastrophe down upon the land.

There's more liberal talk radio
    Air America did not exist in 2004; and Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder, Marc Maron, Mike Malloy, et al. were but local hosts or unknowns. While they're not close to being Big Pants, Hannity or Don Imus, they're competition on the dial to the conservatives, and even within a shrinking industry, progressive radio is growing one talker at a time. We now have a crop of bright, name-recognizable media progressives where there never were before. A good thing.

There's a general downturn in radio, and in talk radio in particular 
    Part of this can be directly attributed to the stink of Bush, the failings of a conservative majority and that the yapping poodles of right-wing media have been so wrong about so much. They've stuck to a political explanation of global warming, powdered Iraq War soft drinks, voodoo fiscal matters, tax cuts for the rich, immigration fear-mongering, Bush's no-policy energy policy; American exceptionalist go-it-alone foreign policy -- they even still claim Bush is competent.The wild-eyed partisan recitations of such GOP apparatchiks as Hannity have left him and his cohort with about the same credibility as the president's... and Arbitron reflects it. As the Democrats come together after the hard primaries, Rush Limbaugh's supposedly monkeywrenching "Operation Chaos" turned out to be as it was intended: a way for Big Pants to get his name in the papers and to be able to piss in a tent from which he's usually excluded.  

    In the bigger picture, lazy programmers with an if-it-ain't-broke mentality waited until it was; never bothering to diversify the political orientations of talkers or spend the time and money developing forms other than the old style rile-'em-up-&-make-'em-call-you radio. It's all entertainment, they hasten to say, but they sat on the successful formatics of the 1990's until it wasn't entertaining anymore. Like stubborn vaudeville promoters hanging onto minstrel shows despite the movies. (Ironic should talk radio die because it didn't respond to the market; the sacredness of which it's been tooting ad pukeum all these years...).

Many potential new voters don't listen to talk radio, never did
    Since 2004, the boom-echo generation has come of age. They didn't participate much last time, and it remains to be seen if they will this time. But every indication is that they're involved in an unprecedented way with the Obama campaign. Here's a massive demographic that, when you say "Sean Hannity," they say, "who?"

New media not only exists now, but the left is using it best
    We were aghast at how the right made better use of the Interweb in 2004. Blogs, and talk radio spread the phony Swift Boating smears, promoted the shameful downgrading of Kerry's war heroism, and discovered the crude document forgery that eclipsed the fact that Bush had skipped out on his Texas Air National Guard service. Locally, Stefan Shortpantsky on his Sound Politics blog dribbled out irrelevant numbers in the tight recount of votes in the governor's race which led local media and made voters believe there was voter fraud. All this was a great wake-up call to progressives who responded with a vengeance, and have since dominated the political internets. The online media are broader, vibrant, younger, innovating, and metastasizing -- not shriveling as radio is at the moment. The left is dominating it. Barack's extraordinary campaign has demonstrated, the net has the added value of being super for fundraising and organizing at which talk radio was only haphazard.

Barack Obama has a pulse (and quite a bit more, actually).
    Talk radio was born in the excitement of the 1994 Republican landslide, and may well die off in the 2008 liberal one. Olde John excites few outside the lawn chair industry, and hearing his speech the other night, his embarrassing communications skills make Bush look presidential -- and that's just what the Republicans say. Conservatives still distrust McCain --  influential and widely imitated radio talkers Hannity and Limbaugh are schizophrenic, trashing Obama one minute, McCain the next. "For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage—that he is not a true or reliable conservative," according to a Pew Research study tracking news media coverage. We heard Big Pants last week letting a listener go on about how he's going to vote for Obama so the Republicans won't get blamed for what he predicts will be a disaster if either candidate is elected. "At least it won't be on the R's watch," he said. Big Pants didn't argue with him. It's such dissatisfaction and mixed messages from prominent righties that could keep the less motivated conservative voters at home in November.

(Turns out, the Republicans' -- Hannity's, Ingraham's, Limbaugh's -- rumor batting around talk radio and Washington about the supposed existence of a Michelle Obama video calling white people "whitey," sounds suspiciously like it was  ripped off from the potboiling plot of a cliche-ridden political novel. Despite there's no evidence it exists, and there's no one who says they ever saw it, it became a news story when a reporter asked Barack about it, which completed the dirty trick circle. Expect more of this: it's all they've got).

The emerging left-leaning teevee
Despite what the paranoid right says about the "liberal media," MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann is about the only unabashedly leftly opinionated show on cable. He's threatening the Fox News' 24-hour ratings lock with their stable of O'Reilly, Hannity, Karl Rove, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Billy Kristol; not to mention the vapidly reactionary morning shows and the alleged "news anchor," Brit Hume. Keith is a great start, and we hope MSNBC sees there might be ratings gelt in the younger, hipper demo who Olbermann brings every day. Their recognition and promotion of Rachel Maddow is a great sign: we expect to be seeing her on Meet The Press, or The McLaughlin Report soon. 

(O'Reilly seems intent on stoking his parochial feud with NBC and running sensational sex crime vids, cell phone camera feeds of orgies and girl-fights. At the moment, he's bending over backwards to appear fair & balanced with Obama until he finally gets him in for an interview. For now he lets smashmouths like Laura Ingraham slash Obama while he tsk-tsks mildly. After Barack finally sits down to let Billo lecture him, ask beat-your-wife questions, and shouts at him for talking to NBC first, he'll then say he's a "stand-up guy for daring to come in here." (Like he's Mike Wallace). Then he'll '"analyze it" and then start crapping in Barack's hat every day. That's what he does. He did to John Kerry. It won't matter much to the campaign; Billo will reap a big rating hump for one day; will quote, and reference himself for weeks; then start selling mugs emblazoned with "I crapped in his hat.").

Comments

[joanie hussein]

Oh, thank you, Michael.

Finally some passion on this blog. Everything you said is right on.

One thing, though. I heard on the radio (which I listen to constantly, that Russert and Matthews are lobbying against Olbermann saying that he's manifestly too far left to be a credible journalist.

Russert looks like a beet most of the time and sounds like one, too. And Matthews is just plain jealous.

I hope they don't have their way. Olbermann is so popular, I imagine they'll shut up eventually.

And I don't want Maddow on Meet the Press. She's ready for her own show. Nobody under fifty watches Russert. What a has been.

Ah, you've got the Obama-bug. He's going to not only win in November, but he's going to be the right man for the next eight years. I am so confident about this.

[litlnemo]

Air America *did* exist in 2004. I think it started broadcasting in April of that year. I know it was in April of 2004 that the Beacon Hill rebroadcast went online (FCC Part 15-legal -- broadcasting in our yard, but you could hear it if you sat in the nearby park), because I posted about it in my blog then. We didn't have KPTK yet, though.

I remember listening to it on election day 2004 and hearing first giddiness as it seemed we were winning, and then disbelief as it turned around.

[YellowPup]

Yeah, was going to say that I seem to remember listening to Al Franken in 2004. I tried listening to Air America in the early days, and apart from Franken (who I mostly caught on the then-free podcast), didn't like it.

I guess Goldy was my gateway drug, or else I've been sipping the Koolaid all this time, because now I can handle the endlessly looped commercials to hear Rachel Maddow or Ed Schulz in the afternoon.

[YellowPup]

A related link: This week's On the Media has features on Olbermann and the new preference for overt media bias (including an interview with Arianna Huffington):
http://www.onthemedia.org/

I think they have it slightly wrong. While I think it's impossible for media not to be "biased," there is a difference between media that's unfairly balanced (as we have now, where creationists and flat earthists have equal time), clearly politically aligned (where left or right diminish the other), and media that's critical and involves stuff like research, instead of just quoting the same old experts or looping gotcha reels.

I've heard some very good American political reporting, ironically, on CBC radio that went behind the words to show the issues, the range of opinion, and actual ideas (I learned something about the American right!). I'm having trouble describing the distinction between this sort of thing and the idea of "balance" a la American dinosaur media, but they're not the same. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[joanie]

I see American reporting on The National (TV) which is better than what we see here. Partly because they get more time. But, the objectivity just seems a little better as well.

Perhaps not what you mean but I glean a sense of what you're trying to t get at.

[sparky]

I think I do, YellowPup.

I am sure it is as hard for conservatives to understand why we dont like Rush and Hannity, as it is for us to understand why they don't like Keith. I know that Walter Cronkite thinks the occupation in Iraq is wrong, and he is credited as being the voice that ultimately turned the nation against the Viet Nam war. Yet I don't recall him being accused of not loving his country for feeling the way he did.
I was talking about this the other day with family members...why do we need hours and hours of news time devoted to pundits analyzing the news and telling us how things "are"?

[rozskat]

Hey Sparky, I am total agreement about pundit’s analysis as I tuned in to MSNBC for Hillary’s speech. Their analysis was longer than her speech.

Hannity and Limbaugh would have crucified Cronkite for turning against the war in Vietnam. Look at what they did to Murtha. Modern patriotism is dumb down to blind nationalistic flag waving, listening to Toby Keith CDs about kicking Islamic ass and driving a gas guzzling V-8 American-made pickup cluttered with “Support the Troops” bumper stickers. Usually no military background but a neighbor kid in the Marines fighting in Iraq while their own kids do not intend to volunteer for the military. Most of them resemble Alfred E. Newman with a “what me worry?” mentality.

Joanie, I am part of the over 50 crowd who watches Russert. I like the way he interviews and gives the guest a chance to respond, unlike Chris Matthews who interrupts or puts the answers in the guest’s mouth. Russert’s questions are short and gets to the point. However, the best interviewer in the business was Mike Wallace. I like Olberman too but I find him more entertaining than a serious journalist. The old Larry King Show on late night Mutual Radio was good.

Liberal talk radio needs to be more depth and facts instead of the usual “George W. is stupid” or “John McCain is old” monologues. Sometimes the context of liberal talk is no different from the rubbish spewed by the right. Rachel Maddow is intelligent and I like listening to her, however, Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz lost me when they attacked Hillary the way they did. You could disagree with her but omit the taunts and leave the name-calling to right-wingers. I seriously doubt liberal talk radio would have an impact on this year’s elections unlike right wing talk radio did in 1994.

If you want to hear silence from the right though, put Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in the same studio and tell them they can only swap war stories.

[chucks]

Sparky, it is not so hard to understand. Rush and Hannity tell you things you do not wish to hear. Olberman and Randi et al say things you want to hear. Same go's for me reversed.
The thing about Cronkite, as well as Huntley-Brinkley and the others of that era were that they presented opinion as news. We did not know it at the time. They presented enough hard factual news that we did not recognise propaganda when it was presented to us.
Rush came along and unapologetically presented another side. There where others before Limbaugh, but he was and still is the best.
As much as I dislike Olberman, I hope that Russert and Matthews fail in their quest to have his big mouth silenced. I was wrong when I called for dumping Imus and won't make that mistake again.

[coiler]

I do not wish to hear lies, I also wish to hear Hannity and Rush make corrections to their lies when they are proven wrong or at least hire a factchecker, they do not. How do you argue with a serial liar?

[DT]

Olbermann is a clown. An entertainer. I don't see how anyone can take him seriously. I have no respect for him, or anyone who watches him.

[NYLucky]

Olbermann is the hottest property on MSNBC. His show has been trending up for a year. Unless he's hit by a cab or Fox Security at O'Reilly's behest, he will eventually lead in the timeslot. Russert has not opposed him, although Matthews has not been happy with KO's success. As long as he's pulling the numbers, and increasing his share, nothing will stop his ascendancy. NBC has gone to bat for Keith over the O'Reilly feud, no one is certain they'd do the same for Matthews. I know what I'm talking about, btw.

[AuthenticAndrew]

I realize Olbermann is an entertainer but I don't think he's entertaining for one extremely excellent reason: his opinions are all a foregone conclusion. Where's the suspense and intrigue?

[sparky]

Hmm chucks...I was kinda young then, so I cant tell if I would agree with you about Walter, Chet and David. I just know that the news was on for 15 minutes, then later 30 minutes, and then we went back to the Flintstones, Jetsons and Huckleberry Hound. They didn't kick it around for 24 hours like they do now.
I do agree that Keith provides a left viewpoint. But we true liberals feel like he and Bill Moyers are the only ones out there speaking for us. The others are centrist, if not right wing--to my ears. So it seems to me that we should get to have that since you have Fox news. And Glen Beck.
Timmy and Chris are just mad because Keith gets way better ratings than they do and a lot more fan mail. It is just professional jealousy.

[YellowPup]

On the topic of how washed up rightwing talk radio is (and on the topic of Moyers): you'll remember when Olbermann did a skit on how to respond to an on-camera ambush from one of Billo's proxies. Check out how Bill Moyers handles it, and then watch as the hack is chased out of the room:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-uptake/
fox-ambushes-bill-moyers_b_106047.html

LOL.

[AuthenticAndrew]

Chris Matthews isn't jelous of Keith, obviously if he was he could play the exact same game and be an even better hack than Olbermann. I think Matthews wants to retire someday with some dignity and not be a footnote in the unfolding tragedy that is infotainment.

Someone someday is going to call out Olbermann for presenting himself as the next Edward R Murrow while being completely cpmpletely unbalanced. His reputation has nowhere to go but down.

[coiler]

That last two minutes of the fox 'producer' getting chased down is great.

[sparky]

It was...Somone should have told Bill Moyers that all he has to do is say
"ANDREA MACKRIS" and the Fox cameras shut right down!

[PugetSound]

Yeah, kind of like you when someone mentions the Radio Equalizer to you.
Same impact.

Shuts you right down.

No one likes a hypocrite, Sparky.

[sparky]

au contraire...I merely call him Brian Baloney, the Radio Fertilizer.

I don't feel shut down at all. If you like him, that's fine. If you like Bill Orally, that is fine too. I think they are both nincompoops.

And, Bill's hypocracy is the whole joke...Bill Orally tries to catch people inflagrante delicto but gets kinda pissed when Andrea's name is mentioned. That is why Bill Moyers laughed.

[PugetSound]

You're still ticked that the Radio Equilizer was correct from day one about Air America. Get over it. Holding grudges can lead to a drinking habit.

I recall Bill Moyers on Larry King when King asked Moyers why he wouldn't let Mike Wallace interview him on 60 Minutes. Moyers was adamant that he wouldn't allow it to happen.
Read a little history about the Johnson Administration and you'll find that Mr. Moyers is not such a nice fellow.

BTW, I am not a huge O'Reilly -or Hannity- fan.

Best line from a radio caller I heard on Dennis Miller a couple weeks ago. The caller mentioned that imagine if a few years ago when Hillary was deciding about where to run from the Senate if she had chosen her home state of Illinois instead of NY or Arkansas.
There would be no Obama and she would be the Dem Nominee.
I wonder if she replays THAT decision in her head.
Sometimes people who play too cute by half do themselves a disservice.

[PugetSound]

Now why would Moyers not want to be interviewed by Mike Wallace. Hmmm. Maybe this nugget.
Bill Moyers role in the LBJ Whitehouse in getting the FBI to collect and disseminate 'reports' on Martin Luther King was reprehensible. Much worse than the crap you put on the O'reilly's of this world. But hey, Moyers tells you stuff you like to hear so he must be okay, right?
Moyers excuses it by saying he was a 'young man' but he was in his mid 30's.
There is other stuff out there but this will give you a taste of the man.

Won't find this on the Daily Krap aka Daily KOS

[sparky]

You are telling me what I think, again. I am not ticked about Air America or what Baloney thinks about it! I don't hold a grudge. I honestly don't CARE what he thinks!

And why do you always bring alcohol into it? I'm going to get a drinking habit because you think I hold a grudge, and joanie must be drinking because you dont agree with what she says.
That's kind of weird.

[J.Hova]

Sounds like a conspiracy Puget, maybe you and Brian can get your own show, well, maybe just you.

[chris]

Oberman talks about oreilly just about every night. Clearly he has an inferiority complex about this guy but at some point, doesn't a producer tell him to stop promoting the competition?

Although... his ratings don't suggest any kind of competition to oreilly.

[Tommy008]

Hillary probably blew it by not running in 2004. i think she would have got the nomination over the wooden kerry, and possibly squeaked by "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot!" W. Bush. I remember hte second debate with Kerry where Bush really lost his phony Texas mask and looked like a real, flopsweating idiot.Kerry wasn't able to come back in the third debate and really humiliate him with another win. Hillary could have done so. too late now.

[nevets]

"All this was a great wake-up call to progressives who responded with a vengeance, and have since dominated the political internets."

I recall all those on the left who ridiculed President Bush for that word. And now B'lam uses it. Amazing how a word gets popularized.

[joanie hussein]

Putz, are you a detective or something? You seem more interested in closets and skeletons than information and people. How far back is far enough? You going back to investigate McBush's behavior and misdeeds as a cadet?

Do you have anything relevant to offer to the immediate situation?

Rozskat stole my line, yellow pup. I was thinking about your post today and the word that came to mind was "in depth." It seems the Canadians still have an attention span that allows their media - and ours when given the chance - to investigate and report "in depth" and honestly because Canadians get international news as well and know the truth. Americans don't so they get the propaganda. Simple, isn't it?

I'm sorry you've written Randi off completely, Rozskat. She was brilliant today. She holds people - her listeners - accountable. When she gets bossy and negative, I turn her off. Malloy, too. (BTW, he's airing parts of Kucinich's impeachment speech before Congress currently).

Sorry, cannot agree about Russert. He's very much into the "me" thing. His ego has increased beyond his value. And he's posed some really ridiculous questions. The one that comes to mind first was his over-wrought response to Ron Paul's eight earmarks when Paul says he's against them. Paul responded that he thought his constituency should get some of their money back. Eight? Really now. Russert couldn't let go. What a waste of air time.

Absolutely agree about the dumbed-down patriotism thing: lapel pins and flag salutes. While old men who did one tour of Nam send kids back to Iraq for four, five, six and more tours until they're finally sent home in body bags.

Don't like Matthews much and really don't care for Olbermann much. He's definitely more of an entertainer than journalist. All of them are.

Loved Larry King when he brought back to life AM radio. Best interviewer I ever heard and he interviewed great people. Authors, scientists, historians, and entertainers. I was pretty young but stayed up half the night listening.

I'm sorry to disagree about liberal talk. I hear rarely the kind of comments you cite. I hear frequently guests like Naomi Klein, Thomas Ricks, Chris Hedges, Greg Palast, Scott McClelland, Kevin Phillips, Jeremy Scahill, George Packer, Chambers Johnson and on and on.

I wonder what you listen to that you don't hear these people?

I doubt some of the great minds that represent the right on this blog don't even know these names.

They know Hannity, Colmes, Limbaugh ...they are dittoheads and proud of it.

Also, I disagree that Schultz attacked Clinton. Randi did and I turned her off. Schultz keeps a pretty tolerant and civil demeanor and I've learned to like him for it. He's very midwest and has a certain politeness that fits his North Dakotan roots. He can be deceptively simple sounding. Give him a listen. He's pretty savvy. Just doesn't get arrogant about it.

(So much to respond to - great thread, Michael, and interesting comments. Well, most of them. You've attracted some good thinking. Hopefully the regulars will read and think before responding in their usual superficial and nit-picking way.)

Rush and Hannity tell you things you don't want to hear...

You're right. Those of us on the left don't want to hear lies and smears. We've made that clear.

Baart, I agree with you for once.

NYLucky, no one here will dispute you. It's all about profits at MSNBC and Olbermann's contributing. Nothing like a good feud a la Benny and Allen. Right?

Walter, Chet and David were around before news became a "profit" center. They operated at a loss. Journalism was respected and getting the story was important to these wise, smart, reflective and highly intellectual writers. Even Bob Shieffer (sp?) whom I regard as a tool of the right currently (Southern Methodist I think - not sure) did what he regarded as honest journalism.

Take issue with the ethics and values of those guys who covered WW2 and Nam and you're playing around with fire. Only an idiot would question their ethics.

I'm sure putsie can't wait to get in a dig at Rather. He was a great journalist and nobody ever proved that his reporting about Bush was inaccurate. Only that - supposedly - the secretary who vouched for the content of the story - said she didn't type the letter. I used a selectric in those days. They did exist. I had a summer job at Eastman Kodak and I used one.

Also, Sparky, I don't remember 15 minutes of news. Seems to me it was always 6-6:30. Could be wrong but I sure don't recall it. My favorite was Brinkley. Who knows why? I was young - really young. But, I liked him.

Matthews is jealous of Olbermann. You could see it early on. No chemistry at all. Someone told him to knock it off because he got the message and started "relating." Actually, I noticed that Olbermann tended to stutter when he was around Matthews. Matthews made him pretty uncomfortable for a while. It made me uncomfortable!

Well, putsie's contributed his usual "gotcha" moments. Who cares? Not me.

Sorry for the long post. As I told you, chucks, Mr. Hypocrite, this is a forum for me to talk. Thanks all for letting me have my say.

Now, I have to put my 64 grandkids to bed. (I let them stay up late to watch Dennis Kucinich present his impeachment proposal to Congress. They are all going to be liberals. Every single one.)

[PugetSound]

Just funny to note the avoidance on the journalist you cite ol 'Saint Bill' Moyers and his despicable role in trying to bring down MLK.

Meanwhile you all can only 'giggle' cause some producer of the O'Reilly Show was 'chased' away.

[nevets]

Don't we just <3<3 that long post by Joanie.

[KS]

Bill O'Reilly's claims that his role model in the media is Mike Wallace. Funny, he never mentions Olberman's name, yet Olberman is obsessed with O'Reilly. Olby - What a jack hole !! (a word created by Adam Carolla)