[Psudo]

I'm very interested in talk radio. Sure, I'm politically conservative so that part makes sense, but my interests extend beyond political talk radio. I have, on occasion, enjoyed advice call-in shows, financial talk, Kim Kommando, Coast to Coast AM, local shows, sometimes even sports talk. It's great to hear people standing up for their views in their own words and voices.

So when I bumped into a list of the top 30 or so national talk radio personalities by audience, I was intrigued. I did some research. I made a table.

Some interesting points:
1) I was impressed to note that I'd heard at least one show from 13 of the pundits listed. (It would have been 14 if Michael Reagan had made the list.)
2) The top dog, Rush Limbaugh, has approximately the same audience size as the entire popular vote of the recent Canadian elections. It's a little less than double the top apolitical radio show (either Howard Stern or Dr. Laura, depending on how you figure; the factor is MUCH higher if you disqualify them both).
3) Out of a total of 40 radio shows, there are between 22 and 11 conservative pundits on the list (depending on who you count). There are a maximum of 8 left-wing pundits on the list, and a maximum of 17 hosts whose shows can be considered apolitical.
4) Lars Larson is a naturalized citizen of the USA, having been born in Taiwan. He opposes illegal immigration despite being an immigrant himself. Does that make him a racist isolationist, too?
5) I noted people's religions occasionally. I'm not 'outing' them or criticizing them. I merely find certain religious standpoints interesting. Glen Beck, for example, shares my same religion. That's notable to me.
6) I gave the thumbs-up to 1 conservative pundit and thumbs-down to 1. I also gave 2 thumbs-ups to arguably conservative pundits and 1 thumbs-down to an arguably conservative pundit. Just because a pundit is conservative does not make him a good broadcaster.
7) I hate Shock Jocks generally and Howard Stern specifically.

I don't know if anyone besides me will find this interesting at all, but I share it here in case it's interesting to someone else.

[edited to fix link]

[Scape]

Are you going to rate the ones you haven't yet?

[commanderkai]

Psudo wrote:

I'm very interested in talk radio. Sure, I'm politically conservative so that part makes sense, but my interests extend beyond political talk radio. I have, on occasion, enjoyed advice call-in shows, financial talk, Kim Kommando, Coast to Coast AM, local shows, sometimes even sports talk. It's great to hear people standing up for their views in their own words and voices.

So when I bumped into a list of the top 30 or so national talk radio personalities by audience, I was intrigued. I did some research. I made a table.

Some interesting points:
1) I was impressed to note that I'd heard at least one show from 13 of the pundits listed. (It would have been 14 if Michael Reagan had made the list.)
2) The top dog, Rush Limbaugh, has approximately the same audience size as the entire popular vote of the recent Canadian elections. It's a little less than double the top apolitical radio show (either Howard Stern or Dr. Laura, depending on how you figure; the factor is MUCH higher if you disqualify them both).
3) Out of a total of 40 radio shows, there are between 22 and 11 conservative pundits on the list (depending on who you count). There are a maximum of 8 left-wing pundits on the list, and a maximum of 17 hosts whose shows can be considered apolitical.
4) Lars Larson is a naturalized citizen of the USA, having been born in Taiwan. He opposes illegal immigration despite being an immigrant himself. Does that make him a racist isolationist, too?
5) I noted people's religions occasionally. I'm not 'outing' them or criticizing them. I merely find certain religious standpoints interesting. Glen Beck, for example, shares my same religion. That's notable to me.
6) I gave the thumbs-up to 1 conservative pundit and thumbs-down to 1. I also gave 2 thumbs-ups to arguably conservative pundits and 1 thumbs-down to an arguably conservative pundit. Just because a pundit is conservative does not make him a good broadcaster.
7) I hate Shock Jocks generally and Howard Stern specifically.

I don't know if anyone besides me will find this interesting at all, but I share it here in case it's interesting to someone else.

For the sake of it, I do enjoy talk radio as well, usually since I can listen to it while writing a paper or reading.

I'm just going to look at some interesting points you made and discuss them.

4) No, being against illegal immigration does not make you against immigration, just the ones that didn't go through the hell to actually immigrate to a nation. Being an immigrant myself (back and forth between Canada and the United States up to a point that Canadians see me as American and Americans see me as Canadian), I am completely against illegal immigration, and support more streamlining of legal immigration to make it more efficient. To call anybody racist for being against illegal immigration is rather sad because illegal immigration isn't limited to the US-Mexico border, but also the smuggling of humans from Asian, African, and Eastern European nations into Canada or the USA.

7) I didn't check your site, but what about Opie and Anthony? They used to play here, but not anymore. I thought they were rather entertaining for my days going to school, before 97.1 FM Talk decided to fuck everybody over. I do agree that Howard Stern does suck.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

Are you going to rate the ones you haven't yet?

Maybe. I'd have to find where they're playing and probably listen to them regularly for a few weeks before I had an informed opinion to give. I have no interest in listening to some of them: I don't like the shock jock genre, so Don Imus, Mancow, and Tom Leykis won't ever be reviewed. I also think it's insane that G. Gordon Liddy, the man behind Nixon's break-in of Democratic Party headquarters, has any kind of celebrity status; I refuse to support that in any way. A few of them at the bottom aren't on the air anymore, so obviously I won't be reviewing them. Something about Dennis Miller irritates me, so probably not him either.

But I have some interest in reviewing some of them, if I can get some spare time together. I'm curious how Dr. Joy Browne compares to the stanch morality and blunt honesty of Dr. Laura -- though the change in audience size suggests Dr. Laura is the more entertaining broadcaster. I've heard one of Jerry Doyle's shows (he's Garibaldi from Babylon 5!); I'd like to hear more of his, Laura Ingraham's, and Lars Larson's shows from the right. Jim Bohannon (conservative Democrat), Phil Hendrie (liberal Democrat who supported the US in Iraq) and Ed Schultz ("gun-totin', red meat-eatin' lefty") sound like interesting perspectives from the left, though I understand Phil Hendrie has toned down his political rhetoric in favor of comedy.

But to review any of these requires a lot of time if my opinions are going to be well-informed. Even if I do review more, it won't be soon.

commanderkai wrote:

4) [. . .] To call anybody racist for being against illegal immigration is rather sad because illegal immigration isn't limited to the US-Mexico border, but also the smuggling of humans from Asian, African, and Eastern European nations into Canada or the USA.

I was being satirical in hopes someone would respond exactly as you have. I completely agree.

commanderkai wrote:

7) I didn't check your site, but what about Opie and Anthony?

I don't know them. They're not on my list. A little research tells me the bulk of their audience is through Satellite Radio, which was not part of the survey I used as my source. From 2002 to 2006, they were not on terrestrial radio at all; maybe that's why your local station stopped carrying them.

Good crap, 6a to noon every weekday!? That's a long show! Maybe it's biased somehow, but Wikipedia's description of their show makes them sound like everything I don't like about shock jocks. I don't think I'd like them.

[Scape]

Jerry Doyle has a show? Sweet! Thanks for that. I agree with you about Liddy that's just obscene. I'm clearly more of a Thom Hartmann fan myself he really goes into details and not rants.

[commanderkai]

Psudo wrote:

commanderkai wrote:

4) [. . .] To call anybody racist for being against illegal immigration is rather sad because illegal immigration isn't limited to the US-Mexico border, but also the smuggling of humans from Asian, African, and Eastern European nations into Canada or the USA.

I was being satirical in hopes someone would respond exactly as you have. I completely agree.

Satire blows over my head early in the morning...heh.

[Scape]

Why is there such feeble variety in US markets? I know the shows you posted have markets but isn't Rush a Clear channel product and doesn't he also get airtime on Armed forces radio? I read the article you linked where you got the stats from and I gotta tell you they can say they are not biased all they want if the shows don't have access then how can they compete and isn't that toxic?

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

I know the shows you posted have markets but isn't Rush a Clear channel product and doesn't he also get airtime on Armed forces radio?

Rush's three-hour show is through Clear Channel, and the first hour of it is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio. Rush was added to Armed Forces Radio after a survey was given to soldiers about what radio shows they most missed from home; Rush was not on the list, but won as a write-in entry.

Other shows on Armed Forces Radio include Ed Shultz (lefty), Dave Ramsey (personal finance), Kim Komando (technology) and Jim Rome (sports).

Scape wrote:

I read the article you linked where you got the stats from

There were two articles. The 2008 source was Talker Magazine directly. The 2005 source was to a clearly biased blog ("Radio Equalizer") that is the only record I could find of the 2005 survey, since Talker Magazine doesn't seem to host it anymore. If you meant "Radio Equalizer", I agree to the bias of it's commentary, but I don't know why he'd fake the raw numbers. Thus, I trust the raw numbers. If you meant Talker Magazine, you'll have to explain what bias you see.

Scape wrote:

if the shows don't have access then how can they compete

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the shows aren't on enough radio stations they'll have smaller audience sizes, that's true. But it's in the financial best interest of the show, the radio stations, and radio advertisers to expand to new stations if there is demand for that programming; thus, good local shows become good regional shows become good national shows. They can compete by being desired.

Alternately, you could have meant "If other shows aren't available on Armed Forces Radio, they have a smaller potential audience. Isn't that non-compete?" The US employs a total of 2 million people through the armed forces. Even if every one of them was part of Rush Limbaugh's audience numbers (which is a ridiculously high estimate), that only drops him from 14+ million to 12+ million, leaving him ahead of every radio personality except Sean Hannity. An audience of 2 million is insignificant when compared the the audience of 300 million back home.

But if it's a matter of ideology rather than numbers, it's still not non-compete; AFR tries to reflect the radio content back home. If a left-wing commentator became a break-out hit, he'd reasonably be added to the AFN lineup, as Ed Schultz was. Competition affects AFN just as much as it affects the commercial competition back home.

Yes, non-compete would be toxic. I don't see it here.

If you meant something else, you'll have to explain it again.

[hwacker]

Psudo wrote:

Scape wrote:

I know the shows you posted have markets but isn't Rush a Clear channel product and doesn't he also get airtime on Armed forces radio?

Rush's three-hour show is through Clear Channel, and the first hour of it is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio. Rush was added to Armed Forces Radio after a survey was given to soldiers about what radio shows they most missed from home; Rush was not on the list, but won as a write-in entry.

Other shows on Armed Forces Radio include Ed Shultz (lefty), Dave Ramsey (personal finance), Kim Komando (technology) and Jim Rome (sports).

Scape wrote:

I read the article you linked where you got the stats from

There were two articles. The 2008 source was Talker Magazine directly. The 2005 source was to a clearly biased blog ("Radio Equalizer") that is the only record I could find of the 2005 survey, since Talker Magazine doesn't seem to host it anymore. If you meant "Radio Equalizer", I agree to the bias of it's commentary, but I don't know why he'd fake the raw numbers. Thus, I trust the raw numbers. If you meant Talker Magazine, you'll have to explain what bias you see.

Scape wrote:

if the shows don't have access then how can they compete

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the shows aren't on enough radio stations they'll have smaller audience sizes, that's true. But it's in the financial best interest of the show, the radio stations, and radio advertisers to expand to new stations if there is demand for that programming; thus, good local shows become good regional shows become good national shows. They can compete by being desired.

Yes, non-compete would be toxic. I don't see it here.

If you meant something else, you'll have to explain it again.

Let face facts, liberal radio is shit. Airhead America is bankrupt for a reason, it's boring and listening to Randy Roads and Mr Maddow is just like getting your nails pulled out by pliers.

And as the story goes liberal are too f’n cheap to support anything, this is another reason liberal radio never works. Liberals today would like to have a show like Rush but it will never happen, who will listen?

Rush started in a small station just like Hannity, people listened and they were placed on other stations. Liberals would just like to jump the hard work part and just get placed on a show right after Rush. If the B-HO Gov’t forces the fairness doctrine it will be a disaster.

[Psudo]

Darn, you posted before I could finish my edit. =[

I think hwacker is exaggerating. There are very successful liberal commentators. They're not as successful as Rush Limbaugh, but no one in the history of radio communication has been as successful as Rush. That comparison is like comparing US Presidents to Lincoln, or modern generals to Alexander. There's no reasonable comparison there.

I also dispute that liberals are cheap. When a liberal perceives a social injustice, he's stereotypically inclined to throw money at it. Have you not heard of George Soros?

I agree that the "fairness doctrine" is a bad idea. It would defy competition, just as Scape fears is already happening, and would make government more of a factor in the success of broadcasters than merit, as JJ has complained is presently the case in Canada.

[hwacker]

Psudo wrote:

Darn, you posted before I could finish my edit. =[

I think hwacker is exaggerating. There are very successful liberal commentators. They're not as successful as Rush Limbaugh, but no one in the history of radio communication has been as successful as Rush. That comparison is like comparing US Presidents to Lincoln, or modern generals to Alexander. There's no reasonable comparison there.

I also dispute that liberals are cheap. When a liberal perceives a social injustice, he's stereotypically inclined to throw money at it. Have you not heard of George Soros?

I agree that the "fairness doctrine" is a bad idea. It would defy competition, just as Scape fears is already happening, and would make government more of a factor in the success of broadcasters than merit, as JJ has complained is presently the case in Canada.

you better read up on that fuck Soros, he's one screwed up liberal.

anybody that bets on his country going under so he can make money is a ahole in my books.

name one good liberal commentator on Airhead America ?

[BartSimpson]

Scape wrote:

Why is there such feeble variety in US markets?

Because talk radio is generally listened to by a more conservative audience that, in turn, does not watch much liberal network news.

The libs want to implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' to shut up conservatives on talk radio and the conservatives are already planning the lawsuits to shut down the wildly left National Public Radio or to force them to allow conservative viewpoints and the lawsuits against the broadcast TV networks are also being prepared.

Also, if conservative talk cannot be broadcast it will move to subscription radio and people like myself will start using that in order to get the information we want.

[Scape]

With the advent of the internet there is a much wider audience to reach. I think the fear mongering of the fairness doctrine is just that as I have never heard that as much of a rally point but it is lamented upon because during that period there was better variety then their is now. I think Bart statement of there are more conservative listeners is striking closer to the root but as there has only been a recent (last 10 years) rise for progressive radio. At the same time Rush has become a cult turned monopoly because the progressive listeners simply switched off as they had no one to hear.

I have never heard of Ed Shultz but I have heard of Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow. From what I have heard they are still young and developing market wise. However, I have heard about Air America and I know Rhodes was kicked off and as I read up on Shultz he left. It seems that network has become exactly what they derided the right for so long of being. However that is the only large vehicle I see that the left has unless they go it alone. I have heard of Sirus talk left version as well but that's canned news not a platform like Clear Channel is and it was Clear Channel that gave the platform for Stern that made him such a success. That and the FCC.

You have to admit though that talk radio has a serious right wing bent to it and it has been that way for quite some time. Talk radio has potential to grow, there are many who would like to hear it but when it is dominated by one segment it retards growth. There could be a much larger market.

[hwacker]

Scape wrote:

With the advent of the internet there is a much wider audience to reach. I think the fear mongering of the fairness doctrine is just that as I have never heard that as much of a rally point but it is lamented upon because during that period there was better variety then their is now. I think Bart statement of there are more conservative listeners is striking closer to the root but as there has only been a recent (last 10 years) rise for progressive radio. At the same time Rush has become a cult turned monopoly because the progressive listeners simply switched off as they had no one to hear.

I have never heard of Ed Shultz but I have heard of Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow. From what I have heard they are still young and developing market wise. However, I have heard about Air America and I know Rhodes was kicked off and as I read up on Shultz he left. It seems that network has become exactly what they derided the right for so long of being. However that is the only large vehicle I see that the left has unless they go it alone. I have heard of Sirus talk left version as well but that's canned news not a platform like Clear Channel is and it was Clear Channel that gave the platform for Stern that made him such a success. That and the FCC.

You have to admit though that talk radio has a serious right wing bent to it and it has been that way for quite some time. Talk radio has potential to grow, there are many who would like to hear it but when it is dominated by one segment it retards growth. There could be a much larger market.

Well then go ahead and start a station for the left, you too can be hoodwinked into losing millions.

Talk radio is fine the way it is, the market decides what is good and the shit gets flushed.

[BartSimpson]

Exactly. The market can decide what needs to be heard all on its own. We do not need a liberal government with an anti-conservative agenda censoring the airwaves.