Lott becomes the sixth Senate Republican this year to announce retirement.

The senator has "other opportunities" he plans to pursue,

I hear the Dixiecrat party needs a new chairman.

Trent Lott's legacy is in the shipyards on the Gulf Coast, the NASA rocket plant at Iuka, and scores of other billion-dollar government projects in his home state.

He's the Republican version of Robert Byrd: Foghorn Leghorn with his face in the trough and a sheet in the trunk of his car.

You can be sure that oily goober---one of the last of the Nixon holdouts on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and the darling of Southern Republican crypto-racists---is getting in under the wire on new lobbying laws so he won't have to wait two years to cash in.

I saw a picture of Lott, Hastert, Delay and Larry Craig schmoozing with a lobbyist for an oil services company (during an all expense paid fishing trip) in Alaska who's now flipped as an indicted government witness in the massive corruption of Alaska's legislature and Sen. Ted Stevens.

All gone or soon gone from the U.S. Government.

After participating in the poisoning of Senatorial bipartisanship and civility, Trent Lott probably sees the futility of spending the last year of the Dubya and Dick Administration in office. He has to realize that at least one impeachment is a possibility, and wants to get out of Dodge before he has to take an uncomfortable stand.

I can't wait for the day that he and George W can sit in their rockers on his rebuilt front porch and reminisce about the good old days, when dinosaurs roamed free.

Its Mississippi... I don't think the GOP has to worry about losing this seat... But you never know.

The senator has "other opportunities" he plans to pursue,

Probable insurance.

He has seen from personal experience they take money in but don't pay out!

I don't think the GOP has to worry about losing this seat.

You are correct. No worries for the GOP on this seat. Haley Barbour recently got reelected governor, but he may want to go to Washington and enhance his resume for when he becomes a presidential candidate.

He could easily win this seat.

Its Mississippi... I don't think the GOP has to worry about losing this seat... But you never know

I was down there not too long ago. The response to Katrina has changed a lot of minds and turned the tide of public opinion quite a lot. There are still areas where houses are still in ruins - thousands of them.

Lott is actually trying to help out the GOP Senate candidate. By resigning early the Governor, a Republican, will appoint a replacement obviously the leading GOP candidate. It will give them an oppoortunity to run as an incumbent of sorts.

Interesting. He's not dying, he hasn't been found in bed with a gay hooker (that we know of). It could be that a corruption scandal is about to come down on his head...

But I think it's a combination of Doc's analysis - Getting to K Street early, and giving Gov. Barbour the oportunity to apoint a replacement who'll be able to run in '08 as an incumbent.

Why hold a GOP primary and risk the people electing the 'wrong' type, when you can just apoint the new GOP crony?

If the GOP holds a primary I'll eat my words, but look for the people's choice to be made for them.

I believe this has more to do with the changes in the eligability rules for lobyists than anything else. Just another one cashing in on the corruption that is in Washington.

Until we take the contributions out of the election politics AND change the tax laws so there are no tax breaks to give out, this will not change.

He has been an important and vocal critic of the FCC which is attempting ro ramrod through changes which will allow further consolidation of the media, for this one reason and that one reason only I am sorry he is resigning. He may be a right wing nut but at least he clearly sees the danger of a few corporations owning virtually all of the media outlets.

DANNI

I watched a Frontline special on the recent FCC hearings. What a joke they were. The 'public comments' forum in Seattle was only announced 7 days before it was held. One member of the audience of about 1000 told the Chairman of the FCC (who had a 'deer in the headlights' look from all the angry comments) "thank you for coming on such short notice". That got a standing ovation from the audience.

I hope much of the consolidation of the media that's occured in the last few years will be broken up as the monopoly much off it, radio specifically, has become.

Yeah, free speech the radio is FORBIDDEN by Democratics ... if they had their way the petty little tyrants ....

I just heard that one probable reason Lott is choosing to retire now is that the law will change on January 1st. By retiring before then he is free to lobby. If he waits until after January 1st he'll have to wait two years to lobby.

Free speech on right wing radio? BWAAAA !!!

If anyone with an opposing viewpoint EVER got through the screener it's only so the host can hang up and rant about 'them'.

Check out how many opposing viewpoint callers get on Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck? Ha Ha HA try again TADOWE. Hilarious!!

Yeah, free speech the radio is FORBIDDEN by Democratics ... if they had their way the petty little tyrants ....

POSTED BY TADOWE



LOL

TADOWE Free Speech Radio!

Controlled by the few, for the benefit of said same....

Only right wing lunatics should have access to the radio air waves which belong to the people of the United States. Any attempt to insure that we have diversity of ownership and thus opinion will be immediately attacked by the right wing idiots who pretend that liberals want to "censor" the air waves. They can pull that ignorant bull shit on the right wing radio stations but, at least here, on this site most posters aren't stupid enough to believe it.

Lott is planning to spend the rest of his days making sweet love to Strom Thurmond's corpse.

"Yeah, free speech the radio is FORBIDDEN by Democratics ... if they had their way the petty little tyrants ...."

Posted by tadowe at 2007-11-26 10:40 AM

On so many levels I find this tremendously funny... and ironic.

Hans

"Only right wing lunatics should have access to the radio air waves which belong to the people of the United States. Any attempt to insure that we have diversity of ownership and thus opinion will be immediately attacked by the right wing idiots who pretend that liberals want to "censor" the air waves. They can pull that ignorant bull shit on the right wing radio stations but, at least here, on this site most posters aren't stupid enough to believe it."

Posted by danni at 2007-11-26 10:55 AM

Bravo, Danni.

Hans

Lott will probably start a lobbying firm. If he resigns before Jan 1st he can open it immediately. If he waits until after Jan 1st, a new law will prohibit him from doing so for 2 years.

I wonder if somewhere a tear is forming on Strom Thurmond's sulfur-burned cheek. herm

Check out how many opposing viewpoint callers get on Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Actually they get on quite often. You are just another person who knows so much about shows you never listen too.

Whenever I have listened to any of the rightie talkers whenever they have had opposing callers the hosts cut them off, called them names, talked over them, did just about anything to prevent the consideration of any ideas they might have experssed. Now compare that to the way Ed Schultz allows conservatives to speak their minds while he treats them politely and gives them plenty of time to speak.

Only right wing lunatics should have access to the radio air waves which belong to the people of the United States. Any attempt to insure that we have diversity of ownership and thus opinion will be immediately attacked by the right wing idiots who pretend that liberals want to "censor" the air waves.

we need to 'force' them onto the airwaves under the guise that the airwaves "belong to the public."

Jeff can you define "force."

"All attempts to instill liberal talk radio have failed in the market, therefore we need to 'force' them onto the airwaves under the guise that the airwaves "belong to the public."

Actually Jeff, you demonstrate how little you know. Progressive talk is beating some of your favorite right wing talkers in many large markets so that argument is just crap.

Actually they get on quite often. You are just another person who knows so much about shows you never listen too.

Posted by FormerLib

I've listened plenty. Danni's retort mirrors my listening experience:

"Whenever I have listened to any of the rightie talkers whenever they have had opposing callers the hosts cut them off, called them names, talked over them, did just about anything to prevent the consideration of any ideas they might have experssed."

And that's exactly what happened to me the ONE time I was let past a screener. The host talked over me for 2 minutes until the break and refused to let me get a word in.

Danni,

First off - forgive my snarky comment. I was mocking the Fairness Doctrine whilst you were talking about media over-consolidation - you were speaking to something different from me.


Actually Jeff, you demonstrate how little you know. Progressive talk is beating some of your favorite right wing talkers in many large markets so that argument is just crap.


Let's see.....

Ed Schultz is the biggest liberal talk show host and he has an audience of roughly 2 million weekly listeners.


Rush is the biggest on the right and he has 20 million weekly listeners.

Hannity is second with 15 million.

If you want to compare the total listening audience for right-leaning talk vs. left-leaning talk, my argument is anything but crap.

Name one "progressive" radio program that is sucessful. The reason there are not many "progressive" (sic), programs is that nobodys listens to them. I am a democrat and I can not stand to lisen to their garbage, it is just to liberal (way out looney) for me.

"The senator has "other opportunities" he plans to pursue"

He is getting ready to cash in. I'm guessing BigPharm, or maybe oil, or both. Does this bother any of the Repubes? The 2 year waiting period is a good start, but more can be done.

"Name one "progressive" radio program that is sucessful."
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
Randi Rhodes

And you are full of crap FFD, all three I mention here are good shows that do well in the markets where they are on. Of course due to ownership of radio stations they aren't yet on in many markets, where they are they beat conservative talkers on at the same times.

I'm watching Lott. He's gonna go into lobbying for sure, and is resigning now to avoid the 2 year wait if he doesn't do it now. A law the Democratic controlled Congress who believe in ethics.

I usually lean left of center and I hate liberal radio. I don't know how someone can listen to something that they know is purposefully slanted. It seems like this type of radio is for the lemmings who cannot think for themselves or need their ideology massaged.

I have to admit I listen to Rush sometimes for a laugh, but I never listen to the advertisements and if I do I do not buy that product.

JEFF

Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting - all right wing owned companies, control almost all the AM stations in the country. FM too for that matter.

Zap,


Jeff can you define "force."

Fairness Doctrine.



FFD,

Name one "progressive" radio program that is sucessful. The reason there are not many "progressive" (sic), programs is that nobodys listens to them. I am a democrat and I can not stand to lisen to their garbage, it is just to liberal (way out looney) for me.


A few weeks ago my car was in the shop for a week and I borrowed my mom's car, which has Sirius. I took some time to listen to Ed Schultz' show and I was anything but impressed. It was the typical lefty-looney crap that I see so much of on this site. If he's the best liberal talk show host out there, it's no wonder that Air America has failed so miserably.

Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting - all right wing owned companies, control almost all the AM stations in the country. FM too for that matter.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY


Yup.

And they are completely dependent upon advertising revenues to fund their existence. Advertising revenues are completely dependent upon listenership/ratings. You can imply right-wing conspiracy until you're blue in the face (I am not accusing you personally of this), but none of that crap bears out in the real world. Clear Channel, et. al certainly control what's on the air, but they can't compel people to listen. Getting people to listen is what generates advertising revenues.

I would say Liberal radio fails because of the lack of a market not because of the performance (or lack there of) of the hosts. They seem to be mirror images of their Conservative counterparts.

Zap,


Jeff can you define "force."

Fairness Doctrine.


I wasn't aware that was before the legislature or under review.

Media consolidation does seem to be being "Forced" through as we speak.

Sorry I don't let me interrupt a good Diversion(tm).

I wasn't aware that was before the legislature or under review.


If we have a Dem in the WH and a Dem-controlled Congress you'll likely see it.



Media consolidation does seem to be being "Forced" through as we speak.


I can empathize with the over-consolidation issue. How 'bout an anti-trust suit? If these companies are violating trust laws, sue them.

Ben,


I would say Liberal radio fails because of the lack of a market not because of the performance (or lack there of) of the hosts. They seem to be mirror images of their Conservative counterparts.


Lack of market is the primary reason for failure IMO.

Much of the mainstream media is 'perceived' to be biased to the left. This 'perceived' bias creates a natural market for a counter-punch, which is what Conservative talk provides.

I am using the word 'perceive' in order to avoid a media bias debate.

Jeff

The 'left' read. The 'right' listen to the radio. They obviously don't read as much or they'd be more informed as to the real state of affairs in a number of areas.

The 'left' didn't need radio to win Congress last year, nor for America to now identify itself as 50% Dem 35% Rep. People pay attention. The right wing pundits have only their loyal sheep. Advertisers have to advertise on the radio - right wing or not.

I can empathize with the over-consolidation issue. How 'bout an anti-trust suit? If these companies are violating trust laws, sue them.
POSTED BY JEFFJ

How about preventing it before it happens!

If this was going to lead to a liberal swing You would be all for it.

i.e. Fairness Doctrine

Lack of market is the primary reason for failure IMO.

IMO there aren't available 100,000 watt radio stations, and as I mentioned above, the left is not as dependent on pundits to tell them what to think. They read and make up their own minds.

I don't mean to make such a generalization, but it's true for the most part.

AU,


The 'left' read. The 'right' listen to the radio. They obviously don't read as much or they'd be more informed as to the real state of affairs in a number of areas.


That little plattitude is not only false, but it's nothing more than a rationalization to try and 'explain' why liberal talk is such a failure when compared with conservative talk.

Lott's been in the Senate since 1988, which means he should have been term-limited 12 years ago.

Remember when conservative lawmakers ran on things like cutting spending, tort reform, cutting taxes, Social Security investment accounts, term limits? Ah, those were the days. Well, one out of five is better than nothing, I suppose. Barely.

IMO there aren't available 100,000 watt radio stations, and as I mentioned above, the left is not as dependent on pundits to tell them what to think. They read and make up their own minds.


Why do you think that listening to a pundit equates with said pundit telling one what to think?



I don't mean to make such a generalization, but it's true for the most part.


Um, not it isn't.



Zap,


How about preventing it before it happens!

Because typically we don't criminalize a company or a group of companies until they've actually violated law.



If this was going to lead to a liberal swing You would be all for it.


i.e. Fairness Doctrine


Um, no.

"It was the typical lefty-looney crap that I see so much of on this site."

If that was your impression they I suspect you had made up your mind before you started listening. They guy is hardly hard-left, virtually a moderate on most issues. Treats righties fairly.
It seems laughable that anyone who ever listens to Rush or Sean Hannity could call any progressive "looney" because the outright lies they tell are obvious to all except the right wing morons.

""I would say Liberal radio fails because of the lack of a market not because of the performance (or lack there of) of the hosts.""

Clue here: Progressive radio is not failing in the markets it is on. Many markets do not have any progressive talk at all so you can't really say it is failing if ownership won't put it on and try it.
Conservative ownership does make sure that conservative talk dominates, you can pretend it is simply market driven but that is disproven by the FACT that so many markets have ZERO progressives, so how could the righties be termed "successful" if they have no competition.
Here in S. Florida a liberal talker has beaten Rush and all the conservatives for literally decades. He isn't national syndicated.

i.e. Fairness Doctrine


Um, no.

POSTED BY JEFFJ


So when when the GOP get there brains bashed in the next election if the Fairness Doctrine come up we won't be hearing from JeffJ.

LOL, Let me mark that down.

"That little plattitude is not only false, but it's nothing more than a rationalization to try and 'explain' why liberal talk is such a failure when compared with conservative talk."

Gee Jeff, which side of the spectrum do you think conglomerates who own hundreds of stations would be on politically....especially considering Republicans have allowed consolidation and Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine???
Either you are pretending to really believe it is an even playing field or I'm afraid you really are completely fooled by what the right wing talkers tell you.

I miss those lawmakers RiR.

Who will represent the Klan, errr....I mean Mississippi?

"Gee Jeff, which side of the spectrum do you think conglomerates who own hundreds of stations would be on politically"

Ohhh another ownership diversion.

How original.

"Who will represent the Klan, errr....I mean Mississippi?"

Mississippi will have no trouble coming up with a replacement....trust me on that.

Why do you think that listening to a pundit equates with said pundit telling one what to think?

JEFFJ

FoxNews and RightWing Radio talking points can be found all over these threads every day - even when they're so ridiculous it's enough to make me spit coffee on my computer screen from laughing spontaneously. Listen to rightwing pundits and then read righwing posts here. Verbatim.

That indicates to me that many rightwing people don't even open a newspaper or go beyond their narrow choice of getting 'information' on U.S. and global events. 'Talking points' only. No substance or real grasp of the overall picture on most subjects that can be politicized including war.

Because typically we don't criminalize a company or a group of companies until they've actually violated law. JeffyJunior

Yeah, what's up with that?

Personally I'm for Preemptive Law Enforcement in America.

PLEA

No, this isn't some Tommy Cruise Fantasy with some freaky broad in a wading pool.

PLEA doesn't care if you're going to commit a crime because we know that everyone is guilty of something. And I wasn't sworn to secrecy I'd tell you why Trent Lott is retiring. Suffice it to say He PLEA'd out. Simple as that.

You could be next. Take my word on it.

If that was your impression they I suspect you had made up your mind before you started listening.


No.

That was my impression after listening to him for an hour.

Perhaps it was a bad hour. He may be better than what I heard during that short listen.


Conservative ownership does make sure that conservative talk dominates, you can pretend it is simply market driven but that is disproven by the FACT that so many markets have ZERO progressives, so how could the righties be termed "successful" if they have no competition.


But they do have 'competition'. Here in Detroit, WJR plays Rush from 12 to 3. On AM 1130, I can listen to Jim Rome. On AM 1270 I can listen to the Sports Inferno. I can flip to the FM band and have a bevy of music stations I can listen to. I can always pop in a CD if the radio isn't cutting it. Many people of Satellite radio with almost 200 different venues. The point is, Conservative talk succeeds because it has listenership. You can rationalize that all you wish. You can claim Conservative conspiracy all you wish. However in doing so, you bely an utter lack of a basic understanding of economics.



Either you are pretending to really believe it is an even playing field or I'm afraid you really are completely fooled by what the right wing talkers tell you.

I am pretending nothing. I understand economics. I have a Bachelor's degree in economics and management. Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership. Period.

Signmaker is already making brass plates:

Trent Lott - Lobbyist 'Opening 2008' (thanks to resigning now rather than after January 1st)

Face it, the guy doesn't have cancer or a wife who's sick. He's gonna cash in and work the old system. Good thing the Dems passed Ethics Reform this year or more would make that trip through the revolving door as Lott is about to do.

RiR, I wish we could go back to the old policy disputes and not have to argue about following the constitution or not. Or, should we torture or not. Or, do we have a good reason to kill 4,000 of our troops and 200,000+ others.

I like term limits, tort reform (to an extent), cutting spending(if its on the right things), a balanced budget, and SS investments. These issues would get my attention. I don't get scared by fear politics though, I get angry.

Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership.

Ya, because they read about as much as W does. Which is one book every decade. Listening to many of the callers on rightwing radio most of 'em probably couldn't spell 'liberals' correctly the first time.

"Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership."


Bull shit. Period.

When you're stuck in your car it's CD's or the radio. When the rightwing controls the powerful radio stations you listen to what you get if you're gonna listen to talk radio.

I like to listen to Public Radio. Never biased and interesting and varied topics like AM talkradio used to carry.

FoxNews and RightWing Radio talking points can be found all over these threads every day - even when they're so ridiculous it's enough to make me spit coffee on my computer screen from laughing spontaneously. Listen to rightwing pundits and then read righwing posts here. Verbatim.


I see left-wing talking points all over these threads every day. A bunch of emotional horseshit with a clear lack of understanding of the real world.

I agree that some Conservatives are idiots who simply regurgitate what's fed to them by their favorite sources. However, some liberals are no different in this regard - except for their sources.



Ya, because they read about as much as W does. Which is one book every decade. Listening to many of the callers on rightwing radio most of 'em probably couldn't spell 'liberals' correctly the first time.


Again, why do you feel that listening to a right-wing pundit equates with idiocy and a lack of intellectual curiosity?

"Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership."


Bull shit. Period.

Posted by danni

Well, it certainly generates revenue from advertisers. Why would that be? And why didn't it work for Air America?

"Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership."


Bull shit. Period.

Posted by danni


Then how does Rush garner 20 million weekly listeners for the last 18 years?

Jedi mind trick?

"Again, why do you feel that listening to a right-wing pundit equates with idiocy and a lack of intellectual curiosity?"

Just think of how many lies have been told by Rush and the rest of the right wing nuts to try to sell/justify the war in Iraq.....

Just think about the name calling...."traitors", "defeatocrats" etc. etc. in stead of facts.

You say you live in Detroit, 12-3 listen to Thom Hartman on 1310 and tell me that he puts out "A bunch of emotional horseshit with a clear lack of understanding of the real world."...and I'll call you a liar. Compared to Rush Limbaugh the level of discussion by Hartman is college to nursery school.
Anyone who seriously contends Rush is comparable isn't being honest. That's a fact.

When the rightwing controls the powerful radio stations you listen to what you get if you're gonna listen to talk radio.


Or you don't listen at all.


If the venue sucks, people simply won't listen.


In order for your (and Danni's) premise to work, we have to ignore market forces and pretend human nature doesn't exist (people will actually listen to something that they think sucks, simply because they don't have any other 'choices').

Rush Limbaugh is a comedian. I guess I'm the only one who gets it.

"I am pretending nothing. I understand economics. I have a Bachelor's degree in economics and management. Right-wing talk succeeds because it generates listenership. Period."

I have the same degree JeffJ, and I agree with your point. I'm sure we would disagree why they have a listenership and the libs don't, though.

Its as easy as walking up to 2 people you work with. 1 a rep and 1 a dem and ask them about politics. (Most of the time)The rep will speak in absolutes and carry a party line. The dem will say things like "I think" or "in my opinion". The dem will probably hold some distain for all politicians as well.

It is really just a difference in mind set.

***I know this is a generalization, but it is an example I have encountered many times***

Conservative talk succeeds because it has listenership

It succeeds because right wing owned companies own a majority of the radio stations with wattage in this country and they're not about to let anything else on the air.

I grew up in Detroit. WJR used to carry a wide variety of talk radio on a myriad of subjects. They're also the most powerful AM station in Michigan. The others you mention hardly reach beyond the metro Detroit area, and they're more on the 10,000 watt range rather than WJR's 100,000 watt league.

You say you live in Detroit, 12-3 listen to Thom Hartman on 1310


I'll give him a whirl tomorrow (I'll be spending much of day in my car tomorrow).



Rush Limbaugh is a comedian. I guess I'm the only one who gets it.

I get it also. Oftentimes he's a hack, which is funny in its own right. To his credit, sometimes he's truly funny.

Point being, he's entertaining which is a large part of his on-going success.



Ben,

***I know this is a generalization, but it is an example I have encountered many times***


I have encountered it also, but with the roles being reversed. In my experience it's ususally the Dem who is speaking in absolutes and the Republican that is more guarded in their words.

JEFFJ

As to FM stations in Detroit FM stations used to play great music. Now they're programmed by Clear Channel and play the same 30 songs day after day because Clear Channel gets pay for play.

That's happened all over the country. Used to be top 40, now top 30. Clear Channel is also the nation's largest concert promoter. Guess who's music they're going to play? Yep. Those acts that Clear Channel has on tour. Just try to get on the air if you're not 'in the family'.

JEFFJ

Read my 1:04

It succeeds because right wing owned companies own a majority of the radio stations with wattage in this country and they're not about to let anything else on the air.


BS.

It succeeds because it garners listeners.

Again, your premise works only if we ignore economic reality.

"Rush Limbaugh is a comedian."

In the same sense that Ann Coulter is.

when they started making comments so repulsive it was the only available excuse. If he is a "comedian" then why did he say he was done "carrying water" for Bush?

"Conservative talk succeeds because it has listenership"

People WILL listen to the radio, if there isn't anything good on they will listen to what is on..
Example....here in S. Florida EVERYONE complains about the lousy music played on the air (Clearchannel) yet many or most still listen.

"It succeeds because it garners listeners. "

Gee Jeff, with the shift in the political climate of America one would think there would be a corresponding shift in listenership.....which there has been in markets with progressive radio available. Like I have stated several times....some progressive shows on head to head with conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Bill O are winning their time slots in markets where they are on stations with the power to be competitive.
Obviously where they aren't on they can't compete.
Some of the owners of conservative radio conglomerates have even admitted they won't put anything except righties on...for purely political reasons.

As to FM stations in Detroit FM stations used to play great music. Now they're programmed by Clear Channel and play the same 30 songs day after day because Clear Channel gets pay for play.


WCSX (classic rock) emphasizes being 'live and local'. Their format is unchanged since the station was created. They've been around for over 15 years.

WRIF has been around for over 30 years and their format is largely unchanged. Their DJ's are long-timers and play what they want to play.

WNIC has been around forever and hasn't changed its format either.

89X plays alternative rock and has maintained their quirky venue since its inception over 10 years ago.


WJR PERSONALITIES

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------
Paul W. Smith - mostly local issues.
Frank Beckmann - mostly local issues.
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mitch Albom - a Detroit sports writer and liberal
The Big Story
Mark Levin - the guy is an idiot!
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Warren Pierce

Read my 1:04 I listened to Detroit radio before your parents met I suspect.


My parents met in High School and married in 1967.

Some of the owners of conservative radio conglomerates have even admitted they won't put anything except righties on...for purely political reasons.


Interesting.

Where did you hear this?

My parents met in High School and married in 1967.

Posted by JeffJ

Yep. I was listening to WJR and Detroit radio before your parents met.

Name me ONE Clear Channel AM station that doesn't play Rush, Hannity, Savage, The 'G' man, and Beck all day followed by local versions of the same. I'll save you the time. There isn't one.

Name me ONE Clear Channel AM station that doesn't play Rush, Hannity, Savage, The 'G' man, and Beck all day followed by local versions of the same. I'll save you the time. There isn't one.

Your point being?

Trent Lott -- another one jumping off the USS Bush/Titanic before it hits bottom.

Lott becomes the sixth Senate Republican this year to announce retirement. -- Zap

Trent Lott -- another one jumping off the USS Bush/Titanic before it hits bottom. -- CalChris

Yep. Interesting vote of confidence for the Repub candidates.

Name me ONE Clear Channel AM station that doesn't play Rush, Hannity, Savage, The 'G' man, and Beck all day followed by local versions of the same. I'll save you the time. There isn't one.

Your point being?

Posted by JeffJ

My point? You said people listen to what they want. My point is their only choice is to listen to what the OWNERS want to program. If 100,000 watt stations owned by Clear Channel and other right wing owned stations in the bluest areas are playing Rush and Co all day long, they're playing what THEY want, not what the public wants. If Clear Channel, Cumulus, and Sinclair - who have total domination of high wattage AM stations in the U.S. - won't LET any other type of programming on, they're hardly responding to listener desires are they?

My point is their only choice is to listen to what the OWNERS want to program.


But that's NOT their ONLY choice.

See my 1250 post.



they're playing what THEY want, not what the public wants.

They don't survive without ratings, regardless of what they 'want' to play. If their shows can't generate listeners, they won't get the advertising revenues they need in order to stay afloat.

Again your entire premise belies a lack of understanding of economics and human nature.


Example, I regularly listen to WCSX (Classic rock). If they changed their format to Country Western, they'd cease to be played on my radio.


Moreso than music stations, people listen to talk radio because they want to. The personality on the air + the format is EVERYTHING to the listener.

"I have encountered it also, but with the roles being reversed. In my experience it's ususally the Dem who is speaking in absolutes and the Republican that is more guarded in their words."

It must be the difference between the North and South.

JEFFJ

WJR used to have a variety of local personalities like Dick Purtan. Every day, every host, and every show was something different and interesting. Every hour on any particular show featured a different guest or topic. Radio served the local community. Monopolies programmed from 2000 miles away don't serve anybody locally.

I understand much more than you think about radio. I've been in the media/entertainment industry since 1974. Conglomeration has made radio boring as hell and irrevelant locally on the stations that reach the most people. I'm sorry you missed it when it was good. You'd know the difference.

If all the 100,000 watt AM stations played left leaning programming 24/7 about one subject only "them" you'd be screaming to high heaven. Don't say you wouldn't. FYI I'm a registered Independent. Have been since I got my voter card. So, I'm not talking as a partisan, but as an owner of the airwaves like all taxpayers are. The chairman of the FCC now wants to allow those companies to own the newspapers and TV stations in the same markets despite a massive public outcry against it. That's just not right - unless you never want to get an unbiased opinion from anywhere ever again. Thank God for PBS - who those companies lobby to defund.

AU :-)

Right Wing point of view:

Talk radio: advertising revenue driven, listenership, etc.

All other parts of the media: Dominated by liberal ownership, advertising revenue irrelevant, driving liberal agenda period.

AU,


I understand the argument against over-consolidation, not the least of which being a move away from local interest.

That's why I pointed out that 3 of WJR's personalities are local guys that talk about local subjects (mostly). That's 9 prime-time hours per day.

""I understand the argument against over-consolidation""

I'm wondering what Rush, Sean, etc. have to say about it....not really.....it's pretty predictable.

AU,

Part of what drives demand for bigger media companies is fewer commercials. Consolidation allows for more air time and less ad-time.

But then the very same people who clamor for fewer commercials then complain about the 'corporate sound' of the venue and the lack of local interest.

Can't have it both ways, I guess.

All other parts of the media: Dominated by liberal ownership, advertising revenue irrelevant, driving liberal agenda period.


I've never made this assertion.

You've never mentioned the "librul media?"

Don't worry, I won't go searching through archives, your word is fine with me.

But....let's be honest here.....have Rush, SEan or Bill, Laura or any of the others WHINED about the evil "librul media" over the years????

Danni,


Of course I've said the media is biased left.

That doesn't mean that these various mediums are innoculated against the need for advertising revenues.

But....let's be honest here.....have Rush, SEan or Bill, Laura or any of the others WHINED about the evil "librul media" over the years????


Yes, and they've rather astutely pointed out said bias when it manifests.

So Jeff, this is really the important part of the discussion. The FCC right now is deciding whether or not the big conglomerates which own the radio stations can also own the TV channels and the newspapers too. The same few companies which own most of the powerful radion stations will be able to control the news in most major cities and Trent Lott, extremely conservative Sen. from Miss. agrees with us libs that more consolidation is bad for America....that's really what we are discussing here. If we did limit consolidation it would probably result in Rush, Sean, and Bill losing stations because of more diverse ownership.
That's all I'm really talking about here.
I just don't see how diversity of ownership could be anything except good for America while consolidation (as per Iraq war) airing only one side of an issue is dangerous.

"Yes, and they've rather astutely pointed out said bias when it manifests."

But by your arguments it is advertising revenue driven....people are "buying" the media they want.....you can't have it both ways.

Danni,


I just don't see how diversity of ownership could be anything except good for America


I tend to agree with this.


I am a free market guy (for the most part), but I certainly see your point on this one.

But by your arguments it is advertising revenue driven....people are "buying" the media they want.....you can't have it both ways.


I am not trying to have it both ways.

I kind of think most of us here probably agree about media consolidation. That's why I originally mentioned it about Trent Lott. It is one reason even us libs are sorry to see him resign.

Glad to see him go. Hopefully other partisan hacks (Dems included) can find the door.

That little plattitude is not only false, but it's nothing more than a rationalization to try and 'explain' why liberal talk is such a failure when compared with conservative talk.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-11-26 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are we back to this tired old argument again?

What does 'the failure of liberal radio' tell you? I'm really asking. What does it tell you?

It certainly isn't an indication of how the country is voting. Bush got the presidency twice with no more than 2% differential and the mid-terms were a disaster for the repubs.

......so please, tell us how it matters what happens to liberal radio and what it really means to you. Are you trying to say it's an indication of political thinking?

"What does 'the failure of liberal radio' tell you? I'm really asking."

You state that as if it were a fact which it is not. Liberal radio is growing, many shows are doing quite well. Even Air America is out of bankruptcy and doing fine.

Common,


What does 'the failure of liberal radio' tell you? I'm really asking. What does it tell you?


A couple of things:

1. Not much of a market exists for liberal talk

2. Generally speaking, those who perform liberal talk aren't entertaining or compelling enough to garner an audience outside of their niche market.



It certainly isn't an indication of how the country is voting.

Agreed.



so please, tell us how it matters what happens to liberal radio and what it really means to you.


The only reason I point out its failure (compared with Conservative talk) is to drive home the point that it's not some conspiracy that's keeping this venue down. This is largely market-driven. That is all.



IMO, much of what fuels the market for conservative talk is the fact that much of the MSM is perceived to be biased left, therefore a natural market exists for a counter-punch, which conservative talk provides.

Part of what drives demand for bigger media companies is fewer commercials. Consolidation allows for more air time and less ad-time.

JEFFJ

The minutes of ad time haven't gone down a second on radio over the years. Some music stations may take longer breaks, etc., but we're talking about talk radio here. Count 'em sometime. Radio makes their money from ads only. They're not going to decrease their ad time. Clear Channel music stations, as I mentioned before, are tied in with Clear Channel promoted concerts. They play music by acts they're promoting on tour. Essentially ads for their shows too. So, a wash.

When the FCC lifted some restrictions on TV none of them decreased ad time. In fact, it's 23 minutes or more per hour now. More than before that ruling.

And consolidation of ownership of TV stations led to MORE commercials when they lobbied the GOP Congress last decade to lift restrictions on both the number of stations they can own and the amount of airtime that can be devoted to advertising. Shows that may have a few less commercials simply didn't sell that time. Most shows average 23 minutes - or more- per hour in commercials. Used to be a 3 1/2 minute limit per half hour at one time. Count 'em now. You'll see....

The 'left' read. The 'right' listen to the radio. They obviously don't read as much or they'd be more informed as to the real state of affairs in a number of areas.


I read at least 2 books a week. I read magazines and quarterlies. I am also more right leaning than I am left leaning, but I consider myself "moderate" for lack of a better term.

I'm gonna guess, just on my own personal experience, that you haven't gotten any real stats to back this up. You're just talking out of your ass.


The 'left' didn't need radio to win Congress last year, nor for America to now identify itself as 50% Dem 35% Rep. People pay attention. The right wing pundits have only their loyal sheep. Advertisers have to advertise on the radio - right wing or not.


Can we get a link with those figures. I'd venture to guess that the numbers are fudged because they surveyor didn't bother to ask anyone outside of a New York, Chicago or San Francisco area code.

Not that I listen to talk radio, unless you count the blogtalkradio.com...but that's far from conservative.

Could Trent Lott be the first Lobbyist to get no lobbying?

PS AXIOM

I don't listen to pundits either. I do like Public Radio, but it's not political. Yesterday my favorite show was about wildlife in Africa.

I like Tim Russert. That's about as far as I go watching or listening to anything having to do with politics. Neither example I gave have a pundit among them.

THis was all the talk on the rig today since half of the guys here are Mississippi boys. They are all in tears.

Here ya go:


Interesting. Thanks for the read.


Just the righwingers like those who post here and say the same damn thing every day - word for word off the day's Rush/hannity/Savage/Beck talking points.


I used to listen to Beck in the morning because he came on just as I was leaving work on the graveyard shift. Since moving back home to the sticks of south carolina, I hadn't listened to him the other day.

I found myself surprised to hear that he actually said that the national guard should be used against ron paul supporters. Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person. Now, I realize he's had one too many servings of the Right Wing Kool Aid.

As for the others, you can tell from posts on this site who listens to them and who buys into their particular brand of garbage. As I've admitted before, I was dupped by Bush in the first go-round. After seeing what he considers foreign policy, I voted for the other guy. Sadly, he was just another head of the same Hydra.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. Jeff thinks that what radio stations broadcast is a product of what they think people want to hear, and if they want to hear it, commercial time will be bought during times people listen. Fine. That's logical.

I think the greater problem is that almost all of the AM spectrum is owned by persons with right-leaning political interests. Clear Channel is a great example. Some like Jeff might say "That's a product of what people want to hear...". That MAY be true. Then again, with the reach of the Bush administration into the FCC, and the influence of the GOP (National and Local entities), it's doesn't seem outside the arena of possibility that the system's being rigged to push a "Riech-Wing" agenda. (Sorry, had to slip one in...).

I think an even bigger problem though, is that while personalities like Rush and Hannity have their right to free speech, and so do progressive personalities, that the speech coming from the two is quite different.

I'm of the mind that because Conservatives have a voice in government (Bush), and that the current Administration has shown NO qualms about demonizing American citizens who speak out against the Bush Admin, that this has given a free pass to those like Rush and Hannity to use whatever hate-speech they want on Liberals. I've listened to both, and while some of the stuff coming from Progressives is pretty far to the left, it's nothing compared to what's coming from the right. You don't hear Progressives calling Conservatives traitors. You don't hear them talking about boycotting companies, artists, or businesses that even mention something they dislike. You simply don't hear of liberals calling for the boycott of stores because they actually call a tree a Christmas tree. You only hear right-wingers calling for boycotts of stores because they call them Holiday trees.

Also, with regard to the whole war on xmas BS, I've seen Jeff post twice (atleast) that Liberals/Progressives make emotional arguments to make their point. What's more emotional than trying to influence the buying habits of right-wingers by saying a hardware store is making war on their freedom of religion? Just my 2 cents.

For a person like like, after he has tasted all the power, it boils down to a matter of ego. He will be another lobbyiest

Sorry if this has been covered (no time to read all the posts here), but has anyone heard that this retirement might be linked to some gay scandal? My wife was out with a friend who is part of a politically very well connected family, and she told my wife that this has something to do with some gay thing.

I, for one, wouldn't be surprised. Like Craig, Brownback, Rudy, etc. etc., this guy is definitely light in his loafers.

Haven't had a GOP "gay scandal" in weeks! I was almost in withdrawal...

"Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

hahahahahaha! You guys kill me. "I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

That is hilarious. I could tell he was an absolute crazy lunatic by hearing one promo.
"er...I just say what everyone is thinkin...duh!"

Hilarious.

"Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

hahahahahaha! You guys kill me. "I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

That is hilarious. I could tell he was an absolute crazy lunatic by hearing one promo.
"er...I just say what everyone is thinkin...duh!"

Hilarious.

"Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

hahahahahaha! You guys kill me. "I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

That is hilarious. I could tell he was an absolute crazy lunatic by hearing one promo.
"er...I just say what everyone is thinkin...duh!"

Hilarious.

"Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

hahahahahaha! You guys kill me. "I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

That is hilarious. I could tell he was an absolute crazy lunatic by hearing one promo.
"er...I just say what everyone is thinkin...duh!"

Hilarious.

"Before, I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

hahahahahaha! You guys kill me. "I used to think he was a pretty balanced person."

That is hilarious. I could tell he was an absolute crazy lunatic by hearing one promo.
"er...I just say what everyone is thinkin...duh!"

Hilarious.

"I like Tim Russert."

Yeah, I got lots of respect for him after he asked Dennis Kucinich about a UFO sighting instead of the many bills he has proposed, impeachment, health care, etc.
Tim Russert is OBVIOUSLY a tool for the corporations. He will dignify any candidate like Hillary Clinton who won't rock the boat but he will ridicule and demonize those who will.
Don't you get it UA???? The media is complicit in the class war going on in this country.
Oh, you think that's too strong of language....yeah right....this country couldn't stop illegal immigrants from flooding our labor markets......the Iraq war was to combat terrorists.....realize Russert and the rest of the liars all went along with all these lies. I guess if I were making six figures to support the corporate destruction of the middle class I would consider selling out too. But puhleeeeeez do not dignify these liars.