Hannity's a jerk (re: Franken)

[callofthewild]

Hannity doesn't have content....the show consists of talking about what's coming up, so and so having a "melt-down" and then an interview with Newt Gingrich.    ...McCain, Mit Romney? and some former major from NY--- and Conservatives are not that happy about them....Hannity's job is now selling those losers to a conservative audiance....so it will be "what do you want? Hillary?" so you better settle


 ....Franken is boring I'm glad to see him go...

[yocco]

Here's the bottom line in all this: Liberal talk DOES NOT get ratings. Maybe Alan Colmes and Long John Wade did on WNBC back in the late 60s, but the country is decidely more conservative now. And don't think that the 06 election has begun swinging the country back to the left. And the Dems wanting to bring the Fairness Doctrine proves another point: If Lib talk can't compete in an open marketplace, we'll force it on people. Bill O, Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, and Glenn Beck are all successful because their viewpoints more reflect middle America...where elections are won. And most of the above are extremely entertaining as well.

[barooosk]

Here's the bottom line in all this: Liberal talk DOES NOT get ratings.

Yes they do.  And considering some of the pisspoor signals that they are carried on including WCPT in Chicago, WWRL in New York, WWRC in Washington, WDTW in Detroit, KTNF in Minneapolis and many others, they're not doing too bad.  According to Reuters they get 1.7 million listeners per week.  Three years ago they got 0 listeners. Also, I bet you didn't know that conservative talk radio ratings are declining faster than liberal talk ratings.

Maybe Alan Colmes and Long John Wade did on WNBC back in the late 60s, but the country is decidely more conservative now. And don't think that the 06 election has begun swinging the country back to the left.

What should we think about that election?  Let's see the Democratics (left) gained over 30 seats in the House and six in the Senate over the Republicans (right).  Or should we rely on the opinion of a right-wing whiner on a talk radio board?

Bill O, Rush, Hannity, Savage, Levin, and Glenn Beck are all successful because their viewpoints more reflect middle America...where elections are won. And most of the above are extremely entertaining as well.

Well, you tell your boys to keep up the good work. If they continue expressing their "middle American"..."viewpoints" so effectively, the Democrats will be able to extend their advantages in Congress and win the White House in 2008

[Ultimajock]

Maybe Alan Colmes and Long John Wade did on WNBC back in the late 60s

...get your facts straightened out. The man's name was Long John *Nebel* and he was on WOR and WMCA longer than he was on WNBC. And Colmes didn't get to WNBC until the '80s (IIRC he was preceded by Jack Ellery sometime in the late '70s)...

[KJCB]

Liberal talk DOES NOT get ratings. Maybe Alan Colmes and Long John Wade did on WNBC back in the late 60s, but the country is decidely more conservative now.

The vast majority of people don't wear heavy gold chains or talk about "bitches", but urban/rhythmic stations are among the top performers in many markets.  8% of people is a tiny number in most places, except for numbers for a radio station.  I'd say, regardless of how conservative the country is, there are still 8% of folks that are of a left-wing persuasion. Many more, in fact.

[Andrew Kent]

     You can't judge talk radio audiences according to polls or voting patterns, and you certainly can't judge the mood of the country by talk radio content or ratings.  Talk radio has become a blood sport for many listeners, so a lot of talk show listeners are guys sitting in their undershirts with a can of beer or simply people eager to vent their outrage or hear others vent theirs.  Talk radio listeners would rather go to a ball game than a broadway show or a concert, and they'll watch every episode of The Sopranos while eschewing Sex and the City as pornography.  Of course I'm stereotyping and generalizing, but what attracts this type of listener will probably not attract his liberal counterpart, and there just doesn't seem to be a liberal equivalent, just as tennis will never compete with football.

     Liberals, on the other hand, would rather watch television, where the news, talk shows, and even sitcoms are more reflective of liberal concerns.  So, if so-called "Liberal talk" is floundering in the ratings, perhaps it's because liberals would rather listen to their Ipods and get their political stimulation from television, and not because there are not enough liberals in the demographic.

     I don't know if the Democratic victories in the House and Senate mean that there are more liberals or just more people seeking an alternative to the Republican-Conservative status quo.  Maybe it's the war, which any sensible taxpayer, liberal or conservative, must question.  Or perhaps it's the shameful way that the Christian Right has hijacked the conservatism of Barry Goldwater such that Bush's victory in the last election was won more on his stand on gay marriage than on the war, the economy, homeland security, or other truly important issues.

     The liberal and conservative labels really don't mean all that much anymore, or are even understood, and I'm not so sure that the political spectrum is a continuum.  People now seem increasingly more willing to go in different directions on different issues, guided more by their core values than by notions of political correctness.  The more this happens, the more those who march in lock step to an ideology become an anachronism.  Perhaps, in the not-to-distant future, we'll have an electorate that can vote their thoughts and hopes instead of their prejudices and fears, and that ideologues who pander will be no match for voters who ponder.

[tbetz]

I heard Franken is going to be replaced by Thom Hartmann. Then the sparks will fly...

Except on XM, where he'll be replaced by Big Ed. At least until Hartmann's contract with Sirius runs out.

Sirius treats Hartmann rather shabbily, only airing the first hour live, and delaying the rest until the evening.

[evnlee]

     You can't judge talk radio audiences according to polls or voting patterns, and you certainly can't judge the mood of the country by talk radio content or ratings.  Talk radio has become a blood sport for many listeners, so a lot of talk show listeners are guys sitting in their undershirts with a can of beer or simply people eager to vent their outrage or hear others vent theirs.  Talk radio listeners would rather go to a ball game than a broadway show or a concert, and they'll watch every episode of The Sopranos while eschewing Sex and the City as pornography.  Of course I'm stereotyping and generalizing, but what attracts this type of listener will probably not attract his liberal counterpart, and there just doesn't seem to be a liberal equivalent, just as tennis will never compete with football.

     

But there is a lberal equivalent on radio: NPR. The debate as to where thier politics begin and end is long over. In any city where lib talk peforms poorly you can find an NPR outlet doing better,and in the few places where progtalk suceeds, NPR does relatively well.

NPR already fills the void, and the spillover goes to responsible syndicators like Jones, which also syndicated some non-lib talk.

Hannity is most certainly a jerk, so is Franken, IMHO. Neither of them are particularly funny

[Radio_Realist]

But there is a lberal equivalent on radio: NPR.

Not really. While the analysts on shows like "All Things Considered" mostly range from liberal to very liberal, most NPR (and PRI) programs can't even be called "news/talk". NPR's news programs are throwbacks to old-fashioned radio news programs.

Comparing NPR to commercial news/talk radio is like comparing football and baseball. Both are sports, but they are two very different sports. NPR's new programs are about news, but they're a whole different game from shows like Hannity, Rush, Quinn and the rest.

[Don62]

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but what a jerk that Hannity - or as I've read him called online - "slanthead" - is.

I was listening this afternoon while driving and the arrogant SOB had the nerve to call Ed Schultz an idiiot.

Imagine that. Hannity scared of what Schultz might do to him on radio.

I don't recall what brought up the great Ed Schultz's name, but Hannity appeared to take it personally and took some swipes at Schultz.

This from a man - according to online reports - who was too afraid to debate Schultz live in person in Cincy when Hannity couldn't control the microphone.

Some talk radio host you got there. Thanks Crap Channel for clogging the airwaves with his drivel.