Left-wing media dying

[Dos Equis]

Is he right? 

Left-wing media dying
Major media outlets, newspapers going bankrupt because they’re simply out of touch

By BILL O'REILLY
Saturday, January 24, 2009 11:30 PM CST

There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.

The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can’t pay its bills, the Post-Intelligencer should have been inducted into the left-wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.

The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description “loan shark” mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.

On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that’s right behind the “Roller Derby Channel.” General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.

Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren’t we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.

But that doesn’t mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.

Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.

Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/01/25/opinion/commentary/comm.txt

[mightymouse72]

Is he right? 

Unless someone can dispel his stats; I would say he is correct.

[headhuntersix]

Look at alot of the folks that got elected in 2006. Many where very centrist dems..hell Webb is a repub who couldn't get a shot because Virginia already their guy.

[LurkerNoMore]

Hahahahahaaaa if the left wing media dies out and disappears who are the repubs going to blame when facts about their candidates like Palin, Craig, Delay, etc...  come to light?

No excuses to fall back on then.

[Straw Man]

O'Reily has been saying this for years meanwhile Air America is still around and Olberman and Maddow both beat him in the ratings.

The reality is the the country is moving to the left and sole reason is due to the failure of the Republican agenda to provide them any benefit in their lives.   They're finally waking up that the Republican agenda is simply designed to benefit the very few at the detriment of the many and it's also a self-destructive philosopy and evidenced by Grover Norquist desire to shrink government down the size where he can drown it in a bathtub.   Why would that appeal to the average working American?

[headhuntersix]

The same guys who will go after Wrangel and the rest of the douchebags in Congress

ah when does that happen.....


Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –1,018,000 viewers (307,000) (651,000)
American Morning-590,000 viewers (214,000) (358,000)
Morning Joe- 421,000 viewers (161,000) (224,000)
Squawk Box- 365,000 viewers (122,000) (234,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 291,000 viewers (125,000) (162,000)

6PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report with Brit Hume – 1,977,000 viewers (407,000) (911,000)
Situation Room-1,077,000 viewers (326,000) (534,000)
Race/White House w/d Gregory- 684,000 viewers (243,000) (324,000)
Mad Money–357,000 viewers (129,000) (229,000)
Prime News- 241,000 viewers (98,000) (125,000)

7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith – 1,724,000 viewers (370,000) (770,000)
Lou Dobbs–1,156,000 viewers (387,000) (548,000)
Hardball w/Chris Matthews–821,000 viewers (277,000) (425,000)
Kudlow & Company—372,000 viewers (141,000) (223,000)
Glenn Beck – 467,000 viewers (134,000) (249,000)

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor- 3,060,000 viewers (731,000) (1,253,000)
Election Center–1,166,000 viewers (431,000) (576,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann– 1,635,000 viewers (509,000) (771,000)
On the Money—207,000 viewers (65,000) (106,000)
Nancy Grace –1,166,000 viewers (412,000) (618,000)

9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity & Colmes–3,136,000 viewers (716,000) (1,375,000)
Larry King—1,710,000 viewers (496,000) (801,000)
Rachel Maddow Show–1,801,000 viewers (534,000) (872,000)
Business of Innovation—a scratch w/102,000 viewers (a scratch w/42,000) (59,000)
Glenn Beck- 656,000 viewers (211,000) (354,000)

[headhuntersix]

Ratings
Friday Jan 30, 2009
The Scoreboard: Thursday, Jan. 29
25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 369 | CNN: 288 | MSNBC: 197 | HLN: 155

Prime: FNC: 629 | CNN: 449 | MSNBC: 419 | HLN: 334       
  5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
 
FNC Beck:  Baier:  Shep:  O'Reilly:  Hannity:  Greta:  O'Reilly: 
         465  405  528  774  691  421  497 
 
CNN Blitzer:  Blitzer:  Dobbs:  Brown:  King:  Cooper:  Cooper: 
        349  396  392  389  439  518  400 
 
MSNBC Matthews:  Shuster:  Matthews:  Olbermann:  Maddow:  Olbermann:  Madddow: 
           184  179  337  508  423  326  256 
 
HLN Prime:  Prime:  VMitchell:  Grace:  Dobbs:  Grace:  Showbiz: 
        108  89  228  473  205  343  296 

[mightymouse72]

O'Reily has been saying this for years meanwhile Air America is still around and Olberman and Maddow both beat him in the ratings.

The reality is the the country is moving to the left and sole reason is due to the failure of the Republican agenda to provide them any benefit in their lives.   They're finally waking up that the Republican agenda is simply designed to benefit the very few at the detriment of the many and it's also a self-destructive philosopy and evidenced by Grover Norquist desire to shrink government down the size where he can drown it in a bathtub.   Why would that appeal to the average working American?

Air America filed chapter 11.

Olberman and Maddow couldn't beat the NASA channel in ratings.  Show me anything where they beat O'Reilly.

If by benefiting their lives you mean Republicans providing them gov't entitlements- you would be correct. 

[headhuntersix]

I'm trying and I can't.

February 13, 2008
Tuesday’s Numbers…
Daily Live+SD Ratings for February 12, 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Mornings (6-9AM)
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
650,000
895,000
469,000
175,000
91,000

P25-54
293,000
335,000
179,000
106,000
81,000

P25-54
224,000
209,000
94,000
128,000
75,000
 
P2+
2,022,000
2,134,000
1,192,000
395,000
274,000

P2+
1,003,000
851,000
464,000
237,000
272,000

P2+
733,000
462,000
266,000
249,000
173,000
 

(more…)

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud Comments (19)
February 12, 2008
Monday’s Numbers…
Thanks to the broadcast of the Westminster Dog Show last night, CNBC won the Demo and came in 2nd in Total Viewers…

Daily Live+SD Ratings for February , 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Mornings (6-9AM)
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
444,000
371,000
312,000
252,000
472,000

P25-54
249,000
200,000
170,000
122,000
144,000

P25-54
302,000
122,000
154,000
112,000
71,000
 
P2+
2,140,000
1,223,000
734,000
606,000
1,236,000

P2+
1,000,000
590,000
426,000
304,000
406,000

P2+
887,000
315,000
420,000
314,000
143,000
 

(more…)

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud Comments (
Weekend Numbers…
Daily Live+SD Ratings for Saturday, February 9th, 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
301,000
556,000
230,000
83,000
160,000

P25-54
220,000
272,000
161,000
108,000
156,000
 
P2+
1,359,000
1,442,000
597,000
287,000
378,000

P2+
871,000
788,000
372,000
283,000
362,000
 

Daily Live+SD Ratings for Sunday, February 10th, 2008
(more…)

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud Comments (5)
Friday’s Numbers…
Daily Live+SD Ratings for February 8, 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Mornings (6-9AM)
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
409,000
332,000
279,000
199,000
139,000

P25-54
249,000
209,000
150,000
107,000
90,000

P25-54
263,000
188,000
112,000
88,000
74,000
 
P2+
1,851,000
737,000
578,000
498,000
310,000

P2+
791,000
567,000
357,000
256,000
258,000

P2+
800,000
456,000
314,000
174,000
207,000
 

(more…)

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud Comments (20)
February 8, 2008
Thursday’s Numbers…
Daily Live+SD Ratings for February 7, 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Mornings (6-9AM)
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
571,000
328,000
248,000
226,000
84,000

P25-54
341,000
209,000
138,000
120,000
70,000

P25-54
284,000
141,000
64,000
123,000
65,000
 
P2+
2,198,000
1,134,000
709,000
571,000
165,000

P2+
1,188,000
641,000
380,000
305,000
228,000

P2+
875,000
388,000
232,000
282,000
180,000
 

(more…)

Filed under: Cable News, Ratings - Spud Comments (3)
February 6, 2008
Tuesday’s Numbers…
I have expanded the ratings to go to 1am since everybody was live at the time…

Daily Live+SD Ratings for February 5, 2008

   
Primetime
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Total Day
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC

Mornings (6-9AM)
FNC
CNN
MSNBC
HLN
CNBC
 P25-54
1,094,000
1,526,000
1,029,000
241,000
102,000

P25-54
457,000
557,000
351,000
130,000
68,000

P25-54
302,000
135,000
75,000
123,000
46,000
 
P2+
3,493,000
3,646,000
2,118,000
575,000
374,000

P2+
1,419,000
1,384,000
788,000
282,000
275,000

P2+
801,000
351,000
277,000
214,000
149,000
 

[Straw Man]

Air America filed chapter 11.

Olberman and Maddow couldn't beat the NASA channel in ratings.  Show me anything where they beat O'Reilly.

If by benefiting their lives you mean Republicans providing them gov't entitlements- you would be correct. 

lots of companies file Chapt 11 - all that matters is that they are still on the air

I don't think Olberman beats O'Reily all the time but he has in the past and his ratings are fine.

I think Maddow might actually be beating Olberman

[headhuntersix]

Air America is still limping along...I've never heard it anywhere and I travel alot. There are 2 left wing radio stations on Siriius and XM. Obermann is a douche but his show has much better production values then Maddow. She is barely watchable and has horrible guests. Say what u want about O'reilly or even Hannity they don't put the constant flow of cream puffs on there. I'm not a huge fan of the new Hannity format, I liked the balance of H@C's.

[OzmO]

Is he right? 

Left-wing media dying
Major media outlets, newspapers going bankrupt because they’re simply out of touch

By BILL O'REILLY
Saturday, January 24, 2009 11:30 PM CST

There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.

The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can’t pay its bills, the Post-Intelligencer should have been inducted into the left-wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.

The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description “loan shark” mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.

On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that’s right behind the “Roller Derby Channel.” General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.

Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren’t we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.

But that doesn’t mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.

Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.

Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.

http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2009/01/25/opinion/commentary/comm.txt

Most of this seems to be about newspapers.  Newspapers have been on a steady decline since the emergence of broadband & the internet.  People don't buy newspapers like they used to because many get their news on-line. 

It's a stupid thing to try and connect the decline in newspapers with the "liberal media".

[JOHN MATRIX]

this is easy to explain, now that the election is over lots of Olbermann/matthews/maddow viewers relaxed and took a break from religiously watching during the heat of the campaign, while meanwhile the repubs are feeling the sting of defeat and EXTREME BITTERNESS (for examples see getbig) so they are all flocking to the arms of the lieks of Hannity and oreily to help make them feel better.

[240 is Back]

you have 100 repubs and 100 dems in a room.

What % of the repubs are more likely to watch political talk shows at 8 pm?
What % of dems are more likely to watch sitcoms, american idol, or participate in heterosexual procreation, at 8 pm?

all kidding aside, over 40 watches politics at night.  Under 40 is more likely to watch sports, sitcoms, etc, or be at work, or out at play.

[Grape Ape]

Jay Severin wrote this article, I believe right before Air America launched.   He explains why it would (did) fail.

Liberal talk radio? No one will buy it

By Jay Severin, 3/30/2004

AFTER YEARS of contemptuously dismissing talk radio as a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, overweight, religious white men named Chuck, liberals suddenly want a piece of the action. Coming soon to a radio near you, the Liberal Talk Network.
ADVERTISEMENT
   

Well, my "progressive" pals, prepare to confront a shocking fact: Talk radio is a business. As in must make a profit. Success requires capturing a vast audience, and more. As a business enterprise, it is virtually meaningless whether your listeners agree with you politically. Your audience must attract major advertising dollars. That's right -- we're not in NPR land anymore, Toto.

Al Franken, your latest great white hope, declared your mission: "We're going to put it to Bush." You're off by one crucial letter: To win this game, you don't have to beat Bush, you have to beat Rush. He and his cohort are far more formidable than you imagine.

Is there an audience for liberal talk? Sure. Just take a look at that notorious 2000 campaign map, a schizophrenic blotch of red and blue Americans. At any given moment, half the citizenry detests George Bush, an "illegitimate" president who "stole the election." The same people zealously hold Bush personally responsible for war, poverty, pestilence, famine, spotty cellphone reception, and the common cold. Here's your audience!

Yet liberals are, quite understandably, apprehensive that liberal talk will (again) flop because of a dreadfully glum message and deadly dull messengers. Recall Alan Dershowitz and Mario Cuomo -- two undeniable brainiacs -- who were Radio Death. But with a new cast of colorful, less erudite characters, the "talent problem" could be remedied (unless they are serious about Jeanine Garafolo).

But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue (Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know, essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue (potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting booth.

You are planning to lure conservative talk listeners? Dream on. You ignore -- or are delusional about -- the gross mismatch between your product and your customers.

Your ethos, mantra, unshakeable article of faith, and every utterance will derive from the smug presumption that the values and views of nonliberals are the root of evil: "selfish" because we believe our taxes too high; "haters" because we disdain racial preferences and same-sex marriage; "cruel" because we believe in strong national defense, capital punishment, and actually oppose illegal immigration; and, of course, "stupid" because we reject your benighted viewpoint.

Yes, we know you believe with utmost sincerity that we are monstrous Neanderthals, but do you really believe your left-wing/pacifist/United Nations/French worldview will win a big middle-class audience? In America?

Understand: Your success depends on us embracing the utterly fantastic notion that we are what's wrong with America; that our national, cultural, and personal woes stem from taxes too low, affirmative action too meek, defense too strong, and illegal aliens too few. People who believe such twaddle are for the most part home watching Jerry Springer reruns. Numerous they are. A commercially viable national talk radio audience they are not.

Perhaps you will have some federal judge declare unconstitutional the radio ratings system? Or mandate an "earned audience credit" for the ratings impoverished? Which, of course, explains why this new liberal talk "network" is not a genuine business enterprise but rather a fully subsidized propaganda project, funded entirely by wealthy Democrat activists.

Lucky you. Back here on earth, those of us in radio must earn our way in the rough and tumble of -- imagine this -- competition. Just hope your liberal sugar daddies' munificence is boundless, because if they tire of losing money, you will be forced to produce real ratings and profits, too. The horror! (Don't worry: there's always taxpayer money and "NPR II," right?)

Here is a lesson from the early days of automobile rebates: Volvo alone eschewed the practice, instead adopting the motto: "When you build a good car, you don't have to pay people to buy it."

And thus it is Volvo (cruel irony!) who previews the liberal talk radio epitaph: Here lies an agenda we twice tried selling by radio -- once as sermon, once as comedy. But either way, paying customers just weren't buying.

Jay Severin is host of an afternoon talk radio program on 96.9 FM

[tonymctones]

you have 100 repubs and 100 dems in a room.

What % of the repubs are more likely to watch political talk shows at 8 pm?
What % of dems are more likely to watch sitcoms, american idol, or participate in heterosexual procreation, at 8 pm?

all kidding aside, over 40 watches politics at night.  Under 40 is more likely to watch sports, sitcoms, etc, or be at work, or out at play.

LOL im sure you have some piece of retarded polling that i can rip apart? or did this piece of golden nugget knowledge get pulled straight out of your ass?

[240 is Back]

LOL im sure you have some piece of retarded polling that i can rip apart? or did this piece of golden nugget knowledge get pulled straight out of your ass?

Um, okay.  great talking to ya.

[2ND COMING]

you have 100 repubs and 100 dems in a room.

What % of the repubs are more likely to watch political talk shows at 8 pm?
What % of dems are more likely to watch sitcoms, american idol, or participate in heterosexual procreation, at 8 pm?

yea...we've gone though this before..

What % of kids under 24 are OUT doing shit before 10pm...what % of old geezers are cozied up in front of the t.v.

what the fuck is hh6 obsession with ratings?

[tonymctones]

Um, okay.  great talking to ya.

LOL bro you dont want a debate, you just want to make ignorant ass comments and when proven wrong slink back and start 5 other threads to try and bury the one.

[MCWAY]

Jay Severin wrote this article, I believe right before Air America launched.   He explains why it would (did) fail.

Liberal talk radio? No one will buy it

By Jay Severin, 3/30/2004

AFTER YEARS of contemptuously dismissing talk radio as a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, overweight, religious white men named Chuck, liberals suddenly want a piece of the action. Coming soon to a radio near you, the Liberal Talk Network.
ADVERTISEMENT
   

Well, my "progressive" pals, prepare to confront a shocking fact: Talk radio is a business. As in must make a profit. Success requires capturing a vast audience, and more. As a business enterprise, it is virtually meaningless whether your listeners agree with you politically. Your audience must attract major advertising dollars. That's right -- we're not in NPR land anymore, Toto.

There it is!!!!

As the saying goes, “If it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense”. This is why liberals want the “Fairness Doctrine” to pass. It exempts them from actually having to produce a decent product (or one that doesn't suck). No one wants to pay to listen to some folks on the far-left bleat, whine, and blame everybody and their mama for their own shortcomings in life.

Al Franken, your latest great white hope, declared your mission: "We're going to put it to Bush." You're off by one crucial letter: To win this game, you don't have to beat Bush, you have to beat Rush. He and his cohort are far more formidable than you imagine.

Is there an audience for liberal talk? Sure. Just take a look at that notorious 2000 campaign map, a schizophrenic blotch of red and blue Americans. At any given moment, half the citizenry detests George Bush, an "illegitimate" president who "stole the election." The same people zealously hold Bush personally responsible for war, poverty, pestilence, famine, spotty cellphone reception, and the common cold. Here's your audience!


Yet liberals are, quite understandably, apprehensive that liberal talk will (again) flop because of a dreadfully glum message and deadly dull messengers. Recall Alan Dershowitz and Mario Cuomo -- two undeniable brainiacs -- who were Radio Death. But with a new cast of colorful, less erudite characters, the "talent problem" could be remedied (unless they are serious about Jeanine Garafolo).

What amazes me is that these folks are still here. Weren't they supposed to flee en masse to foreign countries, which are liberal utopia shangri-la centers, after Bush got re-elected in 2004?

But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue (Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know, essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue (potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting booth.

You are planning to lure conservative talk listeners? Dream on. You ignore -- or are delusional about -- the gross mismatch between your product and your customers.

Your ethos, mantra, unshakeable article of faith, and every utterance will derive from the smug presumption that the values and views of nonliberals are the root of evil: "selfish" because we believe our taxes too high; "haters" because we disdain racial preferences and same-sex marriage; "cruel" because we believe in strong national defense, capital punishment, and actually oppose illegal immigration; and, of course, "stupid" because we reject your benighted viewpoint.

Yes, we know you believe with utmost sincerity that we are monstrous Neanderthals, but do you really believe your left-wing/pacifist/United Nations/French worldview will win a big middle-class audience? In America?

Understand: Your success depends on us embracing the utterly fantastic notion that we are what's wrong with America; that our national, cultural, and personal woes stem from taxes too low, affirmative action too meek, defense too strong, and illegal aliens too few. People who believe such twaddle are for the most part home watching Jerry Springer reruns. Numerous they are. A commercially viable national talk radio audience they are not.

Perhaps you will have some federal judge declare unconstitutional the radio ratings system? Or mandate an "earned audience credit" for the ratings impoverished? Which, of course, explains why this new liberal talk "network" is not a genuine business enterprise but rather a fully subsidized propaganda project, funded entirely by wealthy Democrat activists.

Lucky you. Back here on earth, those of us in radio must earn our way in the rough and tumble of -- imagine this -- competition. Just hope your liberal sugar daddies' munificence is boundless, because if they tire of losing money, you will be forced to produce real ratings and profits, too. The horror! (Don't worry: there's always taxpayer money and "NPR II," right?)

Here is a lesson from the early days of automobile rebates: Volvo alone eschewed the practice, instead adopting the motto: "When you build a good car, you don't have to pay people to buy it."

And thus it is Volvo (cruel irony!) who previews the liberal talk radio epitaph: Here lies an agenda we twice tried selling by radio -- once as sermon, once as comedy. But either way, paying customers just weren't buying.

Jay Severin is host of an afternoon talk radio program on 96.9 FM

There you have it!!!

[Straw Man]

Jay Severin wrote this article, I believe right before Air America launched.   He explains why it would (did) fail.

Liberal talk radio? No one will buy it

By Jay Severin, 3/30/2004

AFTER YEARS of contemptuously dismissing talk radio as a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, overweight, religious white men named Chuck, liberals suddenly want a piece of the action. Coming soon to a radio near you, the Liberal Talk Network.

He's certainly spot on about the bigoted, old, angry overweight regligious white men.

I listen to "lib" radio every morning and for only one reason - it's entertaining.

Stephanie Miller has a good show, Ed Schultz is ok when he's not bragging about himself, Maddow is a rising star,

The two things they all have in common is that they're heavy on facts and they're entertaining

[liberalismo]

I did not read the article. I don't take ANYTHING O'Riley says seriously.


I hope that BOTH the right and left wing media die out. Why the fuck do we need partisan or bias media news?

Get rid of Liberal and Conservative news, Right wing and left wing news. News needs to be JUST THE FACTS. No partisan slants or bias. No brain numbing commentary from KNOW NOTHING TALKING HEADS LIKE BILL O'RIELLY OR KEITH OBERMAN OR NANCY GRACE OR ANYONE ELSE.