You can add another casualty to the 2006 elections: the credibility of lockstep conservative talk show radio hosts.
There’s a difference between a conservative talk show host and a lockstep talk show host. That difference was apparent before the elections when you could tune into a Michael Savage or watch a Joe Scarborough and realize you’re listening or watching to people who make up their own minds on their opinions, express them and let the chips fall with listeners/viewers as they may.
But then there is the breed of talk show host that before the elections many — even Republicans — suspected were essentially using their programs as public relations for the Republican party establishment, to say what they had to say or put on whomever they felt they had to put on to advance the party’s cause. Even if they didn’t totally believe it or like it.
The difference now: at least two radio talk show hosts have essentially admitted that they held their noses and said things and put on guests that were essentially done for politically strategic reasons and not because they believed totally what they said or believed in who they put on.
Two writers address the issue in MUST-READ posts.
Andrew Sullivan looks at Rush Limbaugh’s stunning on-the-air-admission that he now feels “liberated” because the GOP was slapped down and essentially downsized in the mid-terms. Limbaugh announced that he is happy he no longer has to “carry the water” for people who didn’t deserve his support. (Can listeners RECALL their “dittos” they uttered when Rush heard Rush’s original programs hailing the people he now says weren’t up to his standards?)
So if I have this straight, Limbaugh knowingly supported people he actually believed were indefensible, who were not conservatives. He is saying loud and clear that he deliberately misled his listeners – because he couldn’t bring himself to back “the left,” whatever that means to him.
He then includes this quote from popular conservative talk show host and mega-conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt:
“It is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
Writes Sullivan:
Say what? Says who? Is he on the GOP payroll? “We have had to defend …” Why, exactly? No one was forcing Hewitt to defend anything. He could have been honest with his readers and listeners. He could have called this Congress the “gang that couldn’t shoot straight” last week. Why didn’t he?
The one thing you learn from this: Hewitt and Limbaugh are party animals. They put loyalty to party above intellectual honesty. They have admitted that they knowingly misled their readers and listeners. They can and will do it again.
And, indeed: who ever DECIDED Limbaugh and Hewitt had to do anything except do what (we hope) most bloggers and most op-ed writers do all the time: HONESTLY state their beliefs and make the case they can to explain them to their audiences. Their producers were never Ken Mehlman or Karl Rove. Just as on this site each writer follows his heart and mind, listeners to party-line-style talk radio assumed they were listening to people who passionately believed every word of their broadcasts.
Of course, the case could be made that Hewitt was simply saying “Thank God we don’t have to defend such a politically inept Congress!” And anyone who has followed the career of (thank the Lord it’s now) former Majority Leader Bill “My Finger Is Testing The Wind” Frist would sympathize. Frist has been to political success what trans-fats are to fighting obesity.
Meanwhile, Steven Taylor, a thoughtful professional political scientist who writes an excellent idea-packed conservative weblog, looks at Limbaugh and doesn’t like what he sees, either. He nails Limbaugh’s actual role HERE:
Now, I am not all that surprised, but the revelation is remarkable and underscores the notion that Limbaugh isn’t an intellectually honest conservative commentator, but rather that he has been (or had evolved into) nothing more than a cheerleader for the GOP.
…When one thinks about, Rush’s attitude mirrors key problems evident in the outgoing Congressional majority: the notion that the most important thing was holding on to power, not an honest assessment of the country’s situation.
Further, this underscores an ongoing problem in American political commentary: allowing partisanship to trump ideology/philosophy.
It is one thing to have a point of view, it is quite another to become a shill for a given political party no matter what it does. I briefly listened to Hannity’s radio show on Tuesday and he was nothing more than very loud booster for Republicans. Now, one would expect Hannity to be pro-GOP but there is a point where one ceases to be an ally of a given party and one because nothing more than a propaganda tool for them. Once one has crossed that line, it is impossible for me to take them seriously at all.
If I am going to spend a lot of time reading or listening to a given commentator, I want an honest examination of ideas, not just rah-rah for a party. A conservative or liberal will be biased, yes, but they should be biased on the basis of ideas, not because one prefers Elephants over Donkeys, or vice versa.
He also echos what TMV and at least one independent center-right blogger has said in a private discussion: some partisans now see politics as almost like sports and have a “sports team” mentality.
Read the entire post.
He then responds to our first post on Limbaugh’s comments and writes:
I, too, used to listen to a lot of talk radio. First, I have long loved non-music radio (news, commentary, talk and radio drama). In fact, I have been a fan of such since I was in elementary school. Second, when I was in college (1986-1990) I did a lot of driving on the SoCal freeways, meaning at least 1.5-2 hours in the car daily, not to mention for part of that time I was running errands for a law firm for which I worked, meaning more hours trudging up to Los Angeles or heaven knows where. I listened to a ton of talk radio, both liberal and conservative and first heard Limbaugh in 1988 when Reagan was still in the White House (man, time flies). So, I have some experience with the medium.
I concur with Joe about Limbaugh: he is more talented that his critics often give him credit, but he has become impossible to listen to, unless one wants a drumbeat of GOP cheerleading. And [Sean] Hannity is a clone, without a doubt.
Read his entire post.
In sheer business terms, you’d think that lockstep radio talk show hosts are poor programming bets. In this last election the Republican party found out discovered that Karl Rove’s idea of “mobilization elections” where a party tries to mobilize its base via hot button issues and phrases has LIMITS.
Firstly, a hot button can eventually cool off. Also, people who touch a hot button could feel burned. And, most importantly, if you design a whole marketing/vote-getting strategy to just appealing to one segment and write off the rest of the market out there you fall short of your goals if you lose part of your assumed market and have little room for future growth.
And so now you see the administration in effect trying to reach out at least a bit to expand its appeal.
The lockstep radio hosts are limiting their future growth because they are a waste of time to people who want to consider future ideas and stop being entertaining when they border on the verge of being propaganda shows. They become shows marketing to a choir they already have.
Some of Air America’s hosts make the same mistake, which is probably why Air America has had ratings problems on some of its shows. (Some of the Air America local talk show hosts are even more lockstep and seem to be trying to do leftwing versions of Rush, Hewitt and Hannity).
Will these lockstep shows change? Probably not. This is essentially their format but if you were an investor in radio programs you might prefer programs on the right and left that seem to be more than an angry host blasting an opposing party, seemingly rewording position statements of a political party’s national committee, and trying to keep members of his/her party into thinking and following a party line.
And ARE some hosts out there who offer content, ideas, entertainment and independence.
Here are a few talk show hosts don’t “carry the water” for anyone. They are NOT listed here due to ideology but to their value as shows that aren’t lockstep and are entertaining:
(1) Ed Schultz: Every time we do a post on him here we get an angry commenter who goes on a rant. But Schultz has upset people on the right and left. He’s the top progressive talker and is not Air America.
(2) Michael Savage. Mention you listen to him and some people go haywire. But the right-wing host (really named Michael Weiner) above all speaks his mind and sometimes goes off onto non-political rants. He was fired from his MSNBC-TV show for this catastrophe. But Savage savages the GOP Powers That Be. It was as notable (and understandable) that Savage was not invited into Bush’s office with other right wing talkers for a pre-election chit chat as it was that Hannity was.
(3) Stephanie Miller: Hilarious, witty and satirical. A rising star of progressive talk — also (notably) not Air America.
(4) L.A. KFI 640’s John and Ken: They blast both parties and have riled up liberals and conservatives. They were instrumental in the recall campaign that ended in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election as governor.
(5) Bill Handel: Also on KFI. A lawyer who has become one of the nation’s top-rated local talk show hosts. He even gobbled up a lot of Howard Stern’s listeners. Handle has outraged people and groups on the left and right and about once a month some group tries to get him fired. He’s funny, entertaining, intelligent and offers a ton of meaty info. He makes mincemeat of his right/left talk show host competition on other stations (who generally do poor Rush Limbaugh imitations) in Southern California (except when the equally top-rate Miller is opposite him).
(6) MSNBC TV’s Joe Scarborough: A former Republican politician who calls the shots as he sees them. His show will at varying times please and displease Republicans and Democrats.
All of the people above may support or oppose polices or candidates. But one thing these hosts don’t do: they don’t carry water for anyone.
NOTE: This is a long post but there are other new ones posted today so please keeps scrolling down.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.