President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 05, 2010 04:26 PM UTC

How Talk Radio won the 2010 midterms for the Republicans

  • 166 Comments
  • by: dwyer

( – promoted by DavidThi808)

How Talk Radio won the 2010 elections for the Republicans.

I first sounded the alarm about the power of Republican control of the public radio airwaves at the height of the Obama honeymoon blush and BTP, (Before the Tea Party) A lively debate on this blog ensured.  This is what I wrote in February of 2009.

FIRST, WE MUST HAVE real debate:

This blog is an excellent example of First Amendment and free speech. These are the pro factors for participation.

1) Equal access

2) No censorship based on content

3) No limit on how much or how many times one can post

4) If someone posts something you don’t like or consider false, you can can refute it immediately.

5) No points off for bad spelling.

6) No limit to the medium…in other words, there are not a finite number of websites.

7) There is therefore no government regulation.

8) NO ONE CAN HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THE WEB.

These are the con factors, which limit participation.

1) You have to be literate in English.

2) You have to register, so you are not anonymous.

3) You have to have access to a computer and the Internet, usually an outlay of a couple hundred dollars and then a monthly service charge.

4) You have to have to the time and space to read and reply.

SECOND; WHY RADIO NEEDS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE;

1) Radio is a limited medium.

2) The airwaves belong to the people of America and as the airwaves are a finite resource, there is government regulation.

3) The government has not legislated to prohibit monopoly control.

4) One party, the republicans, control the content of the majority of talk radio programs.

5) Access for opposing viewpoints and access to correct factual errors is extremely limited; this creates a virtual censorship.

Why Radio is so important a medium:

1) It is cheap. Once you buy the receiver, there is no more cost.

2) It is portable, you can hear it all the time, it is mobile, you do not have to stop and use time and space, to the exclusion of other activites, to listen.

3) You don’t have to be literate.

4) Because of its scope, range and universality, it is a powerful tool in creating public opinion.

What is happening now:

1) The hate speech on talk radio is increasing in violent tone, falsehood, and viciousness against the Democratic party and its constituents.

2) There has not been the opportunity for honest debate on the public airwaves on economic issues of grave importance on which there can be real differences of opinion as well as fact.

3) The strategy of republicans to stonewall the administration is enhanced by their ability to limit debate on talk radio and consolidate their public.  

by: dwyer @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:17:41 AM MST

On 5.3.09, I wrote:

Boyles is building a base for the republican comeback in CO in 2010

Don’t dismiss him.  Ken Buck announced his candidacy on the boyles show…The state repubs look at what they’ve got: almost total control of the local radio airwaves; a beginning grassroots movement, well funded by Dick Army, the ability to use radio as a feedback loop to reinforce the tea cup people; a few hot button issues…the FLU, illegal immigration, taxes, and big gov. …and local dems (read the most “popular blog” in the State)_ who totally dismiss them……

On August 9th, 2009, I noted that Bill Bennet’s “Morning in America”  reported that Talk Radio is the epicenter of the Town Hall strategy.

To summarize:

This is what the boyles show has been associated with:

1) Consistently promoting the “birther” movement so that now a quarter of the American public and a third of republicans believe that the President of the United States may not be legitimate.  There are no polls showing where Coloradans stand on the issue, but there is no reason to believe that they would poll differently.

2) When Villafuerte was nominated by Ritter to be US Attorney in Colorado, mobilitized his audience to call Senator Sessions and have him  ask Villafuerte to be questioned by the FBI one more time before he would vote for her confirmation.  Villafuerte withdrew her nomination.

3) Consistently accused Ritter of being involved with a coverup involving the use of Federal Criminal Data Base during the 2006 election.  Ritter announced he would not run for re-election.

4) Introduced Dan Maes and gave him airtime.

5) Called Tancredo at an airport back East and got him to announce he would run for governor, after McGuinnes meltdown.

6) Hosted the famous Dick Wadhams/ Tom Tancredo fight.

7) Put Freda Poundstone on the air to denounce Maes because of a dispute over money she gave him.

8)  Consistently promoted Tancredo’s candidacy.

This is what local Republican Talk Radio does:

Eighty hours plus a week of local show  are devoted to promoting conservative causes and vicious unrelenting attacks on Democrats. Tancredo is the defacto republican candidate and the hero of the airwaves.  He went from 8% to 34% with no public campaign ads except his radio free time.  Now, the money and the ads are rolling.

“Brownie” will be devoting this whole month to promoting local candidates.

There is no pretense of even allowing the occasional non-conservative on the air.  It is like sports talk and everyone is for the Broncos and a personal friend of the team.

Caplis/Silverman lead the charge against Hickenlooper/Obama.

Both are trained courtroom attorneys….except there are not defense attorneys on the show, no judge, and no charges.  But H/O are prosecuted nonetheless.

The invitation for the Democratic candidates to attend is issued (..Said the spider to the fly) but there is nothing to guarantee impartiality….  Besides, it is a year and a half too late.

Comments

166 thoughts on “How Talk Radio won the 2010 midterms for the Republicans

  1. I think your analysis of the medium and effect on this cycle is correct. I differ with you on the value judgement of whether its use has been good or bad, but it is clearly an important factor in what is happening.

      1. Seriously, talk radio sets the tone of the argument and the mindset for most of the electorate.  Progressives have not been able to use the medium as effectiely and as profitably as conservatives and that deficit clearly is one of the causes of the size of discontent incumbents and Dems are seeing.  

        1. During WWII the Nazi’s monopolized the airwaves in Germany and then the content broadcast across the whole of Europe. Only the British BBC Broadcast truth and was subsequently banned (by the nazi’s) under the penalty of death for listening to it.

          The Fairness doctrine implemented after WWII here in the US was meant to counter monopolizing the (our) airwaves towards any particular ideology.

          Today AM radio (here in Denver metro) there is one “progressive” station. With no less the Five “conservative” stations.

          aside from the economic competition between them. What safe guards are in place to guarantee AM radio does not broadcast pure propaganda from a single ideology?

          As Denver metro AM radio is a 5-1 ratio clearly propagandizing (and promoting) fascist Nazi conservative republicanism.

          How is that “free market” fair?

            1. I may look at reality through a different prism than you, but I don’t like what I think is nonsense in the news and reporting any more than you do.  

              Perhaps the radio station ratio of 5 to 1 resembles the ratio of Progressives to conservatives in Colorado?  There are many more sources of news today including more radio stations, more TV stations, now we have cable TV, internet etc, etc, so that regulating the radio frequency spectrum for content, with the attendant control issues, is both unnecessary and dangerous.

              1. or else progressive radio would do well elsewhere.

                Progressives, as a whole, don’t like the combative, insulting, and usually restrictive format that Limbaugh and company thrive under. We also generally prefer to read articles and books and listen to NPR. The success of conservative talk radio has much more to do with the general personality of the conservative listener than with any demographic splits among radio listeners.

              2. There is absolutely no requirement in the license that the so-called free market decide what programs are on.

                I look at talk radio content as an ad for the conservative/republican big business agenda.  Advertisers buy time not just to sell their product but to promote their political agenda, IMHO.

                This has nothing to do with many sources of news. (you are quoting the Rosen-boyles line, in case you don’t recognize it)  This has to do with one medium – the public airwaves which belong to the people.

                1. A couple points:

                  I look at talk radio content as an ad for the conservative/republican big business agenda.  Advertisers buy time not just to sell their product but to promote their political agenda, IMHO.

                  This has nothing to do with many sources of news. (you are quoting the Rosen-boyles line, in case you don’t recognize it)  This has to do with one medium – the public airwaves which belong to the people.

                  If talk radio is an ad for conservatives, ColoradoPols is an ad for liberals.  I think both should be free to self-regulate. Advertisers buy time to sell their products or services.  Do you really think AARP which advertises here cares if you are a progresssive?  They care that your check clears, nothing else.

                  As to the current multiple mediums for obtaining information, Fro was postulating regulation made sense and pointed to the WWII era.  As late as the 70’s Denver had what 3-5 TV stations and perhaps 10 or 15 radio stations.  There was no FM to speak of, no internet and a totally different setting for infomation than we have today.  The government should not be in the business of regulating the content of speach any more than thought.

                  As an aside, I don’t listen to Rosen or Boyles.

                  1. If talk radio is an ad for conservatives, ColoradoPols is an ad for liberals.

                    You see, the difference between Pols and Talk Radio is that you get equal time.

                    And the Sun still rises in the east.

                    1. It would be interesting to see the ratio of conservative vs. liberal diaries which are frontpaged. It would probably be pretty close to 0.

                    2. … because those shows always take their calls, and don’t screen out the ones who can ask challenging questions.

                    3. Somehow I think MSNBC would escape putting conservatives on their station even if the fairness doctrine were enacted.

                    4. who announced his candidacy on Rachel Maddow’s show. The guy who then tried to defend his candidacy after winning his primary.

                    5. I want to talk about how the lack of frontpaged conservative diaries is comparable to liberals calling conservative talk shows. They aren’t, of course, which is why you’re trying to change the subject.

                    6. Liberal callers are not heard on talk radio, particularly as we get close to election.

                      Yes, I have held on for more than hours with a mild comment and finally told that there was no time.  You have to tell the screener what you are going to say.  The host decides IF he/she even wants to put you on the air.

                    7. about what’s making you say so many out-there things today. But know that they’re utterly ridiculous.

                      Don’t believe me? Then tell me how I can get my comments posted to a radio broadcast. Tell me how I can register there and post any old thing I feel like. Tell me how it’s wide open, and if one radio station treats me unfairly, then I can just go start one myself at radiospot.com.

                      Man oh man. [shakes head]

                    8. by being a frequent caller. You can comment by calling in. If one station treats you unfairly, you can indeed start your own station if you know how to run one. Just like you can start your own blog if you know how to run one.

                    9. No, beej. Sorry. You made an invalid comparison. Others have already addressed the caller experience here, so no need to rehash it just to illustrate how bad this argument of yours is.

                    10. I posted the news of the PPP poll hours before a liberal posted it.  Mine had more comments.  His was front paged.  

                      I use the word “s ___” , not even spelling it out in reference to a bigoted post and I am banned.  Liberals are not censured when they refer to Buck’s Dick being in my mouth.  I am being treated on ColoradoPols the same way a liberal is treated on talk radio.

                      I know how things work here and I am not complaining just noting it is not much different than a liberal calling into a conservative talk show host.

                      There is nothing equal in the treatment of either.

                    11. … that you still have a voice here. That’s pretty different than getting screened out by an operator at a radio station.

                    12. ColoPols does NOT run on the public airwaves which belong to the people.  ColoPols does not need a license from the FCC to run.  Radio does.

                      Cable TV…such as Fox and MSNBC are not run on the public airwaves, they are cable.  That is the difference.

                      Now, David T did explain the technicalities of all of this and the distinction between cable and TV may not be as clear as I make it.

                    13. so the government has no business telling them how to drive.

                      More evidence that teabaggers are anarchists, not conservatives.

                    14. You have to build the roads, which is done by the government. Radio waves just exist. It’s like saying that oxygen belongs to the government. Actually, come to think of it, many liberals may believe this given their belief that it owns all CO2.

                    15. When things belong to The People then, by definition, The Government is responsible for determining how it gets used. This includes the broadcast radio spectrum.

                      It’s related to something about a government of, by, and for the people. Somebody said something like that a number of years ago. Must have been a Democrat since Republicans seem to hate this fact about the government in the nation that I pledge my allegiance to.

                    16. those specific frequencies that radio stations use to broadcast “just exist?” That’s like saying flight paths “just exist.” A completely absurd statement. Completely.

                      You obviously have never studied electronics or radio, or you’d understand the need for regulation.

                      BTW, have you figured out how a doctrine that gave us MORE speech infringed it? I’m still interested in seeing the illogical contortions necessary to explain that.

                    17. we wouldn’t have talk radio. Can you please tell me who built the frequencies? Unless you want to admit God created them, in which case he owns them?

                    18. Have you ever read Kafka?

                      I felt like I was stuck in somebody’s sock drawer.  Very weird.  Back in time for the election, though.  Phew!

                    19. He built the flight paths too, so government has no place regulating air traffic either. At least in beejland that’s how things work, right?

                      Don’t think I haven’t noticed how you haven’t answered my last question. And just so you can’t get away with playing dumb, I’ll copy and paste it again: have you figured out how a doctrine that gave us MORE speech infringed it? I’m still interested in seeing the illogical contortions necessary to explain that.

                    20. more government control of the airwaves somehow contributes to freer speech. I mean that’s like #1 on the list of dictator priorities – control the media.

                    21. You can’t use absurd proclamations to counter my point. You have to use examples and make a case, just like in college. You’ve got that extensive education you’re so proud of; let’s see you use it.

                      Let’s start here – the Fairness Doctrine only required that tv and radio shows present both sides of an argument. How is that government control, and how could it be dictatorial since dictatorships only ever present one side?

                    22. The people arguing those sides do. They tell the radio or TV station

                      You don’t have to take my word for this, you know. This was a policy for nearly 40 years, and this was how it worked. No one complained except for biased station owners who resented having to comply because it meant they had to give equal time to viewpoints that ran counter to their interests. The viewpoints didn’t run counter to liberty’s interests at all. It was the actual realization of “we report, you decide,” which of course is Fox News’ false slogan (they decide what and what not to report). So they petitioned Reagan’s FCC to change the rule and they got it.

                      If the rule was so antithetical to our freedoms, it would have been challenged in court on those grounds and been overthrown. It didn’t happen because everyone knew it wasn’t an impingement of our rights.

                      This is fun. I’m really mopping up the floor with you, showing you how you’re wrong while you flail away with another unrealistic, unsupported fantasy.

                      Why won’t you just try to use your big brain and make an actual argument? One that would have passed muster in college? You did graduate with honors, so I know you can do it.

                    23. So once again you illustrate your ignorance.

                      The people don’t own the radio waves, they own the spectrum.  The government allocates specific frequencies for specific uses.  Some allocations are exclusive; others are shared among various services.

                      http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhom

                    24. I get the regulatory scheme and I understand scarcity of spectrum.  

                      That said, once a station has been licensed and subject to running PSAs and the like, the content of the radio station’s airtime is pretty much at the owner’s discretion subject to the vague, running to benefit the publc nonsense.

                      Is the government’s role to make sure a CHR station allows an apropriate quota of country music if some beaurocrat likes country music?  How about classical music?  In my view other than ensuring that the broadcast is at the licensed frequency and wattage and that whatever the inappropriate language of the day does not get used the government should leave content alone.

                      I was a former owner who put Rush Limbaugh on the air in his early days. I can tell you if I thought I would make more money with some liberal clown, it would be liberal radio 24 X 7. If liberal radio had an audience which was attractive to advertisers there would be lots of liberal radio stations.  It doesn’t.

                    25. Would everyone stop pointing out that Buck’s dick is still in H-man’s mouth? Please.

                      It’s his choice. If you don’t like whose dick H-man chooses to put in his mouth, just look the other way. Let’s be civil and adult about this.

                      You’re welcome, H-man.

  2. Talk radio and its biggest wacko right stars were unable to prevent the Dem victories of 2006 and the stunning, historic election of Obama supported by Dem majorities in both houses in 2008, leaving the subject of why even that failed to provide Dems with the confidence to turn the tables on Rs by taking control of the message and terms of the debate for another time.  

    Not to refute a word of Dwyer’s excellent post but just to point out that resistance need not always be futile. It should also be remembered that the biggest talk radio demo is on its way into that long good night while replacement generations are much less into talk radio of any kind. Just to inject a little ray of sunshine, I hope. Completely agree with Dwyer’s points over all.

    1. I think there are some explanations as to why the dems have ever won anything.  The first is found in the book “The Blueprint” which explains how a group of wealthy democrats and traditional dem interest groups planned a strategy, under the radar, so to speak which used the latest in technology to win back Colorado for the dems.

      As for the dems winning nationwide, I think that can be attributed to the nightmare of the Iraq War which was going downhill and the growing realization that Bush was an idiot.

      As for the failure of talk radio to prevent the Obama landslide.  I offer two explanations.

      1) The first is that nationally, talk radio was concentrating on destroying Hillary, who was thought to be the most likely candidate, and McCain whom the talkers did not like right up to the very end.

      2) The economy collapsed in early September.  Obama appeared to be the only one on the horizon who had a clue and was not terrified.  

      1. to switch from McCain is a Rino to McCain is our guy and they were so hoping to have HRC to attack.  But, even so, they failed and they failed big.  It wasn’t a close election.  It was decisive. That shows that resistance by our plucky band can still win the day. With the emphasis on pluck, in short supply these days.

        1. because he got on to the scene so late. Republicans tried to point it out, but the nation just wasn’t in a mood to listen to it. After two years of national malaise, they’re realizing their mistake.

          1. that he published to great acclaim and was much fact checked and reviewed and the numerous articles that had been published about him since he came on the national scene in 2004 but in spite of which Newt says we know less about him than any other American President? Also checkered generally means lots of questionable stuff, criminal record, scam artist, etc. So far not even your team can come up with anything “checkered”.

              1. But maybe you can cite the court case that found it to be in violation of the Bill of Rights?

                What’s that? You can’t? Aww, too bad. Well, I’m fair, so you get another chance to name one instance of Democratic policies restricting free speech.

                  1. So, the Fairness Doctrine was a Democratic policy? Better double check that. And media outlets NEVER had to “change what they put on the air,” they had to give equal time to those who requested it. That resulted in MORE free speech, not less. Oh well, you’re the guy who added 23 + 12 + 7 and got 43, so I can see why you’d mess this up too.

                    Now, let me imitate beej for a moment…

                    POLS! POLS! Beej called me a name! Suspend him!!!!

                    Okay, back to my own self…

                    Since you’re such a defender of First Amendment rights as they apply to the airwaves, can you tell me how Bush’s policy of fining media outlets hundreds of thousands of dollars if someone said a swear word was Constitutional? If so, can you do it without contradicting your argument against the Fairness Doctrine?

                  2. Because some terms of use prohibit “harassing or intimidating others via electronic mail, news groups or Web pages.”

                    Those terms might be yours, or they might not be.  Lots of terms of use prohibit the same activities.  You should make sure, you know?

                    It’s just common sense if you’re using someone else’s resources for free.

              2. It was FCC regulations.  And the FCC’s power to make and enforce such a regulation was never overturned by the Supreme Court, nor was the regulation itself.

                The fairness doctrine was rescinded by executive order.

                Congress passed a bill in 1987 but it was vetoed.

                  1. Try reading the thread before you shoot off your mouth, or your fingers, or whatever.

                    I was responding to a specific sentence in a BJ post:

                    You do know the “fairness” doctrine was law at one point, don’t you?

                    The fairness doctrine was never law.  I was right.  BJ was wrong.

                    When I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, as I did below.

                    Now why don’t you go outside and play hide and …

                    1. Law has many sources.  

                      One source is direct legislation.  Another source is a delegation to an administrative agency which ennacts a regulation which is law that must be followed.

                      That area of the law is referred to by lawyers as administrative law.

                      Admit it Ralphie.  It will make you feel better.

  3. Don’t forget that many of the hard right talking heads have TV shows, too, and a news network all of their own. And the internet has proven effective too, although I think there’s a bit more equality of access there.

    1. that kind of TV either.  Right now it’s fine for Fox folks like O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity to have sky high average age viewership. 70 somethings vote like crazy.  But not for all that much longer. And 2006 and 2008 proved that even now, it doesn’t always work. The bigger threat is all the anonymous money unleashed by the Supremes. Eugene Robinson’s excellent piece on that subject appears in today’s paper that doesn’t like sharing.  

      Also, show me where the right to free speech includes an absolute right to anonymous speech. The secret ballot is a wise institution but those who wish to contribute large sums of money ought to be willing to be known so that we can see the difference between real grass roots organizations and those funded by a single or small group of people far removed from the phony citizens’ group names they fly under. Further, there is nothing in the constitution that says speech isn’t free if it isn’t anonymous.

      We are free to speak out at rallies, town halls, at caucus, by signing petitions, writing letters to the editor but that speech is out in the open.

      It’s freeing to be anonymous on blogs and blogs are fine. But not all speech ought to be anonymous. The public has a strong interest in knowing when millions of dollars worth of speech may not be reflecting the views of “Citizens for Being Patriotic and Nice to Little Old Ladies and Puppies” but might, in fact, be coming from a single billionaire or small handful of billionaires to buy politicians to protect their narrow interests (personal profit) from any legislation demanding responsibility or accountability to the public.

      One can contribute small sums anonymously and the public knows that large pools of money from anonymous small sum sources really do represent groups of ordinary citizens.

      1. And another demonstration of the lack of Dem courage re: the DISCLOSE act.

        Unanimous among the electorate is the hatred of negative political ads.  It would be a net plus to push DISCLOSE, and run negative ads against Republicans blocking disclosure of who the billionaire backers of their hatespew campaigns are.

  4. If a tree falls in the forest and I am not there am I still wrong?

    Where I live I don’t EVER hear talk radio so it is hard to understand it’s impact. But, recently while traveling, before signal became obscured by beautiful mountains, I did have opportunity to hear hate being spewed by Rush, later by Hannity, Boortz and Beck. Don’t think I’ve ever heard Boyles or Caplis/Silverman.

    So, prior to a Fairness Doctrine being implemented what really might be done? I’ve read that it is very expensive and lengthy to acquire an FCC license.

  5. and will likely “get” to hear more of this crap. I also daydream a lot whilst driving. I’ll daydream about acquiring funding to pay a station to get airtime. Or, is that just fantasy with Clear Channel and other conglomerates control of airwaves?

  6. His support of the Birther movement has been a black mark on local radio.

    He’s just in it for the bucks and exposure. The guy has no ethics whatsoever.

  7. He professes to be a Democrat, but he’s just a Useful Idiot to Dan Caplis. He’s like Colmes was to Hannity: a fig leaf so that that reactionary outfit Clear Channel can claim to be “fair and balanced.”

    Caplis has free rein to bash Democrats, and Silverman is his lapdog.

    1. Rosen is on until 12 or so.  Then there is national radio..Rush Limbaugh.  At 3 Pm, try 630 KHOW for the local caplis/silverman show.

      At 7 pm, back to KOA for six hours of brownie, caldera. etc.

      We used to lose KOA, however, about Goodland, during the day.

  8. Who gets to decide what the contrarian’s position is?  Is a liberal democrat the contrarian? Is it a marxist? Is it a Socialist? Is it a libertarian? Is it an eco-anarchist?

    The problem with the fairness doctrine is that the government gets to create the classifications of what arguments create “fairness”.

    Doesn’t this scare you a little bit?  That the government gets to decide what issues/arguemnts/POV are allowed on BOTH sides?  

    The result would be that extreme positions are culled on all sides of the political spectrum in order to create a false dichotomy that there are just two sides to every issue.  If there is one thing we need less of in this country, its the thinking that the only answer to a question is either “us OR them”.

    Radical thought would be effectively eliminated under the guise of fairness.  Why is this desirable?    

  9. Those are what protect talk radio and determine content, respectively.

    I don’t even like talk radio and rarely listen to it.  To me, there is little to nothing new to learn from either side in this format.

    Nonetheless, to impose a “fairness doctrine” would be terrible precedent.

    And I’m not sure that talk radio is suddenly that much more effective than before.  The people who typically listen are typically going to vote anyway and the total audience doesn’t change drastically in size or demographic.

    Natural political cycles have more to do with the effectiveness of campaign managers, pundits and talk show radio hosts than anything.  Like someone said earlier, talk radio had little effect on the outcome in 2008.

    1. to impose a “fairness doctrine” would be terrible precedent

      We already had a fairness doctrine.  It worked fine until repealed by the Reagan FCC.

      Broadcasters don’t own the airwaves.  The people do.  The airwaves should be used in the public interest.

          1. be a bully on this blog, Ralphie, but it’s rare that you evenly match Ms. Teen South Carolina on an intellectual playing field.

            WTF are you talking about?  The FCC doesn’t decide content and format.  You notice any turnover in the Denver radio market over the last 20 years?  It’s not because the FCC forced them out.  It’s because they weren’t making money.  Please don’t force me to explain how they make money!

            If enough people wanted to listen to Air America, it would still be on the air.  You wanting the govt. to force people to listen to that shit is fucked up on more than one level.

            1. And running for some office soon.  Should be on par with some of your other fine candidates like Christine “I am not (any longer) a witch” ODonnel, etc.  

              1. Broadcasters don’t own the airwaves.  The people do.  The airwaves should be used in the public interest.

                And the people have made their decision

                First of all, the airwaves and the people have somehow survived without your newspeak doctrine.  We’ve even managed to electe a few Dems during the subsequent years!

                We used to have the Sedition Act; I suppose you want to resurrect that too.

                  1. Not sure how old you are, but there were a few less channels and news sources back then as compared to now.  If you don’t like what’s on, change the channel to one of your other thousand choices.  Or get on the internet.

                    Why doesn’t the government come into your home and take away your Westword and replace it with the National Review?  Or delete MSNBC from your choice of TV channels?

                    You should read 1984 by George Orwell sometime.  You will find your ideal there.

                    1. the Cliff notes on what you mean exactly?  Are you talking about the 1967 SCOTUS decision?  Something else?

                    2. the same thing Ralphie and dwyer are talking about – the fact that the airwaves are controlled by the FCC. Ralphie went to great lengths explaining what he has to go through in order to have a radio license and what he’s restricted from doing. If the first amendment applies to the airwaves, most of that stuff would be swept aside.

                    3. Newspapers are printed on company-owned equipment.  There’s no use of public resources involved.

                      MSNBC is a cable channel and is carried on company-owned fiber and cable.  No use of public resources.

                      I am old enough to remember Long John Nebel, Barry Farber, John Gambling Sr., Jean Shepherd, Joe Franklin, and a lot of other radio talkers you probably never heard of.

                      And I am sufficiently old to remember our first TV.  A tabletop RCA about half the size of a refrigerator.  It looked just like this:

                      http://www.tvhistory.tv/1947-R

                      There were plenty of stations on the air, both radio and TV.  Then again, I lived within line-of-sight of New York.

                1. In any case, the fairness doctrine was the precedent, the airwaves belonging to the people, not to private business interests, until the FCC, not elected representatives of the people, repealed it. Looks like you’re the one who doesn’t know your ass from a hot rock. Ralphie doesn’t just make stuff up like your crowd does.

            1. take our country back from the government we duly elected crowd. You still have the whole precedent setting thing backwards.  See, and I’ll type really slowly so you can understand,  precedents come first. They precede. Note the root.

          1. It regulates what’s on TV all the time.  It regulates what newspapers stay in business.  It regulates what news anchors are chosen and for which formats.

            If execs don’t listen to the market, the company loses money and he or she often gets fired.  Have you ever heard of Jeff Zucker?  Are you saying the govt. should have forced NBC to keep him on with direction as to programming?  Should the govt. be able to tell KBCO to shut it’s doors if it doesn’t start playing hip-hop?

            As much as I might not enjoy him, Boyles is only on because he makes the station a minimum amount of money.  Same with the Ed Schultz’s of the world.  Why should the FCC get to determine if they get to stay on air and what they have to say?  Why should the FCC get to literally put some legitimate business out of business b/c they have to play crap no one wants?

            1. You’re not reading me correctly. I never said the FCC should say who stays and who goes. However, I do believe that information and opinion about politics ought to be subject to standards that ensure fairness and accuracy – something that the market doesn’t give a crap about.

              1. regulate standards?

                I appreciate what you are saying.  Like I said before, I have a strong distaste for most talk radio.  And I don’t watch Fox News either.  The only thing I do watch ocassionally is Chris Mathews – just to get a sense of the other side’s position.

                I would love to be able impose my own standards.  But in a democracy like ours, with protected speech, it’s not possible.

                And in practical terms, the outcome of imposing standards would be to dictate: who, what, how, when & where.  That’s antithetical to democracy.

                Is part of your plan to get me to talk like I work at the ACLU?  Your party is all for protecting NAMBLA speech and burning flags, but not for Peter Boyles?

                1. then he’s okay with me. The standards I envision would include getting fined any time a false story is reported, with loss of airwave privileges after repeated infraction.

                  Remember: regulating airwaves isn’t a First Amendment issue.

                  1. the inherent problems with the enforcement of standards by the political establishment.

                    And don’t slander and libel laws still apply here?  If something is egregious enough, can’t the offender be prosecuted?

                    1. about anything like the Fairness Doctrine ever being revived. The horses have stampeded and all have their own shows on Fox News.

                      Slander and libel laws don’t protect people against things like the birther claims, or Boyles’ irresponsible reporting on the Jon Benet Ramsey murder, or O’Reilly’s “Tiller the Baby Killer” crap that probably contributed to that assassination. I don’t know of a single prosecution that resulted from any of that.

          1. Who decides what viewpoint is an “opposing” viewpoint?

            Which opponents get a chance? Where is the line drawn? There are many different viewpoints that can be voiced in opposition to any single issue.  

            Your whole support for this stems from the view that there are Republican and Democratic (or the equivalent political ideologies) answers to questions.

            1. Do you understand the concept of pro and con?  Have you ever heard a debate?  The FCC certainly thought that opposing views exist and ought to be presented during all those years the fairness doctrine was in place.  

              Incidentally, throughout this thread it’s been clear that conservatives don’t understand what the fairness doctrine was about at all.  It was never about switching off certain stations or channels or preventing anyone from being on the air or preventing any point of view from being expressed.  Every time conservatives present it in that light ( the fairness dictrine means socialists will take Rush off the air!) they are liars, pure and simple.

        1. The free speech argument doesn’t apply.  It’s a red herring.

          Free speech is a right.  It’s guaranteed by the Constitution.  Use of the public airwaves is not a right.  It’s a privilege.  It’s licensed and regulated.  It’s no different than driving a car on the public roads.

          I have an Extra-class amateur radio license.  Like KOA or any other station, I have certain frequencies I am allowed to use with my license.  I had to jump through hoops to get it–I had to take four exams–Technician, General, Morse code, and Extra.  There are rules I have to follow.  I can’t use too much power.  I can’t transmit out of band. I can’t curse on the air no matter what the First Amendment says.  I can’t interfere with other stations.  I can’t play music.  I can’t have a “pecuniary interest” in what I transmit no matter what the First Amendment says.  If I go outside of the FCC’s rules, I can be fined or lose my privilege to access the public airwaves.

          Privileges and licenses come with terms and conditions.  They are not Constitutionally guaranteed.

          1. But I am not really making a 1st Amendment argument.  I am questioning the desirability of such a rule, not whether it is legal.

            I am saying this is a philosophically bad idea.  

    2. they had Point Counterpoint. Several generations of hosts were always good. I thought that was usually nicely balanced and often agreed then, as I do now, with a lot of stuff Buchanan has to say.

  10. KHOW, home of Boyles, Caplis, and Silverman, is the No. 14 station in the Denver metro area, according to Arbitron, with a market share of only 3.6 percent. Put another way, five times more people listen to elevator music (KOSI), country (KYGO), and Mexican regional (KXPK) than any of the local talk radio bloviators.

    Does anyone really listen to Boyles, Caplis, and Silverman with an open mind? No. Boyles, Caplis and Silverman exist to cement the thinking of blockheads.  

    1. But consolidating the base is very important.  The reason I showed my comments beginning a year and a half ago was to demonstrate what I was hearing and how I thought it would influence the upcoming elections.  Now, we are looking at a republican landslide in Colorado…something anyone listening to talk radio consistently then could have predicted….which is what I attempted to do.

      Plus, I don’t know how Arbitron works.  Boyles, Caplis & Silverman are on during drive time.  So they pick up an car audience which comes and goes….and not an at-home audience.

      Also.  KOA has night time slam dunk for conservative causes.

  11. Is an election won by motivating the base or winning the center? This non-presidential election in this purple state, I think, is about appealing to the non-partisan center.

    Reality is that there aren’t enough righties who listen to local talk radio to sway an election.

    Try it this way — would you have Boyles constantly banging his drum for you (ala Tancredo) or the Denver Post carpet-bombing the political middle with stories on plagiarism, UN bike plots, and lies about an undercover police career? Talk radio doesn’t change races because it rarely, if ever, brings any new information to the voter.

    1. The Post routinely quoted the boyles show as it was the source for the breaking news on the Tancredo candidacy and  the  problems Maes was having.  Freda Poundstone appeared on the the boyles show to discuss her dispute with Maes.

      Look, I don’t want to promote talk radio.  I want to show its power by reviewing what has already happened.

      If the dems win anything, I will crawl away, happy to have been proven wrong.

      Meantime, explain the Tancredo surge.  

      1. which is beyond dispute except by a few of the GOP shills. Tancredo’s “surge,” I believe, is the result of fair weather Republicans abandoning their candidate for someone with name recognition – even beej, that tea party stalwart who supported Maes from early on, has written him off. There are definitely good reasons to do this if you’re a ‘pub (Maes’ claims of business acumen, which ‘pubs LOVE in a candidate, turns out to be a lot less sharp than he claimed), but ‘pubs tend to view this as a game, and they will abandon a loser faster than Denver sports fan.*

        * Broncos fans excepted.

    1. but the lefties I know listen to music on the radio. Righties don’t, or at least they can’t find a station filled with nothing but Michael Bolton, Stryker, Creed, and Celine Dion.

          1. He’s the Jon Stewart of the right. The rest base their analysis on pure logic, which is why their audiences tend to be older, and why Obama got the youth vote – that was pure emotion.

            1. That’s why they manage to blame Obama for something that happened on Bush’s watch – because they’re soooo logical.

              Beej, you’re killing me today!

  12. Demographics.

    I would guess that a very large percentage of listeners to daytime talk radio are (a) by themselves, looking for a form of “company”; (b) driving something.

    Hard to imagine well-educated males, or virtually any females, listening to the sort of stations you mention. The sort of drivel that seems to emerge on talk radio would appeal to the sort of people who (a) go for simple explanations and simple solutions; and (b) are prone to conspiracy theories, which in the end boil down to the notion that “someone is secretly pulling strings, keepin’ me from what I deserve, which explains why I’m drivin’ this here truck an’ all.”

    Are there any hard figures on (a) how many people’s voting is swayed by what they heard on the radio; (b) how these people vote?

    Of course, there’s also the interesting question of why no one on the left, who supposedly has the best interests of precisely this demographic in mind, seems to make much headway. Too reasonable? Heard too much NPR?

  13. So much for the argument conservative talk radio is not accessible to the liberals. Maybe it is liberals do not make themselves available to conservative talk radio.

    1.  I don’t think he really wants to be Senator.  He basically has always functioned in an administrative capacity and I think he is probably very shy and scared to death of the public.  I think choosing him as Senator was simply stupid.

      However, I think you have a legitimate point.  Liberals are routinely issued an invitation to appear on “conservative talk radio: where the host is an expert at controlling and destroying guests.  So it is a “spider to the fly” game.  At this late date, liberals cannot win for losing.

      I  argued a while back that democrats running for public office should train and be prepared to go on conservative talk radio.  I don’t believe that it is that difficult, particularly if liberals demand to set the rules, be prepared to confront, have their team ready to call in…etc.

      It could be done.  But as I said in February of 2009, one of the factors contributing to the success of the republican talk radio  strategy is the fact that dems routinely dismiss and ignore that medium.

  14. Some of it is obvious, some of it is more covert. For example, Clear Channel, a huge multi-media conglomerate, is known in Denver as AM760 progressive talk radio. They were founded by Republican billionaires Lowry Mays and Red McCombs of Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C

    Does trashing Obama, Bennet, Pelosi and Reid FROM THE LEFT help Dems or hurt them  in their re-elections? I say it hurts them. The average listener is not educated enough to understand the Dems being slashed are better than the righties. They just hear Sirota slamming Obama every day.

    No matter how far left the DJs are, they still get their paychecks from Republicans. In the end, even progressive radio may hurt us more than help the left. Slick. Sick.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

102 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!