Sunday Talk Shows Slant Conservative
I'm really suprised Susie didn't bring up this. It's a suprisingly methodical report by Media Matters about conservatives being more prevalent on Sunday TV talk shows. I was VERY surprised that they allude to the fact that some leading Democrats won't ever go on Fox so that may skew the numbers a bit - MM is not known for being terribly self-critical.
Of course, they have to go ruin it by trying to get Congress involved to enforce balance. Socialism at it's best.
There is a theory I have that plays into the equation: Progressives simply aren't that interesting to watch or listen to unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to begin with. And if you are trying to sell a TV show, you want to maximize your audience. Plus, some progressive/liberal politicians seem to avoid any confrontational or panel show like the plague. Hillary Clinton comes to mind - she rarely does unscripted interviews and I can't imagine her going toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly, for example.
A lot of time, money, and effort has gone into promoting left-leaning TV and radio shows and it either falls flat or grabs a niche audience.
On TV, O'Reilly destroys Olbermann in the ratings. Wipes the floor with him. You libs don't like bad news and won't believe it so here's the latest ratings from Neilsen by way of Mediabistro. Aside: Can anyone tell me why Greta Vansusteren is so popular? Me neither.
On radio, the top five syndicated shows are Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and Savage. All are conservative with Beck being more humorous and Savage being errr.. insane.
Also, if Sunday morning slants conservative, what about all those daytime talk shows the rest of the week? Certainly no one can claim that Oprah and The View are conservative.
But I digress.
My main point is that progressively slanted talk shows have been given ample oppoertunity to succeed and failed. So why would ostensibly neutral shows want to slant in that direction?
8 comments:
I didn't post it because you go half-cocked whenever I mention MM.
Yes, O'Reilly is still way ahead of Olbermann, but he is gaining rapidly (and FNC in general is losing audience). And the most rapid growth is in the "coveted" age groups. O'Reilly's been around a lot longer. Same with talk radio. It took Rush 10 years to get where he is now.
You don't know what you're talking about when you say they've been given "ample opportunity" to succeed.
I've tried to watch Beck. I don't think he's funny. But I think Olbermann is. No idea on Greta.
It's hard to talk to an idiot like Hannity or O'Reilly and get any headway. Bill Maher was on O'R the other night. When Bill was telling O'Reilly he had his facts wrong (which is often) he'd get shouted down. Even so, O'R looked pathetic against Maher.
btw, how come I never see the first post? I only see a new thread when someone has posted a comment?
Well, yeah, you're right...I do generally go ballistic on MM because rarely do they take an analytical approach. They did this time and I mentioned it.
As to your points:
I really don't think Olbermann will ever catch O'Reilly. Once someone has been established as the "big dog" like Cronkite was at CBS years ago it's hard to knock them off. Plus, O'Reilly positions himself as a populist while Olbermann posits unabashedly left-wing positions in a hostile manner. The left cheers while moderates and conservatives turn him off.
And you didn't elaborate about why I don't know what I'm talking about regarding "ample opportunity"...I can't debate an opinion with no substance.
Beck, I guess, only will seem funny to moderates and conservatives. I gotta say that I have found Olbermann funny at times but not when he gets into the attack-dog mentality on anyone who disagrees with him. Yeah, no idea on Greta either. 10 PM programming on other channels must suck big-time.
As to O'Reilly and Hannity being "idiots" I will overlook the fact that liberals tend to label all conservatives "idiots" and then frequently get blind-sided by those "idiots". Because you disagree with them, Susan, does not make them idiots. Learn that. O'Reilly has a masters from Harvard and I scarcely think that qualifies him as an idiot.
Personally insulting someone due to a philosophical orientation when you know that the insult is patently untrue is a form of lying.
As to Bill Maher, he has morphed his positions and attitude many times over the course of his ABC and cable shows. When he was a self-proclaimed libertarian I respected the man as he was on Politically Incorrect. When he morphed into a rabid leftist for his latest gig I realized that he was show-biz and only married to what was expected of him.
In your world, conservatives always look pathetic against progressives. In your world, progressives are always sunshine and everything else is dark. I'm glad I don't live in your world.
Those damn swines! Doesn't anyone ever get these ratings. It is rather easy to explain, me thinks. Being the only conservative channel, Fox is certainly going to attract the majority of that audience. The liberals, on the other hand, split up all the rest. Actually, many listen to NPR, read a book or have better things to do in their life than watching TV. So Mr. OReilly can thank his lucky stars that there ain't more conservative channels to dissipate his audience.
No, Hunter, that doesn't explain it. O'Reilly's numbers are so high that they usually beat anyone on any channel for any time slot on nightly cable news.
Also, I doubt that the majority of his audience watches him for ideological reasons.
Hunter is right as usual. These statistics are sooo misleading and bogus. Come on, a single 25-54 category -- how useless is that. OReilly has the majority of his audience in the Geriatric category. Over 90% of his large audience likely come from the over 50 crowd. His audience in the under 40 crowd is much less and infact Obermman does better, but that is a much smaller audience so gets overwhelmed by the old geezers watching OReilly. Again, the younger audience is NOT watching TV. Other studies have better breakdowns by age.
Glad to see you agreeing so adamantly to yourself, Hunter.
-dta
Well, Hunter, move into the TV poll business because you are arguing against the methodology of Neilsen, the king of TV ratings.
Furthermore, nothing you said invalidates my posits as to why O'Reilly is so popular.
Post a Comment