[Rodney King]

"Progressives historically don't run in a pack," Rosenstiel added. "There's a kind of independent streak to the left wing in America that there isn't in the right wing."

What a load of crap. If getting your news every day from the New York Times and Tom Brokaw for 20 years isn't running in a pack, then I don't know what is.

[stands2reason]

"Progressives historically don't run in a pack," Rosenstiel added. "There's a kind of independent streak to the left wing in America that there isn't in the right wing." Yeah, suuuuuure. The left's all a bunch of independent thinkers. That's the ticket...

[Timm]

Just so we're clear. Conservative radio hosts, from Rush Limbaugh to Dr. Laura to a whole pack of local talk jocks, have all succeeded over the past decade because of slick marketing and more sophisticated programming. Poor naive liberals just never quite caught on. But now that they have, watch out! They'll they'll walk all over Limbaugh in daily share in no time.

Anyone want to venture a few million's worth of capital on that theory?

[ffusco]

"We want to take an issue and make it funny and engaging," he said. "Our intent is to engage and entertain as a way to enlighten, engage in skit comedy, parody, political satire."

Why bother with facts

[dfwgator]

A group planning a liberal-leaning radio network says the idea hasn't caught on in previous attempts because it wasn't marketed properly and wasn't entertaining enough.

Funny, that's the same thing they keep saying about "socialism." It's not that it doesn't work, it just hasn't been implemented by the right people yet.

[chachacha]

Sinton said earlier programs have failed because they were placed in time slots between more conservative programming and weren't entertaining enough.

Wrong

They failed because a multi-hour liberal discussion cannot last for any length of time void of moral substance.

[fiscal_fish]

"We want to take an issue and make it funny and engaging," he said. "Our intent is to engage and entertain as a way to enlighten, engage in skit comedy, parody, political satire."

Liberals will dump complex issues into the blender of idiocy, add a dash of delusional self-righteousness, and spoon out the pablum of stupidity to feed the lowest common denominator that comprises their slack-jawed zombie followers.

[GOPcapitalist]

Several years ago one of the local conservative talk stations had a host that was out on vacation or something. So they found some liberal guy to stick on the air for a couple days, and the second he showed up he started inviting all these local democrat hacks and elected officials to espouse left wing crap on the radio. The audience went nuts and flooded him with angry calls, myself included. I got on the air and started arguing with him over a pro-partial birth abortion position he had taken, and, as soon as he knew he was beaten in the argument, he hung up on me! He did the same thing every time somebody came on and got the better of him, which was often. No "goodbye," and no "thanks for the call" - he simply hit disconnect every single time he was losing. Needless to say, after about two days into the week the radio station had found somebody new to fill out the remaining three. They also learned a valuable lesson about their audiences - Left wing radio simply doesn't work in mass markets. The few consumers of that bilge that are out there already get their stuff from the fringe over at NPR and Pacifica. Beyond that it simply does not work.

[Aracelis]

It ain't gonna work no matter what sort of shtick they use. Liberals are not radio-types, they prefer their news spoonfed to them over the telly.

[Paleo Conservative]

I wonder if the this network will promote boycots of its own sponsors.

[graycamel]

They won't listen anyway, all the libs listen to is either classical and NPR, or stuff like Korn, NWA, Limp Bizkit, Eminem, and other rot-gut. They wouldn't waste time listening to talk shows that they could engage in. So all the audience ends up being conservative and yells at the host.

[Holden Magroin]

There is no audience out there for liberal claptrap. Few people want to listen to a liberal screaming like a banshee about how immoral he thinks the death penalty is, how stingy he thinks our welfare state is, and how we should turn our country over to the United Nations. Limousine liberals are about to squander tens of millions of dollars on a quixotic power trip instead of political campaigns in 2004. Apparently, dominating universities and the print media isn't enough for these control freaks.

[Action-America]

DEMOGRAPHICS - DEMOGRAPHICS - DEMOGRAPHICS

A liberal for profit network cannot possibly succeed for one simple reason - DEMOGRAPHICS.

The only way that liberal talk can stay on the air is if it is supported by the government, like NPR.

Even if they could get as many liberals to listen to Bill Klinton as listen to Rush, they would still lose money.  Think about it.  Who are conservatives?  Conservatives are people who work for a living and call in on their cell phones, while driving their SUV's to a business meeting and therefore have discretionary income.  Who are liberals?  Liberals are primarily deadbeats who live on the dole and call in from their home phone, while waiting for the Bold and the Beautiful on television and have little, if any discretionary income.

Now I ask you, "If you were an advertiser (of anything besides beer) and had to decide where to spend your radio advertising dollars, would you spend it on a program whose listeners were proven buyers with significant discretionary income or on a program whose listeners were primarily strapped for cash and spend what little money they have on a 12-pak of beer every day?"  Think about it...

OK, those are rather radical stereotypes.  But, you get the idea.  To make a profit, every one of the liberal programs would have to have three or four times as many listeners as a conservative program, simply because of the large disparity of buying power of the listeners.  Advertisers who advertise on the liberal programs will expect much lower rates, based on those DEMOGRAPHICS.

End result?...  Failure of the liberal network.

 

[InShanghai]

Ah, what the heck? Let's see if they can shoot themselves in the foot with this one too!

[Rainbow Rising]

"Progressives historically don't run in a pack," Rosenstiel added. "There's a kind of independent streak to the left wing in America that there isn't in the right wing."

Yeah, liberals are so independent. I guess it's just a coincidence that they all just happen to come up with the exact same talking points whenever it's time to debate an issue.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"There are so many right-wing talk shows, we think it's created a hole in the market you could drive a truck through."

Or...could it be there are so many "right-wing" talk shows because this is what the marketplace demands?

[KaiserofKrunch]

This represents total panic. The left has the traditional media in a lock that would make Dr. Goebbels proud. So what happens?, the vast market of centrist and right leaning media consumers is shut out, ignored. When these message consumers finally get a quality product (in this case the TRUTH), it is snapped up with abandon.

Why do the socialists need more airtime if they already control the bulk of the important media outlets? I would posit that their market segment is presently OVER served.

Though the right has only made small gains in traditional broadcast parity, it has an extremely salient message-an essentially American one. In addition, nontraditional outlets like the Internet have helped destroy the socialists' monopoly on discourse.

The left's problem is not that their message is failing to get out, or that it isn't packaged as well as Hannity, Rush, "The G-Man," or others. The left is failing because their programming is BAD--akin to "My Mother The Car."

[rightofrush]

The target audience is watching soaps, "reality" tv, Jerry Springer, and nature shows.

The great liberal unwashed does not want to be bothered ideas that reqire cogitation for assymilation. Their attempts will be fun to watch.

[johnny7]

... they like to use to describe themselves these days - "progressive"

“Progressive” is not another term for liberal... it means socialist.

[laredo44]

"Progressives historically don't run in a pack," Rosenstiel added. "There's a kind of independent streak to the left wing in America that there isn't in the right wing."

Well, of course. Communism and socialism have always been about the triumph of the individual over the state.