From Milwaukee magazine August 24, 2009:
To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.
This enemy can be a politician — either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a “RINO” (a “Republican In Name Only,” who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy.
….Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie [Sykes] would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim.
How does this critique hold up today?
CHATGPT says:
Yes, much of this 2009 analysis still applies—though with updated nuances for today’s media and political environment. Here’s a breakdown of what holds true and what’s changed:
Still Applies:
Victimhood and Tribal Framing: The “us vs. them” framing, portraying conservatives as victims of a liberal elite or media, is still central. This narrative fuels loyalty and engagement and is now supercharged by social media echo chambers.
Selective Fact Use & Narrative Control: Talk hosts still cherry-pick facts to support their arguments and sideline dissenting voices. Now, digital tools make it easier to reinforce those narratives through viral clips, memes, and cross-platform messaging.
Entertainment Over Journalism: Hosts are still entertainers first. Outrage drives engagement. Nuance and balance don’t perform well in a fragmented, attention-driven media economy.
Gatekeeping Callers and Critics: Listener screening, avoiding strong critics, and ridiculing weak dissenters are still common. Hosts prefer opponents they can easily dismantle—it’s theater, not debate.
Daily Messaging Coordination: While the original “talking points” emails may not be as central, coordination still exists through platforms like X (Twitter), right-wing media influencers, and newsletters. Hosts often track and amplify the same stories simultaneously.
Double Standards: Hypocrisy remains a feature, not a bug. Positions shift depending on who’s in power. Audiences accept this because loyalty to the tribe outweighs consistency.
Perceived Credibility: Hosts who express outrage or frame themselves as mavericks gain trust. Occasional criticism of Republicans is still used to bolster the illusion of independence.
Influence on Local Politics: Local talk radio still has major sway in statehouses and city councils, even as national podcasts and YouTube personalities steal some thunder.
What’s Changed or Evolved:
Podcasting and Streaming Disruption: The dominance of AM/FM talk radio has declined. Podcasts and video streams now capture the same audience with more flexibility and fewer FCC constraints. Think Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool.
Social Media’s Role: Hosts no longer rely solely on airwaves. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Telegram amplify their reach and feedback loops, making them more powerful and faster to react.
Alternative Ecosystems: There are now full-fledged conservative media ecosystems—Daily Wire, BlazeTV, OANN, etc.—which blur the line between talk show, news, and activism.
Audience Demographics Shifting: Younger conservatives aren’t tuning into AM radio, but they’re engaging with the same style of content via other mediums.
MAGA Movement: Trump-era populism escalated the “anti-elite” rhetoric and created a new flavor of talk content—more conspiratorial, more openly anti-institution, and sometimes even at odds with traditional GOP orthodoxy.
Host Vulnerability: Hosts are more exposed to being “canceled” by their own base for perceived disloyalty (e.g., insufficient Trumpism). The audience now feels more empowered to shape the message.
Bottom Line:
The psychological mechanics and rhetorical strategies of conservative talk radio in 2009 still absolutely power the same machine in 2025. What’s changed is the delivery system, the volume, and the stakes. The principles endure; only the platforms and players have evolved.
Very few big-name political talkers completely avoid the manipulative tactics described—tribal framing, selective facts, avoiding dissent, emotional baiting—because those tactics work for engagement. But some are noticeably more thoughtful, less manipulative, or more transparent about their methods. Here’s a rough breakdown:
Least Manipulative (Relatively Speaking):
1. Chris Hayes (MSNBC)
Transparent about sourcing and bias.
Encourages policy-based discussions.
Will platform opposing ideas occasionally without resorting to strawmen.
2. Ezra Klein (NYT Podcast)
Longform, nuanced, less sensational.
Often platforms ideological opponents with genuine curiosity.
Focuses on ideas, not outrage.
3. Sam Seder (The Majority Report)
Open about his left-leaning stance, often provides citations.
Debates conservatives on-air (though he’s aggressive).
Uses sarcasm, but not typically emotionally manipulative or conspiratorial.
4. David French (The Dispatch, NYT)
Conservative, but principled and consistent.
Calls out his own side often.
Rarely emotional or tribal in tone.
5. Josh Barro (Very Serious podcast/newsletter)
Centrist/libertarian-leaning.
Focuses on policy and logic over tribal warfare.
Will critique both right and left—often contrarian but reasoned.
Somewhat Manipulative but Occasionally Balanced:
1. Joe Rogan
Gives platform to a huge range of voices.
Can be manipulated by guests or trending narratives himself.
Not great at fact-checking in real time, but not overtly dishonest.
2. Bill Maher
Self-styled iconoclast.
Cherry-picks data to support libertarianish takes.
Will mock both sides, but uses ridicule as a primary tool.
Most Manipulative / Classic Talk Radio Style:
These mirror the tactics from the article almost exactly—tribal, emotionally charged, hostile to dissent, and scripted to create a narrative rather than explore truth:
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Dan Bongino
Ben Shapiro (very structured arguments, often built on selective framing)
Candace Owens
Glenn Beck (less extreme now than in the 2010s, but still highly theatrical)
Wild Cards:
Tucker Carlson (post-Fox) — He’s moved deeper into conspiratorial territory. He’s manipulative, yes, but it’s often with a strange mix of elite critique and faux populism that’s hard to categorize by traditional talk radio rules.
Bottom Line:
No mainstream political talker is immune from manipulation. But those who focus on longform discussions, platform ideologically diverse voices, and admit when they’re wrong are far less likely to run the classic “us vs. them” playbook. Look for honesty about bias, willingness to be challenged, and actual evidence—not just volume and emotion.
