{"id":85681,"date":"2016-01-18T13:50:50","date_gmt":"2016-01-18T21:50:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=85681"},"modified":"2016-01-18T15:55:07","modified_gmt":"2016-01-18T23:55:07","slug":"to-succeed-in-talk-radio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=85681","title":{"rendered":"To Succeed In Talk Radio"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SBcNJk6\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Reddit<\/a>: “I am a news reporter at a conservative radio station. This is part of a document my boss asked me to read.”<\/p>\n

The Lund Talk Radio Stylebook Page 4 of 50<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

The 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. More often than not, however, the enemy is the “mainstream media…” <\/p>\n

Forget any notion, however, that radio talk shows are supposed to be fair, evenhanded discussions featuring a diversity of opinions. The Fairness Doctrine, which required this, was repealed 20 years ago. So talk shows can be, and are, all about the host’s opinions, analyses and general worldview. Programmers learned long ago that benign conversations led by hosts who present all sides of an issue don’t attract large audiences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This excerpt seems to come from a longer essay reprinted on Alternet<\/a>:<\/p>\n

To begin with, talk show hosts such as Charlie Sykes \u2013 one of the best in the business \u2013 are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative\u2019s DNA.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

This enemy can be a politician \u2013 either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a \u201cRINO\u201d (a \u201cRepublican In Name Only,\u201d who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy. More often than not, however, the enemy is the \u201cmainstream media\u201d \u2013 local or national, print or broadcast.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, it can even be their own station\u2019s news director. One year, Charlie targeted me because I had instructed my midday news anchor to report the Wimbledon tennis results, even though the matches wouldn\u2019t be telecast until much later in the day. Charlie gave out my phone number and e-mail address on the air. I was flooded with hate mail, nasty messages, and even one death threat from a federal law enforcement agent whom I knew to be a big Charlie fan.<\/p>\n

In the talk radio business, this concept, which must be mastered to be successful, is called \u201cdifferentiating\u201d yourself from the rest of the media. It is a brilliant marketing tactic that has also helped Fox News Channel thrive. \u201cWe report, you decide\u201d and \u201cFair and Balanced\u201d are more than just savvy slogans. They are code words signaling that only Fox will report the news in a way conservatives see as objective and truthful.<\/p>\n

Forget any notion, however, that radio talk shows are supposed to be fair, evenhanded discussions featuring a diversity of opinions. The Fairness Doctrine, which required this, was repealed 20 years ago. So talk shows can be, and are, all about the host\u2019s opinions, analyses and general worldview. Programmers learned long ago that benign conversations led by hosts who present all sides of an issue don\u2019t attract large audiences. That\u2019s why Kathleen Dunn was forced out at WTMJ in the early \u201990s and why Jim and Andee were replaced in the mid-\u201990s by Dr. Laura. Pointed and provocative are what win.<\/p>\n

There is no way to win a disagreement with Charlie Sykes. Calls from listeners who disagree with him don\u2019t get on the air if the show\u2019s producer, who generally does the screening, fears they might make Charlie look bad…<\/p>\n

One entire group that rarely gets on the air are the elderly callers \u2013 unless they have something extraordinary to say. Sadly, that doesn\u2019t happen often. The theory is that old-sounding callers help produce old-skewing audiences. The target demo is 25 to 54, not 65 and older…<\/p>\n

The stereotyped liberal view of the talk radio audience is that it\u2019s a lot of angry, uneducated white men. In fact, the audience is far more diverse. Many are businesspeople, doctors, lawyers, academics, clergy, or soccer moms and dads. Talk show fans are not stupid. They will detect an obvious phony. The best hosts sincerely believe everything they say. Their passion is real. Their arguments have been carefully crafted in a manner they know will be meaningful to the audience, and that validates the views these folks were already thinking.<\/p>\n

Yet while talk show audiences aren\u2019t being led like lemmings to a certain conclusion, they can be carefully prodded into agreement with the Republican views of the day.<\/p>\n

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\u2019re not called talking points, but that\u2019s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie 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. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.<\/p>\n

Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh\u2019s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.<\/p>\n

A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush\u2019s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don\u2019t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves.<\/p>\n

One of the things that makes a talk show host good \u2013 especially hosts of the caliber of Sykes \u2013 is that his or her arguments seem so solid. You fundamentally disagree with the host, yet can\u2019t refute the argument because it sounds so airtight. The host has built a strong case with lots of supporting facts.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, though, those facts have been selectively chosen because they support the host\u2019s preconceived opinion, or can be interpreted to seem as if they do. In their frustration, some talk show critics accuse hosts of fabricating facts. Wrong. Hosts do gather evidence, but in a way that modifies the old Joe Friday maxim: \u201cJust the facts that I can use to make my case, ma\u2019am.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hint: The more talk show hosts squawk about something \u2013 the louder their voice, the greater their emotion, the more effusive their arguments \u2013 the more they\u2019re worried about the issue. For example, talk show hosts eagerly participated in the 2004 Swift Boating of John Kerry because they really feared he was going to win. This is a common talk show tactic: If you lack compelling arguments in favor of your candidate or point of view, attack the other side. These attacks often rely on two key rhetorical devices, which I call You Know What Would Happen If and The Preemptive Strike.<\/p>\n

Using the first strategy, a host will describe something a liberal has said or done that conservatives disagree with, but for which the liberal has not been widely criticized, and then say, \u201cYou know what would happen if a conservative had said (or done) that? He (or she) would have been filleted by the \u2018liberal media.\u2019 \u201d This is particularly effective because it\u2019s a two-fer, simultaneously reinforcing the notion that conservatives are victims and that \u201cliberals\u201d are the enemy.<\/p>\n

The second strategy, The Preemptive Strike, is used when a host knows that news reflecting poorly on conservative dogma is about to break or become more widespread. When news of the alleged massacre at Haditha first trickled out in the summer of 2006, not even Iraq War chest-thumper Charlie Sykes would defend the U.S. Marines accused of killing innocent civilians in the Iraqi village. So he spent lots of air time criticizing how the \u201cmainstream media\u201d was sure to sensationalize the story in the coming weeks. Charlie would kill the messengers before any message had even been delivered.<\/p>\n

Good talk show hosts can get their listeners so lathered up that they truly can change public policy. They can inspire like-minded folks to flood the phone lines and e-mail inboxes of aldermen, county supervisors, legislators and federal lawmakers. They can inspire their followers to vote for candidates the hosts prefer. How? By pounding away on an issue or candidate, hour after hour, day after day. Hosts will extol the virtues of the favored candidate or, more likely, exploit whatever Achilles heel the other candidate might have. Influencing elections is more likely to occur at the local rather than national level, but that still gives talk radio power.<\/p>\n

By the way, here\u2019s a way to prognosticate elections just by listening to talk shows: Except in presidential elections, when they will always carry water for the Republican nominee, conservative hosts won\u2019t hurt their credibility by backing candidates they think can\u2019t win. So if they\u2019re uncharacteristically tepid, or even silent, about a particular race, that means the Democrat has a good chance of winning. Nor will hosts spend their credibility on an issue where they know they disagree with listeners. Charlie, for example, told me just before I left TMJ that Wisconsin\u2019s 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment was misguided. But he knew his followers would likely vote for it in droves. So he declined to speak out directly against it.<\/p>\n

This brings us to perhaps the most ironic thing about most talk show hosts. Though they may savage politicians and others they oppose, they fear criticism or critiques of any kind. They can dish it out, but they can\u2019t take it.<\/p>\n

One day during a very bad snowstorm, I walked into the studio during a commercial break and suggested to Charlie that he start talking about it rather than whatever conservative topic he\u2019d been discussing. Charlie assumed, as he usually did in such situations, that I was being critical of his topic. In reaction, he unplugged his head phones, stood up and told me that I might as well take over the show because he wasn\u2019t going to change his topic. I was able to quickly strike a bargain before the end of the break. He agreed to take a few calls about the storm, but if it didn\u2019t a strike a nerve with callers, he could return to his original topic.<\/p>\n

The snowstorm was the topic of the rest of his show that day. And afterward, Charlie came to my office and admitted I\u2019d been right. But we would go through scenarios such as this many times through the years.<\/p>\n

Another tense moment arose when the Harley-Davidson 100th anniversary was captivating the community \u2013 and our on-air coverage \u2013 in 2003, but Charlie wanted to talk about school choice for seemingly the 100,000th time. He literally threw a fit, off the air and on, belittling other hosts, the news department and station management for devoting resources to Harley\u2019s 100th coverage. \u201cThe Green House\u201d newsman Phil Cianciola countered that afternoon with a joke about Charlie riding a Harley wearing loafers. Charlie complained to management about Phil and wouldn\u2019t speak civilly about him in my presence again.<\/p>\n

Hosts are most dangerous when someone they\u2019ve targeted for criticism tries to return the fire. It is foolish to enter into a dispute with someone who has a 50,000-watt radio transmitter at his or her disposal and feels cornered. Oh, and calling a host names \u2013 \u201cright-winger,\u201d \u201cfascist,\u201d \u201cradio squawker,\u201d etc. \u2013 merely plays into his or her hands. This allows a host like Sykes to portray himself as a victim of the \u201cleft-wing spin machine,\u201d and will leave his listeners, who also feel victimized, dying to support him. In essence, the host will mount a Hillary Rodham Clinton \u201cvast right-wing conspiracy\u201d attack in reverse.<\/p>\n

A conservative emulating Hillary? Yep. A great talk show host is like a great college debater, capable of arguing either side of any issue in a logical, thorough and convincing manner. This skill ensures their continuing success regardless of which political party is in power. For example:<\/p>\n

\u2022 In the talk show world, the line-item veto was the most effective way to control government spending when Ronald Reagan was president; it was a violation of the separation of powers after President Clinton took office.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney\u2019s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury.<\/p>\n

\u2022 “Activist judges” are the scourge of the earth when they rule it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexuals receive. But judicial activism is needed to stop the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state \u2013 say Terri Schiavo \u2013 from removing her feeding tube to end her suffering.<\/p>\n

To amuse myself while listening to a talk show, I would ask myself what the host would say if the situation were reversed. What if alleged D.C. Madam client Sen. David Vitter had been a Democrat? Would the reaction of talk show hosts have been so quiet you could hear crickets chirping? Hardly.<\/p>\n

Or what if former Rep. Mark Foley had been a Democrat? Would his pedophile-like tendencies have been excused as a \u201cprank\u201d or mere \u201coverfriendly e-mails?\u201d Not on the life of your teenage son.<\/p>\n

Suppose Al Gore was president and ordered an invasion of Iraq without an exit strategy. Suppose this had led to the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. troops and actually made that part of the world less stable. Would talk show hosts have dismissed criticism of that war as unpatriotic? No chance.<\/p>\n

Or imagine that John Kerry had been president during Hurricane Katrina and that his administration\u2019s rescue and rebuilding effort had been horribly botched. Would talk show hosts have branded him a great president? Of course not.<\/p>\n

It was Katrina, finally, that made me truly see the light. Until then, 10 years into my time at TMJ, while I might have disagreed with some stands the hosts took, I did think there were grounds for their constant criticism of the media. I had convinced myself that the national media had an intrinsic bias that was, at the very least, geographical if not ideological, to which talk radio could provide an alternative.<\/p>\n

Then along came the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. Journalists risked their lives to save others as the storm hit the Gulf Coast. Afterward, journalists endured the stench and the filth to chronicle the events for a stunned world. Then they documented the monumental government incompetence for an outraged nation. These journalists became voices for the voiceless victims, pressing government officials to get help to those who needed it.<\/p>\n

Yet, while New Orleans residents were still screaming for help from the rooftops of their flooded homes, journalists were targeted by talk show hosts, Charlie and Wagner among them. Not the government, but journalists. Stories detailing the federal government\u2019s obvious slowness and inefficiency were part of an \u201cangry left\u201d conspiracy, they said. Talk show hosts who used e-mailed talking points from the conservative spin machine proclaimed the Katrina stories were part of a liberal \u201cmedia template.\u201d The irony would have been laughable if the story wasn\u2019t so serious.<\/p>\n

…I had seen and helped foster the transformation of AM radio and the rise of conservative hosts. They have a power that is unlikely to decline.<\/p>\n

Their rise was also helped by liberals whose ideology, after all, emphasizes tolerance. Their friendly toleration of talk radio merely gave the hosts more credibility. Yet an attitude of intolerance was probably worse: It made the liberals look hypocritical, giving ammunition to talk show hosts who used it with great skill.<\/p>\n

But the key reason talk radio succeeds is because its hosts can exploit the fears and perceived victimization of a large swath of conservative-leaning listeners. And they feel victimized because many liberals and moderates have ignored or trivialized their concerns and have stereotyped these Americans as uncaring curmudgeons.<\/p>\n

Because of that, there will always be listeners who believe that Charlie Sykes, Jeff Wagner and their compatriots are the only members of the media who truly care about them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reddit: “I am a news reporter at a conservative radio station. This is part of a document my boss asked me to read.” The Lund Talk Radio Stylebook Page 4 of 50 To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[201,1220],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservatives","category-radio"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85681","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=85681"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85681\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85695,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85681\/revisions\/85695"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=85681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=85681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=85681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}