http://www.bigeddieradio.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=15

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/EdInTheNews/more.asp?ID=15

 

I see that Shultz is on zero stations in Indiana and in Kentucky, he is heard only on WCMI in Ashland. And this is probably the best liberal talk radio show in the country...no wonder Nancy Pelosi and other liberals in Congress are clamoring for the Fairness Doctrine. :lol:

I'd venture to say that most people that are die hard talk radio fans own a satilite radio now days.

I'd venture to say that most people that are die hard talk radio fans own a satilite radio now days.

That is true but it still does not explain why liberals do so poorly in terrestrial talk radio. Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. seem to be thriving. I doubt that Schultz is beating his conservative competition on satellite radio either.

 

It was interesting that the article to which you linked was written in early 2005. Wikipedia also cites a station count from 2005. My guess is Schultz's ratings have dropped since then or he would be touting the current number of stations that air his show.

 

I will give credit to Schultz for his competence compared to the other clowns that aired on the Air America XM channel. At least he understands what makes talk radio tick. The Air America folks were clueless.

That is true but it still does not explain why liberals do so poorly in terrestrial talk radio. Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al. seem to be thriving. I doubt that Schultz is beating his conservative competition on satellite radio either.

 

It was interesting that the article to which you linked was written in early 2005. Wikipedia also cites a station count from 2005. My guess is Schultz's ratings have dropped since then or he would be touting the current number of stations that air his show.

 

I will give credit to Schultz for his competence compared to the other clowns that aired on the Air America XM channel. At least he understands what makes talk radio tick. The Air America folks were clueless.

 

Maybe we have better things to do than sit around and listen to some guy rant through the radio?:lol:

Maybe we have better things to do than sit around and listen to some guy rant through the radio?:lol:

That is one possible explanation. Another is that liberals do not do well defending their positions when challenged by callers. Al Franken, for example, did not even accept calls from the few listeners that tuned in to his show.

That is one possible explanation. Another is that liberals do not do well defending their positions when challenged by callers. Al Franken, for example, did not even accept calls from the few listeners that tuned in to his show.

Hannity will take call, but wont let anyone with a differing opinion speak, instead will just yell "get off my phone" and hang up on them. That is what I like about shultz, he lets everyone speak regardless of of thier stance.

Hannity will take call, but wont let anyone with a differing opinion speak, instead will just yell "get off my phone" and hang up on them. That is what I like about shultz, he lets everyone speak regardless of of thier stance.

I am no Hannity fan but that is a pretty inaccurate representation of how he handles callers. All hosts occasionally hang up on abusive callers but Hannity is generally as polite as his callers are. Rush is probably the best at handling callers who disagree with him.

 

Widely syndicated talk radio show hosts are generally pretty polite to their callers. (Michael Savage is a notable exception.) Local hosts are much more likely to be rude to callers who challenge them.

I am no Hannity fan but that is a pretty inaccurate representation of how he handles callers. All hosts occasionally hang up on abusive callers but Hannity is generally as polite as his callers are. Rush is probably the best at handling callers who disagree with him.

 

Widely syndicated talk radio show hosts are generally pretty polite to their callers. (Michael Savage is a notable exception.) Local hosts are much more likely to be rude to callers who challenge them.

 

Bill O really doesnt handle guests or callers with differing opinions;or people in general for that matter.

Bill O really doesnt handle guests or callers with differing opinions;or people in general for that matter.

I agree with you. I don't really consider O'Reilly among the top talk show hosts. He has tried to capitalize on the success of his TV show and found the competition much stiffer than expected.

 

The whole point of this thread is , You cant keep running the B.S. slogan "fair and balanced", if the whitehouse is telling what to say. You can say that MSNBC, CNN, etc are liberal bias, but they are not running around claiming to be neutral and then we find out they are W's puppet.

 

Agreed. Although I would guess that there were precious few that actually fell for the "fair and balanced" slogan to begin with.

Scott McLellan was on with Matthews tonight and said that the White House regularly feed the daily talking points to the main anchors at Fox News who then spit them out as their own thoughts.

 

While its not a surprise that Fox did this, its still disappointing that the govt would use a network to spread its propoganda. Its especially disappointing when the guy in the big chair is the guy you voted for.

Do you have a link to support your assertion that McClellan said the White House sent talking points to the main anchors at Fox News? A link? Anything?

Do you have a link to support your assertion that McClellan said the White House sent talking points to the main anchors at Fox News? A link? Anything?

 

"Commentators and other pundits" is what I found after a cursory search.

 

From the link below:

 

On MSNBC’s Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw “FOX television as a tool” to get the White House’s “message out” while he was in the Bush administration. “Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox-talking-points/

"Commentators and other pundits" is what I found after a cursory search.

 

From the link below:

 

On MSNBC’s Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw “FOX television as a tool” to get the White House’s “message out” while he was in the Bush administration. “Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox-talking-points/

 

I found the same thing. It appears that the assertion made in the first post that McClellan fed talking points to Fox News Channel's main anchors it simply not true.

 

Commentators on all news channels receive information from party insiders. Hannity and O'Reilly are no different than Matthews, Carville, or Olbermann in that regard.

 

All news channels represent themselves as being objective, as well they should. The notion that only Fox News portrays itself as an objective news source is ridiculous.

 

Making a distinction between journalists like Brit Hume and commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, McClellan admitted that “certainly” the White House used Fox News talking heads as “spokespeople” with “a script”:

 

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

 

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

No surprise at all. Interesting that on more than one occasion, I've seen a Fox host/anchor chide a guest from the "liberal" side for spouting off talking points, but never one from the "conservative" side.