« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Neal Boortz is Right on “Friendlier Talk”

Neal Boortz knows what he’s talking about. He has been on the radio for forty years. He’s on more than 200 stations. He knows the industry.

There is, in talk radio, a trend toward “friendlier” talk — non-confrontational hosts who try to explain both sides of the issues with discernible biases, but no hard lines.

Talk radio, at its core, is about entertainment. The best hosts, from Boortz to Limbaugh, are entertainers first. They have bright lines, stand for something, and make it enjoyable to listen to. In an interview with Radio Ink, Boortz gets into this:

“I can see where [Smerconish] would want to go on the air and say ‘The type of talk radio I do, that’s what the consumers want. That is what they are going to be looking for in the future.’ It’s a great sales pitch to get people to sign on to your show. I still think what the consumers are looking for is, number one, entertainment. They want to be entertained. It can be a liberal, a libertarian, or a conservative. It can be far-left or far-right. If they are entertained, they are going to tune in. The ratings are going to be there and the advertisers are going to be happy.”

By the way, this is also why there are so few top notch liberal talk radio programs — liberals still have problems with humor. Oh, and to drive Boortz’s point further home, Talkers magazine reports that in March, after all the Sandra Fluke hubbub, Rush Limbaugh’s ratings are measurably up in most markets.

COMMENTS

  • Neal Kahn

    The friendlier thing I mean.

    Everybody has their opinion and most reasonable people are willing to listen to a different view point if it isn’t some angry rant from somebody who obviously hates their guts.

    Rush for example can roast a leftie with the best of them but he does it with humor mostly with a lot of truth and sarcasm mixed in.
    He is a riot sometimes.
    Glenn Beck is hilarious when he get’s going on a roll.
    He can be damn funny sometimes.
    I listen to Sean Hannity as well and he welcomes liberals on because as he says he wants to “Hannitize them” and open their eyes to a different view point.
    He is always very polite.

    I myself like to listen to a little Michael Savage too.
    He is a little less polite at times but that’s why I like his show.
    The way he will rip somebody to shreds is always good for a laugh.

    Laura Ingraham I like because of her snarkiness and the fact that she has a lot of good guests on.
    You learn things from her show.
    I like all these shows but even they from time to time can push it a little too far. I share their opinions about 70-85% of the time.
    And of course we all know Erick’s show is awesome as well.

    I don’t mind listening to alternate opinions at all and sometimes even seek them out but lately all the left seems to want to serve are pro Obama talking points .
    It’s all DNC spin and Republican bashing.
    I can’t listen to that.
    It’s propaganda.

  • renl57

    But he appeals to a young hip mostly urban audience–he’s a more political version of Saturday Night Live.

    That’s not the demographic of talk radio, regardless of the political views of the talk-show host.

  • goodgovernance

    As for friendlier talk, I have to say I’d welcome friendlier talk if they got the balance and tone right, but it’s something hardly anyone can figure out how to do. Like on NPR, “Left, Right, and Center’ has two far Leftist hosts, a center Left host, and one conservative, or at least they did before Tony Blankley died. How is that balanced?

    I don’t watch Fox News much either, though. I don’t like getting news pre-digested with spin, even if it’s spin toward my point of view. To that end Fox has more in common with MSNBC than they’d probably like to admit.

    CNN’s probably the best at trying to maintain any kind of balance these days (aside from Hillary Rosen, of course), but they used to have a far better reputation for hard news, and they lost that along the way somewhere. Probably precisely because people want all this stuff to be entertaining. But the truth isn’t necessarily entertaining.

  • harlan

    Several years ago, FOX attempted to become even MORE “fair and balanced”. Suddenly, they were awash with lib politicos.

    In fact, they would frequently have several liberal panelists discussing a conservative issue, with NO conservative voice.

    And though the lib comments were usually somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest, they were still given a credible reception by this network.

    I not only stopped watching, I cancelled my cable.

    I want to be entertained, as Boortz states. But I will not be lied to.

  • northeastred

    The only people I know who watch PBS for their news, or MacNeil/Lehrer are liberal elitists. Same with the NPR crowd.

    Rush and Savage are, I think, great entertainers. Hannity is mostly a dimwit who usually gets himself in over his head when he has liberals on, though. It can be painful to watch, so I stopped.

    I wish there was a GOP alternative to Maher, Stewart and Colbert. Sometimes Dennis Miller can do it, but he’s not consistent.

  • goodgovernance

    Honestly, he’s not a quarter as funny as he thinks he is. The laughs he gets aren’t so much about people finding him funny, so much as it is just about liberals agreeing with him.

    Give Stewart and Colbert their due, they actually know how to make people laugh.

    I actually do watch PBS’s the Newshour (it hasn’t been called MacNeil/Lehrer in two decades) and I even listen to NPR once in a while, as do other conservatives I know (though admittedly they’re more fiscal conservatives than anything else). But then I grew up in an era where I knew I had to adjust for liberal bias, so maybe that’s what I’m used to. And temperamentally, I just don’t tend to go for news I know is geared toward pushing the “us versus them” button. It’s such an easy button to push, and can generate decent ratings, but that’s not a way I choose to be manipulated.