Pump up the volume - radio talk show hosts' influence on politics - includes related articles

Radio Talk Show Hosts, from Liberal-Basher Rush Limbaugh to a Slew of Local Call-In Jockeys, Are Making So Much Noise Even Washington Insiders Are Listening. But When it Comes to the Ballot Box, Will This New Populist Soap Box Make a Difference?

Once upon a time, radio was the only thing going in the American broadcast culture. Citizens listened intently when President Roosevelt gave his historic "Fireside Chats." People panicked when Orson Welles reported an invasion from Mars. And fans cheered when they heard the crack of a wooden bat as Babe Ruth hit another home run.

The big, ugly, box prominently displayed in every living room was the collective source of imagination and entertainment, news and views, and hopes and dreams; more popular than newspapers, more accessible than Hollywood. This wave known as AM radio was as patriotic as apple pie.

Then television came along, and shoved radio into the background. FM's design created a better sound and a place for rock and roll, popular music and easy listening. That which drove radio's popularity in the past -- personalities, plays, news and sports -- slowly made way for music on the programming schedule.

What was left of AM was old fogies music, sports broadcasts, and a few all-news stations. Radio's audience was growing on the FM side of the dial and shrinking on the AM side. Then out of the rubble came news talk radio and a battery of DJs-turn-hosts, some partisan, some not. In recent years, a man emerged whose views almost single-handedly revived AM radio, and impacted American politics along the way. In his own style -- partisan, egotistical, humorous, gentlemanly and extremely knowledgeable -- Rush Limbaugh and the idea of controversial nationally syndicated talk hosts rejuvenated AM radio and hatched the news talk genre as a dominant medium.

Now, audiences of news talk grow stronger each year. Jerry Boehms of the KATZ Radio Group, which studies radio listenership, says AM radio claims a solid 30 percent of the market. "From an audience standpoint, the evidence is pretty clear-cut that it is growing and it is skewing |about 10 years~ younger than it has in the past," Boehms explained.

Limbaugh is its most popular, and except for David Duke, Pat Buchanan and a few local rowdies, he is its most controversial. The tale of his power and impact as well as that of the whole genre is convoluted at best. One announcer says the perception is that news talk is dominated by the conservative partisan talk hosts and depending on who you talk to, Limbaugh and his conservative peers are either the voice for rational, intelligent, conservative views, or Pied Pipers of fascism and ignorance. In his own words, he is a radio host who "always viewed radio as entertainment medium, part of showbiz."

Talk radio shows, in and of themselves, are enigmatic. Those who study the media say they are healthy because caller segments allow for a forum of public opinion. Yet campaigners fear this new forum because many hosts are not subtle with their biases, and they supposedly prey on what writer Michael Weiskopf characterized as followers which "are largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

Despite Weiskopf's demographically inaccurate portrayal of an audience that is actually fairly well educated, these hosts do foster anger against those in the ruling establishment and stir the emotions of large segments of the electorate.

The truth about talk radio's impact is not reflected in the corridors of Congress, in the pages of the Washington Post, nor in any talk host's self-proclamations. The truth is in the audience. And it's that audience which has the halls of government shaking all the way to the White House.

The Hush Rush Bill

Talk radio's effect on the electoral process is being felt all over the country, but nowhere more than Washington, DC. If the old saying is true that a person's power is measured by the number of his enemies, then partisan hosts are indeed powerful voices. When it comes to this perceived power, many members of Congress are like the citizens of Rome with Caesar's armies ready to cross the Potomac. "They are paranoid," says one Democratic official. "We're not just talking about some low level staffer, we are talking about the actual members of Congress."

All over talk radio, the buzzterm is the "Fairness Doctrine," and whether Congress should pass pending legislation mandating "balanced free speech." Congressional sources say the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993 is a simple codification of old doctrine, a standard demanding broadcasters to air both sides of a controversial argument. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center says the proclaimed "Hush Rush Bill" is designed to force Limbaugh-like shows off the air. Bozell believes station managers will have a hard time finding liberals who can match the popularity that the conservative hosts have produced, therefore managers will be forced to cancel conservative shows. Gigi Sohn, deputy director of the Media Access Project, downplays that fear by saying the controversy is a "flight of egotistical fantasy." With the call-in segments, she claims, these shows already fulfill the law's parameters.

Despite Sohn's minimization, concern over talk's impact will play a major role in the 1994 campaigns. A top Washington-based Democratic media consultant is already advising his candidates to set up phone banks to counter call-ins to conservative-dominated talk shows.

Tony Schwartz, a Democratic media consultant who is considered the nation's top political radio maestro, suggests local candidates should consider talk radio as a way for earning media coverage and saving money. He said there are three rules a candidate should follow with talk radio, "One, a candidate should try to be on live so you cannot be edited. Two, try to be on without your opponent being on the same talk show. And three, if you can find a host that knows something about what you're talking about, it makes for a good interview."

The Ugly Truth

Does this mean talk radio can impact the outcome of the 1994 elections? "In and of itself -- no," says Republican campaign professional Gordon Hensley. "Is it a factor? Yes."

Hensley said "If you use talk radio as a medium with which to complement your paid and earned media, it all falls into place as a collective strategy to influence the public. Competitive campaigns are won and lost in the margins. Anything you can do to affect the margin is important."

Will attempts to silence conservative talk hosts work? Hensley says no. The other side would be "better off putting together some phone banks."

Unfortunately, for those relying on talk radio to boost their campaigns, it just won't happen. Talk radio is every bit as propagandistic as any Congressional press release. The callers are all screened to enhance the show, not necessarily to poll or empower the listeners. "People often confuse the role that callers play in a great talk show. The primary purpose is to make me look good, not to allow a forum for the public to make speeches," Limbaugh says in his book The Way Things Ought To Be. "They must be passionate or interesting enough to hold the audience. If they are judged |by screeners~ unable to accomplish this, they are politely refused permission to go on air."

Randall Bloomquist, the Washington bureau chief and talk radio editor for the industry trade magazine Radio and Records, points out, "That shows the vulnerability of the system. What people hear on the radio is no more a pure reflection of what the public thinks than the op/ed section of the Washington Post. What you hear on talk radio is manipulated and refined."

Persuasion And Mobilization

Questions about the electoral power of talk radio remain largely unanswered by media and political surveys. Figuring out this puzzle must be done on two levels:

First, determining whether partisan talk radio is a persuasive force in politics. Can it convince voters to change their minds? Most observers answer no. They see the phenomenon as merely "preaching to the faithful."

Second, even if partisan talk shows only "preach to the faithful," do they mobilize voters in elections? Do they harden the intensity of partisan support? Do they help turn out voters who would otherwise not vote? On this point, there is much disagreement, though many campaign pros believe that talk radio has the power to serve this important function.

"The typical talk listener is 50 percent more hostile to the government than the population at large," Bloomquist said. Most studies say the audience listens for reinforcement and ammunition. And they like the idea someone in the media thinks like they do.

Some suggest there is one kind of election where radio talk shows may have a big persuasive impact, and that's on ballot issue propositions, where there are no partisan cues or candidates to get in the way. In local issue referendum campaigns, where detailed public information is usually scarce, a radio talk show host can help frame the public debate.

When you combine these two thoughts -- that partisan talk radio has its biggest impact on issue politics and the mobilization of true-believers -- it begins to explain why talk radio hosts are so effective in urging their listeners to write their legislators on pet issues. "Clearly in terms of pay raises and that sort of issue, talk radio all over the country is able to generate mail. There is a quantifiable impact," said media consultant Joe Slade White. "If talk radio goes on around the country about certain things they can generate some instant heat and reaction. You get Democrats and Republicans, Perot voters, Clinton voters and Bush voters all being against pay raises as opposed to being for or against candidates."

In other words, when directed to the right issue at the right time, talk radio is a formidable grassroots lobbying force.

Even though separate polls by U.S. News and World Report, Time and CNN showed more than 60 percent of the nation's adults and likely voters have listened to talk radio, the idea of talk radio controlling the public's opinion is debunked by polls published by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor any of his counterparts are the prophets of conversion they claim to be. The polls show them to be an entertaining source of information with a polarized audience. When the Tarrance Group and Mellman/Lazarus/Lake asked voters if Rush Limbaugh supported an issue or cause, would that make them more or less likely to support that issue or cause, nine percent said much or somewhat more and 12 percent said more or somewhat less, 49 percent said it would make no difference and 30 percent didn't know.

"I see very little evidence that talk radio has had much of an effect on American politics, or has any more than it ever had," said Bloomquist. "Virtually all the talk show hosts favored George Bush or Ross Perot. It's kind of funny isn't it. Neither one of those guys won, did they?"

He believes the reason talk radio has gotten the play it has is due to the mainstream media's need for story angles. This was demonstrated when the White House decided to start selling its health care reform program. No one thought about inviting talk show hosts for a briefing until a few days before knowing it was too late for most of them to make it. While in the White House, various cabinet members, the first lady and the President himself all made brief appearances. But the treatment of the hosts was at best shabby. While the President had lunch with newspaper columnists, the radio hosts were fed flattery and compliments by Tipper Gore. And when the president did show up (30 minutes behind schedule) he paid more attention to the newspaper and TV journalists who flocked in behind him than the radio people.

White says the very nature of radio's audience is too focused to really make a difference, "There is some anecdotal evidence that people listen in to hear the crazy callers |less than 15 percent of listeners polled say they have ever attempted to call a talk show~. It becomes as much as an entertainment medium as it is informational."

Whether partisan talk show hosts will have much of an impact on how people vote in the next election cycle is problematic, although it is unlikely they will have the big influence detractors fear. Nevertheless, use and manipulation of these shows will be high on the agenda of many campaign strategy meetings.

At their best, radio talk shows provide forums for candidates to discuss issues at length, to go beyond 30-second soundbite and to answer questions from regular voters. They supply a legitimate outlet for frustrated voters to express viewpoints that would otherwise go unheard. They stimulate awareness of news events and they open up the workings of government to public view. At their worst, they are platforms for illogical contention and uninformed simplifications; they may fortify widely held misjudgments and sustain hollow myths about complex public policy choices.

It was once said radio will never take the place of newspapers because you can't swat flies with it. Maybe not, but you can still do a lot bashing with it, as Rush Limbaugh and company have taught us. In any case, talk radio is here to stay. As long as people continue to tune in, it will have a place and serve a purpose.

RUN, RUSH, RUN?

Hidden behind inch-thick glass and an oversized microphone is a whale of a man buried beneath headphones, newspapers, notes and memos. Not the picture one expects for the man whose talent is "on loan from God." But he's the man the mainstream media has chosen to represent the partisan talk genre.

Born January 12, 1951 Rush "Rusty" Hudson Limbaugh III, talk radio's biggest foot forward helped the phenomenon grow so fast even the White House has opened a new press office dedicated to radio talk shows. Between the Gulf War and the 1992 elections, Jerry Boehms says Limbaugh-styled programs "have taken AM stations that were non-factors and made them factors. You can argue that it was an election year or you can blame it on the weather, but there is a lot of attention on the personalities that didn't exist a year ago."

In his hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Limbaugh lived a life not unlike many children of the 60s. He played football and spin-the-bottle. He was shy and generally overweight. The son of an ardent conservative Republican, he tended to be at odds with his peers. Not that he didn't take part in the decade's popular nuances -- according to Paul Colford, author of The Rush Limbaugh Story, he smoked marijuana, obtained a doctor's excuse to avoid the draft, and got his first job in rock and roll radio. But as the oldest of two sons, in a long family line of lawyers, he developed debate skills and talents that his friends could not match. All of which were honed by his domineering father.

From the beginning, Limbaugh's style was different, and his gift-of-gab didn't grab hold until he started working Sacramento, California, October 15, 1984. Never before had a station allowed him to be the irreverent ego-driven personality that he is today. But the management of KFBK-AM did, and Limbaugh's ratings grew steadily year after year. Now he's nationally syndicated, as are many talk hosts, and his audience numbers are rising. But what next?

Continue as a conservative icon, yes. Expand the largest radio talk show audience in American history, yes. Run for president of the United States? Well...

If there's power in numbers, then Limbaugh's numbers are impressive. Twenty million people listen to his radio show. More than 3 million people watch his TV program. More than 2.5 million people have bought his book. And more than 380 thousand subscribers have sent him $29.95 for his monthly newsletter. In comparative political terms, those numbers are serious. Limbaugh has twice as many radio listeners than George Bush had Republican primary votes in 1992. Twenty-five times as many people have bought his book than contributed to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign.

Nevertheless, the big question for Limbaugh-the-potential-candidate is whether these numbers can translate into votes as well as dollars. Most analysts and surveys indicate that they can't.

A national poll of 1000 voters taken by the Tarrance Group and Mellman/Lazarus/Lake asked, "Do you think Rush Limbaugh should, or should not, run for President?" a majority (57 percent) said no, while only 8 percent said yes. Many of his listeners (35 percent) did not know.

Bill Cullo, a senior associate for the Tarrance Group, which was commissioned by U.S. News and World Report for its story on Limbaugh, said the polling data suggests his listeners are not all dyed-in-the-wool believers. "His favorable and unfavorable numbers of 33/30 suggests his listeners are polarized. Not good. Not bad."

Another poll suggests Limbaugh doesn't come to mind as the country's chief executive to the average citizen. In March of 1992, Gallup asked 1222 adults, "If you could have your choice among anyone currently living in the U.S., who would you pick to be the next President?" Thirty-three percent said they didn't know, 23 percent said George Bush, 9 percent said Ross Perot, 8 percent Bill Clinton, 4 percent Jimmy Carter and on down the line. Where was Rush Limbaugh? Less than one percent. At least he was on the list.

Finally the kicker. When the Tarrance Group asked why Limbaugh's listeners tune to his show, most (28 percent) said because "he is fun and entertaining," 20 percent split evenly because "he gives better information," and "he represents my views." The shocker was that the key quality of "trust" was surprisingly low on the chart -- only two percent.

RADIO DAYS, RADIO NIGHTS

From the early hours of morning to the sleepless hours at night, radio talk shows are pulling in big audiences and providing "the silent majority" with a forum for political discussion. The range of personalities who host these shows are a diverse lot. Big names, faceless voices, ex-politicians, thoughtful authors, Watergate felons (e.g. Gordon Liddy), stuntmen, and even a few real journalists, have found their niche on the radio dial.

Some talk radio hosts are clearly partisan, unabashed clarions of conservative or liberal dogma. They dish out the "red meat" that is the stuff of high audience ratings. Others are more subdued and less ideological, preferring to leave opinion gushing to guests and call-ins.

National programs cover the spectrum, from the celebrated liberal-basher Rush Limbaugh, to the irreverent interviewer Don Imus, to the conversational social commentator Studs Terkel, to investigative sleuth Jack Anderson, to the offensively obscene Howard Stern, to the friend-of-the-famous Larry King.

In addition, there's Ronn Owens' "topic of the day" program, and a variety of interview and public affairs formats such as those hosted by Michael Jackson, Bruce DuMont, and Doug Stephan. Two political consultants, Republican Brad O'Leary and Democrat Vic Kamber, representing opposite ends of the ideological divide, have teamed up on NBC Radio Network, doing issue-oriented face-offs and politico interviewing.

Inheriting a famous name doesn't seem to hurt, either. Just ask Michael Reagan, as in son of The Gipper, who broadcasts on the American Entertainment Network a show that aims to educate with a "conservative but fair slant."

And if you think all outspoken talk jocks are conservatives, think again. There's liberal-and-proud-of-it Ellen Ratner, who campaigns against the death penalty and gets her kicks from roughing up Pat Robertson and the religious right.

At the local level, a lot of former elected officials have discovered the joys of radio land. Former San Diego mayor Roger Hedgecock has a popular, highly rated headline-driven show. Former Massachusetts Democratic Lt. Governor Marjorie Clapprood and conservative radio man Pat Whitley fight a good natured on-air tug-of-war in Boston. Even former New York mayor Ed Koch has gotten in on the act, as has former Louisiana legislator and Klansman David Duke, who hosts a show on a small station in suburban New Orleans.

Some shows are format driven, such as Teddy Bart's Roundtable in Nashville, which features a "fairness doctrine" combo of a liberal, a conservative, a reporter, and a fourth guest who hash out local and national issues. Others are personality oriented, such as Jack Cole in West Palm Beach, who touts himself as the "only liberal in America" and who applies offbeat humor to the issues of the day. "Windows" in Fort Wayne, Indiana, does without a regular host and revolves around guest jockeys who range from Baptist preachers to corporate moguls. Tacoma, Washington's Barbara Lord Nelson, the mother of five sons, is a media personality with a thirty-year track record, who has shown she can handle almost anything.

In San Antonio, Carl Wigglesworth showcases conservative pundits and spends a good deal of time attacking President Clinton's policies. Another conservative and a former congressional candidate, Mike Pearce in Indianapolis, pokes fun at politics and goes out of his way to show appreciation for "the other side."

Former Detroit Tigers pitcher Denny McLain is in the fourth year of hosting a morning drive-time show in Southfield, Michigan, and former cinema stuntman Les Jameson anchors a local issue-oriented format in Nashville. An ex-White House staffer named Mike Rosen covers everything from "soup to nuts" on a Denver AM station.

Political activists with microphones also abound. Boston's Jerry Williams sees "talk as a medium to organize." He mobilized listeners to protest repeal of a local seat belt law, helped defeat a congressional pay raise, and kept a state prison out of a rural Massachusetts community. When House Speaker Tom Foley tried to breeze in and out of Tampa, Florida, last August for a $1000-a-plate fund raiser, WFLA's Mark Williams dubbed it the "Let Them Eat Cake Dinner" and got 400 protestors to turn out.

Diane Rehm has interviewed a guest-list that reads like a who's who of famous politicians and cultural commentators on WAMU, based at American University in Washington, D.C. She was also the only local talkmiester who was included in Washingtonian magazine's Media Elite listing.

Some cities, like New Orleans, have a long, hot history of talk radio. Top AM news station, WWL, which was once owned by the Jesuits and the beneficiary of a special federal tax-exemption, features a morning and evening interview and call-in format with moderate liberal host David Tyree, as well as a day-part Limbaugh sound-alike named "JR". The city has also incubated popular politically oriented talk radio out of its rich ethnic culture, particularly on stations with large African-American audiences.

The talk industry, itself, has its captains and purveyors. Paul Lyle, president of the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts (who supplied a list of hosts for this article) and editor of its monthly newsletter "Open Line" runs "Good Morning Long Island." There's even a talk show about talk shows. Michael Harrison, the editor and publisher of trade publication Talkers Magazine, features a "radically moderate" spin as he examines the top ten talk topics of the week.

The list goes on and on. Hundreds of gabbers, from small rural communities to the largest metropolitan centers, too numerous to mention, feature popular talk shows of every flavor and brand -- something for every taste, a channel of influence for every persuasion.

Dittoheads of America, unite! You have nothing to lose but your frequencies!

COPYRIGHT 1993 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group