Politico reporters Ken Vogel and Lucy McCalmont had an interesting, well-reported story Wednesday about the inner workings of what’s been called the “right-wing marketplace.” Their lede:
If you’re a regular listener of Glenn Beck’s radio show and you wanted to contribute to a political group that would advance the populist conservative ideals he touts on his show, you’d have plenty of reason to think that FreedomWorks was your best investment.
But if you’re a fan of Mark Levin’s radio show, you’d have just as much cause to believe that Americans for Prosperity, a FreedomWorks rival, was the most effective conservative advocacy group. And, if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are who you listen to, you’d be hearing a steady stream of entreaties to support the important work of the Heritage Foundation.
That’s not coincidence. In search of donations and influence, the three prominent conservative groups are paying hefty sponsorship fees to the popular talk show hosts. Those fees buy them a variety of promotional tie-ins, as well as regular on-air plugs - praising or sometimes defending the groups, while urging listeners to donate - often woven seamlessly into programming in ways that do not seem like paid advertising.
That interweaving, the story notes, can take the form of the hosts’ defending the credibility of their sponsors—such as Limbaugh vouching for Heritage’s conservative bona fides despite the think tank’s former support for an individual health insurance mandate. Alternately:
Some sponsorship deals also include so-called “embedded ads” in which the sponsors’ initiatives are weaved into the content of the show, say sources familiar with the arrangements, while the hosts have been known to feature officials from their sponsoring groups on their shows, though the sources say that’s not typically part of the arrangements.
And the sponsors seem to be getting their money’s worth: Heritage tells Politico that its connections with Limbaugh and Hannity have yielded 40,000 new memberships, while FreedomWorks attributes a big spike in Web traffic to its sponsorship of Beck’s show.
This is not entirely shocking, but it’s interesting stuff. As for What It All Means-well, that may depend on whether your interpretive frame is the conservative political world or the broader mediasphere.
In a post on Greg Sargent’s “Plum Line” blog, Jonathan Bernstein takes the former tack, writing:
What’s going on here that there’s simply a lot of money to be made in the relatively small but amazingly lucrative market niche of catering to enthusiastic movement conservatives (what my brother David S. Bernstein calls the conservative marketplace). Normal political incentives are still important in determining how politicians act — Hill Republicans move to the right because they’re terrified that they will be the next Bob Bennett, the Utah Senator who was defeated for renomination by obscure Tea Party candidate, now Senator, Mike Lee. But the fact that there’s easy money to be had by being a famous (or perhaps notorious) conservative adds a whole other set of incentives to act extreme.
In short: In today’s conservative marketplace, crazy equals money.
One consequence, Bernstein writes, is the creation of “an incentive structure that is at times very different from the usual reelection motive”—which, though he doesn’t quite come out and say it, may mean this well-funded partisan infrastructure sometimes undermines the GOP’s electoral prospects.
- 1
- 2
Ahem…Ahem…
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 05:54 PM
Greg asks: "why conservatives built their media infrastructure around talk radio in the first place."
padikiller answers: Three reasons.
1. Because the majority of Americans are conservative,
2. Because talk radio is interactive, and
3. Because liberals can't control talk radio - it's too distributed and fluid.
Liberal nonsense can't survive scrutiny, and talk radio is all about open and detailed scrutiny. The "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" thing and the "we have to spend our way out of bankruptcy" doublespeak may go unquestioned in the WaPo or or the Times, but not by millions of callers biting at the bit to be heard.
A bunch of liberal MSM editors can get together and tank the John Edwards story... Or ignore Obama's cocaine use... Or Kerry's secret Cambodian "mission"...
But talk radio is wide open and distributed to a network of tiny AM stations that are very much in tune with demand.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 07:35 PM
Padkiller: "Derpity derp."
Thimbles: I love that story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segRtA6gLfI
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 08:18 PM
Well NOW I'm a convert!
You liberals sure do have Limbaugh on the ropes!...
Now is just the perfect time to resurrect Air America (version 4.0). This time we'll have millions of listeners calling in to support higher taxes, bigger government, diminished military strength and increased borrowing. Those conservatives will see the light, as I have, and flood the phones!
I could never have seen the light, had not Thimbles provided such authoritative proof of conservative talk radio's demise from his Youtube pundit, the "Young Turk".
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 07:12 AM
There's a lot to chew on here but I think if the guild explanation of journalistic "objectivity" held any water there would be (or, at least, have been) an effective guild. I don't recall a time when there were any barriers to entry in the journalism field. I know employers like to see a college degree but it's by no means mandatory even now, when it is expected that (somehow) everyone will go to college.
So objectivity, so-called, is best understood as a confection of the monopoly moment. Defense of it can be fairly conflated with defense of the old newspaper monopolies.
Broadcast radio's economic model proved that payola and vertical integration worked long before the rise of right-wing talk. In the beginning it was less clear that such a model could sustain the print or on-line media, on the theory that the written word affords thought and reflection in a way the broadcast does not.
But that has changed. Pace Padiwacker, the right's magic has been in changing the culture so that a substantial plurality of people believe insane things such as, say, taxes=theft and that all government regulation is harmful.
The right-wing model was always to delegitimize the monopoly media with propaganda, and to nurture and support all of its soldiers, even its Fredo Corelones. Dinesh D'Souza is today cited routinely as an academic and thinker, and even Jonah Goldberg makes money with his book of "secret history."
Cowering under the charge of "liberal bias," mainstream journalists who cling to objectivity treat reactionary propagandists like intellectuals, giving them legitimacy they never earned. The propagandists monetize this and return with new charges of bias. The cycle of anti-intellectual hysteria has spun like a centrifuge for 30 years, concentrating the money and power in the thickest and lowest part of society and creating a new formula for success in media and politics.
Indeed, "crazy=$."
#5 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 08:38 AM
Edward has hit the nail on the head...
All the people who listen to talk radio are crazy because they won't see the plain and obvious benefit of higher taxes and bigger government.
Glad we've got it figured out!
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 09:06 AM
Ya' know, for a group that shouts with a bullhorn from every hilltop they can scurry up that liberal money (ie: Soros) distorts journalism, it's amazing that conservatives don't account for the effect with their own institutions. In their universe, there's left wing bias (“the stuff I don't agree with”), and then there's fair and balanced (“the stuff I agree with”).
"What? Think tanks, who are beholden to rich donors, give money to conservative talk radio? What? And those sponsored programs then air views which align with those rich donors, spreading them amongst their audience? What? Then the indoctrinated ditto heads feed back to the think tanks, becoming their water cooler proselytizers and foot soldiers? Really?"
I'm shocked I tells ya'.
It's not about "new revenue opportunities", it's about the old wingnut welfare system. When did the Washington Times EVER care about revenue. It's not about money, it's about message.
And the fact is the conservative message is a hodge podge mess of social conservatism mixed with fiscal conservatism, neo-conservatism, libertarianism, etcetra-ism.. principles which would collide with one another if there weren't people to organize the audience to support which principles on which day.
The think tanks organize the hodge podge so that it supports the interest of the think tanks backers. This can lead to conflicts like the ones we're seeing between the Chamber of Commerce (supported by Wall Street bankers) and Freedom Works (backed by the Kochs) over the debt ceiling, but most of the time you see corporate America speak with one voice - roll back the unions, roll back the welfare state (for the middle class and poor), open borders to trade, cut taxes, stop regulation, subsidize the operations of the big companies, and fluff the republican party any way you can.
The principles you can assemble any way you like, so long as the priority interests are served.
It's like the old Charlie Sykes producer said:
http://www.insidemilwaukee.com/Article/242011-SecretsofTalkRadio
“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 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.
Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s 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.
A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine... But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party.”
Pt 2 in a jiff
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 11:15 AM
What's the ROI on this operation?:
“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.”
Oh, I was wondering whatever happened to the DEATH TAX.
Talk radio isn't about money, it's about mobilizing a militant minority to get desired policies on their behalf. The money is gravy.
“You liberals sure do have Limbaugh on the ropes!”
*smirks*
http://video.foxnews.com/v/995124022001/rush-limbaugh-makes-big-announcement/?playlist_id=162223
Somebody needed some new revenue opportunities.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 11:28 AM
Yeah...
Rush is hurting for money... Sure he is.
"Rush Limbaugh is one of the most popular and highly compensated radio talk show hosts in the world with a net worth estimated at $300 million and an annual salary north of $35 million."
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rush-limbaugh-net-worth/
You guys need to lay off your crack pipes.
Talk radio isn't in decline any more than radio itself is in decline.
Limbaugh and Beck are each at the forefront of podcasting and alternative internet programming.
Conservative talk show hosts who are dropped in local markets aren't being replaced with liberal hosts - at least not to any appreciable extent - there may be an isolated example or two, though I even doubt that. Instead they're being traded up for other conservative hosts.
But once again... We digress.
We're off on one of Thimbles' dodges again.
The issue wasn't whether or not talk radio is growing... The issue is why do conservatives dominate talk radio.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 01:59 PM
Maybe it's because finding ways to say "Barack the magic Negro" on the public air is so cool and hip.
Negro Negro Negro Thug.
Am I cool and hip yet?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 08:03 PM
Thimbles...
The "Magic Negro" thing started in the L.A. Times...
Are you a David Ehrenstein fan?
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 09:11 PM
"Thimbles...
The "Magic Negro" thing started in the L.A. Times"
Suuuure it did. I bet Mr. Rush was communicating the exact same message to his audience that David Ehrenstein did.
I could tell by the giggling whenever they heard "Obama" and "Negro" together on the radio.
and in other news:
Tea
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/16/pay_play_rush/index.html
Hee
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/24/limbaugh_ratings/index.html
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 18 Jun 2011 at 02:42 AM
padikiller wrote: The "Magic Negro" thing started in the L.A. Times"
Thimbles babbles: Suuuure it did.
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell: It suuuure did, pal. Read it and weep:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story
You will not find any reference from Limbaugh to Obama as the "Magic Negro" except in response to this opinion piece in the Times.
Sorry, dude... That's just the inconvenient truth here.
Nice try, but no cigar.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Jun 2011 at 08:37 AM
Dude, I know you want to excuse it, but there's a big difference between a black columnist using the term "negro" and a couple of white guys
http://www.paulshanklin.com/aboutpaul.html
on hate radio doing it.
If the difference is to subtle for you to get,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface
there's nothing more to say.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 18 Jun 2011 at 06:14 PM
So it's OK for a black columnist to label a black candidate as an "Uncle Tom" or a "Magic Negro"... But it's not OK for a white columnist to do the same thing?
You're advocating a race-based standard for such criticism? Seriously?
How do you propose implementing such a standard? What makes one "black" enough to be able to make such a comment?
Of course such a racist standard is as unpractical as it is pigheaded.
When it comes down to it, most liberals share these kind of racist views.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Jun 2011 at 06:42 PM
Make that "as impractical as it is pigheaded"..
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Jun 2011 at 07:47 PM
Where do you "professional journalists" stand on Thimbles' claim that only a journalist who is "black" enough has the right to make a racially disparaging comment upon a presidential candidate?
Huh?
I mean... What are we going to do? Have a DNA test? Every single candidate needs to be graded as to race and then all the "professional journalists" submit their DNA samples for analysis before we determine which of these "professionals" are entitled to make racial criticisms of the candidate in question?
Do we have a pigmentation test? A "paper bag" test? If you're lighter than a paper bag (of some particular beige hue to be determined by liberals like Thimbles) then you're prohibited from commenting on the race of the candidate?
Liberals propound this kind of hypocrisy and it's about time you guys deal with it.
If you're a "white conservative" from Detroit and if you say that women should stay home and raise kids... Then you're a Nazi chauvinist pig.
But if you're a radical Islamist imam from Detroit who says the same thing and who also states that women are objects to be exploited by men and that women should be denied basic rights: the right to divorce, the right to vote, the right to drive, etc.... Not a damned peep.
Same thing with homosexuals.
If you're a Christian minister in Iowa who says that homosexuality is evil, then you're a homophobic Nazi, but if you're a Muslim in Des Moines who says the same thing, and who also adds that gays should be stoned to death... No problem..
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 19 Jun 2011 at 08:50 PM
You're going full on racial white knight, eh paddy?
If you don't get the difference between a white dad saying "Hey boy." to his son and a white police officer saying "Hey boy." to a black pedestrian, then you aren't going to understand. Words mean different things depending on who's speaking them and the context they're spoken in. Pretend whatever you like to defend what Rush and his white minstrel meant, it's not going to sell.
It's not like people can't use YouTube and hear exactly what was said and what was meant by it for themselves.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 02:55 AM
ps. No lib defends Muslim intolerance / prejudice, and certainly not more than white christians who engage in fhe same bs.
You are making crap up.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 04:09 AM
Thimbles...
We already know that you advocate a race-based standard for "professional journalists".
The question is how you can implement such a racist standard in practice?
If Herman Cain had parodied the L.A. Times with "Barack the Magic Negro", instead of Rush Limbaugh, would that have been OK with you"? What about Michelle Malkin? Is she brown enough to make such a comment?
What level of skin pigmentation is required to pass the test, Thimbles?
What about albinos? Do blind "professional journalists" get a pass?
We need a policy, man!
As for liberal intolerance, I'll let an enlightened liberal do the heavy lifting for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 05:14 AM
Remember the Mohammed cartoons?
The ones CNN, NBC and the N.Y. Times all refused to show out of "respect for Islam"?
Of course anti-semitic cartoons were just fine TV fodder.
So was the Virgin Mary imaged in cow dung.
So go peddle your "no liberal is defending Islam" schtick somewhere else, Thimbles.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 05:27 AM
Look, I'm not going to respond to your made up fantasies about what I advocate or not, but if you think singing 'tip toeing on the full out racist border' songs and broadcasting day by day racially iffy garbage popular amongst the young demographics, then you and conservative radio is in for a surprise, That was the original point, I believe.
"The ones CNN, NBC and the N.Y. Times all refused to show out of "respect for Islam"?"
Yeah, while American troops were also occupying Muslim countries and while American military strategy was trying to win over muslim hearts and minds, the American media did not do things to instigate Muslim anger which would use American soldiers and workers as its target.
There's a difference between using caution in a delicate situation and picking a side within that situation.
There is also a difference between respecting personal beliefs that are expressed in ways that don't affect others and defending extremists who utilize terror, prejudice, lies, and rage to justify attacking others.
There are segments of American society which attack muslims without regard to how they express their belief, putting them all in the extremist category.
There are segments of American society which attack christians without regard to how they express their belief, putting them all in the extremist category.
There are segments of American society which attack liberals without regard to how they express their belief, putting them all in extremist categories.
A reasonable person should be allowed to defend these segments of a population without being accused of defending extremists or failing to call out the extremist failings.
And if the conservative position is opposed to "higher taxes, bigger government, diminished military strength and increased borrowing." then it should be opposed to the use of government resources and extraordinary government powers to detain and persecute people who were not extremists and pose no threat to American security. It should be opposed to the people who advocate for such in the name of prejudice, lies, rage and terror.
But you don't find those voices on right wing talk radio. You find dumb things like "Barack the Magic Negro". If you think that is going to appeal to the rational, reasonable youths who'll watch a Jon Stewart rerun they've seen so often they can lipsynch it before they give Hannity 5 minutes of their time (and voted for a black man with Hussein in his name in 2008), tell 'complete irrelevance' I said hello. You'll likely be stuck together for a while.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 06:33 AM
Thimbles wrote: Look, I'm not going to respond to your made up fantasies about what I advocate or not
padikiller notes: Of course you're not... And there is nothing "made up" here.
You plainly espouse a racist position - namely that "black" journalists are entitled to express opinions that "white" journalists are forbidden from expressing. That's what YOU said, Dude. You own it.
This kind of intolerance plagues the left side of politics. Ad hominem (one of your favorite tools) is a prime example. Calls for banishment or censorship (another of your specialties) are also leftist favorites. Whether it's a pie in the face for Ann Coulter, a bullet in the office of Eric Cantor, tires slashed on GOP vehicles in Chicago, voter fraud. etc, etc, etc... Violence, crime and intolerance are hallmarks of leftist politics.
Why?
Because democracy won't get leftists anywhere. The leftist agenda - more taxes, bigger government, diminished American power and influence, etc, doesn't suffer scrutiny and fair debate. So it becomes necessary for lefties to bypass debate and deliberation.
Yours is an ignorant and indefensible position - I didn't actually expect you address it or to respond to my request for an explanation - indeed that's why I'm hammering away exposing your racism for what it is. The more you attempt to ignore it with your trademark dodges, the more clearly your racism becomes.
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 08:40 AM
Thimbles wrote: If you think that is going to appeal to the rational, reasonable youths who'll watch a Jon Stewart rerun they've seen so often they can lipsynch it before they give Hannity 5 minutes of their time (and voted for a black man with Hussein in his name in 2008), tell 'complete irrelevance' I said hello
padikiller responds: There are those who will never listen to reason.. But any reasonable person will see your racism for what it is, Thimbles.
#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 08:47 AM
"padikiller responds: There are those who will never listen to reason.. But any reasonable person will see your racism for what it is, Thimbles."
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/images/7/73/Trollface.png
We're done trollolol.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 11:30 AM
Thimbles has pulled the ad hominem rip cord, I see...
Typical cowardice on his part.
Nonetheless, I'd still like to know if any of the journalists here agree with his contention that the right to comment on race depends upon the race of the commentator.
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 02:40 PM
Y u no make sense?
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Jun 2011 at 09:57 PM