Radio, as a medium, has throughout its inception been host to many formats and variations of entertainment. Sound and voice are what makes radio programs memorable or not. One of the most important and long-lasting forms of radio Is the talk show format. This format features a person, or a group of persons discussing, commenting, or laughing at a variety of topics such as news or in some cases events taking place within the radio station. There are a few things that are important to note about talk radio. The rise of talk radio as a business model and the U.S. governments involvement. The peak of talk radio and how the various shows attracted audiences. And finally, the rise of conservative talk radio and the de facto ruler of such programs, Rush Limbaugh.
The biggest changes to radio over the years was deregulation and technology. Satellite was the biggest technological advancement. With them, according to Susan Douglas, “managers could choose what they wanted to broadcast and when from a variety of options, for less money than landlines” (528). This allowed them to record and store programs for later and to send other stations the program instantaneously. They were no longer limited to physical copies that could be perishable or lose quality such as tapes. This transition to digital sped up almost every part of the radio program production process. The first satellite that could be used for such purposes was NASA’s SYNCOM-II in 1963. However, the first private variations of such satellites came from Western Union in 1974 with RCA and AT&T launching several from 1980-1983 (Douglas 530). Because of the newfound ease of and speed of satellite programming, organizations such as NPR were now more easily able to produce and broadcast several programs at once that member stations were able to choose from. As satellites took over the deregulation under the Reagan administration became frequent. Mark Fowler was placed as head of the FCC by Reagan. Douglas points out that, “His mantra during his tenure as chairman of the FCC was to ‘eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations’” (531). Radio stations had their licensing period extended to seven years instead of three. And additionally, the government removed laws that required radio stations to allocate a certain amount of time to broadcasting public affairs programming. At the same time commercial time was lengthened and by 1985 the number of stations any single organization could own was increased from seven AM and FM each to twelve each. This limit increased even after the Reagan years in 1992 when the limit was increased to eighteen AM and eighteen FM stations that a single entity could own (Douglas 532).
This limitation was in place until 1996 with the passing of the Telecommunications Act. According to Berry and Sobieraj, “This law was largely aimed at reducing barriers to cross ownership of various media in an individual mark” (763). The removal of cross ownership limitations allowed companies to own as many stations as they could afford on a national level. However, there were still limits that applied to markets and “Today, the restrictions on ownership of the number of stations in a single market are set on a sliding scale” (Berry and Sobieraj 763). This scale depends on market size and for large markets such as New York or Los Angeles with forty- five or more stations one company could own up to eight. As Douglas puts it:
The interaction between such deregulation and satellite technology made possible a reversal of the trend that had characterized radio in the TV age-a de-networking and a focus on the local. Now there was a re-networking move, making the organization of radio look more like it did before World War II (534).
In the same vein Berry and Sobieraj point out that:
Owing to the regulatory restrictions in place before the Act, the radio industry was largely composed of “mom and pop” stations. A small company or family would own a station or two in a single market and would often have a strong presence in the community in philanthropy and civic affairs. After deregulation, however, a tidal wave of corporatization hit (763).
This widespread corporatization opened the gates for radio programs to reach audiences at a national level. At the same time the 1980s U.S. government and FCC abandoned the Fairness Doctrine which stipulated that broadcasters had the obligation to allow all opinions of public controversy during the broadcast (Douglas 536). This meant that conservative points of view could be broadcast, and no longer was it required to broadcast the liberal view and vice versa. Radio stations could effectively appeal to one audience and at the same time influence radio listeners with who they aired and when.
An important part in understanding the growth of talk radio is understanding the role funding takes. Radio shows are in large part funded by advertisers. And with the emergence of talk radio, advertisers changed what they focused on. According to Berry and Sobieraj. “Radio analysts believe the audience for talk radio is a more attentive audience than the audience for music, which is a boon for advertisers eager to capture the attention of increasingly distracted media” (764). Music radio became more of a background noise as music was able to be distributed more and more easily through the progression of individually owned forms of technology such as tapes, CDs, and later on digital formats. Talk radio listeners on the other hand pay attention to the program. They listen to what the host says and in general agree with what they say or at least are open to it. Some radio hosts such as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh read the advertisements. Berry and Sobieraj point out that, “If Glenn Beck says gold is a good investment, many in Beck’s audience are going to feel that he is giving trustworthy advice”. They also state, “For twice the normal rate of a commercial Rush Limbaugh will include the name of a product in his monologue” (765). It is easy to see the appeal that this type of format brings to advertisers. An attentive, willing audience with a very specific and large demographic.
This audience, for the most part, is dominated by white conservatives. And while liberal talk radio does exist it is not nearly as widely listened to as conservative radio. Douglas points out:
In fact, talk radio proved to be a decidedly white, male preserve in a decade when it became much more permissible to lash out at women, minorities, gays, lesbians, and the poor—the very people who had challenged the authority and privileges of men, of white people, of the rich and powerful, and of heterosexuals in the 1960s and 1970s. (Douglas 522)
Liberals, by modern definition are champions of the rights of women, minorities, gays, and the poor. It is clear that once the format became associated with conservatism the appeal for a liberal take or version would be met with disdain. The liberal/democrat demographic includes much of the Hispanic and African American population. However, these two groups prefer listening to their own communities programming instead of the general liberal programming. Each of these ethnic radio programs have their own music and talk show variations, and many from the Hispanic and African American communities would rather listen to that. At the same time, it is possible to see a fundamental gap between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are seen in surveys to be more distrustful of mainstream media, and as a result look for alternatives and end up landing on talk radio (Berry and Sobieraj 766). Berry and Sobieraj succinctly state, “In short, conservatives like talk radio because they believe it tells them the truth. Liberals appear to be much more satisfied with the mainstream media and are more likely to believe that it is accurate” (Berry and Sobieraj 766).
Another aspect of talk radio is the lack of limitations and ability to apply this to sound. Early talk show stars such as Howard Stern and Don Imus use sound, sound effects, and voice to create imagery. A quote Douglas book explains, “This return to the image-making capabilities of pure sound, whether subtle or gross, set these radio genres apart from beautiful music and Top 40” (Douglas 516). This use of sound to summon intense imagery and shocking subject matter propelled many stations to fame as many people found entertainment value in such programs. Because of this, “The number of radio stations with all-talk or a combined news and talk format quadrupled in ten years, from approximately 200 in the early 1980’s to more than 850 in 1994” (Douglas 517). Talk radio was able to both inform and entertain as many people listened for the humor and the news along with the rebellious nature of the format as it eschewed the sensibilities of stiff television newscasters. The basic format of a talk radio program is outlined by Richard Hofstetter et al, “Talk radio programs typically conform to the following script: an opening monologue by the host, sometimes followed by the introduction of a guest or guests, accompanied by interaction between the guest or host and callers” (17). This format allowed multiple interactions that were typically filtered in a way to increase entertainment value. A quick witted host could make speedy work of obnoxious callers or those callers of differing opinions.
Throughout the 80s and 90s dying AM stations switched from music to talk as advertisers had all but abandoned them in favor of higher quality FM streams. Talk radio did not require the sound fidelity of more expensive and newer FM stations and AM stations had nothing to lose and money to gain by switching to the talk format. These new stations followed the trend, “talk radio pursued controversy” (Douglas 520). Inflammatory remarks attracted the attention of listeners and following that the attention of advertisers. As mentioned in the last paragraph, provocative comments on various people groups draw in those that also feel disdain or contempt for them. At the same time, it can draw in more moderate listeners who merely find entertainment value in incendiary remarks and do not really care about not offending others. In some ways this can point towards political talk radio being labelled more as entertainment than true information. And because the entertainment value is more important than the validity of the information, misinformation can be spread. Richard Hofstetter states, “Despite enhancing the level of political information among audiences, political talk radio may also enhance political misinformation among the same groups” (108). In a talk radio show audience growth and retainment are key, and many hosts, especially “shock jocks” will say anything to maintain either.
While not every single show was conservative the vast majority were masculine in nature. Douglas states that, “80 percent of the hosts…are male” (521). She also explains, “There were different masculinities enacted on radio, from Howard Stern to Rush Limbaugh, but they were all about challenging and overthrowing, if possible, that most revolutionary of social movements, feminism.” (Douglas 521). It is possible to see this sort of antithesis to feminism in talk radio. Stern is especially known for bringing misogyny onto his shows. In a 2005 interview with Emma Bunton, a former spice girl, Stern, “…repeatedly makes vile remarks about Emma’s body and asks her humiliating personal questions, such as when she reached puberty and started her period to whether or not she has lost her virginity” (Dominguez 1). As a “shock jock” Howard Stern brought a show that did not care about modern feminism or decent behavior to a large male audience. It attracted many people that engaged in “locker room” talk and used vulgar language. This became a sort of hyper-masculine radio genre, where male hosts dominated the air and used abrasive language to insult or demean others for entertainment.
However, the biggest of radio hosts, soon became Rush Limbaugh. Barker and Knight state that, “The unquestioned leader of this format in the mid-1990s was Rush Limbaugh, whose syndicated show broadcast to between 15 and 20 million people a week on more than 660 radio stations” (151). In the Barker and Knight article studies are conducted and they find that, “These results suggest that as Limbaugh may successfully induce listeners to become more hostile toward particular ideas, personalities, and groups, he perhaps enjoys a modicum of success when trying to mobilize support for particular candidates” (169). It is evident that Limbaugh was able to use his radio show to build his audience and keep them there by giving them opinions and ideas in a way. This is evident in Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book on Rush Limbaugh, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. She points out that, “Limbaugh’s attacks on Buchanan capitalized on the fact that ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat’ are pejoratives in Limbaugh’s lexicon” (Jamieson ch.5). Regular listeners of his program buy into the ideas he espouses, and it seems to be rare to stop listening. In a 2008 study, researchers found that, “There are quite clear relationships between the political leanings expressed by media outlets and the political leanings of the audience” (Stroud 361). Opinion and media have a symbiotic relationship in which they both influence each other in some ways. However, the fairness doctrine was abandoned in the eighties, and liberals did not make a mainstream political talk radio program. These facts combined with the deregulation and widespread corporatism after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the door for Rush Limbaugh in a perfect way. These external factors meshed with the macho man climate and Limbaugh’s abrasive hosting all catalyzed into him ascending to the leading man in talk radio for quite some time.
The history of talk radio in America is an important an interesting one. Birthed from a combination of anti-regulation politics, hyper-masculinity, and technological advancements talk radio made its way into the public sphere as a popular form of entertainment and news. The biggest radio show for some time was the Rush Limbaugh show which was the epitome of all the things listed above. It was a perfect storm that benefited from new tech, de-regulation, and political climate in order to make a show with a large following that at its height was simultaneously controversial and popular.
Works Cited
Barker, David, and Kathleen Knight. “Political Talk Radio and Public Opinion.” The Public Opinion
Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 2, 2000, pp. 149–170. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3078813. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Berry, Jeffrey M., and Sarah Sobieraj. “Understanding the Rise of Talk Radio.” PS: Political
Science and Politics, vol. 44, no. 4, 2011, pp. 762–767. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41319965. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Douglas, Susan Jeanne. Listening in: Radio and the American Imagination. Univ. of Minnesota
Press, 2005.
Hofstetter, C. Richard, et al. “Information, Misinformation, and Political Talk Radio.” Rushed to
Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior, by David C. Barker, Columbia University Press, NEW YORK, 2002, pp. 106–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/bark11806.12. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall., and Joseph N. Cappella. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the
Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of
Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior, vol. 30, no. 3, 2008, pp. 341–366. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40213321. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Pieces of Cal and Peace of Mind 