Tue Mar 3 12:35:42 EST 2009
Yet Limbaugh, O'Reilly and, especially, Savage are just as controversial on
the "other" side as the Air America hosts were on theirs. Why didn't the
advertisers shy away from those shows from the start, sinking them the way
they apparently sank Air America? Is the brand-loyal portion of the audience
overwhelmingly conservative? (Could be. I've often heard that Nascar's big
appeal to corporate America is that its fans will blindly buy whatever
product is splashed on their favorite drivers' hoods -- as if Jeff Gordon
actually _likes_ Tide. <rolls eyes>) Or is the liberal philosophy simply
considered anti-corporate at heart?
I lean liberal, but I hardly ever listen to talk radio, and when I do, it's
usually to Rush or Savage, just to see what the other side is saying. It
doesn't have anything to do with entertainment value, it's more that I don't
need to hear someone on the radio telling me things I already know or
offering me opinions I already have. The whole "ditto-head" phenomenon
baffles me. Does it baffle some conservatives, too?
Kevin Vahey wrote:
> Fair to say Proctor and Gamble didn't spend very much on Air America.
> on the other hand NPR does well with liberal contributions
> On 3/2/09, Keating Willcox <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Even when the left gets ratings, a number of corporate advertisers
> > refuse to advertise on left-leaning talk shows.
> > Our advertisers refuse to go on any controversial shows. I believe this
> > makes sense for them, as none of them want to go down the path of Don
> > Imus problem. BTW his wife Deidre was on Laura today and she is a
> > delightful, well-spoken, and superb guest...
> > Sincerely,
> > Keating Willcox
> > WNSH AM 1570
> > Women's Talk Radio, For Women, By Women
> > www.wnsh.com 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest