Why talk radio is conservative

Public Interest, Summer, 2004 by William G. Mayer

However appealing this theory might be to the liberal ego, as an explanation for the ideological complexion of talk radio it is, not to mince words, preposterous. Let me grant, without hesitation, one major premise of this theory: A good deal of what passes for argument and analysis on conservative talk radio deals with complicated issues in a highly simplistic, sometimes misleading manner (though there are more exceptions to this generalization than is usually recognized). But would any fair-minded observer of American politics really claim that this is a uniquely conservative vice? For every simple-minded conservative slogan there is an equally vacuous catch-phrase on the Left. For every Republican who has ever claimed that "big government" is the cause of all our problems there is a Democrat who thinks that all Republican policies are "tax cuts for the rich" and sweetheart deals for big business. If the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are unlikely to be published in an academic policy journal, neither would the writings of Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, Jim Hightower, or Michael Moore.

Another explanation for the apparent conservative dominance of talk radio is that there are, in fact, liberal voices on radio--but they come from a generally overlooked source: the so-called "shock jocks" like Howard Stern, who talk a great deal about sex, in very explicit, foulmouthed terms to a younger, largely male audience. As Marc Fisher argued in a February, 2003 article in Slate, "Shock jocks are this country's progressive talkers, ranting for hours on end on behalf of civil liberties, sexual freedom, the rights of the little guy against the nation's big corporations and institutions (and--sorry, Dems--against affirmative action)."

As Table 1 affirms, many shock jocks do have a sizable national following. Three-Stern, Don Imus, and Tom Leykis--made Talkers' list of the top talk radio shows in the nation, though the total audience for all three shows combined (even assuming there is no overlap) is not as large as Rush Limbaugh's. But the real problem with this theory is its claim that shock jocks are closet liberals.

No one, of course, will ever claim that Howard Stern is a defender of traditional moral values, especially with regard to sex (though, by the same token, feminists who believe our culture treats women solely as sex objects can't be very pleased with him either). Stern also advocates liberal positions on most policy issues connected with sex, such as pornography and abortion. But that is pretty much the limit of Stern's liberalism. Howard Kurtz, the media reporter for the Washington Post, has provided the following summary of Stern's political views:

   He talked about how Social Security was a "big scam," being ripped
   off by retirees who were secretly working, and how his generation was
   "never gonna see it anyway." He denounced George Bush for being
   anti-abortion, saying any woman who voted for him might as well mail
   her vagina to the White House. He chatted with Gennifer Flowers. He
   said the L.A. police were right to beat Rodney King. He played the
   taped messages of a Ku Klux Klan organizer, ridiculing him at every
   turn. He pronounced O.J. Simpson guilty and wondered if a black jury
   would let him off the hook. He was anti-government, anti-drugs,
   anti-welfare, anti-immigrant. He made fun of blacks, Jews,
   homosexuals, and the handicapped.