As the electorate expands, as society evolves, America’s voice changes. This past election saw the most ballots cast of any election previously. A more diverse electorate made their voices heard, the result of which surprised Democrats and Republicans alike. News media makes attempts to predict the outcome, based on that outcome, it tries to interpret the meaning. Pundits speculate why certain districts vote one way or another, feeling the pulse of America. To simplify this process, surveys often break America down into demographics: race, age, gender, education, and location to pinpoint exactly which section of voters campaigns will target. As this process continues, the fate of elections begins to rest on specific demographics, particularly the “minority” vote.
Over the last few years, pollsters and newsrooms have zeroed in on non-white demographics to get a better picture of how these demographics will vote. In the weeks leading up to the election newsrooms bombard viewers with polls, surveys, and pundits who try and anticipate which way these elections will go, but how reliable are they? Despite polls that were favorable towards Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, Trump ended up winning more electoral votes.
Our expectations for how states will vote end up being very different from reality. While Joe Biden received the most votes out of any candidate in history, Trump received the second most votes performing better than expected in key battleground states. A columnist for the Los Angeles Times points out that a lot of Latinos voted for Trump in the 2020 election.
“Preliminary exit polls show that Trump didn’t just hold his Latino support from 2016; he built on it. Some have him winning 32% of Latino voters. Others peg the number at 27%. That’s still a Biden wipeout. But those Latino Trumpers delivered Florida to their caudillo, saved Texas, and damped Biden’s chances in swing states like Georgia and North Carolina.”
These results left Democrats scratching their heads, challenging the assumption that Latinos will reliably vote liberal. The days following the election saw newsrooms scrambling to explain how and why their numbers ended up being wrong.
Reporters of color often called to act as envoys to their communities. Reporters like Joy Reid, Van Jones, and Anna Navarro are supposed to create a narrative to explain why BIPOC voters vote red or blue, or not at all. These narratives should be digestible for viewers but often their presence can over-simplify the situation.
Latinx figures and reporters have been called to newsrooms when there hasn’t been much attention to the demographic leading up to the election. Eva Longoria recently came under fire for the claim that Latinas were the saviors of this election rather than Black women. While the statistics say differently (an overwhelming percentage of Black women voted for Biden).
|Black men 4%||19||79|
|Black women 8%||9||90|
|Latino men 5%||36||59|
|Latino women 8%||30||69|
One can challenge the veracity of her statement because the numbers just aren’t there to support it. The more alarming pattern is the expectation that Eva Longoria’s opinions should reflect those of Latinx voters. The expectation that social and political figures of color speak the same language. The issue at hand touches something emotional, a candidate wins or loses a race, the finger is pointed at minority voters. White voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
|White men 35% of voters||61||38|
|White women 32%||55||44|
“Despite his gains among voters of color, Trump’s base has always been white people. That didn’t change in 2020 when a majority of white voters backed him. And since white voters comprise the majority of the electorate — 65 percent according to Edison Research — they make up by far the largest bloc to support him. Black and Latinx voters, meanwhile, make up 12 and 13 percent, respectively.” (VOX)
Why aren’t White political figures, celebrities, or former officials being interrogated for that?
What is happening has been happening for generations in the voting booth. The disenfranchisement of minorities participating in the democratic process starts with the media’s coverage of them. How would anyone react to being blamed for how well or poorly a candidate performs in their demographic?
The day after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were projected as President and Vice-president elect, Van Jones cried on CNN saying that he could now tell his children that truth and goodness prevailed. Wherever Van Jones lands politically on the spectrum, would there be any other situation in which his reaction would be acceptable?
While the divisions in our country won’t resolve themselves in one administration, this is still a symbolic victory for women of color. Supporting someone means celebrating their victories and encouraging them through defeats. While I disagree with some of Kamala’s policies throughout her political career, why is our first instinct to try and qualify her victory with asterisks?
BIPOC people are not allowed to be complicated in the same way that whites are. The terms by which BIPOC people are allowed to participate are ultimately decided by white people, doling out representation to whom they deem worthy. How can Newsrooms preach inclusivity while still working in a top-down structure? Media corporations try to commodify identity, they hire spokespeople, trying to appeal to viewers who share that identity. When you aren’t of the same opinion there’s no way to win. When a BIPOC person enters a white space, they pay a higher price for commonplace behavior.
The Future of News/Talk – Part 1
Part one of a series seeking to find the answers to the question, ‘What’s the future of news/talk radio?’
As I’ve mentioned before, spoken word media is very much at a crossroads.
The passing of Rush Limbaugh, in a way, was symbolic of the proverbial “fork in the road” that the news/talk format is currently staring at.
With that in mind, the question needs to be asked; what is the future of news/talk radio?
Oh, I forgot, “radio” is a dirty word these days. I should have said news/talk MEDIA.
Over the next few weeks, we’re embarking on a multi-part series to find the answers.
As I’ve often said, when tough questions like this are asked, I enlist the help of people that are far smarter than yours truly. We’ll get the perspectives of people from all sides of the industry, from talent to management to sales and beyond.
For part one of our series, we turn to a consultant.
Phil Tower has had an impressive career in broadcast media.
He’s been a host in multiple formats, worked in management at various levels and has also spent nearly 30 years as an Adjunct Professor of Communications and Mass Media at several different colleges.
On a side note, he’s also someone that, for years, I could never get a hold of.
Tower has owned and operated his own media consultancy in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan for the last decade. I remember him as the guy I would listen to on WOOD-AM and WLAV-FM. As an aspiring radio nerd, teenage me tried to call him, introduce myself and get his advice on how I could do what he did.
Naturally, I never got past the secretary who worked the switchboard at the radio station.
Thanks to the power of social media, Phil and I finally connected a few months ago. Now, after all this time, I can finally get his advice.
With the passing of Rush, many of his affiliates seem to have been left in limbo. What do you think iHeart’s plans will be for that time slot?
Premiere Networks has already been very public about the fact that they are going to continue to honor the legacy of Rush by continuing to keep the show going by utilizing a strong lineup very talented fill-in hosts (Ken Matthews, Todd Herman, Brett Winterble, Mark Steyn) that are already very familiar voices for his audience. I think this is a very wise strategy for Premiere Networks to employ. Rush Limbaugh was bigger than life and his show aired for 30+ years. Given that, Premiere has a treasure trove of timeless audio cuts from Rush Limbaugh that will still be relevant given whatever topic A is for a given day.
What should Limbaugh affiliates be doing right now?
The smartest move is to be patient and stay the course. I highly doubt there will be a serious ratings degradation for the short term and maybe even longer. A few stations have already made the move to launch local shows and while that may work in the long run, often when stations introduce a new show and host to the audience, they take a much bigger risk of losing ratings and revenue.
There will be syndicated options in that time slot (Cumulus is offering Dan Bongino). Would stations be better served to look for LOCAL alternatives?
Unless they already have a well-established local option, I would advise stations to look at the offering of syndicated choices if they can’t lock up the Rush Limbaugh Show for their market. I firmly believe that the next 12 to 18 months will present a much clearer picture of how the spoken word format will evolve after the passing of such an iconic host. At the same time, I don’t think Rush will ever truly “disappear from relevance” given the long-lasting impact he has had on the spoken word format.
For stations (even smaller market ones) that want to look for a local solution to Limbaugh, where could they look?
Unless they have a strong option already existing in house, I would look at successful news journalists, TV hosts with a strong brand and popularity in their own market. There may also be options in terms of local bloggers/podcasters who are especially successful as social influencers. I think it’s very important to look at talent who can express themselves confidently both as a speaker and writer. Writing skills are more important than ever.
There are over a million podcasts cluttering the spoken word space right now. How can terrestrial stations continue to stand out with so many different content choices?
The battle for “share of ear” Is as intense as it ever has been. Terrestrial stations can stand out by super serving their listeners and by being available on multiple platforms and reminding their listeners of that daily. I think it’s also very critical that successful terrestrial brands make all of their shows contact available as podcasts. I also strongly urge them to go one step beyond that by encouraging/pushing local hosts to create standalone content for podcast. Loyal listeners have already demonstrated they want this content. In the iHeartRadio ecosystem, the practice of hosts creating standalone content for digital was the norm. That discipline should become standard practice for every spoken word talent looking to extend their personal brand. I’m very bullish and always hopeful that brighter days are ahead for the spoken word format. The one huge upside to the podcasting boom is that it has by default become a new massive incubator for talent. Every smart programmer in this format should be aware of who is hosting standout podcasts in their region and they should be paying attention to those talent. I’m also especially hopeful that the format will be more welcoming to women. Lots of women are creating great dynamic content and killing it as podcasters and there’s no reason that many of them couldn’t be as successful in live radio. I don’t care if they have a political bent or they’re just unique people who are strong storytellers. In the end, women hosts deserve more seats at the talk radio round table.
Simone Says Media Fans the Flames of Racism
“Things are bad enough right now, but the media is making it worse,” Simone said on Tuesday’s edition of The Mark Simone Show heard on New York’s WOR. “Not every tragedy that happens is racially motivated.”
Unlike some conservative radio hosts, Mark Simone readily admits that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed in America, but also calls on the media to stop “fanning the flames of racism”.
“Things are bad enough right now, but the media is making it worse,” Simone said on Tuesday’s edition of The Mark Simone Show heard on New York’s WOR. “Not every tragedy that happens is racially motivated. Some are and that needs to be addressed. But the media jumps to push a certain narrative and I think it’s dangerous.”
Simone uses the recent shooting death of African-American Daunte Wright by Caucasian police officer Kim Potter. According to reports, during a traffic stop Potter meant to taser Wright, who was allegedly resisting arrest, but instead mistakenly pulled her firearm and fatally shot Wright Potter has since resigned her position, and as of Wednesday morning, according to The New York Times, the shooting was ruled “an accidental discharge”.
“What happened was a horrible, tragic and stupid,” Simone said. “How does a 25 year veteran of the police force confuse a taser and a gun? That should not happen. It was an idiotic mistake and she should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. But was it racially motivated? I don’t think so.”
Simone blames the media for rushing to judgment before all the facts are known.
“I would ask them to stop it, but I know they won’t,” he said. “The media is married to the BLM movement. On the surface Black Lives Matter sounds like a positive thing, but in reality, when paired with the media, it is a dangerous combination that fans the flames of racism instead of settling them down.”
Simone adds that this coupling of the media with BLM leads to bias reporting.
“There have been 17 cops killed just this year,” he said. “In one of the most horrific videos I’ve seen, a police officer was shot and killed at a traffic stop by a man with an assault rifle. Why isn’t that video the lead story for Lester Holt and NBC News? Why doesn’t CNN or MSNBC cover that story? Because it doesn’t fit the narrative of racism. We all know that there is a small percentage of bad cops out there, but they treat everybody badly. They are overaggressive and demeaning. That’s just the way they act and that doesn’t change based on skin color.”
Project Veritas Fights Back
Project Veritas filed a lawsuit against the New York Times late last year, and Sean Hannity invited O’Keefe on his Friday radio program to share the details of recent developments.
James O’Keefe leads perhaps the most successful undercover journalism operation in the country today, Project Veritas. Time and time again, he and his group have done the job most in the media no longer want to do – holding those in power accountable and uncovering the truth that these entities hide from the public.
It is true that many Americans feel that today’s mainstream media serves as little more than an advocacy appendage of the liberal left. O’Keefe and his supporters, meanwhile, believe it is his organization that does the job the media no longer cares to do.
Project Veritas filed a lawsuit against the New York Times late last year, and Sean Hannity invited O’Keefe on his Friday radio program to share the details of recent developments.
Last month, a New York judge refused to dismiss the suit, implying that it had “substantial basis in law to proceed.” The move in no way foreshadows the suit’s ultimate outcome, but it was such a big development in favor of Project Veritas that former president Donald Trump personally congratulated O’Keefe in a video recorded at Mar-a-Lago.
Fox News reported online in March that the “judge denied the paper’s motion to dismiss the suit by the right-wing guerilla news outlet over the Times’ portrayal of Project Veritas’ reporting on alleged voter fraud in the congressional district represented by Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. last fall. Times reporters Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu described Project Veritas’ reporting as “deceptive,” “false,” and “with no verifiable evidence.” Fox News also quoted the judge as saying, “The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice.”
“James O’Keefe comes under constant, never-ending, non-stop fire. There have been more lawsuits, attempts to silence, cancel, shut down his operation,” Sean Hannity pointed out on his radio program last week. “The untold story here is that every single time that these accusations are made against his organization, or they’ve tried to take Project Veritas to court, that’s just another tactic of trying to silence people…they’ve won. They’ve never once lost a lawsuit against them.”
Hannity also mentioned the high price O’Keefe has paid so far to fight back in this particular battle against the well known newspaper.
“Yes it costs a lot of money, it’s cost us a quarter million dollars to get to this phase of the litigation,” O’Keefe said. “We’ve taken on the New York Times and their army of lawyers and we’ve won this historic motion in the State of New York Supreme Court. This judge, Sean, this is like one of the first times ever, one of the few plaintiffs since the 1960’s, unlike the Sarah Palin case, she sued the New York Times over the Op-Ed page. We sued the New York Times over a news article in the A Section, Sean, where they called our voter fraud videos deceptive. They said that we used unnamed sources, which we did not. They said we had no evidence. We did have evidence.”
Hannity has long been a public supporter of Project Veritas, often promoting their work and sharing their reporting on both radio and television. A frequent critic of the mainstream media, for both their overt and covert liberal bias, Hannity offered O’Keefe a chance to air his side of this confrontation.
“The judge in this historic 16-page order has said that it was the New York Times that acted deceptively. That they used misinformation by putting their opinions in the news article.” said O’Keefe.
Ironically, the decision in New York last month came the same week a federal judge said “we are very close to one-party control” of the media.
The lawsuit will now proceed with discovery and depositions, and time will tell where the facts lead.
Sean Hannity will undoubtedly keep us posted.
BNM Writers6 days ago
Scott Masteller’s Sports Radio Days Prepared Him For News Talk
BNM Writers5 days ago
CNN Rebounds To Edge FOX News In The Ratings
News Television7 days ago
Ben Domenech To Audition For Fox News Primetime Job
News Radio5 days ago
Salem Radio Network To Distribute Radio Free Hillsdale Hour