The discussion ended up being a classic battle between a capitalist who believes that free market forces are determining programming on the radio dial and a leftist who feels ownership is to blame for the scarcity of liberal talk shows.
In fact, Schultz actually was rather hypocritical in his position as demonstrated by the following (video available here):
It‘s the old concept, Michael, when you are in business and you make a product and you have a product and it‘s successful, what do you do? You make more of it…But I take issue with those in the industry that say liberals can‘t talk and can‘t be entertaining and can‘t do commerce.
When we started in January of 2004, we started on two stations and 500 people listening on the Internet. We have grown to 100 stations. It‘s all about ratings. It‘s all about revenue. And you have to show a consistent growing audience. Now, we have been able to do that.
The point being here is you have to be able to sell advertising. You have to be able to hold an audience.
Makes sense, right? Yet, Schultz quickly changed his tune:
SMERCONISH: I am all for what you are saying. You are giving me the free market pitch. Look, I wish there were more - I wish there were more - - I‘ve got to say this. I wish there were more classic rock on the radio. But I don‘t think the government should get involved to give me more Led Zeppelin and Yes.
SCHULTZ: Well, wait a second now. When you are talking about the spoken word, it influences a lot of people and it influences election in this country. There is no question. We are talking about market opportunities. Right now the liberal progressive format in this country—we are all fighting over the same 100 stations. Michael, I offer to you that ownership is an issue.
There are conservative broadcast companies in this country that do not broadcast one single second of liberal talk radio.
SMERCONISH: But Ed, I have to tell you something—
(CROSS TALK)
SMERCONISH: CBS would fire me in the morning and replace me with a communist if that communist would get them more revenue. It‘s all about the scratch.
SCHULTZ: That‘s not true. Michael, that is not true.
Interesting change of heart, wouldn’t you agree? At first, Schultz was saying the success of his show was “all about ratings,” “all about revenue,” and how “you have to be able to sell advertising” as well as "show a consistent growing audience."
But, the reason there aren’t more shows like his is because “conservative broadcast companies in this country…do not broadcast one single second of liberal talk radio.”
What a crock.
A partial transcript of this segment follows.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, GUEST HOST: I‘m Michael Smerconish, in for Tucker. I am a talk show host based in Philadelphia. And my guest is Ed Schultz. He‘s a nationally syndicated talk show host. And we‘ve got something else in common; we were both mentioned in a new study by the Center for American Progress and Free Press. That group asserted that talk radio, our domain, is dominated by conservatives. And they want the government to do something about it.
These folks say that more regulation of the air waves would create more balance, that more diverse ownership and less consolidation in the radio business would balance radio politics. Me, I don‘t deny conservative dominance. I just think that the research is flawed.
Ed, here is my question. I am a pro choice guy. I am in favor of an Iraq exit timetable. And when it comes to same sex couples, I have a live and let live mentality. So ideologically, what does that make me?
ED SCHULTZ, LIBERAL RADIO HOST: Well the question is, are you entertaining? Yes. Do you have good commentary or do you have good content? Do you have good guests on the air? You have to have a lot of different elements to have a good radio show. I think that when Limbaugh started, he had a lot of success, opened the door for a lot of others.
It‘s the old concept, Michael, when you are in business and you make a product and you have a product and it‘s successful, what do you do? You make more of it. I don‘t think there is any doubt that he paved the way for a lot of conservative talkers. And the industry evolved to what it is today. But I take issue with those in the industry that say liberals can‘t talk and can‘t be entertaining and can‘t do commerce.
When we started in January of 2004, we started on two stations and 500 people listening on the Internet. We have grown to 100 stations. It‘s all about ratings. It‘s all about revenue. And you have to show a consistent growing audience. Now, we have been able to do that.
The point being here is you have to be able to sell advertising. You have to be able to hold an audience.
(CROSS TALK)
SMERCONISH: I agree with you. My beef, and maybe it was too much inside baseball, I just think they were too loose with these labels. I get lumped in as a conservative. And here‘s another sort of thorn in my side, you are a progressive. What am I? A regressive. I am for regressive policies. I love how it‘s no longer liberal, it‘s progressive. It‘s not a trash man, it‘s a sanitation engineer.
SCHULTZ: You know, I think the talk radio industry is right now a little confused and searching for identity, because the country basically has shifted on a lot of different key issues. We are at a philosophical cross roads in America on how we feel about health care, how we feel about, how we feel about foreign policy, taxes, the economy, foreign debt, all of these things.
So to take a label and put it on a talk show host right now is pretty dangerous. The question is, does the talk show host get ratings? Does the talk show host sell advertising?
SMERCONISH: I am all for what you are saying. You are giving me the free market pitch. Look, I wish there were more - I wish there were more - - I‘ve got to say this. I wish there were more classic rock on the radio. But I don‘t think the government should get involved to give me more Led Zeppelin and Yes.
SCHULTZ: Well, wait a second now. When you are talking about the spoken word, it influences a lot of people and it influences election in this country. There is no question. We are talking about market opportunities. Right now the liberal progressive format in this country—we are all fighting over the same 100 stations. Michael, I offer to you that ownership is an issue.
There are conservative broadcast companies in this country that do not broadcast one single second of liberal talk radio.
SMERCONISH: But Ed, I have to tell you something—
(CROSS TALK)
SMERCONISH: CBS would fire me in the morning and replace me with a communist if that communist would get them more revenue. It‘s all about the scratch.
SCHULTZ: That‘s not true. Michael, that is not true. I have got one of the top talk shows in Seattle, and I am only on one station in the country with Infinity. That‘s not true. We are not being given the fair market opportunity.
SMERCONISH: I just don‘t see it that way. I think it‘s totally demand driven. And if were there a demand for whatever the program happened to be, believe me, they would put it on the air, because all they want to do is sell advertising and there is nothing wrong with that.
SCHULTZ: You know, Michael that‘s almost insulting me. I beat Sean Hannity in Denver. I beat him in Seattle. I beat him in Portland. I beat in San Diego. How many markets do I have to beat Hannity in before I get 200 or 300 stations? It‘s an ownership issue. Salem Radio, Infinity does one, ABC owns Hannity. It comes down to ownership. Actually, Clear Channel has been better than any of them.
The fact is, it‘s market opportunities and liberal talkers, progressive talkers are being held to a totally different standard than conservatives.
SMERCONISH: I respectfully disagree. But I am thrilled to have you in here so folks get both sides. I‘m a free market guy, and I think, if the market demands it, you will be everywhere, including in Philly. Thank you for being here.
SCHULTZ: Well, thank you. You bet.
