This article was downloaded by: [Sébastien Mort]On: 04 January 2013, At: 14:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Political SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cnps20

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves: TheRole of Conservative Talk Radio in theRight-Wing Resurgence of 2010Sébastien Mort aa Université Paris III-Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, France

To cite this article: Sébastien Mort (2012): Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves: The Role ofConservative Talk Radio in the Right-Wing Resurgence of 2010, New Political Science, 34:4, 485-505

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2012.729739

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves: The Role ofConservative Talk Radio in the Right-WingResurgence of 2010

Sebastien MortUniversite Paris III-Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, France

Abstract During the campaign for the 2010 midterm elections, conservative talk radio(CTR) played a fundamental role in voicing the protest against the Obama administration.A radio genre that has long been equated solely with Limbaugh, CTR now includes a morediverse offer of syndicated programs enjoying ratings similar to Limbaugh’s and largenational audiences. A content analysis of four of the five top CTR programs shows that,while they share a common ideological core—with common emphasis on economic issuesand foreign affairs, and a systematic indictment of the forty-fourth president—eachprogram tailors its content in a unique way. Significant differences emerge in the wayhosts foreground and characterize role players, emphasize themes, and relate to thegrassroots. Findings tend to define Limbaugh and Hannity as fiscal conservatives, andIngraham and Savage as culture warriors. Overall, they point to Savage’s particular statusas an outlier in the CTR ecology, resulting from his cynical view of politics and suspicionof both Democrats and Republicans.

A media genre that emerged in 1988 under the aegis of Rush Limbaugh,conservative talk radio (CTR) has been a major political force since the early1990s, operating as a powerful instrument of dissent. By purporting to give avoice to the “silenced conservatives” in the country, CTR is instrumental inenergizing the American citizens who feel alienated by traditional media, and inrallying opposition against the perceived liberal order and the politicalestablishment in Washington.1 As a result, evidence has been found of itssubstantial influence on the vote in favor of Republican candidates—aphenomenon most notable during the 1994 midterm elections.2 After expandingduring Bill Clinton’s presidency, CTR underwent a period of crisis duringGeorge W. Bush’s second term. By then, it had morphed from an instrument ofdissent to a medium symbiotic with the Republican presidency and Congress.

The author would not have been able to conduct this project without the fundingprovided by the Center for Research on the English-speaking World (CREW) of Institut duMonde Anglophone at Universite Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, France. The author’sdeepest gratitude also goes to Sarah Kendall-Greenberg and Maura McGee who performedthe recording with consummate skill and provided invaluable input to this study.

1 Sebastien Mort, “Talk-shows conservateurs: la contestation conservatrice sur lesondes,” in Romain Huret (ed.), Les Conservateurs americains se mobilisent: l’autre culturecontestataire (Paris, France: Editions Autrement, 2008), pp. 70–82.

2 Louis Bolce, Gerald De Maio, and Douglas Muzzio, “Talk Radio and the 1994Election,” Political Science Quarterly 111:3 (1996), pp. 457–481.

New Political Science,Volume 34, Number 4, December 2012

ISSN 0739-3148 print/ISSN 1469-9931 on-line/12/040485-21 q 2012 Caucus for a New Political Sciencehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2012.729739

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

After a two-year period of crisis between fall 2004 and spring 2007, whichmaterialized in a significant decrease in show ratings for both Limbaugh andSean Hannity, CTR programs were re-energized by the Democrats’ recapture ofCongress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Such politicaldevelopments enabled CTR to return to its initial protesting stance, particularlyduring the campaign for the 2010 midterm election.

Since its affirmation in the political and media spheres in the early 1990s, CTRhas garnered much scholarly attention. A turning point in the research on CTR,C. Richard Hofstetter et al.’s exploration of CTR audiences’ social make-up in 1994showed that, contrary to popular belief, CTR listeners are active participants in thenational conversation and show higher levels of political knowledge and civilengagement than non-listeners.3 Subsequent investigations, such as DavidC. Barker’s, explored the effect of CTR on political participation, proposing thatlistening to CTR enhances political efficacy and engagement among conservativeand moderate audiences, but tends to have a repellant effect on liberal listeners.4

Barker also emphasized CTR’s agenda-setting effect, elucidating the correlationbetween frequency of topic discussion on the shows and listeners’ direction ofopinion on such topics, exploring more specifically the debates around the 1993health care reform.5 B.A. Hollander studied the impact of CTR on trustworthinessof democratic institutions, while Joseph Cappella and Alice Hall analyzed theinfluence of the format on the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, andR. Lance Holbert explored how CTR contributes to shaping listeners’ opinions ofthe president.6 Still others—such as Richard Davis and Jeannette Lea Williams—have analyzed the format of CTR programs and the hosts’ discursive andrhetorical strategies.7 Investigations focusing on conservative talk radio’s effectson the political process have mostly revealed that CTR significantly influences theoutcome of primary elections.8

3 C. Richard Hofstetter, Mark C. Donovan, Melville R. Klauber, Alexandra Cole,Carolyn Huie, and J. Toshiyuki Yuasa, “Political Talk Radio: A Stereotype Reconsidered,”Political Research Quarterly 47:2 (1994), pp. 467–479.

4 David C. Barker, “The Talk Radio Community: Non-Traditional Social Networks andPolitical Participation,” Social Science Quarterly 79:2 (1998), pp. 273–286.

5 David C. Barker, “Rush to Action: Political Talk Radio and Health Care (un)Reform”,Political Communication, 15 (1998), pp. 883–97.

6 Joseph Capella and Alice Hall, “The Impact of Political Talk Radio Exposure onAttributions about the Outcome of the 1996 U.S. Presidential Election,” Journal ofCommunication, (June 2002); See also B.A. Hollander, “Talk Radio: Predictors of Use andEffects on Attitudes about Government,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73(1996), pp. 102–113; Michael Pfau, Patricia Moy, R. Lance Holbert, Erin A. Szabo, Wei-KuoLin, and Weivu Zhang, “The Influence of Political Talk Radio on Confidence in DemocraticInstitutions,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75:4 (1998), pp. 730–745; andR. Lance Holbert, “Political Talk Radio, Perceived Fairness, and the Establishment ofPresident George W. Bush’s Political Legitimacy,” Press/Politics 9:3 (2004), pp. 12–27.

7 Richard Davis, “Understanding Broadcast Political Talk,” Political Communication 14(1997), pp. 323–332; See also Jeannette Lea Williams, De-Legitimizing the Liberal ScapegoatThrough Comedy: Reconstructing the Strategic Victimage in Rush Limbaugh’s Rhetoric (PhD diss.,Arizona State University, July 1999).

8 David A. Jones, “Political Talk Radio: The Limbaugh Effect on Primary Voters,”Political Communication 15 (1998), pp. 367–381; See also David C. Barker and AdamB. Lawrence, “Media Favoritism and Presidential Nominations: Reviving the Direct EffectModel,” Political Communication 23:1 (2006), pp. 41–59.

486 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

Lastly, the most recent work on the question—Jamieson and Cappella’sseminal Echo Chamber9—shows how The Rush Limbaugh Show (RLS) resonates withother conservative media outlets, such as the editorial pages of The Wall StreetJournal and Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes, thus creating an ‘echochamber’ effect. Their treatment of conservative talk radio is integrated: itaddresses the phenomenon as part of a larger conservative media ensemble. Chiefamong their propositions is the insulating effect from other sources of informationthat CTR and conservative media outlets exert on their audiences.

Extensive though the bulk of this scholarship is, it has overlooked two keyissues. First, it is overwhelmingly interested in who listens to CTR and how theyare affected. Scant attention has been given to the actual content of CTRprograms—the only content analysis of non-religious CTR programs available todate is the report by the Annenberg Public Policy Center published in 1996.10

While a groundbreaking investigation providing valuable information on theagenda of the RLS, it does so comparatively with other general political talk radioprograms, and it is silent as to the figures discussed on the shows and the waythey are characterized.

Second, academic publications almost exclusively equate CTR with Limbaugh.They disregard the fact that the emergence of competing nationally syndicatedprograms introduced diversity into the CTR offerings and ended Limbaugh’smonopoly over the genre. The definition of CTR thus needs revision, all the moreso because these new voices played a significant role in the grassroots movementthat emerged during the 2010 midterm elections. Conservative voices trumpetedthe urgent need to stop the expansion of government intervention and denouncedwhat they perceived as the Obama administration’s blatant overstepping of itsprerogatives, particularly in the wake of the passage of health care reform—asarticulated most visibly by the Tea Party Movement (TPM).

Among the protest against the administration in 2010, talk radio wasundoubtedly one of the loudest voices. While Limbaugh was the undisputedmaster of the genre throughout the decade of the 1990s, the deregulation of mediaownership introduced by the Telecommunications Act of 199611 reshaped themedia environment in such a way as to allow other conservative voices—such asSavage, Hannity, Ingraham and, later, Beck—to join the national conversation atthe turn of the century. Over the years, the newcomers on the CTR marketsmanaged to secure ratings similar to Limbaugh’s, as shown by the Arbitronratings compiled in TALKERS Magazine’s “Top Talk Radio Audiences” (Figure 1).

By spring 2010, The Sean Hannity Show (SHS), The Savage Nation (SN), andThe Laura Ingraham Show (LIS) respectively ranked second, fourth, and fifth behindRLS in the TALKERS rankings.12 This study thus proposes an updated definitionof CTR that integrates the import of these three programs, now significant forumsof conservative discussion.

9 Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and theConservative Media Establishment (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008).

10 Joseph Cappella, Kathleen H. Jamieson, and Joseph Turow, Call-In Political Talk Radio:Background, Content, Audiences, Portrayal in Mainstream Media (Annenberg for Public PolicyCenter of the University of Pennsylvania, August 7, 1996).

11 Patricia Aufderheide, Communications Policy in the Public Interest: theTelecommunications Act of 1996 (London: Guilford Press, 1999).

12 TALKERS Magazine, 203 (Focus Communications, Inc.; October 2010).

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

Hypotheses and Methodology

The tension between the ubiquity and diversity of CTR programs can lead to twodifferent hypotheses as to the nature of their content. On the one hand, the factthat they can be listened to around the clock tends to suggest some degree ofuniformity across programs, allowing listeners to find conservative discussions onthe dial any time of the day and be exposed to the fundamentals of conservatism(uniformity hypothesis).13 This would mean that SHS, LIS, and SN simplyreplicate RLS. On the other hand, the multiplicity of these programs is likely toimply some diversity of content across programs, especially as stations sometimessyndicate two of these programs (differentiation hypothesis).14 In order to gobeyond the dichotomy between uniform content and differentiated content, I proposethe concept of tailored content.

Offering a synchronic comparative exploration of these four programs, andtaking the 2010 midterm primary elections as a case study, I argue that whileLimbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, and Savage unfurled a common strategy to rallygrassroots discontent and work toward the Republican recapture of Congress,they tailored this overall strategy in different ways in order to cater to differentsub-segments of the conservative electorate. First, I argue that, while CTRprograms share the same ideological core, each one of them emphasizes a set ofconservative tenets of its own, thus defining a specific “conservative profile.”

Figure 1. Ratings of major CTR programs (spring 2004–spring 2010). Source: “Top TalkRadio Audiences,” TALKERS Magazine, issues 158 to 212.

13 CTR is available from morning to evening. For instance, someone in the Eastern timezone with access to radio stations syndicating the shows live can start the day with eitherThe Laura Ingraham Show (9 a.m.–Noon) or The Glenn Beck Program (9 a.m.–Noon), can thentune to The Rush Limbaugh Show (Noon–3 p.m.), then to The Sean Hannity Show (3–6 p.m.)and finish with The Savage Nation (6–9 p.m. or 7–10 p.m.).

14 For instance, WINC 1400 in Winchester, Virginia carries altogether The Laura IngrahamShow, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and The Sean Hannity Show live, ,http://www.newstalk1400winc.com/On-Air/4007432..

488 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

Second, I demonstrate how CTR hosts endeavored to turn the 2010 electioninto a referendum against Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress bysystematically casting Democrats as villains and Republicans as virtuous and thevictims of the former, but with significant differences across the programs,consistent with their conservative profiles. I also stress that they displayeddifferent levels of support towards the TPM, with some programs intenselypromoting the rallies it organized around the country and “cheerleading” for thegrassroots movement, and others ignoring it.

Third, I show how CTR programs operate as custodians of the conservativeorthodoxy to various degrees. I argue that all but Savage are involved in a constantvetting process of Republican candidates, based on their “conservativecredentials,” and they successfully pushed figures such as Marco Rubio orMichelle Bachmann to the forefront of the political scene.

This study establishes the conservative profile of each show in order to create atypology of conservative talk radio programs, based on which tenets ofconservatism they emphasize. Then, drawing on Conway et al.’s exploration ofthe “Talking Points” segment in Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor,15 convergences anddivergences of agendas are explored, by focusing on the figures and entitiesdiscussed on each of the shows, referred to as “role players.”

Turning to the issue of characterization, the study explores the differences inbias against the Democrats and for the Republicans across the four shows.Characterization also provides an adequate index of the shows’ closeness to theRepublican Party. Based on non-systematic listening of the shows and on the hosts’publications, this project argues that each of the four hosts occupies a particularspace on the conservative spectrum. It hypothesizes that (1) Limbaugh is mostly afiscal conservative; that (2) Hannity presents features of a neoconservative becausehe emphasizes foreign affairs and the war against terrorism and reads geopoliticsin terms of the clash of civilizations; that (3) Ingraham is more of a socialconservative because she is interested in issues of abortion and gender roles; andthat (4) Savage promotes a form of reactionary anti-establishmentarianism.

Recording units are drawn from the five episodes of RLS, SHS, LIS, and SN—namely, from twenty episodes in total, amounting to roughly thirty-five hours andforty-seven minutes of airtime16—aired between Monday April 12, 2010 andFriday April 16, 2010. During that week, hosts could choose from a wealth of issuespertaining to the economic arena (health care reform and Tax Day), the politicalarena (Supreme Court nomination; GOP primaries and TPM rallies), the socialarena (adopted Russian child scandal; hidden camera footage of PlannedParenthood counseling on abortion; bullied schoolgirl’s suicide), and theinternational arena (nuclear summit in Washington, DC). Recording units weredefined in such a way as to include no more than two identifiable prominent topicsand role players; they are no shorter than thirty seconds and no longer than twominutes and thirty seconds. While thematic sequences on television talk shows

15 Mike Conway, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, and Kevin Grieves, “Villains, Victims and theVirtuous in Bill O’Reilly’s ‘No-Spin Zone’: Revisiting World War Propaganda Techniques,”Journalism Studies 8:2 (2007), pp. 197–223.

16 Based on the shows’ clocks available on the internet sites of the syndication networks,Savage appears to have the most airtime to fill in (01:50:40) while Hannity has the least(01:45:00); Limbaugh has 01:47:20, and Ingraham has 01:46:20.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

have clear semiotic boundaries and are visually signified, with anchors movingfrom one subject to the next in a carefully structured fashion, talk radio hosts tendto follow the flow of their thoughts and very often digress from one topic to theother and back. Therefore, while large chunks can be identified as addressing aspecific overall topic and focusing on a set of defined figures other subjects areinterwoven within it, which makes unitizing CTR episodes for coding purposes adelicate venture. This is why this project removed The Glenn Beck Program from theanalysis despite its significantly high ratings: the internal structure of his show istoo different from his counterparts’ and makes it impossible to unitize.

Two paid independent coders recorded the units; both are native English-speakers with graduate education in political science but no knowledge of thetopic. They were trained on the task at hand but were oblivious to hypotheses. Sixrounds of pretest were necessary to perfect the coding instrument and improvethe categories. The first four were performed on units selected from episodes airedimmediately before the week under scrutiny; the last two were performed on 10%of the population of the actual sample. Krippendorff a was used as the reliabilityscore.17 Due to the complexity of the coding scheme, the a for each variable wasconsidered acceptable when it reached the 0.7 mark. Pretests allowed improvingintercoder reliability and detecting flaws in the coding scheme and/orinstructions. Following discussions between the coders and the author, significantrevisions and changes were made to the coding scheme, and coding instructionswere further specified. When pretests produced acceptable reliability scores, eachcoder started coding half of the remaining 90% of the total population of units.

The final population of units (n ¼ 1417) reveals an adequate balance between therespective proportions of 1-RLS (n ¼ 342), 2-SHS (n ¼ 357), 3-LIS (n ¼ 342) and 4-SN(n ¼ 376) in the data. The mode of the data (mode ¼ 4) indicates that SN is slightlyoverrepresented (26.5%) with respect to RLS and LIS (24.1%) and SH (25.2%).

Differentiated Conservative Profiles

In order to define the conservative profile of each program, this study codes forfourteen tenets previously identified as defining conservatism such as theprograms promote it. This study aims to determine which of these tenets eachshow emphasizes most, hypothesizing that if conservative CTR programs tailortheir content, they should give these tenets different emphasis. The variable(a ¼ 0.88) includes fifteen values, the fifteenth being “Other/Not applicable.”

The frequency test reveals that law and order, the environment, and nativismare underrepresented. With respectively eight and two mentions, namely 0.6% and0.1%, the former two are subsumed in other/NA; with only nine mentions, namely0.6%, the latter is subsumed into immigration. Overall, CTR programs thus showedno interest in these three questions during the primary season in the spring of 2010.Also, while it displays a statistically significant score, religion (n ¼ 30; 2.1%) is theleast emphasized tenet and does not make it into the top five of any of the programs.CTR therefore bears almost no resemblance to religious talk radio.

Conversely, CTR programs show much greater interest in economic and fiscalissues (n ¼ 383; 27%), foreign affairs and national security (n ¼ 215; 15.2%), moral

17 Klaus Krippendorff, Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd ed.(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004), p. 221.

490 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

and cultural issues (n ¼ 150; 10.6%), conservatives as victims of liberals (n ¼ 106;7.5%), and the US Constitution and democracy and political freedom (n ¼ 90; 6.4%):these categories represent the aggregate CTR programs’ top five tenets. Though notalways in the same ranking order, the top two categories—economic issues andforeign affairs—are represented in each program’s top five tenets (see Figure 2).

They assume particular salience in the discourse deployed in the fourprograms, and constitute their ideological common ground. The questions ofgovernment intervention (taxation; health care overhaul), and the position of theUS in the world (nuclear treaty) were devoted the most airtime during that week.

However, results indicate that CTR programs do differ in the way they stressother conservative tenets. While emphasis on economic issues and foreign affairsis a common feature, there is substantial variance in the way these categories arerepresented across programs—these two issues notwithstanding, the ideologicalprofiles of CTR programs display a great deal of variation. Two types of profilesseem to emerge nonetheless. On the one hand, with economic issues scoringrespectively 47.1% (n ¼ 161) and 26.9% (n ¼ 96), RLS and SHS score higher thanor equal to the overall CTR in this category. On the other hand, LIS and SN presentmuch higher scores in moral and cultural issues: LIS’s score (n ¼ 65; 19%) is twiceas high as the overall and SN’s (n ¼ 56; 14.9%), namely one and a half times high.Such a distribution of tenets per program thus suggests that the four CTR showsare split between fiscal conservatives (Limbaugh and Hannity) and culturewarriors (Ingraham and Savage). A more in-depth analysis of the data is in orderto fine tune our assessment of these two profiles.

The Fiscal Conservatives

Rush Limbaugh as Archetype of the Fiscal Conservative

As indicated in Figure 3, Limbaugh’s conservative profile fits that of the overallCTR ecology almost perfectly. Four tenets of the overall top five are represented in

LIMBAUGH HANNITY

SAVAGEINGRAHAM

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

1 - Econ. &fiscal issues

2 - Foreignaffairs & nat'l

sec.

3 - Mor'l & cul'lissues

4 - CONS asvictims of LIBS

5 - US constit& dem.

Figure 2. CTR top 5 conservative tenets. Notes: p , 0.005; f ¼ 0.579.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

his own, namely economic and fiscal issues (n ¼ 161; 47.1%), foreign affairs(n ¼ 39; 11.4%)—these two tenets matching those of the overall CTR programs—conservatives as victims of liberals (n ¼ 33; 9.6%), and moral and cultural issues(n ¼ 15; 4.4%). Because of these two characteristics, which are specific toLimbaugh’s program exclusively, RLS’s conservative profile displays the leastvariance from the benchmark profile, thus suggesting that RLS is the archetype ofCTR programs.

The most blatant characteristic of the show is that it is overwhelminglyinterested in economic issues, the host devoting almost half of his airtime to them.Limbaugh clearly appears to be a fiscal conservative, which confirms our initialhypothesis. Yet, his insistence on economic issues goes well beyond merediscussions on the state of the economy. It stems from his conception of economicmatters as consubstantial to the more philosophical question of individualfreedom: “The United States is the problem in the world; capitalism is a problembecause capitalism equals liberty, freedom, and prosperity for individuals. ThisRegime is not oriented towards liberty, prosperity and freedom for individuals.”18

His emphasis on economic issues is so strong that even the cumulated scores forthe remaining four most emphasized tenets (33.3%) fail to equate to their score,and his show displays a high level of uniformity of content.

His third- and fourth-ranking tenets—conservatives as victims of liberals(n ¼ 33; 9.6%) and the media (n ¼ 27; 7.9%)—assume particular significance aswell. Out of the four shows, RLS devotes the most time to discussing the media,and the score for this category is above average (5.4%) by almost 3%. Thiscomports well with Limbaugh’s constant emphasis on traditional media anddenunciation of their liberal bias since 1988. As early as 1992, he very explicitlyformulated this accusation by declaring: “I also believe that the dominant mediaculture is composed of liberals who seek to push their views on society withoutadmitting they are doing it.”19 Combined with a score for conservatives as victims

47.1%

11.4% 9.6%7.9%

4.4%

27.0%

15.2%

7.5%5.4%

10.6%

The Rush Limbaugh Show AVERAGE CTR

1 - Economic &fiscal issues

2 - Foreign affairs;nat'l security

3 - Conservativesas victims of

Liberals.

4 - The media 5 - Moral & culturalissues

Figure 3. Limbaugh’s top 5 conservative tenets. Notes: p , 0.005; f ¼ 0.579.

18 Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 15, 2010 (00:49:11).19 Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be (New York, NY: Pocket Books, Simon &

Schuster, 1992), pp. 2–3.

492 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

of liberals—his third-ranking tenet—2% higher than the average, Limbaugh’srhetoric seems to rely mainly on the notion that citizens’ economic freedom isrestricted by the government with the help of complicit liberal media, a featureconsistent with the host’s traditional discourse.

Sean Hannity as Lord Keeper of the Conservative Cannons

Consistent with the benchmark profile, SHS’s top five tenets include economicand fiscal issues (n ¼ 96; 26.9%) and foreign affairs (n ¼ 25; 7%). Similarly to RLS,economic issues are the most emphasized among the show’s tenets and the scorefor this category is equal to that of the benchmark.

However, while SHS fits the overall profile quite well when looked at from theangle of economic issues, the show’s profile bears no resemblance with that of hiscounterparts. His four most emphasized tenets are significant outliers comparedto the benchmark. Most strikingly, as is shown in Figure 4, he is only half asinterested in foreign affairs: the category scores 7% compared to 15.2% for theoverall CTR programs. Conversely, conservatives as victims of liberals (n ¼ 46;12.9%), conservative orthodoxy (n ¼ 42; 11.8%), and efficacy of the conservativegrassroots (n ¼ 39; 10.9%)—his second-, third-, and fourth-ranking tenets—securescores very much higher than those of the overall CTR programs. SHS emphasizesconservatives as victims of liberals one and half times as much as overall CTRprograms (Overall CTR ¼ 7.5%), and conservative orthodoxy and efficacy of thegrassroots more than twice as much (Overall CTR ¼ 4.8% and 4.3% respectively).

Hannity’s specificity clearly lies in his effort to energize the grassroots bychampioning the fundamentals of conservatism. Coders were asked to select theconservative orthodoxy category each time the host advocates the need to returnto the “basics” or to follow the letter of the conservative doctrine—Hannity is thehost who engages the most in such an advocacy effort. His attention was focusedmuch more on contributing to oust Democrats from office and secure aRepublican recapture of Congress, than on the ongoing debate on nationalsecurity and negotiations on nuclear weapons reduction. Such findings contradict

26.9%

12.9%11.8% 10.9%

7%

27.0%

7.5%

4.8% 5.4%

15.2%

The Sean Hannity Show AVERAGE CTR

1 - Economic &fiscal issues

2 - Conservativesas victims of

Liberals

3 - Conservativeorthodoxy

4 - Efficacy ofconservativegrassroots

5 - Foreignaffairs; nat'l

security

Figure 4. Hannity’s top 5 conservative tenets. Notes: p , 0.005; f ¼ 0.579.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

the original hypothesis that Hannity’s insistence on the “War on Terror” and theWar in Iraq during George W. Bush’s years in office tend to make him aneoconservative. They suggest that his endorsement and defense of Bush’sforeign policy may have only been circumstantial, thereby not signaling a strongattachment to foreign affairs on his part, but only reflecting his loyalty to theRepublican Party and its policies.

The Culture Warriors

Laura Ingraham as Constructionist Culture Warrior

In keeping with the ideal CTR conservative profile, Ingraham’s number one tenetis economic issues, but its score (n ¼ 66; 19.3%) is significantly lower than theaverage (27%), and is almost equaled by her second most discussed topic and firstoutlying tenet—moral and cultural issues—the score of which (n ¼ 65; 19%) isdouble that of the average (10.6%) (see Figure 5).

In addition, although it does not make it to her top five and is one of her leastrepresented categories, religion (n ¼ 9; 2.6%) scores higher in Ingraham’s programthan it does in the overall CTR profile. She thus appears as a moral conservativeand culture warrior, insofar as the cumulated scores for moral issues and religion(21.6%) exceed that of economic and fiscal issues by a short margin. Her seconddefining feature—and second outlier—is her insistence on the US Constitutionand questions of democracy and political freedom: the score for this category(n ¼ 45; 13.2%) exceeds that of the overall profile (6.4%) by a ratio of one-to-two.Ingraham discusses questions related to the Constitution and democracy almostsix times as much as Limbaugh (n ¼ 8; 2.3%), more than three times as much asHannity (n ¼ 13; 3.6%), and twice as much as Savage (n ¼ 24; 6.4%). Her interestthus seems to lie in moral and cultural issues but in relationship withconstitutional and judicial issues. The controversy around a pupil asking a federaljudge to forbid prayer during his school’s graduation ceremony provides ameaningful illustration of how Ingraham construes the way the judicial influencesthe cultural. Valedictorian Eric Workman of Greenwood High School had the

19.3% 19%

13.2% 12.9%

5%

27.0%

10.6%

6.4%

15.2%

7.5%

The Laura Ingraham Show AVERAGE CTR

1 - Economic &fiscal issues

2 - Moral &cultural issues

3 - The USconst;

democracy

4 - Foreign affairs;nat'l security

5 - Conservativesas victims of

Liberals

Figure 5. Ingraham’s top 5 conservative tenets. Notes: p , 0.005; f ¼ 0.579.

494 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) file a suit in his behalf on the grounds thatthe prayer that students had voted to have at the beginning of the graduationceremony violated his first amendment rights. Inveighing against the commentsof the ACLU lawyer in charge of the case, she said:

Why are they always on the side of the pornographers and the militant atheists?

And always against the American people . . . ! On these issues that, if you did a

national poll on this, people would be asking “why are you even asking a question

so stupid? Of course if kids wanna pray at graduation we don’t have a problem with

that!” Again, loopy ideas that you learn in law school that are then passed down

from professor to students and it ends up somehow getting on the Federal Court of

Appeal or the Supreme Court of the United States. This is what’s happening, this is

where we are.20

In the host’s view, the fact that the legitimacy of prayer at school is beingquestioned is a clear symptom of the country‘s cultural decline, which in this caseshe attributes to the tendency of law schools to push a secular and atheist agenda.She implicitly denounces law schools for being places where students areencouraged to question the core values of the nation, resulting in commonlyaccepted principles—namely, the right to have a prayer at a school function in thiscase—being brought in front of courts of law. In the same way, her misgivingsabout prospective Supreme Court nominees stem from their perceived record ofjudicial activism in favor of liberal causes. Judge Diane Wood from the seventhcircuit is described as

probably one of the farthest left radical lawless jurists in this country [and] a hard

left judicial activist, particularly on things like . . . she’s made it clear she’s ready to

invent some sort of constitutional right to same-sex marriage, she thinks “under

God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause. Nobody’s more

extreme on abortion [ . . . ]; nobody’s more radical on a whole host of issues.21

Therefore, not only is Ingraham a culture warrior but her insistence on culturaldecline as stemming from judicial activism and failure to respect the Constitution,makes her appear as a constructionist culture warrior. What she implicitlyadvocates to reverse the process of cultural decline is “strict construction,” namely“the strict adherence to the intentions of the adopters.”22 Her profile is very muchin keeping with her educational and professional background: she holds a J.D. andclerked for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1992 and 1993.

Michael Savage as Nativist Culture Warrior

SN is in many way the outlier of the four programs, and does not seem to fit theconservative profile of the overall CTR programs. Most strikingly, whileLimbaugh, Hannity, and Ingraham devote the most airtime to economicissues—though with a very short margin in the case of the latter—Savage

20 Laura Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 16, 2010 (01:16:11).21 Laura Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 12, 2010 (00:56:55).22 Eugene W. Hickok, Jr. (ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current

Understanding (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 1991), p. 17.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 495

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

devotes the least airtime to this category which only ranks second in his top five(Figure 6).

Rather, his interest lies in foreign affairs and national security (n ¼ 107; 28.5%),a category overrepresented in his program compared to the overall CTR programsand each of his counterparts. Savage devotes almost twice as much airtime toforeign affairs as the overall CTR programs (CTR ¼ 15.2%), two-and-half timesmore than Limbaugh (RLS ¼ 11.4%), four times more than Hannity (SHS ¼ 7%),and more than twice as much as Ingraham (LIS ¼ 12.9%). During the week underscrutiny, he relentlessly denounced the discussions around the reduction ofnuclear weapons as insane, dangerous, and ineffective: “Obama claims that thistreaty will coax Iran into discontinuing its nuclear program: that’s nuts. The Hitlerof Iran wants these weapons to intimidate the United States and destroy Israel.This meaningless piece of paper will not stop him.”23

Ranking second among his concerns are moral and cultural issues (n ¼ 56;14.9%). Although he does not devote as much airtime to them as Ingraham, hescores higher in this category than the overall CTR programs (10.6%). Just like theformer, Savage is very much concerned with the country’s moral decline; aphenomenon he considers is evidenced by the drop in marriages and a decreasingbirthrate among Caucasians. Linked to this question are also the decline ofChristian fervor among the population, and the activism of “vehement atheists.”24

In this respect, he is the only one—along with Ingraham—to discuss religiousmatters in a significantly higher proportion (n ¼ 20; 5.3%). By contrast, his fiscalconservative counterparts never mention religion. Just like Ingraham, he istherefore very much a social conservative.

However, his attribution of responsibility for the moral and cultural decline ofAmerica is very different. Along with a strong emphasis on foreign affairs andnational security, Savage is also quite concerned with immigration (n ¼ 28; 7.4%),a topic he discusses more than twice as much as the overall CTR programs (3.2%)and one-and-half times more than Hannity (n ¼ 17; 5%), the only fellow host

28.5%

16% 14.9%

7.4% 6.4%

15.2%

27%

10.6%

3.2%6.4%

The Savage Nation AVERAGE CTR

1- Foreignaffairs; nat'l

security

2-Economic &fiscal issues

3-Moral &cultural issues

4-Immigration* 5-The USconst;

democracy

Figure 6. Savage’s top 5 conservative tenets. Notes: p , 0.005; f ¼ 0.579.

23 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, April 12, 2010 (00:27:54).24 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, April 14, 2012 (01:00:34).

496 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

devoting time to the issue. Consistent with such data is Savage’s concern with thethreat that foreigners and aliens represent for US safety and racial integrity. In hisview, what he perceives as the decline of the Caucasian race stems fromimmigration:

So the first question I raise is, “Why have European-Americans stoppedreproducing? [ . . . ] Who socially and psychologically destroyed in essence—shallI put it that way—the Caucasian race?” I’m asking a legitimate question that needsto be asked. There are things that could still be done to stop this. They would have todo with immigration control, deportation of illegal aliens, the encouragement ofbirth through incentives [ . . . ].25

In other words, the moral and cultural decline of the country is attributable toillegal immigrants and aliens for they pose a threat to the country’s safety, anderode the European and Christian heritage of the American people, as well as itsCaucasian ethnic roots. His rhetoric taps into the nineteenth-century traditionof organizations that expressed hostility toward immigrants that were not ofProtestant Anglo-Saxon descent. Therefore, Savage’s conservative profile is that ofa nativist culture warrior. In this respect, among the measures he often advocatesin order to counter cultural decline is to deny new immigrants social services andwelfare for fifty years, and give cash incentives to Caucasian couples who staytogether and have children.26

Role Players Emphasized and Characterized in Keeping with ConservativeProfiles

The Role Players variable (a ¼ 0.86) shows significant variance in distribution ofcategories. Overall, the role player that was discussed the most on the fourprograms was Obama and/or his administration and cabinet (Obama) (n ¼ 496;35%); this category largely supersedes all the others. Conservative grassrootsorganizations (CONS) (n ¼ 142; 10%), Democratic elected officials (DEMS)(n ¼ 138; 9.7%), Republican elected officials (REPS) (n ¼ 124; 8.8%), and Americaand Americans and/or taxpayers (AMS) (n ¼ 119; 8.4%) respectively rank second,third, fourth, and fifth. Obama is thus mentioned three and half times as much asthe second-ranking category—his overwhelming representation among roleplayers makes him the focus of the CTR during the week under scrutiny,consistent with the general sentiment of grassroots hostility toward the presidentand his administration at the eve of their first electoral test.

Despite their much lower scores, the media (n ¼ 96; 6.8%), liberalorganizations and individuals (LIBS) (n ¼ 68; 4.8%), foreign powers (n ¼ 44;3.1%), academics and experts; celebrities (n ¼ 32; 2.3%), and people or entitiesgenerating wealth (n ¼ 21; 1.5%) are role players with significant import in CTRdiscussions when compared to the second largest category. Minorities (n ¼ 14;1%), criminals and terrorists (n ¼ 9; 0.6%), and religious people and denomina-tions (n ¼ 12; 0.8%) receive scant attention.

As suggested by Figure 7, the frequency of role players on each programappears consistent with their conservative profile.

25 Ibid., (01:27:04).26 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, April 13, 2010 (00:09:47).

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 497

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

The four programs devote the most airtime to discussing Obama. A categoryscoring between 29.7% (n ¼ 106) and 42% (n ¼ 158), it is a clear outlier in everyshow’s distribution of political role players. On each one of them, there is at least aten-point discrepancy between Obama and the second-ranking political roleplayer. Savage discusses the president the most and his show reveals a 35%discrepancy between Obama and DEMS (n ¼ 26; 6.9%), his second-rankingcategory. Conversely, Hannity is the host who discusses Obama the leastcompared with his counterparts (n ¼ 106; 29.7%), and tends to have a more evendistribution of role players, even though Obama is still a clear outlier among thepolitical role players discussed on his show. The representation of other politicalrole players does differ across programs, each one of them devoting differentlengths of airtime to discussing them.

As expected, the way CTR programs characterize role players reflects both thepolitical context as well as CTR’s staunch partisanship. The simple recoding of thethirty categories of the characterization variable (a ¼ 0.66) into a variableincluding Villain, Victim, and No Characterization allows a cross-tabulation to berun providing a clear overview of the way in which CTR programs cast roleplayers (Figure 8).

Unsurprisingly, figures and entities from the left side of the aisle (Obama,DEMS, and LIBS) show the same pattern of characterization: they aresystematically cast as villains. Obama is characterized as a villain 97.8% of thetime (n ¼ 484), DEMS 95.7% (n ¼ 132), and LIBS 97.1% (n ¼ 66). Obama ispolitical figure not characterized the least (n ¼ 7; 1.4%). Conversely, withrespective scores of 68.5% (n ¼ 85) and 73.9% (n ¼ 105), REPS and CONS areoverwhelmingly cast as virtuous, but not as systematically as left-leaning figuresare cast as villains. Data show that REPS are still characterized negatively 22.6%(n ¼ 28) of the time.

A closer exploration of the way in which Obama is primarily characterizedallows us to determine what kind of villain he is in the perception of CTR hosts(Figure 9). The two categories represented the most are “mismanages domestic

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

LIMBAUGH HANNITY INGRAHAM SAVAGE AVERAGE

Obama & admin./cab.

CONS org & individuals

DEM elected officials

REP elected officials

LIB org & individuals

Figure 7. Political role players per program. Notes: p , 0.05; f ¼ 0.311.

498 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

policy” ( ¼ 163; 33.3%) and “contributes to US decline” (n ¼ 120; 24.5%).Interestingly, “lacking in moral virtues” is very much underrepresentedcompared to other categories (n ¼ 32; 6.5%). CTR hosts’ criticism of Obamathus focuses on achievement and very little on character, a reverse pattern fromthe 1994 midterm campaign during which President Clinton’s character was verymuch at issue.

Coders were required to select the former category every time a role playerwas characterized as mismanaging the country from a cultural, economic, or

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Obama &admin./cab.

DEM electedofficials

LIB org &individuals

REP electedofficials

CONS org &individuals

VIILLAIN

VIRTUOUS

NO CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 8. Casting of political role players in overall CTR programs. Notes: p , 0.005;f ¼ 0.88.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

LIMBAUGH HANNITY INGRAHAM SAVAGE OVERALL

Lacking in moral virtues Contributes to US decline

Mismanages domestic policy Promotes Socialism

Figure 9. Characterization of Obama and/or admin. Notes: Limbaugh (p , 0.005; Cramer’sV ¼ 0.559); Ingraham (p , 0.005; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.629); Hannity (p , 0.005; Cramer’s

V ¼ 0.595); Savage (p , 0.005; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.627).

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 499

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

social perspective, due to failure to excel, appearing weak, or acting stupidly—mainly concerning domestic matters. The latter was to be selected every time therole player was characterized as contributing to US decline on the internationalstage, and/or undermining US prestige due to weakening of security or notaddressing physical threats, and/or due to favoring foreign powers. Every hostbut Savage primarily blames Obama for his mismanagement of the country’sdomestic affairs. Ingraham is the most critical of the president’s achievement inthis arena: her score reaches 48.5% (n ¼ 50), Hannity’s 37.1% (n ¼ 39), Limbaugh’s35% (n ¼ 43), and Savage’s 19.6% (n ¼ 31). Savage is therefore half as critical ofObama as Ingraham in the field of domestic affairs.

Once again, such a pattern mirrors the shows’ conservative profiles. Forinstance, Savage’s criticism of Obama for his poor achievement on theinternational scene (n ¼ 63; 39.9%) reflects his strong emphasis on foreign affairsas his main theme. Conversely, the three other hosts’ staunch criticism of thepresident for his domestic achievements—or perceived lack thereof—is verymuch in keeping with their primary interest in economic issues (Limbaugh andHannity) and moral issues (Ingraham). In the same way, Hannity’s show blamesObama for promoting socialism (n ¼ 26; 24.8%) to a much larger extent than hiscounterparts: Limbaugh characterizes Obama as socialist one-and-a-half timesless (n ¼ 18; 14.6%), Savage two times less (n ¼ 18; 11.4%), and Ingraham morethan six times less (n ¼ 4; 3.9%). Hannity’s insistence on the president’spromotion of socialism partakes of his strategy to rally popular opposition againstthe administration by pitting a socialist president against the conservativegrassroots, a category ranking second among Hannity’s role players. For Hannity,CONS are as true to conservative principles (25%) as Obama is a socialist (24.8%).

As for Limbaugh, he considers that between REPS and CONS, the former areproportionally smarter than the latter (47.4%–32.1%), better promoters ofAmerican values, and truer to conservative principles (21.1%–17.9%; samepercentages for both). Contrary to Hannity, Limbaugh’s effort tends to be directedtoward vindicating REPS and the Republican establishment rather than CONS.This statement nonetheless needs qualifying insofar as these two role players aregiven scant attention on RLS (REPS on RLS, n ¼ 19; CONS on RLS, n ¼ 28).Overall, Limbaugh focuses mostly on opposing DEMS and the Obamaadministration rather than praising or endorsing REPS.

The pattern is reversed on SHS: Hannity deems CONS to be smart and actingwith commonsense (n ¼ 22; 42.3%), and true to conservative principles (n ¼ 13;25%) (Figure 10).

While these two categories seem to be more represented in Ingraham’s andSavage’s shows, scoring 54.5% and 37.5% respectively, they are much lessstatistically significant because these hosts discuss the conservative grassroots inmuch smaller proportions (for CONS acting with commonsense on LIS, n ¼ 12;for CONS true to conservative principles on SN, n ¼ 3). Furthermore, whencompared to the GOP establishment, CONS are deemed more morally virtuousthan REPS (15.4%–2.4%), smarter (42.3%–40.5%), and closer to the Americanpeople (13.5%–9.5%). Hannity thus appears to be committed to an effort tovindicate CONS—and the TPM more specifically—to whom he devotes greaterairtime and whom he characterizes as slightly more virtuous than REPS.

Nonetheless, it does not preclude Hannity’s strong support for members of theGOP, especially if they are primary candidates running on a conservative platform

500 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

against moderate incumbents. His endorsement of candidates is a function of theirdedication to the fundamentals of Reaganism:

Reagan was always a conservative who felt that the Republican Party had lost itsconservative roots and he wanted the party to return. [ . . . ] And I agree that thosesame circumstances exist today where we, conservatives, need to take back ourparty. Now that means that we’re going to oppose some Republicans, RINOS—“Republicans In Name Only”—that means we are going to support the conservativecandidate in individual races.27

Hannity’s explanation of how conservatives should approach the primaryelections meaningfully illustrates his role as custodian of the conservativeorthodoxy and captain of the Republican ship. His strategy is to revive the spirit of1980 and 1994, two defining moments in the history of contemporaryconservatism, when Republicans secured landslide victories. In 2010, he urgesRepublicans to reenact the scenario of the 1994 campaign for in his view, “Reaganis not the only model for successful conservative action in modern times. I thinkthe more recent example of the Contract With America [ . . . ] shows us all how totranslate conservative principles into action.”28 Reenacting 1994 requires aRepublican Party revitalized by a new generation of young leaders withundisputable conservative credentials. In this process, CTR programs have avetting function: they identify Republican candidates fit for office. Hannity is themost active in this respect, repeatedly endorsing Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann,

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

LIMBAUGH HANNITY INGRAHAM SAVAGE OVERALL

Live up to Am.'s grandeur &values

Smart; commonsense

Close to ordinary Americans True to cons. principles

Figure 10. Characterization of CONS grass-roots organization. Notes: Limbaugh (p , 0.005;Cramer’s V ¼ 0.559); Ingraham (p , 0.005; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.629); Hannity (p , 0.005;

Cramer’s V ¼ 0.595); Savage (p , 0.005; Cramer’s V ¼ 0.627).

27 Sean Hannity, The Sean Hannity Show, April 14, 2010 (01:15:57).28 Ibid., (01:22:06).

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 501

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan—Representatives “that have fought hard night and

day against Obamacare, Cap and Tax, the stimulus, that are standing for

conservative principles, [and] advancing the conservative movement”—and

endorsing them for office.29 In the same way, he also gave his support to MarcoRubio—“a rock star and a real conservative Reaganite”30—in the primary election

for the Senate race against incumbent Senator Christie whom the host deemed to

be much too moderate.While her rhetoric is very much in favor of CONS—she has renamed the TPM

the “America Movement”31—Ingraham is also a strong supporter of REPS,especially those she deems true to conservative principles, and joins Hannity in

the vetting process of candidates for the Republican nomination. For instance, she

endorsed Paul Ryan, whom she considers “a bright light in the Republican Party

[ . . . ], [with] a substantive, forward-looking approach,”32 and engaged in a ten-

minute conversation with Michelle Bachmann to discuss the Supreme Courtnomination, the misrepresentation of the TPM in the media, and the need for the

GOP to return to its original conservative roots.33

As for Savage, his position with respect to CONS and REPS also defines him as

an outlier among the four hosts. Proportionally, he never acknowledges REPS as

smart or close to the American people, and those that he deems morally virtuous(n ¼ 2; 10.5%), adequate promoters of American values, or true to conservative

principles (n ¼ 3; 15.8%, same percentage for both) are so numerically low that

they are statistically insignificant. On SN, opposition to Obama is therefore hardly

paralleled by support for REPS and CONS. On the contrary, the category that is

most represented in Savage’s characterization of REPS is “promotes socialism orliberalism” (n ¼ 6; 31.6%). Though statistically this has very little significance, it

scores proportionally higher than other categories of characterization. Savage

therefore appears very much as an anti-establishmentarian, inveighing against

both the current Democratic administration and Republican opposition.

A counterpoint to Hannity, he appears skeptical about the benefits of castingone’s vote in favor of the Republicans:

This false optimism, this malarkey, this Republican malarkey of “follow me and

everything will be good . . . ” I’m not Sean Hannity for god’s sakes! [ . . . ] I’m not

gonna go for that crap of “elect Republicans and the world’s gonna be a better

place!” For god’s sakes, they ran the country into the toilet for eight straight years!

So you say, “Where does that leave us?” Well, I don’t know, you figure it out. I’m

only a talk show host, I’m not a prophet. You figure out what to do. What do you

want me to do? Tell you what to do? I’m not your father.34

Savage thus does not only differentiate himself from Hannity by his overtdismissal of his fellow host, but above all by his refusal to point the listener in a

defined political direction.

29 Sean Hannity, The Sean Hannity Show, April 15, 2010 (00:47:20).30 Sean Hannity, The Sean Hannity Show, April 13, 2010 (00:52:15).31 Laura Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 15, 2010 (00:37:35).32 Ibid., (01:37:34).33 Laura Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 12, 2010 (00:20:48–00:31:51).34 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, April 13, 2010 (00:56:58).

502 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

Position Toward the Grassroots

CTR hosts’ position toward the grassroots reflects their conservative profile andthe way they emphasize role players and characterize them. For each unit, coderswere asked to indicate whether the host was cheerleading for—namelymotivating, encouraging, rallying, and/or praising—conservative grassrootsorganizations. The resulting binary variable (a ¼ 0.88) provides another index ofthe hosts’ proximity to the conservative organizations in the field (Figure 11).

As expected, Hannity is the host providing the most support to the grassrootsorganizations: data resulting from cross tabulating the “cheerleading” variablewith the programs shows that he cheerleads for the conservative base 30% of thetime (n ¼ 107). Compared to his counterparts, he is the greatest supporter of thegrassroots, consistent with his role as both custodian of the conservativeorthodoxy and energizer of the conservative troops. His comment on people’sinvolvement with the TPM is very telling in this respect: “I have never, in all mylife in talk radio—and I started, believe or not, in 1986—I have never ever felt anurgency, a sense of urgency, an intensity like I’m feeling out there, I havenever felt this cohesive spirit of ‘yes we can make it happen.’”35

Surprisingly, Ingraham’s oft-repeated discourse on the TPM as “the AmericaMovement” does not translate significantly into strong emphasis on the efficacy ofthe grassroots movement, or on an effort to spur “tea partiers” to action. Her scoreshows that she roots for the conservative base only 9.4% of the time (n ¼ 32). Shenonetheless appeared in one of the rallies of the Take Back Our Country Tour whichfeatured public appearances by Hannity and the dignitaries of the conservativeestablishment, such as political consultants Karl Rove and Dick Morris. As thename of the tour exemplifies, the rhetorical strategy to engage people at thegrassroots taps into World War II imagery and phraseology that establishes animplicit parallel between twenty-first century America and the occupied Europeof the 1940s. Hannity repeatedly introduced his show as “The ConservativeResistance Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda,” and Ingraham started to air a

30%

10.2% 9.4%2.7%

13%

70%

89.8% 90.6%97.3%

87%

HANNITY LIMBAUGH INGRAHAM SAVAGE AVERAGE

YES NO

Figure 11. Is the host cheerleading for the conservative grassroots? Notes: p , 0.005;f ¼ 0.31.

35 Sean Hannity, The Sean Hannity Show, April 14, 2010 (01:22:31).

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 503

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

feature segment entitled “America Under Obamacare.”36 Such a rhetoricalstrategy is very much set in the semantic tradition of CTR as it strongly echoesLimbaugh’s systematic featuring of the gimmick “America Held Hostage” at thebeginning of each show between William J. Clinton’s inauguration and theelection of Newton Gingrich as Speaker of the House—from that time on, thegimmick had changed to “America the way it ought to be,” a reference toLimbaugh’s book The Way Things Ought to Be published in 1992.37 Therefore, thecheerleading effort also resorts to fear appeals, goading citizens into action byinsisting on the notion that America is under siege and toiling under sometotalitarian and illegitimate power.

Also, all but Savage—who shows an insignificant score for support of thegrassroots (n ¼ 10; 2.7%)—inveighed against traditional media’s negativecomments on the demographics of the TPM, arguing that contrary to what wasbeing said tea party supporters displayed adequate ethnic and social diversity, oreven sometimes asserting the right of Caucasian people to defend their interests.They engaged in an effort to write a counter-narrative aimed at dignifying themovement in the eyes of the general public, encouraging tea partiers to denouncepossible verbal excesses during the rallies, as well as attempts by liberalorganizations to infiltrate the movement and intentionally ridicule themselves oncamera.38

Conclusion

The content analysis of the programs by conservative radio anchors Limbaugh,Hannity, Ingraham, and Savage—four of the top five talk radio figures in theUSA—shows that the programs share a clear common ideological core relying on(1) economic issues and (2) foreign affairs. Yet, data point to significant differencesacross programs, with each one of them carving out a “thematic niche” for itself byemphasizing a set of specific tenets pertaining to the conservative ideology. Hostsselect the role players they choose to discuss and the way in which theycharacterize them in accordance with their conservative profile. While theydisplay different profiles, the programs therefore seem to have the same internallogic—the original concept of tailored content has therefore gained considerablesupport. Tailoring the content of programs serves an overall strategy of “selectivepopulism,” whereby each host appeals to specific concerns, attitudes, and moralcommitments in their respective audiences in order to keep them politicallyengaged. While the four shows identify traditional media, secular humanism,liberals, and the Democrats as the enemy, they do significantly differ as to whataspects of the listeners’ lives are being threatened.

The resulting typology divides the hosts between the fiscal conservatives on theone hand and the culture warriors on the other hand. Among the former, Limbaughappears as the archetypal fiscal conservative, interpreting the notion of individual

36 Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 12, 2010 (00:49:32).37 “It’s now day 567—586 for the rich and the dead, and 91 days until the November

election—of ‘America Held Hostage, a.k.a the ‘Raw Deal’, which has 895 days left.”The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 9, 1994. Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be.

38 Ingraham, The Laura Ingraham Show, April 12, 2010 (00:28:16); Sean Hannity, The SeanHannity Show, April 12, 2010 (H2-00:11:47); Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, April13, 2010 (01:21:46).

504 Sebastien Mort

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013

freedom from an economic perspective, and Hannity affirms his status as custodianof the Reaganite orthodoxy of limited government and spending cuts. Thoughsharing the same strong interest in cultural and moral issues, the latter differ in theirinterpretation of the decline of America—Savage, a nativist culture warrior, assertsthe idea that it stems from the outside threats of immigration and Islamizationwhich jeopardize the survival of Caucasian Americans; Ingraham, a constructionistculture warrior, entertains the notion of strict adherence to the letter of theConstitution in order to preserve the nation’s cultural integrity.

Among the four, Hannity has the most positive approach to politics—his harshcriticism of Obama and the Democrats and alarmist view of the direction thecountry is taking, is met with a clearly defined, workable alternative to the state ofaffairs he laments. His efforts are directed to renewing and rejuvenating the GOPin order to make it a credible alternative, all the while marshaling a rhetoric aimedat enhancing citizens’ sense of political efficacy. At the opposite end of thespectrum, Savage’s approach is exclusively oppositional, as he suggests noalternative to the political establishment and remains overwhelmingly cynical infront of the political process. He embodies the disenchantment of politics, andcontrary to his counterparts’, his program is not designed as a tool ofenfranchisement for conservative citizens but tends to encourage listeners towithdraw from the political process. Finally, the data mostly show that the protestthat is voiced on these shows is not aimed toward the political order in its entirety,but against the liberal order—the debate is thus not framed in terms of a contestbetween the people versus the establishment, but between the people versus theDemocratic and/or liberal powers, which reflects CTR’s constant need tonegotiate its problematic positioning in the political game.

While the population of units has been drawn from episodes aired during avery short period of time, the week under study presents enough events and newsstories relevant to different aspects of the conservative doctrine for hosts to selectbased on their conservative profiles. Therefore, a host’s choice to discussparticular events and issues while disregarding others—thus emphasizingspecific tenets of conservatism—cannot be attributed to the absence of such issuesfrom the national conversation, but to a deliberate intention on his or her part. Forinstance, the Planned Parenthood “abortion push,” the Greenwood High Schoolprayer controversy, and the bullied schoolgirl’s suicide are minor news storiescompared to Tax Day, Obamacare, or the DC nuclear summit. Yet, Ingrahamdevotes considerable airtime to discussing these stories. Conversely, Savagechooses to downplay the importance of Tax Day and Obamacare to emphasizequestions of immigration and the decline of the Caucasian race. Each host istherefore very much sensitive to issues regardless of their actual import andweight in the media and political spheres. Therefore, while the precise numericalfindings are based on too small a sample to warrant generalization of the rest ofthe year, the breakdown of hosts into categories and the resulting overall typologyseems valid and certainly provides a platform from which additional studies ofthis topic might be launched.

Tailoring Dissent on the Airwaves 505

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Séba

stie

n M

ort]

at 1

4:03

04

Janu

ary

2013