In mid-2016, Americans felt the tide turning — with the country rallying around a Donald Trump electoral victory — when liberal filmmaker Michael Moore predicted Trump would win Michigan and the election. Could Oliver Stone be on a similar path in 2024?
Moore was prescient. He heard the people and could sense their overwhelming sentiment. More than anything, he was sounding the alarm bells for his fellow Democrats for what he felt was about to happen.
Last week a media member may have unknowingly let free the 2024 canary in the coal mine, and interestingly, this canary may have been another controversial filmmaker.
Oliver Stone appeared on Bill Maher’s podcast, Club Random, last week and seemed to echo many of the same sentiments from Moore’s premonition eight years earlier.
“Well, I mean, he doesn’t concede elections,” Maher said, bringing up President Trump in the far-ranging, free-flowing conversation. “You know, ‘The elections only count if we win’ theory of government. Okay. Well, come on. You know, Trump, he still has not conceded the election. He has not conceded. He does not honor them.”
“I mean, do you know for a fact that he lost? I’m just curious,” Stone responded. “I just don’t know all of the facts.”
Maher seemed astounded.
“Well, I do. Is there a conspiracy theory that you don’t believe?” Maher asked Stone.
Perhaps Stone was referring to the piles of historical incongruencies and facts, all of which indicated a Trump 2020 win.
No sitting president in the modern era has received more votes for re-election than in his initial election and lost.
Of the 18 most dependable “swing counties” that normally indicate an electoral winner, Trump won 18 of 19. Yet, he lost the election.
No Republican had ever won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa – considered to be a broad cross-section of the American electorate – and lost. Until Trump.
It is difficult to put Oliver Stone in a political box. He has mostly seemed to favor the libertarian philosophy of less government intrusion. On occasion, he has been critical of Trump, while also acknowledging the former President’s ability to tap into populist sentiment that the two seem to share. Less war. Fewer government shackles. More individual and economic freedom.
“I’m just asking you. I’m not an expert on the election,” Stone told Maher. “I’m not a political junkie. You are. And you follow it very closely.”
“Alright then, I’ll give you the thumbnail sketch,” an agitated Maher said. “They tried it in like 60 courts. It was laughed out of every court, including by Republican judges. The people who saved this democracy were Republicans. Good Republicans. In states where Trump pressured them. Like the guy, the one he’s on trial for in Georgia. ‘Find me 11,000 votes.’ It’s on tape. A guy like that saying to him, ‘Sir, we just don’t do that here. I voted for you. I’m a Republican, but we just don’t do that.’ That’s what saved us. And they were Republicans.”
One of the most accurate political pollsters of the modern age, Richard Baris of Big Data Poll, posted on X that “Not even Oliver Stone buys it. Notice when (Bill Maher) tried to dismiss and refute his election concerns, he used a demonstrably false claim to ‘disprove’ it. Oliver, Bill is full of shit. It was not ‘tried’ in 70 courts. Judges used standing to dodge.”
Baris continued in another post, saying, “Also, (Bill Maher) grossly mischaracterized the phone call, using the common fake news talking points that Trump asked the (Georgia Secretary of State) to ‘find 11k votes’. Don’t be lazy, Bill. Read the transcript yourself. He was talking about signature verification and votes not properly scrutinized.”
In the podcast with Maher, Stone went on to say that he had major problems with the outcome of the 2000 election, which resulted in the victory of President George W. Bush. He similarly indicated that he didn’t think 2020 passed the smell test.
“I don’t know. I mean, you went through the 2000 election. That was horrifying to me, what happened when the Supreme Court closed that down.” Stone said.
“What should we do?” Maher asked. “Do we just keep counting votes forever? Or should we still be counting them now?”
“No. Count them correctly,” Stone responded. “Let’s just get rid of the electoral college. Let’s do a popular vote.”
Oliver Stone continued, calling out the media for their biased reporting in the era of Trump.
“I don’t know the facts,” Stone said. “And I think I would trust the accountants more than the politicians. And I’d like to know what the accountants, the guys who vote, who know the most about votes, who do the Electoral Commissions. I can’t take Biden’s word for it on anything.”
“Well, I mean, if there’s nothing that can be said or argued that would convince you,” Maher offered.
“I think what shocked people is that Trump got so many votes. You know, that was what was shocking. That he did so well compared to what he was expected to do,” Stone said. “Because we believed all the East Coast media.”
“Then why do you believe he could have lost?” Maher asked his guest about Biden.
“We believed all the East Coast media elite that he was going to fail and boom, they were wrong. We would love to see them being wrong, don’t we? The media elite,” Stone said. “They went too far in hating and in dumping on Trump. And people don’t like that in America. People don’t like dumping on. They did it too much.”
Bill Maher even agreed with Stone, admitting that the media no longer attempts to give a balanced, truthful reporting of the day’s events. In addition, neither mentioned the years-long, Democrat-led coup attempt that was designed to trick the public into thinking Trump was a Russian agent. Most of the mainstream media parroted the hoax.
“I was actually having this discussion about the CNN network recently. And, you know, I want there to be a CNN in the world. You know, something that I used to be able to count on. And I still do, some of it. Give it to me straight, Doc. Just give me the news,” Maher said.
“And, you know, they had this town hall with Trump about six months ago. And it was, they took a lot of flack for it. But he was adored by the audience who were Republicans, I guess, and independents. I think they said both. But whoever it was, they fucking loved him. And then the panel comes on after and they do nothing but shit on Trump and what a liar he is.”
Like Michael Moore eight years prior, Oliver Stone seemed to be sounding the alarm bell about what’s over the horizon, a mere 11 months from now. He concluded by drawing the analogy of Trump to a legendary baseball player who was famously banished from the game over gambling allegations a few decades ago.
“I think a lot of people liked him because he got dumped on so, so much. It’s like Pete Rose. You know, when he quit. Yeah. A lot of people started to resent the media for the dumping on Pete Rose.”
Oliver Stone is sounding the alarm. And the chirping canary very well may crescendo in 2024.
Tom Langmyer
August 26, 2023 at 5:10 am
A great thought-starter, Peter!
“If you were not owned by a company supporting a particular show, you had to make a guess.”
Of course, that would be the ideal situation for a PD in any given market. However, I might add that it would also need to be an “educated guess.”
That said, there really a number of factors to consider, even if you are not owned by a company that has “chosen” your solution for you.
In a situation where one owner controls the (talk) format options in a market, you have the latitude to program each of your stations for a desired outcome for their roles within the cluster.
In highly competitive markets, especially where multiple ownership groups are in the game, where good local shows are a listener choice and where PPM is employed, programmers unfortunately may not have the privilege of a captive audience or the advantage of time to wait for lesser impact players.
In the case of Clay & Buck, the old saying may apply. “You don’t want to replace the legend. You want to replace the person(s) who replaced the legend.”
If you look back at what’s now ancient history, look no further than the realization that Paul Harvey could not be replaced, Johnny Carson couldn’t be replaced, and Howard Stern couldn’t be replaced on terrestrial radio.
Rush Limbaugh was bigger-than-life, and while they do work in some markets, Clay & Buck had the unenviable task of stepping into the chair of that bigger-than-life phenomenon.
While certainly wise and an obviously good move to pay homage to Rush, at some point they need to carve their own path – and it needs to stand out on its own and do so with great impact.
Clay & Buck aren’t necessarily dynamic nor impact players. They are not particularly revolutionary in terms of thoughts, surprises, nor commentary. They are certainly predictable in terms of their positions, as well. They are competent executors. While the can work the topics, they aren’t memorable orators, humorists, nor storytellers.
Rush Limbaugh, was all of those things.
However, before thinking that they aren’t good, and can’t do a good show, make no mistake about what I’m saying.
They can.
However, their show needs to be designed and more structured in some ways so that content can be showcased differently. It needs to showcase the content – and them for what they’re best at; and manage the areas where they’re not.
Stronger benchmarks, more use of production, and voices, perhaps someone with some creative prowess to make the show more entertaining with some elements and features can help, as well. From what I know coming a generation removed from watching Ed Sullivan, he was not exactly a “Rush Limbaugh” either, but his show was. It was bigger-than-life.
Rush Limbaugh was big enough to BE the show. The content and forward momentum to direct listeners to what’s coming next and why they can’t miss it, is what’s missing. Rush Limbaugh was so big, he didn’t need to do it all that “radio stuff” quite as much, simply because he was bigger-than-life.
It doesn’t sound like Clay & Buck get very much coaching, and after the strategy of paying homage to Rush Limbaugh faded, as it should by now, what emerged on the other side is an opportunity to create something different to get out from under the shadow of what can’t be duplicated.
Clay & Buck are very solid “studio musicians.” They play the correct notes.
That being said, in what ways can they be made to be true “impact players?” How can their personalities become distinctive and different from each other? What are their characters? What are their roles? For what are each of them “famous?” by that, I mean, if you were asked, could you say that either one of them is particularly funny, smart, quirky, compelling, etc.? Outside of their predictable point of view, does either one of them have a particularly memorable or different way of looking at things? If you missed their show, have you actually really missed anything? Are there memorable benchmarks or special elements that make the difference?
The point to all of this is they inherited an audience of more than 15 million listeners. They have about 9 million listeners, while their two main competitors are pretty close on their heels with 6 – 8 million listeners, without their having the benefit of rabid and loyal audience that was left for them to inherit.
In the interest of keeping radio strong, the hope is that Clay & Buck will be able to step out from under the shadow of Rush Limbaugh, and become their own unique and remarkable selves. However, they and the show have to be more in order to do that.
They also need to be in a position to not rely on elements of Rush Limbaugh, who isn’t there to endorse them.
Even into the world of minutia, when people heard the stinger going into the spots, or the end of the show, Rush Limbaugh, use that very same stinger to artfully hammer home a point.
Clay & Buck Just use that signature stinger because there’s a break in the clock they have to take. Even their using it actually calls attention to the difference between Rush’s dynamic personality, and the show as it is today.
The other thing that makes the show more of a challenge, is that Clay & Buck refer to the listener in the collective form. Rush Limbaugh was perhaps one of the only people that could get away with referring to his audience as “all of you,” “many of you,” “some of you,” “everyone,” “everybody,” etc. Rush Limbaugh was almost a cult-like figure. He had a true legion. Clay & Buck aren’t of that ilk. Plus, these guys are talking to each other instead of the listener at many times.
Radio is a one-on-one and very personal medium for those who listen.
If Clay & Buck and those involved could create initiatives and truly activate an audience to do things and take action, versus just a passive listening experience, they could chart a NEW and unique course!
I guess that’s a long way of saying there are many factors at play here, and while “your results may vary,” there is opportunity to grow in a more urgent and impactful way, particularly in situations where the show’s success is of critical consequence – and other talk programming choices from competitors are breathing down your neck.
Thanks for a great take, Peter, and the opportunity to add some thoughts, as well.
You’re working for great broadcasters at Zimmer. Have always respected them!