For more than 30 years, while performing as a syndicated radio talk show host, Larry Elder has dished out the facts. Straight talk, no fluff, right to the heart of society’s most pressing issues.
Whether you like to hear it, or not.
Elder recently sat down with Jesse Lee Peterson on The Fallen State YouTube program, to discuss his recent presidential run and some of the most important issues facing the nation in 2024.
The conversation began with the two black men discussing the inexcusable backlash against Larry Elder, a conservative Republican.
“I’ve been called an Uncle Tom, bootlicking Uncle Tom, foot-shuffling bootlicking Uncle Tom, bug-eyed foot-shuffling bootlicking Uncle Tom. The anti-Christ. Black face of white supremacy. The thing I’ve rarely been called — and what would bother me more than anything else — is wrong,” Elder began.
“I’ll say something about taxes, something about regulation, something about what the welfare state has done to the black family. Something about the dismal state of K through 12 education in urban America. And people may attack me and call me a sellout and Uncle Tom, but I rarely hear the word wrong. That, to me, would bother me more than anything else.”
It was the Los Angeles Times that once called Larry Elder the “black face of white supremacy” for his straight talk about solutions for struggling, inner-city communities. Throughout his time broadcasting to millions of listeners, he has become accustomed to the racial attacks hurled against him from the Left.
“Over the years, you realize that when people say stuff like that, that means they are out of ammo,” Elder said. “The thing to do if you think somebody is wrong is to marshall the facts, make an argument, here’s why you’re wrong. They can’t do that, so they call names. It’s silly. It’s almost…it’s almost sad because it shows you they’re not willing to develop anything. They’re not willing to grow. And we in the black community have a real problem with that, which is why we have so many problems.”
Although he failed in his bids for Governor of California and President of the United States, Elder was able to open many eyes and increase his influence among many who had never heard of him. His supporters find his straight-talk solutions to be a refreshing change from traditional politicians’ lip service.
“The number one problem in the black community is not systemic racism. It’s the large number of kids that enter the world without a father in the home married to the mother,” Elder said. “It’s a problem for America in general, but it’s particularly acute in the black community where 70% of black kids enter the world without a father in the home married to the mother. Up from 25% back in 1965.”
This particular discussion has a natural home on The Fallen State program, where Reverend Peterson “focuses on relationships, human nature, religion, and societal ills with open, honest dialogue.” It revolves around the idea that “99% of human beings are living in a Fallen State and don’t even know it.”
Elder went on to offer a deeper look at the specific problems in inner-city America.
“The welfare state, launched by a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, in 1965 has incentivized women to marry the government and incentivized men to abandon their financial and moral responsibilities,” Elder opined. “And when I raise this, instead of saying let’s deal with it, why is it happening, I get attacked. Which means it doesn’t get solved.”
Elder’s new book, As Goes California: My Mission to Rescue the Golden State and Save the Nation, touches on this issue, along with “rising rates of crime, addiction, homelessness, immigration, and failing schools, skyrocketing energy and housing costs, crushing anti-business regulation, and numerous other problems—all traceable to Democratic policies.”
“Your message is for all people, but especially black people,” Peterson said. “And if they were to listen to the message and follow a little bit of it, just some of it, their life would get so better. Has it ever bothered you that the blacks, not all, but most black people go against the message?”
“It bothers me because we’re not going to improve the problem until we recognize we have it,” Elder answered. “A kid raised without a father, Jesse, is five times more likely to be poor and commit crime. Nine times more likely to drop out of school. And twenty times more likely to end up in jail. Now it seems to me, if that’s true, I would want to know what I can do to reverse that, instead of attacking the guy that’s bringing the message.”
Some in-the-know thinkers have tossed Elder’s name around as a potential Vice Presidential pick for Donald Trump, as he approaches his next term in office. Trump enjoys a good surprise, and the fearless, principled Elder might indeed fit that bill, as his name has rarely been mentioned as a potential pick.
For his part, Larry Elder hasn’t been shy about telling Trump what he could do better over his next four years in the White House.
“I was in Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump about a month ago, when I dropped out of the race. We’ll talk about that. And I endorsed him. And I told him that I ran as a MAGA candidate. And I said I know we have a MAGA candidate and his name is Donald Trump. But I ran because you are not talking about some of the issues that are really affecting the country,” Elder told Trump. “And if I can get you to begin talking about those, I would feel that my candidacy achieved its objective. And the number one thing I told him is the epidemic of fatherlessness.”
The New York Times best-selling author continued, laying out the facts for the 45th president.
“40% of all American kids now enter the world without a father in the home married to the mother. 25% of white kids do, which is the same percentage as blacks back in 1965. And I told him that a young, black male aged 13 to 43, Jesse, is thirteen times more likely to be murdered than a white male, same demo. He was shocked.”
Elder went on to list statistics on the matter, especially those from government and left-leaning sources. He also spent much time on the program excoriating Barack Obama, not only for not dealing with the issue during his presidency but also for purposely increasing racial animosity and division across the nation. He expressed deep disappointment about a golden opportunity wasted after Obama’s lofty rhetoric prior to being elected.
“That’s the guy America thought they hired. Even people who didn’t vote for him cried. I did. I didn’t vote for him, but I cried when he got elected. Even people who didn’t vote for him said, alright, at the very least. I don’t want Obamacare. I don’t want my taxes raised. At the time, he criticized the war in Iraq.
“At the time, it was popular. I don’t want that. But at least he will stop the nonsense about America being systemically racist and bring us together racially. Even people who didn’t vote for him assumed that. The polls showed that both blacks and whites thought race relations would improve,” Elder recalls. “Eight years later, when he left, both blacks and whites thought race relations got worse. Because for the entirety of his two terms, it was race card after race card after race card.”
Larry Elder pointed out that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.
“Why do you think most black people reject the message when they know they can look at their own family, they can look at their own community? They see what you’re saying is true. Why do they reject the message?” Peterson asked.
“Easier to blame somebody else. Easier to point the fingers at somebody else. Because if you don’t do that and you’re on the left and you voted for all these Democrats that have kept pushing these policies, you have to look at yourself in the mirror and go, oh my God, what have I done,” Larry Elder said. “And that’s just a bridge too far for a lot of people.”
While no longer in the presidential race, Larry Elder will certainly continue to make his common-sense voice heard across the nation.
Rick Schultz is a former Sports Director for WFUV Radio at Fordham University. He has coached and mentored hundreds of Sports Broadcasting students at the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, Marist College and privately. His media career experiences include working for the Hudson Valley Renegades, Army Sports at West Point, The Norwich Navigators, 1340/1390 ESPN Radio in Poughkeepsie, NY, Time Warner Cable TV, Scorephone NY, Metro Networks, NBC Sports, ABC Sports, Cumulus Media, Pamal Broadcasting and WATR. He has also authored a number of books including “A Renegade Championship Summer” and “Untold Tales From The Bush Leagues”. To get in touch, find him on Twitter @RickSchultzNY.
Proof That Both CNN and Fox News Manipulate Their Audiences
Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias.
When news organizations collide, journalism loses. Last week, CNN posted on X saying “US inflation cooled down in January, offering some relief for Americans who have suffered through the steepest price hikes in four decades.” The same day Fox News posted “BREAKING: Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.”
While these are seemingly opposite statements, both can be true at the same time. More importantly, both of these outlets are manipulating their audience.
People like their own opinions and want those opinions verified by others. This is what social media has done to news: You read the post, see your opinion is valid, and then move on to the next clickbait (confirmation bias). More importantly, both of these tweets are true because one is based on an estimate, and one is based on actual numbers.
Looking at CNN, while their post on X seems positive, their business headline is a little less positive, “Inflation cooled last month, but some price hikes continue to cause pain.” The change from tweet to headline is striking. One says Americans are getting inflation relief, the other says inflation continuing to cause pain. In today’s world of “Read the headline and move on,” this is why people feel CNN lies. Its post is in conflict with the headline— even though both are true statements.
It’s not until you read the article that people can see how this is possible. The outlet notes overall inflation did cool when comparing January 2023 (6.4%) to January 2024 (3.1%). Four sentences into the article it says, “CPI rose by 0.3% in January.” It goes on to break down why inflation is still high and causing pain in the pockets of Americans. Although the X post is factually correct, people on the right side of the political spectrum feel CNN is untrue because they see the inflation problem in their bank account.
Meanwhile, the Fox News X post and Fox Business headline are identical, “Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.” However, the keyword here is “expected.” Inflation did cool year-over-year. However, because Fox is comparing the January 2024 number to what experts expected the number to be, what they have posted is factually correct. This nuance is sometimes lost on readers.
The article does not mention inflation is down year-over-year. However, nine sentences into the article, the business outlet says, “Inflation has fallen considerably from a peak of 9.1%.” The nuance of “expected” combined with the lack of mentioning year-over-year inflation is down is why the left side of the political spectrum believes Fox lies.
Let’s be clear, neither CNN nor Fox News have lied (on this one specific topic). They both chose to present the same data differently. It also needs to be noted, CNN and Fox News are not the only outlets that do this. They all do. Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias. The problem is twofold.
- Facts are no longer direct but skewed to fit a narrative.
- Some viewers accept headlines and posts without diving deeper into the article.
We have been trained to share a headline without reading the article. We’ve known this since 2016 when Columbia University and the French National Institute found 59% of shared social media links were never read. We’ve gone from headlines selling newspapers, forcing people to read the articles, to headlines being shared on social media, but people won’t read the articles.
This is only a small part of why The Messenger failed: neutrality. The sentiment of unbiased news was well-intentioned. However, America has lacked unbiased news since 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Many on the left believe this has helped right-leaning outlets. This is false. Not only has it benefited both sides of the aisle, it can be argued the progressives have benefited more than the conservatives (but that is a different article for a different day).
When news outlets collide, the American public loses. Not because we lack news, but because we lack the ability to read the full scope of the issues in one place. Outlets are not forced to present all sides of the political argument or present the entirety of data sets. Additionally, news is not being fully read. Headlines are now king. Shares, clicks, and likes keep the lights on in newsrooms. Most importantly, facts are now nuanced. This forces debate instead of continuity and cohesion.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a columnist and features writer for Barrett News Media.She currently freelances at WPIX in New York, and has previously worked on live, streamed, and syndicated TV programs. Her prior employers have included NY1, Fox News Digital, Law & Crime Network, and Newsmax. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
Does Dealing With Criticism Ever Get Easier?
Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.
Thick skin. If you work in media, you gotta have it. If you don’t, you either won’t last or you won’t sleep – or both.
Even if you are neutral politically, super nice, and in it for all the right reasons, there always will be people who criticize you, and some will even make it personal.
Having “thick skin” is a cliché I’ve been thinking about and dealing with for years. I find it fascinating that, somehow, I am way more sensitive at home than I am at work – and by at work, I mean on the air for hours every day.
Even the angriest of listeners are engaging, and engagement is what I want. Sometimes, it can throw a show off-balance, but if handled properly, it should never fully derail you.
Over the years, I have modified my professional behavior, perspective, and attitude, yet my foundational approach has not changed. It began with my first full-time television job when a journalist/mentor of mine told me not to ever act interested in ratings. Rather, he said, focus on my performance and content — the rest would take care of itself.
In my first two anchor/host jobs, it worked wonderfully. I immersed myself in the job, and the ratings were strong. I thought it was a mandate to always take this approach, although in retrospect, I was probably more lucky than good. Regardless, following that mantra actually allowed me to learn my craft and not be overly aware that ratings mattered.
Ignorance was journalistic bliss.
Flash forward to 2024 and it all seems rather naïve, but I think the approach really works well with criticism, too, whether it be on social media, through phone calls or even with fellow hosts.
Just a quick note on nuance: Look at the sentence four paragraphs above – don’t act interested. Looking back at the guidance given by my mentor, his point also seemed to be that even if you are laser-focused on how a show is rating, don’t make it a major topic of conversation, and don’t let people think it defines you as a broadcaster and journalist.
All of it may seem like advice from Fantasyland, but in an indirect way, this approach also makes me less vulnerable to criticism. I simply don’t focus on it too much, and over time, it stopped bothering me even if I did focus on it. Make sense?
Of course, it’s not as if I like it when a listener rips me or the show, either directly or on social media; but I never engage emotionally, and if I do respond in any way, it’s usually content-focused.
That’s the key.
Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.
You have the conch. Never forget that.
Ultimately, you’ll feel better, especially knowing you did not take the bait and handled it professionally – no need to create any more tension than is already out in the media eether.
That brings me to the moment a host of a show on my station was sharply critical of an interview I had done, saying it was soft, and not holding the guest (a sitting U.S. Senator) accountable enough.
Specific questions were put forth that absolutely should have been asked, according to the host, and honestly, it was used as a chest puffer for that person to show why certain guests were scared to come on that later show.
And … I thought it was great.
Well, maybe not great, but I actually had no problem with it. First and foremost, they were talking about it, which is good. When I can provide that kind of grist, it’s good radio. It wasn’t always easy to listen to — I was still in the office doing some booking — but for some reason, it did not bother me. This from a guy who gets a one-second side eye from my wife of 20 years, and I think our marriage is in trouble.
In the end, a few of the criticisms were helpful, believe it or not: One or two of the suggested questions put forth on the later show should have been asked.
It’s all part of the balance I seek to create a place where members of both political parties feel comfortable coming on our network. I always reserve the right to ask difficult questions, and I do ask them (apparently not enough for some), but I also try and be balanced and manage relationships.
It’s delicate, and sometimes, elicits criticism – sometimes deserved. Meanwhile, I just focus on the content, naïve as that may be.
Brian Shactman is a weekly columnist for Barrett News Radio. In addition to writing for BNM, Brian can be heard weekday mornings in Hartford, CT on 1080 WTIC hosting the popular morning program ‘Brian & Company’. During his career, Brian has worked for ESPN, CNBC, MSNBC, and local TV channels in Connecticut and Massachusetts. You can find him on Twitter @bshactman.
CBS Mornings Scores Big Post-Super Ratings Win
CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.
The historic ratings milestones continue for CBS as a result of Super Bowl LVIII.
Less than nine hours following what turned out to be the most-watched telecast in U.S. TV history to date (120.25 million of the near-124 million watching Super Bowl LVIII did so on CBS), CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.
For the Monday, Feb. 12 edition of CBS Mornings, which featured co-host Nate Burleson from Las Vegas, the site of Super Bowl LVIII, and a visit from Jon Stewart in New York to promote his Daily Show return (which generated great ratings milestones of its own later that night), it delivered 2.9 million total viewers including 654,000 within the key 25-54 demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research. It marked its best total audience and demo figures since Feb. 4, 2022.
CBS Mornings topped ABC’s Good Morning America, the usual morning news viewer leader, by a mere 7,000 viewers; it also outdrew NBC’s Today (2.86 million) by 49,000 viewers.
CBS also bested ABC in A25-54 by +103,000; the sixth time CBS Mornings has led over Good Morning America this season based on the key demo.
This was not the first time a morning show benefited from a halo effect of what the network had aired the night prior. Mar. 8, 2021, was the first time CBS won in the morning. It was the day after Oprah Winfrey’s primetime interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had aired which drew 17.1 million viewers for CBS. The Mar. 8, 2021 edition of CBS This Morning featured an exclusive interview with Winfrey and the premiere of never-before-seen clips from the Meghan and Prince Harry discussion, had delivered 4.793 million viewers with 1.026 million of them in the 25-54 demographic.
The program changed its title to CBS Mornings in September 2021.
For this 2023-24 season, CBS Mornings has the smallest deficit margin in viewers with ABC’s Good Morning America since the 2017-18 season and the tightest margin in A25-54 ever.
Douglas Pucci is a Bronx native and NYU graduate analyzing news television ratings for Barrett News Media. He did an internship at VH1’s “Pop Up Video” in 1997. After college, Pucci went on to design, build and maintain websites for various non-profit organizations in his hometown of New York City. He has worked alongside media industry observer Marc Berman for over a decade reporting on all things television, first at Cross MediaWorks from 2011-15 then at Programming Insider since 2016. Pucci also contributed to the sports website Awful Announcing. Read more: https://programminginsider.com/author/douglas/