Air America Goes Under
- Thread starter RAMSTORIA
- Start date
i guess liberals would rather sit in front of a tv listening to chairman olbermann than sitting in a pickup truck listening to chairman rush?
i dunno i'll finish this thought later they're replaying the first season of american idol and queer eye and another gay liberal fascist show.
i dunno i'll finish this thought later they're replaying the first season of american idol and queer eye and another gay liberal fascist show.
[quote name='IRHari']i guess liberals would rather sit in front of a tv listening to chairman olbermann than sitting in a pickup truck listening to chairman rush? [/quote]
as well as olbermann does on tv, he still gets crushed by right wing pundits
modern family
as well as olbermann does on tv, he still gets crushed by right wing pundits
modern family
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i mean you can argue that there are liberal talk show hosts that are successful, they certainly dont reach the number of people or stations that rush, hannity, beck etc reach.[/QUOTE]
A number of factors, I think, the primary one is demographics.
"Conservatives" don't all listen to talk radio do. Old folks do, and older folks are more prone to conservatism (which is itself, I presume, the fear of change/wishing that things would be 'the way they used to be' that develops as people age). So the technological medium is what harms "liberal radio."
But Hannity was a household name b/c of his TV show, Hannity and Charlie McCarthy. Glenn Beck wasn't really a commodity until he hit FOX. His radio show was semi-popular, his Headline News show was kinda ehhh...but he did not become anywhere near as popular as he is today until his television show hit FOX. So you're listing people who cross several media streams - don't conflate their popularity with initial talk radio popularity.
Also, quality of content. Air America stunk. Don't get me wrong, conservative radio stinks, too, but for whatever reason people are willing to listen to the "2 parts Father Coughlin, 3 parts Nature Boy Ric Flair, 1 jigger of triple sec, add ice and shake" recipe for talk radio. "Talk radio" is far more a form of entertainment than it is a form of information. Now, how you can reconcile the demographic difference in intelligence between the crowd of people who watch The Daily Show (mostly liberal) and those who watch O'Reilly is beyond me - as they're both "infotainment."
The only good host on Air America was super-populist Ed Schultz. He's still on the air. Everyone else was pretty bad. Now, there are conservative hosts who are bad (I mean bad at what they do, not stupid), but somehow folks like Mark Levin and Neal Boortz remain on the air.
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
Yep. Conservative talk radio, as fine purveyors of the fine art of pure propaganda, have convinced their listeners that there is not a *single* media outlet worth listening to or following except for them and their buddies (conservative radio has a bit of a crony system in place, as I know Marc Levin was all over Hannity's show for ages, for example). Conservative radio listeners have no alternative - where are they going to go to get informed? NPR? That's liberal crap. CNN? Liberal. NYT? Liberal. WaPo? PBS? MSNBC? Liberal Liberal Liberal. Conservatives are skeptical of ANY news source until the small network of people who they do place their trust in (again, the entertainers) okay that news source for them. It's an informal vetting system, in other words.
But for ultraliberals who love broad perspectives, deep discussion of relevant topics, and 90% less screaming, racist jingles, catchphrases and commercials? N-P-mother
in-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.
There's also other avenues for genuine political talk shows that do radio as well - Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is doing just fine, for instance (note: I'm pretty sure this is a radio program).
I'd also be interested to see what the balance is b/w more well known liberal and conservative podcasts.
EDIT: Alternate alternate hypothesis: liberals are all nutjobs and strictly listen to George Norry.
A number of factors, I think, the primary one is demographics.
"Conservatives" don't all listen to talk radio do. Old folks do, and older folks are more prone to conservatism (which is itself, I presume, the fear of change/wishing that things would be 'the way they used to be' that develops as people age). So the technological medium is what harms "liberal radio."
But Hannity was a household name b/c of his TV show, Hannity and Charlie McCarthy. Glenn Beck wasn't really a commodity until he hit FOX. His radio show was semi-popular, his Headline News show was kinda ehhh...but he did not become anywhere near as popular as he is today until his television show hit FOX. So you're listing people who cross several media streams - don't conflate their popularity with initial talk radio popularity.
Also, quality of content. Air America stunk. Don't get me wrong, conservative radio stinks, too, but for whatever reason people are willing to listen to the "2 parts Father Coughlin, 3 parts Nature Boy Ric Flair, 1 jigger of triple sec, add ice and shake" recipe for talk radio. "Talk radio" is far more a form of entertainment than it is a form of information. Now, how you can reconcile the demographic difference in intelligence between the crowd of people who watch The Daily Show (mostly liberal) and those who watch O'Reilly is beyond me - as they're both "infotainment."
The only good host on Air America was super-populist Ed Schultz. He's still on the air. Everyone else was pretty bad. Now, there are conservative hosts who are bad (I mean bad at what they do, not stupid), but somehow folks like Mark Levin and Neal Boortz remain on the air.
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
Yep. Conservative talk radio, as fine purveyors of the fine art of pure propaganda, have convinced their listeners that there is not a *single* media outlet worth listening to or following except for them and their buddies (conservative radio has a bit of a crony system in place, as I know Marc Levin was all over Hannity's show for ages, for example). Conservative radio listeners have no alternative - where are they going to go to get informed? NPR? That's liberal crap. CNN? Liberal. NYT? Liberal. WaPo? PBS? MSNBC? Liberal Liberal Liberal. Conservatives are skeptical of ANY news source until the small network of people who they do place their trust in (again, the entertainers) okay that news source for them. It's an informal vetting system, in other words.
But for ultraliberals who love broad perspectives, deep discussion of relevant topics, and 90% less screaming, racist jingles, catchphrases and commercials? N-P-mother
in-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.There's also other avenues for genuine political talk shows that do radio as well - Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is doing just fine, for instance (note: I'm pretty sure this is a radio program).
I'd also be interested to see what the balance is b/w more well known liberal and conservative podcasts.
EDIT: Alternate alternate hypothesis: liberals are all nutjobs and strictly listen to George Norry.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
liberal talk radio - talks at you
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']NPR.[/QUOTE]
That's awesome. You're blaming the government.
That's awesome. You're blaming the government.
I don't picture the same type of people who would be attracted to Air America-type talk radio as the same ones who would listen to NPR. Mostly because I listen to a lot of NPR.
I think the main reason why "conservative" talk radio does better is because the stations that are "conservative" don't always focus on news-talk. For example, the one I listen to has Boortz, followed by Dave Ramsey and Clark Howard. Ramsey gets a little Jesusy at times, but neither one of these shows (and Howard is based out of the same home radio station as Boortz) typically get into the news - unless it's personal finance related. Conservative radio stations usually mix it up a bit.
But, back to my earlier comment about liberals not getting into group think and/or watching American Idol - both of those are pretty strong possibilities. Let's move from talk radio into books. Outside of Oprah's book of the month, look at the top ten lists for books... pretty much every month, you'll see at least one, if not multiple, books by conservatives listed. Now, as Myke pointed out, many times they're the same click as on talk radio or FOX News. But how often do you see liberal books in the top ten?
Someone with more time on their hands compare the sales of Palin's book to Obama's two books, Ted Kennedy's book and both Clinton books. That'd be interesting to see.
I think the main reason why "conservative" talk radio does better is because the stations that are "conservative" don't always focus on news-talk. For example, the one I listen to has Boortz, followed by Dave Ramsey and Clark Howard. Ramsey gets a little Jesusy at times, but neither one of these shows (and Howard is based out of the same home radio station as Boortz) typically get into the news - unless it's personal finance related. Conservative radio stations usually mix it up a bit.
But, back to my earlier comment about liberals not getting into group think and/or watching American Idol - both of those are pretty strong possibilities. Let's move from talk radio into books. Outside of Oprah's book of the month, look at the top ten lists for books... pretty much every month, you'll see at least one, if not multiple, books by conservatives listed. Now, as Myke pointed out, many times they're the same click as on talk radio or FOX News. But how often do you see liberal books in the top ten?
Someone with more time on their hands compare the sales of Palin's book to Obama's two books, Ted Kennedy's book and both Clinton books. That'd be interesting to see.
[quote name='Papa Neorev']liberal talk radio - talks at you
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.[/QUOTE]
This is something else - from what little experience I have with news-talk radio, conservative talk radio hosts seem to take a lot of calls. Granted, they do a lot of preaching from the mike as well, but they talk a lot of calls - from both sides of the aisle. Liberal talk radio hosts don't seem to do a lot of that. They'd rather talk or have guests on than take phone calls. Granted, I don't have too much exposure with liberal talk radio and what exposure I have with conservative talk radio is limited...
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.[/QUOTE]
This is something else - from what little experience I have with news-talk radio, conservative talk radio hosts seem to take a lot of calls. Granted, they do a lot of preaching from the mike as well, but they talk a lot of calls - from both sides of the aisle. Liberal talk radio hosts don't seem to do a lot of that. They'd rather talk or have guests on than take phone calls. Granted, I don't have too much exposure with liberal talk radio and what exposure I have with conservative talk radio is limited...
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That's awesome. You're blaming the government.[/QUOTE]
And he's 100% correct!
And he's 100% correct!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']But for ultraliberals who love broad perspectives, deep discussion of relevant topics, and 90% less screaming, racist jingles, catchphrases and commercials? N-P-motherin-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.[/QUOTE]
You'll never see someone like Diance Rehm on conservative radio. Because in conservative radio it's all about style over substance, delivery over content. Her voice may be annoying, but for me it's ten times more relaxing then the sound byte salad they hit you with when running the lowlight reels of weekly Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter cluster commentary.
They trot Brit Hume in on the local station when I'm waiting for traffic reports, his "stereotypical newsguy" character reminds me of muppet newsflash. I'm always mildly shocked when they don't run a laugh track in the background.
in-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.[/QUOTE]You'll never see someone like Diance Rehm on conservative radio. Because in conservative radio it's all about style over substance, delivery over content. Her voice may be annoying, but for me it's ten times more relaxing then the sound byte salad they hit you with when running the lowlight reels of weekly Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter cluster
commentary.They trot Brit Hume in on the local station when I'm waiting for traffic reports, his "stereotypical newsguy" character reminds me of muppet newsflash. I'm always mildly shocked when they don't run a laugh track in the background.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ "crippled epistemology.'
God I love that phrase.
God I love that phrase.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']NPR is the only thing I listen to.
Conservos have convinced people to distrust it because it is funded by YOUR tax dollars and it sometimes has opinions that disagree with your own. Those two put together make for some powerful populist anger.[/QUOTE]
Sweatty balls convinced me to keep my time listening to NPR to a minimum.
Conservos have convinced people to distrust it because it is funded by YOUR tax dollars and it sometimes has opinions that disagree with your own. Those two put together make for some powerful populist anger.[/QUOTE]
Sweatty balls convinced me to keep my time listening to NPR to a minimum.
The one claim that a lot of conservatives make, above all the others, which has befuddled me, is the claims of liberal bias in the media. Millions of people every day listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage on the radio, while one of the few liberal radio outlets has just collapsed.
Books written by these and other authors like O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter almost always debut and spend weeks in the top 10 of the NY Time Best Seller list, while similar books by more liberal authors go ignored.
FOX News annhilates just about everyone else on cable. Sure, maybe the liberals still have the Newspapers, but nobody reads those and most of them are struggling to survive. So even if there IS a liberal bias in media (and I'm not saying there is), be it CNN, MSNBC, or any of the Network Nightly News programs, what does it matter, since most people clearly aren't paying much attention to these outlets anyways.
Books written by these and other authors like O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter almost always debut and spend weeks in the top 10 of the NY Time Best Seller list, while similar books by more liberal authors go ignored.
FOX News annhilates just about everyone else on cable. Sure, maybe the liberals still have the Newspapers, but nobody reads those and most of them are struggling to survive. So even if there IS a liberal bias in media (and I'm not saying there is), be it CNN, MSNBC, or any of the Network Nightly News programs, what does it matter, since most people clearly aren't paying much attention to these outlets anyways.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']A number of factors, I think, the primary one is demographics.
"Conservatives" don't all listen to talk radio do. Old folks do, and older folks are more prone to conservatism (which is itself, I presume, the fear of change/wishing that things would be 'the way they used to be' that develops as people age). So the technological medium is what harms "liberal radio."
But Hannity was a household name b/c of his TV show, Hannity and Charlie McCarthy. Glenn Beck wasn't really a commodity until he hit FOX. His radio show was semi-popular, his Headline News show was kinda ehhh...but he did not become anywhere near as popular as he is today until his television show hit FOX. So you're listing people who cross several media streams - don't conflate their popularity with initial talk radio popularity.
Also, quality of content. Air America stunk. Don't get me wrong, conservative radio stinks, too, but for whatever reason people are willing to listen to the "2 parts Father Coughlin, 3 parts Nature Boy Ric Flair, 1 jigger of triple sec, add ice and shake" recipe for talk radio. "Talk radio" is far more a form of entertainment than it is a form of information. Now, how you can reconcile the demographic difference in intelligence between the crowd of people who watch The Daily Show (mostly liberal) and those who watch O'Reilly is beyond me - as they're both "infotainment."
The only good host on Air America was super-populist Ed Schultz. He's still on the air. Everyone else was pretty bad. Now, there are conservative hosts who are bad (I mean bad at what they do, not stupid), but somehow folks like Mark Levin and Neal Boortz remain on the air.
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
Yep. Conservative talk radio, as fine purveyors of the fine art of pure propaganda, have convinced their listeners that there is not a *single* media outlet worth listening to or following except for them and their buddies (conservative radio has a bit of a crony system in place, as I know Marc Levin was all over Hannity's show for ages, for example). Conservative radio listeners have no alternative - where are they going to go to get informed? NPR? That's liberal crap. CNN? Liberal. NYT? Liberal. WaPo? PBS? MSNBC? Liberal Liberal Liberal. Conservatives are skeptical of ANY news source until the small network of people who they do place their trust in (again, the entertainers) okay that news source for them. It's an informal vetting system, in other words.
But for ultraliberals who love broad perspectives, deep discussion of relevant topics, and 90% less screaming, racist jingles, catchphrases and commercials? N-P-motherin-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.
There's also other avenues for genuine political talk shows that do radio as well - Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is doing just fine, for instance (note: I'm pretty sure this is a radio program).
I'd also be interested to see what the balance is b/w more well known liberal and conservative podcasts.
EDIT: Alternate alternate hypothesis: liberals are all nutjobs and strictly listen to George Norry.[/QUOTE]
*ignores everything Myke said and turns on CBC Radio*
"Conservatives" don't all listen to talk radio do. Old folks do, and older folks are more prone to conservatism (which is itself, I presume, the fear of change/wishing that things would be 'the way they used to be' that develops as people age). So the technological medium is what harms "liberal radio."
But Hannity was a household name b/c of his TV show, Hannity and Charlie McCarthy. Glenn Beck wasn't really a commodity until he hit FOX. His radio show was semi-popular, his Headline News show was kinda ehhh...but he did not become anywhere near as popular as he is today until his television show hit FOX. So you're listing people who cross several media streams - don't conflate their popularity with initial talk radio popularity.
Also, quality of content. Air America stunk. Don't get me wrong, conservative radio stinks, too, but for whatever reason people are willing to listen to the "2 parts Father Coughlin, 3 parts Nature Boy Ric Flair, 1 jigger of triple sec, add ice and shake" recipe for talk radio. "Talk radio" is far more a form of entertainment than it is a form of information. Now, how you can reconcile the demographic difference in intelligence between the crowd of people who watch The Daily Show (mostly liberal) and those who watch O'Reilly is beyond me - as they're both "infotainment."
The only good host on Air America was super-populist Ed Schultz. He's still on the air. Everyone else was pretty bad. Now, there are conservative hosts who are bad (I mean bad at what they do, not stupid), but somehow folks like Mark Levin and Neal Boortz remain on the air.
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
Yep. Conservative talk radio, as fine purveyors of the fine art of pure propaganda, have convinced their listeners that there is not a *single* media outlet worth listening to or following except for them and their buddies (conservative radio has a bit of a crony system in place, as I know Marc Levin was all over Hannity's show for ages, for example). Conservative radio listeners have no alternative - where are they going to go to get informed? NPR? That's liberal crap. CNN? Liberal. NYT? Liberal. WaPo? PBS? MSNBC? Liberal Liberal Liberal. Conservatives are skeptical of ANY news source until the small network of people who they do place their trust in (again, the entertainers) okay that news source for them. It's an informal vetting system, in other words.
But for ultraliberals who love broad perspectives, deep discussion of relevant topics, and 90% less screaming, racist jingles, catchphrases and commercials? N-P-mother
in-R. Get over here, Diance Rehm (rawr!). NPR hurt liberal talk radio more than any other single factor, I think, and is a large part of why it will never succeed.There's also other avenues for genuine political talk shows that do radio as well - Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is doing just fine, for instance (note: I'm pretty sure this is a radio program).
I'd also be interested to see what the balance is b/w more well known liberal and conservative podcasts.
EDIT: Alternate alternate hypothesis: liberals are all nutjobs and strictly listen to George Norry.[/QUOTE]
*ignores everything Myke said and turns on CBC Radio*
I occasionally listen to NPR and various conservative talk radio programs (except for Hannity, whom I really can't stand). I'm not a big music-radio listener (I'm a big fan of classical music, not so much the hip-hop crap that festers the airwaves these days).
I truly believe the reason liberal talk radio fails is because talk radio is a forum for opinion meant to persuade. Liberals have a very hard time getting folks to subscribe to their progressive opinions. Just look at politicians. Hard-lined liberal politicians who campaign as huge liberals usually fail. Many people may think Obama is a big liberal, but he certainly didn't campaign as a liberal. He campaigned as a moderate. When something is labled as "liberal", whether it be a politician or a radio show, the deck is stacked against them.
Leftists are great on the offensive. When they're going after a cause, their attacks are usually extremely effective. They just don't defend too well. How does one defend higher taxes in a rational manner? Or government taking away freedoms? Or killing unborn babies? Their defense is usually to counter-attack or redirect. Its a very effective strategy, but it just doesn't translate well to the talk-radio format.
However, one thing liberals can get behind and defend to a spectacular degree is the morality of altruism. (For you uneducated CAGs, altruism is "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"). The conservative talk radio hosts, as altruists, cannot make a moral argument against the 'welfare state' but they can argue its impracticality till they're blue in the face, and this fills up a lot of their airtime. Liberal talk radio hosts arguing for self-sacrifice and social and economic fairness, and in turn, attempting to persuade others with these opinions, is about as exciting as church. Preaching altruism just ain't that entertaining.
Despite thier political opinions, the majority of hosts on Air America just were not entertaining. At all. I truly believe that even if they were conservatives, their radio programs would have failed, because that's how bad they were. Most of them couldn't field a call from an intelligent and educated person with a different opinion than theirs without resorting to their attack or redirect tactic. They just weren't that informed, and/or that quick on their feet with an intelligent and well-worded response.
I truly believe the reason liberal talk radio fails is because talk radio is a forum for opinion meant to persuade. Liberals have a very hard time getting folks to subscribe to their progressive opinions. Just look at politicians. Hard-lined liberal politicians who campaign as huge liberals usually fail. Many people may think Obama is a big liberal, but he certainly didn't campaign as a liberal. He campaigned as a moderate. When something is labled as "liberal", whether it be a politician or a radio show, the deck is stacked against them.
Leftists are great on the offensive. When they're going after a cause, their attacks are usually extremely effective. They just don't defend too well. How does one defend higher taxes in a rational manner? Or government taking away freedoms? Or killing unborn babies? Their defense is usually to counter-attack or redirect. Its a very effective strategy, but it just doesn't translate well to the talk-radio format.
However, one thing liberals can get behind and defend to a spectacular degree is the morality of altruism. (For you uneducated CAGs, altruism is "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others"). The conservative talk radio hosts, as altruists, cannot make a moral argument against the 'welfare state' but they can argue its impracticality till they're blue in the face, and this fills up a lot of their airtime. Liberal talk radio hosts arguing for self-sacrifice and social and economic fairness, and in turn, attempting to persuade others with these opinions, is about as exciting as church. Preaching altruism just ain't that entertaining.
Despite thier political opinions, the majority of hosts on Air America just were not entertaining. At all. I truly believe that even if they were conservatives, their radio programs would have failed, because that's how bad they were. Most of them couldn't field a call from an intelligent and educated person with a different opinion than theirs without resorting to their attack or redirect tactic. They just weren't that informed, and/or that quick on their feet with an intelligent and well-worded response.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Papa Neorev']liberal talk radio - talks at you
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.[/QUOTE]
No. They both talk "at" you. However if you happen to agree with the message in either case, it feels like they are talking with you.
Conservatives have a problem with being objective.
conservative talk radio - talks with you
it really is that simple.[/QUOTE]
No. They both talk "at" you. However if you happen to agree with the message in either case, it feels like they are talking with you.
Conservatives have a problem with being objective.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Krymner']Leftists are great on the offensive. When they're going after a cause, their attacks are usually extremely effective. They just don't defend too well. How does one defend higher taxes in a rational manner? Or government taking away freedoms? Or killing unborn babies? Their defense is usually to counter-attack or redirect. Its a very effective strategy, but it just doesn't translate well to the talk-radio format.[/quote]
This is really, really silly. Particularly the "rational manner" part - you act as if the opposite philosophy, which advocates tax cuts when the economy is good, and tax cuts when the economy is bad, and tax cuts when the economy is neither is a "rational" perspective.
Plus the way you frame issues ("government taking away freedoms" and "killing unborn babies") shows that you do listen to talk radio. That you can't even name a topic for debate without showing your hand in terms of your bias. You may think to yourself, "well, they are killing unborn babies" - but when you can't even acknowledge that the issue of when life starts is plenty contentious, or when you can't elaborate on what "freedoms" our government has taken away when a liberal hand was on the governmental trigger (name one in the past decade and a half) - then you start to see how talk radio is junk food that's permeated your brain.
Let me put it this way: if you think there's something intrinsically different about left/right political philosophies that makes one more appealing for talk radio, you're wrong. There are huge demographic differences - but I see many folks want to ignore the boring, unfun common sense for theoretical exploration of qualitative differences in the arguments each side brings to the table?
Please.
And you act like conservatives do not have controversial messages to take to talk radio. I beg to differ. I think they are all poisonously harmful to American race relations in the United States, I think they have created a class of angry white people who think that racism comes in the form of entitlement programs that harm whites and love to mock what they think is stereotypical black culture, who equate "black" with "crime" and "welfare" (despite whites being more prone to both). I think they shamelessly promote a white supremacist culture that helps people carry the woefully naive perspective that life in America is easier if you're black and harder if you're white (a perspective where, literally, black is white and white is black). Nothing could be even remotely further from the truth, and yet it makes people feel good to think that they don't have themselves to blame for their poor status in life.
They address sex in much the same way - there's no subtlety whatsoever to the racism and sexism inherent in conservative talk radio. But it's overlooked by people who listen to the programs and want to conclude horribly naive things that lead them to conclude that being PC has ruined America (when that's just code for them being upset it's no longer cool to tell a n*gger joke in a public place).
It's absolutely absurd to think that the left or the right has a harder time selling their points.
Listen to Limbaugh - the next time you do, ask yourself this: when Limbaugh is discussing a contentious issue that people are battling over, who is the dominant group here? not who is right, but who are the overlords? who is "winning"? who are the victims in this particular fracas? Who are the downtrodden, oppressed, victimized, yet noble and righteous, people?
That's what talk radio does - it galvanizes people's insecurities about their lot in life, and it creates targets (liberals, minorities, more minorities, women, non-christian faiths, government) and says "they are the fault you are where you are." That's coping. That's therapeutic. I got a shit lot in life, but thanks to Rush Limbaugh, I know it's the fault of Affirmative Action and "feminazis."
But victimizing actual victims is. One word: Katrina. And that's the culmination of decades of conservative blaming the victim, not the start.
Too true. Conservative talk show hosts don't attack, berate, scream at or screen off intelligent callers.
Sheesh.
This is really, really silly. Particularly the "rational manner" part - you act as if the opposite philosophy, which advocates tax cuts when the economy is good, and tax cuts when the economy is bad, and tax cuts when the economy is neither is a "rational" perspective.
Plus the way you frame issues ("government taking away freedoms" and "killing unborn babies") shows that you do listen to talk radio. That you can't even name a topic for debate without showing your hand in terms of your bias. You may think to yourself, "well, they are killing unborn babies" - but when you can't even acknowledge that the issue of when life starts is plenty contentious, or when you can't elaborate on what "freedoms" our government has taken away when a liberal hand was on the governmental trigger (name one in the past decade and a half) - then you start to see how talk radio is junk food that's permeated your brain.
Let me put it this way: if you think there's something intrinsically different about left/right political philosophies that makes one more appealing for talk radio, you're wrong. There are huge demographic differences - but I see many folks want to ignore the boring, unfun common sense for theoretical exploration of qualitative differences in the arguments each side brings to the table?
Please.
And you act like conservatives do not have controversial messages to take to talk radio. I beg to differ. I think they are all poisonously harmful to American race relations in the United States, I think they have created a class of angry white people who think that racism comes in the form of entitlement programs that harm whites and love to mock what they think is stereotypical black culture, who equate "black" with "crime" and "welfare" (despite whites being more prone to both). I think they shamelessly promote a white supremacist culture that helps people carry the woefully naive perspective that life in America is easier if you're black and harder if you're white (a perspective where, literally, black is white and white is black). Nothing could be even remotely further from the truth, and yet it makes people feel good to think that they don't have themselves to blame for their poor status in life.
They address sex in much the same way - there's no subtlety whatsoever to the racism and sexism inherent in conservative talk radio. But it's overlooked by people who listen to the programs and want to conclude horribly naive things that lead them to conclude that being PC has ruined America (when that's just code for them being upset it's no longer cool to tell a n*gger joke in a public place).
It's absolutely absurd to think that the left or the right has a harder time selling their points.
Listen to Limbaugh - the next time you do, ask yourself this: when Limbaugh is discussing a contentious issue that people are battling over, who is the dominant group here? not who is right, but who are the overlords? who is "winning"? who are the victims in this particular fracas? Who are the downtrodden, oppressed, victimized, yet noble and righteous, people?
That's what talk radio does - it galvanizes people's insecurities about their lot in life, and it creates targets (liberals, minorities, more minorities, women, non-christian faiths, government) and says "they are the fault you are where you are." That's coping. That's therapeutic. I got a shit lot in life, but thanks to Rush Limbaugh, I know it's the fault of Affirmative Action and "feminazis."
But victimizing actual victims is. One word: Katrina. And that's the culmination of decades of conservative blaming the victim, not the start.
Too true. Conservative talk show hosts don't attack, berate, scream at or screen off intelligent callers.
Sheesh.
JolietJake
Banned
I watched the taping of Franken's show on whatever cable channel it used to come on. Air America wasn't carried here i believe, so i never listened.
[quote name='usickenme']No. They both talk "at" you. However if you happen to agree with the message in either case, it feels like they are talking with you.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, there's no real difference between Limbaugh and Olbermann in their message.
If a person agrees with them, they feel like they're talking with them as people like to have their opinions validated by hearing them shouted back at them by the talking heads on TV and radio.
If the person is opposed with the views, they feel like they're being talked at, and that the person is trying to cram their views down their throat.
It's just the nature of the average Joes and Janes on both sides of the aisle. They have strong and largely uninformed opinions based mostly on upbringing, morals and rhetoric, and have little interest in hearing the rhetoric from the other side.
Personally I've never been into talking heads on TV or Radio, opinion columns etc. much. I like to read news articles and form my own opinions. Not hear someone else's take on the news, cause frankly I don't much care about others takes on the news.
Radio, I've just never been a big listener. I've always had a CD player in my car (just a discman hooked up through the tape deck in my first car back in high school) and pretty much always been a album music listener in the car, office, home etc.
I'll occasionally listen to NPR, but not much since moving to Atlanta as the local public radio station doesn't really do much of they NPR program (unlike when I lived into DC). They really only have it during the morning commute (the standard NPR morning news) and the eventing commute (The World or whatever it's called followed by All Things Considered). And I'm usually not in the car during typical commute times since I usually work from 11-1 or so to 9-11pm or so.
So I think Myke was also right that a lot of it with Radio is demographics. The older demographic probably listens to more radio than us younger folk (I'm 31, have to imagine younger generations listen to the radio even less having grown up with iPods etc.). And the older demographic skews conservative. So the audience for liberal talk radio isn't that large since younger folk aren't listening to the radio as much, are more inclined to listen to NPR as Myke noted, to watch the Daily Show, to get their news online etc.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, there's no real difference between Limbaugh and Olbermann in their message.
If a person agrees with them, they feel like they're talking with them as people like to have their opinions validated by hearing them shouted back at them by the talking heads on TV and radio.
If the person is opposed with the views, they feel like they're being talked at, and that the person is trying to cram their views down their throat.
It's just the nature of the average Joes and Janes on both sides of the aisle. They have strong and largely uninformed opinions based mostly on upbringing, morals and rhetoric, and have little interest in hearing the rhetoric from the other side.
Personally I've never been into talking heads on TV or Radio, opinion columns etc. much. I like to read news articles and form my own opinions. Not hear someone else's take on the news, cause frankly I don't much care about others takes on the news.
Radio, I've just never been a big listener. I've always had a CD player in my car (just a discman hooked up through the tape deck in my first car back in high school) and pretty much always been a album music listener in the car, office, home etc.
I'll occasionally listen to NPR, but not much since moving to Atlanta as the local public radio station doesn't really do much of they NPR program (unlike when I lived into DC). They really only have it during the morning commute (the standard NPR morning news) and the eventing commute (The World or whatever it's called followed by All Things Considered). And I'm usually not in the car during typical commute times since I usually work from 11-1 or so to 9-11pm or so.
So I think Myke was also right that a lot of it with Radio is demographics. The older demographic probably listens to more radio than us younger folk (I'm 31, have to imagine younger generations listen to the radio even less having grown up with iPods etc.). And the older demographic skews conservative. So the audience for liberal talk radio isn't that large since younger folk aren't listening to the radio as much, are more inclined to listen to NPR as Myke noted, to watch the Daily Show, to get their news online etc.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='camoor']Because in conservative radio it's all about style over substance, delivery over content.[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Much of media is like that, however. That's why Michelle Malkin gets air time and Noam Chomsky does not. Especially why Chomsky does not. He's the antithesis of ratings. He's undeniably brilliant, both in his thorough historical knowledge and his ability to articulate points. But his brilliance is inversely proportional to his charisma. He'sing terrible to listen to, even from me, someone who is interested in what he has to say - imagine how someone who doesn't care about him or refuses to agree with him would feel (since let's be honest, people who dislike him tend to lack the substance to have a perspective that would qualify as a "disagreement," so I think "refusal to agree" is a more accurate term).
But even I will yell at my TV when some I-can't-believe-you-have-the-gall-to-say-that-on-air stupidity comes out of the mouth of a Bill Kristol, Alex Castellanos, Erick Erickson, etc.
I don't use pro wrestling metaphors for political pundits lightly. I think that many of these folks' styles of antagonism and rhetorical approaches so closely mimic the big bad guys of the past, and especially their managers, that I'm not just imagining a parallel between the WWF and FOX News. It's intentional.
Much of media is like that, however. That's why Michelle Malkin gets air time and Noam Chomsky does not. Especially why Chomsky does not. He's the antithesis of ratings. He's undeniably brilliant, both in his thorough historical knowledge and his ability to articulate points. But his brilliance is inversely proportional to his charisma. He's
ing terrible to listen to, even from me, someone who is interested in what he has to say - imagine how someone who doesn't care about him or refuses to agree with him would feel (since let's be honest, people who dislike him tend to lack the substance to have a perspective that would qualify as a "disagreement," so I think "refusal to agree" is a more accurate term).But even I will yell at my TV when some I-can't-believe-you-have-the-gall-to-say-that-on-air stupidity comes out of the mouth of a Bill Kristol, Alex Castellanos, Erick Erickson, etc.
I don't use pro wrestling metaphors for political pundits lightly. I think that many of these folks' styles of antagonism and rhetorical approaches so closely mimic the big bad guys of the past, and especially their managers, that I'm not just imagining a parallel between the WWF and FOX News. It's intentional.
you're all wrong
liberal media sucks because they don't say things like "you're all wrong". conservative media is way more entertaining because they'll unzip their pants and rub their junk all of your good china. they don't care. they're right, and if you disagree, you're wrong. that's a much more entertaining attitude. liberals are just kinda snarky... they seem more open to differing viewpoints, they seemingly acknowledge variance in human perspective... it's not enteraining. nobody wants to listen to rachel maddow make snarky passive-aggressive comments about acceptance of diversity... it's more entertaining to hear "so-and-so is ruining this-and-that" with the utmost conviction.
among liberals, chris mathews is probably the best at the i'm-right-and-you're-extremely-wrong cocky dismissal of opposing viewpoints... i can't think of any other liberal voice that has the sort of confidence. although chris mathews is ruined by looking like he's made out of wax.
liberal media sucks because they don't say things like "you're all wrong". conservative media is way more entertaining because they'll unzip their pants and rub their junk all of your good china. they don't care. they're right, and if you disagree, you're wrong. that's a much more entertaining attitude. liberals are just kinda snarky... they seem more open to differing viewpoints, they seemingly acknowledge variance in human perspective... it's not enteraining. nobody wants to listen to rachel maddow make snarky passive-aggressive comments about acceptance of diversity... it's more entertaining to hear "so-and-so is ruining this-and-that" with the utmost conviction.
among liberals, chris mathews is probably the best at the i'm-right-and-you're-extremely-wrong cocky dismissal of opposing viewpoints... i can't think of any other liberal voice that has the sort of confidence. although chris mathews is ruined by looking like he's made out of wax.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
[/QUOTE]
yeah, youre probably right that there are a ton of liberals listening to NPR instead of liberal talk. i guess its something i dont look too much into for 2 reasons. 1. NPR is not infotainment as you called conservative radio. and thats really what im focusing on here. secondly, i know plenty of conservatives (and lets not confuse conservative with republican now, because this is a key distinction in this example) that listen to NPR.
[quote name='spmahn']The one claim that a lot of conservatives make, above all the others, which has befuddled me, is the claims of liberal bias in the media. Millions of people every day listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage on the radio, while one of the few liberal radio outlets has just collapsed.
Books written by these and other authors like O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter almost always debut and spend weeks in the top 10 of the NY Time Best Seller list, while similar books by more liberal authors go ignored.
[/QUOTE]
well lets not confuse infotainment with actual news. yes, millions of people listen to right wing radio, but thats not the sames as watching the news on CNN or picking up and reading time magazine.
Third, "liberal radio" faces far stiffer competition on the radio than does conservative radio. "WTF?" you say. Yes, indeed, liberal radio has more competition than conservative radio.
NPR.
[/QUOTE]
yeah, youre probably right that there are a ton of liberals listening to NPR instead of liberal talk. i guess its something i dont look too much into for 2 reasons. 1. NPR is not infotainment as you called conservative radio. and thats really what im focusing on here. secondly, i know plenty of conservatives (and lets not confuse conservative with republican now, because this is a key distinction in this example) that listen to NPR.
[quote name='spmahn']The one claim that a lot of conservatives make, above all the others, which has befuddled me, is the claims of liberal bias in the media. Millions of people every day listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage on the radio, while one of the few liberal radio outlets has just collapsed.
Books written by these and other authors like O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter almost always debut and spend weeks in the top 10 of the NY Time Best Seller list, while similar books by more liberal authors go ignored.
[/QUOTE]
well lets not confuse infotainment with actual news. yes, millions of people listen to right wing radio, but thats not the sames as watching the news on CNN or picking up and reading time magazine.
@mykevermin
FYI I am a pro-choice advocate when it comes to abortion. I only used those points ("government taking away freedoms" and "killing unborn babies") and "framed" them in such a way as brief examples as things many liberal talk show hosts actually do believe in and discuss. Why are you attacking me personally if I'm just talking about liberal talk show hosts? IDK maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking about "liberal talk show hosts" and not liberals in general; I just assumed that that was the topic, so I do appologize for not being more specific and making my distinctions more clear.
The fact is, the liberal hosts on Air America were almost (but not quite) as bad broadcasters as GW Bush was a president. They both failed miserably and bankrupted the very things they were entrusted as stewards.
Katrina. Give me a friggin break. Damn GW and his weather dominator that he stole from Cobra.
The demographic debate is true to some degree, I do conceed that. But its only a small part of the bigger picture. According to the '09 Pew Media Research, 18% aged 18-29 said radio was their primary source for national news, compared to 28% aged 30-49, 19% aged 50-64, and 15% aged 65+.
@Msut77
Thanks but no thanks. I'm not interested in any wealth-envy crap. I don't care how much wealth other people make, steal, borrow, or bleed, and I don't care how much they pay or don't pay to the government. It just doesn't interest me at all personally, and doesn't make me upset either way.
PS: I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-single payer health. I do prescribe to many other "liberal" beliefs. I just don't drink the kool-aid and think the government is the solution to all problems like many liberal talk-show hosts seem to believe. And in turning that around, I don't drink the Limbaugh kool-aid either in believing the private sector is the best answer for everything. I do believe there is a balance to be found.
FYI I am a pro-choice advocate when it comes to abortion. I only used those points ("government taking away freedoms" and "killing unborn babies") and "framed" them in such a way as brief examples as things many liberal talk show hosts actually do believe in and discuss. Why are you attacking me personally if I'm just talking about liberal talk show hosts? IDK maybe I didn't make it clear that I was talking about "liberal talk show hosts" and not liberals in general; I just assumed that that was the topic, so I do appologize for not being more specific and making my distinctions more clear.
The fact is, the liberal hosts on Air America were almost (but not quite) as bad broadcasters as GW Bush was a president. They both failed miserably and bankrupted the very things they were entrusted as stewards.
I stand behind my opinion that liberal talk radio hosts are poor defenders of their views. Conservatives are just better on defense because it is easier for them. Myke I thought you of anyone would know that it is a lot easier to defend conservative opinions than it is liberal ones. To me it seems liberals do have it tougher in defending their stance on the issues, because it takes a liberal who is intelligent, educated, and well-informed to get their conservative opponent to understand their position. Conservatives have it easier by far because many of their stances are defended by quoting the Constitution or some 'founding father'. You put a lib and a conserve in a debate about gun control, and the conservative is gonna trump the lib every time just by quoting the 2nd amendment unless the lib is informed and articulative enough to make the point why the 2nd amendment needs altering in the first place. Trust me Mike, not all libs are as smart as you, and many of those guys are the ones doing talk radio. And there-in lies the problem with liberal talk radio.
Katrina. Give me a friggin break. Damn GW and his weather dominator that he stole from Cobra.
The demographic debate is true to some degree, I do conceed that. But its only a small part of the bigger picture. According to the '09 Pew Media Research, 18% aged 18-29 said radio was their primary source for national news, compared to 28% aged 30-49, 19% aged 50-64, and 15% aged 65+.
@Msut77
Thanks but no thanks. I'm not interested in any wealth-envy crap. I don't care how much wealth other people make, steal, borrow, or bleed, and I don't care how much they pay or don't pay to the government. It just doesn't interest me at all personally, and doesn't make me upset either way.
PS: I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-single payer health. I do prescribe to many other "liberal" beliefs. I just don't drink the kool-aid and think the government is the solution to all problems like many liberal talk-show hosts seem to believe. And in turning that around, I don't drink the Limbaugh kool-aid either in believing the private sector is the best answer for everything. I do believe there is a balance to be found.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='SpazX']Oh god, I think the first time I heard Chomsky's voice was in a punk song intro. It was horrible, I think it was a decent song though. I'd much rather read a transcript...[/QUOTE]
DAMN YOU PROPAGANDHI! damn you
DAMN YOU PROPAGANDHI! damn you
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The first time I heard "I Want You To Want Me," it wasn't Cheap Trick.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
Let's not fall into the trap that liberal talk radio is solely represented by Air American now-a-days. Maybe in the mid-00s but there are so many nationally syndicated talkers who are outside of AA plus more local people that the downfall of AA doesn't matter in that regard.
Liberal radio is like conservative radio was 20 years ago
Liberal radio is like conservative radio was 20 years ago
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ That actually makes me think of another interesting possibility: the gatekeeper effect.
2 decades ago conservative radio *was* Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, you had political talk on smaller markets (god, how long has that asshole Bill Cunningham been on Cincy radio?). But one dominant show that paved the way for others.
Air America tried to start with the infrastructure at a national level without building or establishing a legacy or acceptance for liberal talk radio first. It's perhaps the same folly as the Libertarians who fail to realize that, in order to become recognized as a legitimate third party, they need to stop focusing their efforts at national-level politics and, instead, start local and build legitimacy as the city, county, and state level. Ignoring that and funding a jobber every 4 years hasn't done a thing for their movement.
So there's no liberal talk radio masthead. I think Ed Schultz has the potential to be that person, but I don't know that he will become that person.
2 decades ago conservative radio *was* Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, you had political talk on smaller markets (god, how long has that asshole Bill Cunningham been on Cincy radio?). But one dominant show that paved the way for others.
Air America tried to start with the infrastructure at a national level without building or establishing a legacy or acceptance for liberal talk radio first. It's perhaps the same folly as the Libertarians who fail to realize that, in order to become recognized as a legitimate third party, they need to stop focusing their efforts at national-level politics and, instead, start local and build legitimacy as the city, county, and state level. Ignoring that and funding a jobber every 4 years hasn't done a thing for their movement.
So there's no liberal talk radio masthead. I think Ed Schultz has the potential to be that person, but I don't know that he will become that person.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='mykevermin']
Air America tried to start with the infrastructure at a national level without building or establishing a legacy or acceptance for liberal talk radio first. It's perhaps the same folly as the Libertarians who fail to realize that, in order to become recognized as a legitimate third party, they need to stop focusing their efforts at national-level politics and, instead, start local and build legitimacy as the city, county, and state level.ultz has the potential to be that person, but I don't know that he will become that person.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point.
Though I do wonder how much of a market there is for liberal talk shows on radio.
There's clearly a market for liberal talking heads given the success/longevity of Olbermann, Chris Matthews etc., as well as the Daily Show.
But I do think your earlier point about age demographics is a very relevant ones. What portion of the liberal base is old enough to have ever been a regular radio listener, vs. listening to a CD in the car, music on their iPod etc.? It's an interesting question from a marketing stand point. Is there really an audience for liberal political talk on the radio?
It may well be that the market for liberal talking heads is more on TV, blogs and pod casts than on the radio. Vs. conservatives since the older demographic tends to skew conservative and grew up with radio.
Air America tried to start with the infrastructure at a national level without building or establishing a legacy or acceptance for liberal talk radio first. It's perhaps the same folly as the Libertarians who fail to realize that, in order to become recognized as a legitimate third party, they need to stop focusing their efforts at national-level politics and, instead, start local and build legitimacy as the city, county, and state level.ultz has the potential to be that person, but I don't know that he will become that person.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point.
Though I do wonder how much of a market there is for liberal talk shows on radio.
There's clearly a market for liberal talking heads given the success/longevity of Olbermann, Chris Matthews etc., as well as the Daily Show.
But I do think your earlier point about age demographics is a very relevant ones. What portion of the liberal base is old enough to have ever been a regular radio listener, vs. listening to a CD in the car, music on their iPod etc.? It's an interesting question from a marketing stand point. Is there really an audience for liberal political talk on the radio?
It may well be that the market for liberal talking heads is more on TV, blogs and pod casts than on the radio. Vs. conservatives since the older demographic tends to skew conservative and grew up with radio.
JolietJake
Banned
I have a 6 disc CD changer in my car, along with an auxiliary connector for an MP3 player, i still listen to the radio most of the time. I started listening to NPR solely because i was in a music appreciation class at the time and the local public station is the only station in the area that plays classical music. I've been listening ever since. I love Car Talk and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and listen to Fresh Air and All Things Considered on the way to/from work and school.
I find public radio to much more entertaining than public television, the only thing i like on PBS is the occasional episode of Monty Python.
I find public radio to much more entertaining than public television, the only thing i like on PBS is the occasional episode of Monty Python.
Honestly, I don't think the age for talk radio skews older, especially in these days of podcasting and live internet feeds. I was listening to Hannity on the radio when I was in High School 7 years ago, and when I got to college I met a lot of other people my age who did the same as well. Sure, we're probably the exception, but the 18-24 market is definitely out there for talk radio.
[quote name='spmahn']Honestly, I don't think the age for talk radio skews older, especially in these days of podcasting and live internet feeds. I was listening to Hannity on the radio when I was in High School 7 years ago, and when I got to college I met a lot of other people my age who did the same as well. Sure, we're probably the exception, but the 18-24 market is definitely out there for talk radio.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's all just conjecture.
I'd love to see some good survey stats on radio listening among younger ages, and talk radio listening in particular.
My view is probably a bit skewed, and maybe there is more of a market for it in younger crowds.
Again, I've just never been very drawn to opinion pieces in any format. I'm just one of those assholes who loves to share his opinion, but doesn't really care about other people's opinions.
And for radio in general, I was just never much of a listener. Even growing up in the 80s and 90s I never was into radio, since I was into alt rock (grunge etc.) and we didn't have a station that played any of that stuff unless it reached the top 40 in rural WV.
So I may be overgenralizing my own experience too much, so I'd love to see some data on age and other demographics and radio listenership, talk radio listenership etc.
Yeah, it's all just conjecture.
I'd love to see some good survey stats on radio listening among younger ages, and talk radio listening in particular.
My view is probably a bit skewed, and maybe there is more of a market for it in younger crowds.
Again, I've just never been very drawn to opinion pieces in any format. I'm just one of those assholes who loves to share his opinion, but doesn't really care about other people's opinions.
And for radio in general, I was just never much of a listener. Even growing up in the 80s and 90s I never was into radio, since I was into alt rock (grunge etc.) and we didn't have a station that played any of that stuff unless it reached the top 40 in rural WV.
So I may be overgenralizing my own experience too much, so I'd love to see some data on age and other demographics and radio listenership, talk radio listenership etc.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_audio_talkradio.php
There's an interesting chart w/ year-to-year ratings as well, and you can see that conservative radio dominates more than even you might have believed. Only Ed Schultz is on there reppin' the libs.
And since when is Chris Matthews a liberal? Really? I was always under the impression that both sides of the aisle hated him equally (making him a strangely respectable middle-of-the-line dude, whose interviews and analysis have always been sub-par).
World ain't been the same since we lost Russert.
I can't believe 8.25 million people listen to Michael Savage. Of all the racist nonsensical drivel out there, that guy is one of the worst. I often wonder if he actually takes himself seriously, or if he's intentionally acting as a satire of right wing talk radio.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
There are a lot more racist Americans than any of us is willing to admit, spmahn - even more racist people who don't realize they are, in fact, racist.
As for Savage, I believe his ratings (assuming the arbitron system is as methodologically thorough as the neilsen system). I also think he really espouses the maxim camoor (and others) mentioned that style and charisma trump substance. Savage is one of the finest conservative radio hosts at whipping people into a frenzy, and also (IMO) one of the most insincere. I think all of these guys are role playing to a degree (again, pro wrestling frontstage/backstage metaphor), and Savage the most transparently so. Though a NYT profile of Savage a couple years ago seems to contradict this idea of mine - that he truly believes what he says and is a genuinely racist, out of his mind paranoid conspiratorial reactionary.
As for Savage, I believe his ratings (assuming the arbitron system is as methodologically thorough as the neilsen system). I also think he really espouses the maxim camoor (and others) mentioned that style and charisma trump substance. Savage is one of the finest conservative radio hosts at whipping people into a frenzy, and also (IMO) one of the most insincere. I think all of these guys are role playing to a degree (again, pro wrestling frontstage/backstage metaphor), and Savage the most transparently so. Though a NYT profile of Savage a couple years ago seems to contradict this idea of mine - that he truly believes what he says and is a genuinely racist, out of his mind paranoid conspiratorial reactionary.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']I can't believe 8.25 million people listen to Michael Savage. Of all the racist nonsensical drivel out there, that guy is one of the worst. I often wonder if he actually takes himself seriously, or if he's intentionally acting as a satire of right wing talk radio.[/QUOTE]
I saw one of his books on my former boss's desk one day, couldn't believe it. The guy's name is fitting at least, he is savage.
I saw one of his books on my former boss's desk one day, couldn't believe it. The guy's name is fitting at least, he is savage.
[quote name='JolietJake']I saw one of his books on my former boss's desk one day, couldn't believe it. The guy's name is fitting at least, he is savage.[/QUOTE]
I've read his books, they're just as nuts as his radio show. I don't think he was even able to find a mainstream publisher for his last book, I think it may only be available through his website.
I've read his books, they're just as nuts as his radio show. I don't think he was even able to find a mainstream publisher for his last book, I think it may only be available through his website.
bread's done