Yes, “Dittoheads” do, hence the appellation. Not every conservative listens to Rush Limbaugh or his ilk. in fact, I would be so bold as to say that it is a small minority that listen to talk radio hosts and accept what they say as the gospel truth. That these same people are vocal makes it seem like there are more of them, and by doing so are overrepresenting their actual numbers.
The second part of your assertion, that “liberals think for themselves”, is nothing more than a talking point. It’s ironic considering your condemnation of “Dittoheads” and their blind acceptance of talking points.
Air America hasn’t succeeded for two reasons, and you can argue that it’s a chicken/egg situation: First, they can’t get enough people to listen to it, and second, they can’t get enough radio stations to carry it. Which came first? Who knows. But one thing is certain. It’s about money. A radio station cannot afford to broadcast at a loss, and Air America is a money loser.
KLR has made solid points here, it is clear that the failure of Air America is due to the total bankruptcy of leftist ideas, and the inevitable ascendancy of such clear-thinking men as Horowitz and Hayek. Even now, their brilliance shines like the twinkle in Reagan’s eye, puerile leftists cringe in fear at their very names, and turn to morbid dust like Christopher Lee’s Dracula before Basil Rathbone’s improvised crucifix.
The best we can hope for is to slink away unnoticed, perhaps to another message board that we can corrupt with our rodent-like ideology. If anyone has any suggestions…?
It should also be noted that, again, it’s a deceptive oversimplification.
If one, for instance, deregulates industry to the point where one or two industry giants have complete control over their markets, is that placing control in the hands of more or fewer people than if an entire bureaucracy crafts general guiding principles but does not control industry directly? Well, what if we then say that those one or two megacorporations are actually beholden to the millions of consumers, and we subscribe to the concept of Consumer Sovereignty? Well, what if…
It’s obfuscatory and a rabbit trail at best. It’s just sophistry designed to conflate regulation with “socialism”, which in turn is supposed to stand in for “communism”, which in turn is really supported to be used to mean “totalitarianism” or “Stalinism”.
We can debate the ideology and efficacy of policy choices without deliberately stacking the deck ahead of time in order to engage in some fairly parlor-room level memetic gamesmanship. Language: a Key Mechanism Of Control may work fine on the national level, but it’s a formula for stifling nuanced discussions with oversimplified soundbytes, not engaging in a robust analysis of policy choices.
With all due respect, I’d like to know if this is a valid use of moderating authority.
I’m a long time lurker/poster in GD. I have a noticed a recent trend (in the last year or so) where tomndebb, and now you, ask for cites specifically as a mod.
As a long time participant I’m well aware that most assertions go uncited; and that includes rational well thought out posts, and the many less than well thought out posts.
I have absolutely no problem with moderators posting to threads, and even moderators moderating in threads they’re active in.
But I see a disconcerting blending of moderator and moderator poster. It’s entirely appropriate to ask KLR 650 to “back up” his posts.
It is the job of a moderator to moderate, is it not? If you start blowing off nonsense in class, is the professor to let you continue at the expense of everybody else, or is it their job to tell you to back up your assertion or stop asserting it?
I have no problem with Marley23 suggesting that someone back up their assertions. But he should have done that as a poster, as it simply goes to the veracity and his claim and its effectiveness in the debate. I fear that this is another instance of something that troubles me, a mod using his modding power to steer the debate.
FTR, Air America’s troubles were at least partly caused by an advertising blacklist – obviously politically motivated, because there is no such thing as a blacklist that isn’t. If the corporations simply assumed AA would never be a market worth buying time on, why would they think a blacklist were necessary? For one reason or another, wisely or foolishly, they were, however slightly, actually scared.
It has, if you include the print media (Washington Times, WSJ, etc.).
The conservative viewpoint also flourishes within the mainstream media. George Will’s and William Safire’s columns have run in the Washington Post for decased. Pat Buchanan has an outlet on MSNBC, Lou Dobbs not long ago had a show on CNN – and not in bullshit Hannity-and-Colmes formats, either.
You need to face facts: In America, we have the RW media, and the mainstream media – and that’s all. There is no LW analogue to Fox News or the Washington Times, no, not even MSNBC – only marginal outlets like Democracy Now! and Pacifica Radio and the Nation. AA was a sincere attempt to remedy that lack.
Well, I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. Seems to me, just from casual observance, that almost all the radio talkers have two chief sources of advertising, gold retailers and the ubiquitous Sleep Number Bed. On these topics, there is broad agreement amongst radio punditti: you gotta buy gold and hide it under your Sleep Number Bed.
Which is to say, I’m not at all sure that a blacklist would be effective, or even necessary. There may well be a bladklist, but it merely urges advertisers not to make a decision they weren’t going to make anyway. However devoted a capitalist may be to his ideology, if advertising on Air America would make the Marketing Dept. come in their pants, they’d do it.
I’ll also make the point that the Left sees the government as ‘us’. They want decisions made by ‘all of us’. Whereas the Right sees the government as ‘them’, and wants decisions made by ‘me alone’. That’s part of the base split of things. It’s not that the Left wants power consolidated, it’s that they feel that if the government decides something, they have a say in it, as opposed to what Billy over there might decide on his own.
And, again, I’m going to point out that the structure of the shows on Air America, the ones I listened to, were traditional pundit radio. Howard Stern, who I think would be a better model, always has someone there to call bullshit on bullshit. Or even if they think it might be bullshit.
And they come back to things and check to see if they’re right. And they investigate things. “I don’t know. What does it really mean to be homeless?” (and then Stern makes crass jokes, but you learn stuff.)
I, for one, stand in complete support of the Luminous Ones, who sit at the right hand of The Cecil. I throw myself prostrate before them, that they might sharpen the cleats on their liberal jackboots, honing them on my unworthy ass.
It’s really as simple as the fact that liberals don’t need to be constantly reassured by hearing the soothing repetition of their own opinions all day. That’s why there’s no liberal equivalent of the right wing media compelex. Liberals like facts and don’t fear dissenting opinions.
I never listened much to Air America because it was fucking boring to hear nothing but one side all the time. The antidote to right wing media is not left wing media, but objective media.Someone could make a fortune with talk radio/cable news models which actually focused intensively on hard fact gathering, and earnest debate – not that the Fox News Dittohead Teabagger types would ever go near it (facts to them are like holy water to vampires), but liberals and moderates would love it.
N.B.: At least WRT TV, it’s not that the mainstream media are “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s that their scope of interest has narrowed. See this article.
Well, we’re discovering that the liberal message has a much smaller market than the conservative message. The latest polls show that only 19% of the public consider themselves liberal. 40% are conservative and 40% moderates. Conservatives and Moderates aren’t going to listen to Air America. So they’re already starting with a small audience.
Of the liberals, a lot of them are young people who are either in college or starting in the workforce and starting families. They aren’t going to be listening to daytime talk radio. They’re also heavy internet users, and really have no need for another outlet for their politics. Rush’s audience trends older.
Another thing is that for many people, Rush is a solitary voice for their message. But the airwaves are saturated with the opinions of liberals. The competition for liberal mindshare is much greater.
Finally, don’t underestimate the value of the person. Limbaugh has found a mix of anger and humor that works for his audience, and he knows how to push their buttons. From what little I’ve heard from Air America, it seemed to talk down to its audience more than anything.
I’m curious - if you consider yourself a liberal, did you listen to Air America? If not, why not?
But it’s not just talk radio - MSNBC has tried to be the liberal FOX. Fox has about ten times the ratings. Olbermann and Maddow are doing okay against the sad-sack CNN and other voices on the left, but they can’t come anywhere near Fox News. O’Reilly has about five times the audience of his nearest competitor.