I should probably clarify something from my post upthread. I meant to say that Limbaugh’s total audience is likely comprised of only around 4 million people, with those same people (roughly speaking) listening each day.
The point being that 4 million listeners (or 5%, for those of you in Rio Linda :D) does not make Limbaugh the standard bearer or shot caller for the nation’s conservative population of approx. 80 million people. It is inaccurate to say the least to suggest that everything he says or thinks is typical of conservative thought.
Given then that you’ve said that the things mentioned in your earlier post are the “most” of what he says, would it then be reasonable to say that where conservatives find problems in his words or phrasing or logic it is in the minority of things he says; that is to say, would it be accurate in your eyes to claim that the majority of what Limbaugh says is in general accord with conservative thought, and that where he and conservative thought in general *most *disagree it is on a minority of what he says?
Okay … take the age thing out of it (although I’m convinced there is some validity to it), my point still stands. Conservatives have AM Radio, Liberals have Cyberspace, and yes, the twain shall meet, but in the big picture this seems to be how the info flows.
I said most of his views, not most of his words. Limbaugh is on the air three hours a day. He says a lot of things. Some of it is spot on, some is debatable, and some is off the rails. I think it is accurate to say that he is driven primarily by the philisophical beliefs and values I listed above, and that they are primarily what he wants his audience to take away from listening to his program (well, that and determined opposition to liberalism, which he views as seeking to accomplish the opposite).
As far as the ratio of words he devotes to which I have no idea. But I don’t think it matters; the underlying message is the same. When he rails against Obama or Pelosi or Reid or whoever, what he is really doing is railing against the attempted encroachment of liberalism, which seeks to undermine or replace the values he promotes. He may be devoting words to making fun of someone like Nancy Pelosi or calling her derogotory names, but what he’s really doing is is whipping up opposition to a politician whose goals he views as destructive to human fulfillment and happiness. So in other words, even though he may be devoting words to railing against Nancy Pelosi, what he’s really doing is seeking to defend and promote the values I described upthread.
Apologies for saying words instead of views; it was an attempt at a rephrase just for rhetorical reasons, not an attempt to restate your position to make my argument work.
The question I was attempting to end at I guess is this; if Limbaugh reflects general conservative thought quite well in his motivations and general views, although not necessarily or even presumably in his specific accusations and words, would it be reasonable to say that at least in part one of the reasons his audience is only 4 million-odd because of that difference? That is to say, normally we might assume that a person who shares for the most part the same views as a large segment of the population might have a greater audience, but that it is those times when his methods to which he puts those views which in part account for the relatively small amount of listeners?
Go for it. I am, however, a Republican (I helped Brown beat Coakley) so you’ll be preaching to the choir. I just get highly annoyed when one “side” pretends that all the evils are on the other “side”. Republicans (and conservatives in general) have absolutely no problems giving power to the government if it fits their agenda.
You’re neglecting the commuters, Jack. I got an hour in my car each way every day. (still half an hour faster than the train, and considerably cheaper when you consider the cost of a parking spot at the train station)
That’s radio time. These days, it’s ipod time mostly cause most stations suck, but I’d rather listen to talk.
And you raise a good point. Frankly I don’t know whether Limbaugh would draw a larger audience with less aggressive rhetoric. It’s possible that without the bombast his show would become boring. He’s certainly managed to become radio’s 500 lb. gorilla [pun not intended] with the approach he uses, drawing and keeping an audience far greater and for a longer period of time than anyone else has.
And then too is the matter of how fired up his listenership would be in terms of political action: voting and so forth. It’s hard to overcome inertia and get people up off their butts and involved in the political process. Limbaugh is very good at getting people worked up and angry about the opposition and therefore motivated to action in order to fight against it (which is, let’s face it, the same thing the left does with accusations of “evil corporations” and “pubbies would rather see sick people dying in the streets than give up their Jaguars”, and by portraying the remainder as mouthbreathing racist, homophobic knuckkle-draggers). So I think a more tactful, reasoned approach may also be less effective in terms of getting out the vote even if it were to generate a larger listenership.
Still, Limbaugh is above all a businessman, and his primary goal is to deliver ears for his advertisers. He says as much himself in this excellent (and surprisingly even-handed) profile by Zev Chafets in the NY Times. On page three he only half-jokingly states:
So I would imagine that, in the final analysis, if a less incendiary approach would deliver more listeners, that would be the approach he would be inclined to take even if it meant he had to work that much harder to get people to the polls.
The reason Air America failed is because it put the cart before the horse. It was a network created to facilitate individual left-wing shows instead of a left-wing talent building an individual show into a network. Talk show host is harder than it sounds.
There’s something to that. AA never really had any compelling singular talent. Some of the hosts were downright terrible just on the most basic performing levels.
I honestly can’t think of anyone off the top of my head, at least not from radio. Perhaps somebody like Bill Maher.
A lot of the prominent leftist voices tend to be idealogical cranks without much wit or capability for dialogue. Maher is an exception.
ETA I used to listen to Alan Colmes’ radio show years ago, before he was on Fox, and he was quite a bit better on radio. He had a lot of humor, and was very willing to engage those who disagreed with him. Probably 90% of his callers were conservatives.
Maher is a good idea. How did Franken do? He can be funny as hell, but I never heard his radio program. I listened to Amy Goodman one time and wanted to rip my ears off. The only upside being that I didn’t have to look at her and want to tear my eyes out. How about Rosie O’Donnell? Carville? Didn’t Ed Koch have a radio show. I could see him as being pretty good.
I could see that. One guy I’ve always liked is, Bob Beckel. Though I don’t know if he’d be as good as a host as he is a guest. Hell, why not Olberman? I think he’s an ass, but you guys like asses like him, don’t you?
I never heard Franken’s show, so I can’t comment on it. I have heard Jim Hightower, and he’s pretty good. He’s a polished radio professional with a distinct voice and personality. He’s well informed and fairly grounded – not pointlessly hostile, and does not tend towards overcooked accusations or outrage. Good sense of humor. Not a jerk. Argues his points without being strident.
I like Bob Beckel, but he’s a little bombastic and is best paired with a righty.
I think Rosie O’Donnell would probably just annoy the shit out of everybody, and I don’t think she has any kind of unique insights. She’s one of those cranks I was talking about.
I actually prefer to hear debate over issues than just one sided spin. One of my favorite radio shows ever was one that Pat Buchanan hosted in the early 90’s. He had rotating liberal cohosts, including Bob Beckel and Chris Matthews, who were strong opponents for him (Buchanan’s no Hannity – he’ll go toe to toe with anybody), and the show had a lot of genuine, fact oriented, meaty discussion of issues, not just shouted talking points or cardboard opponents. The show was even prone to one side being able to concede a point once in a while, or admit they were wrong, or admit something unflattering about their own party.
I actually called my local station to complain when that show got cancelled. It was my kind of show. It was like a Dope thread every day.
