Who said that. It’s failing because it was a bad idea. Who says otherwise? I think any fallacy would lie in saying it’s failing because liberalism is philospohically “wrong,” or that ratings success has anything to do with political validity.
I don’t think anyone here is saying that Air America is a “success,” so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. It’s possible for a venture to make one correct business decision yet still be unsuccessful in the long run.
Air America is struggling as it is. It doesn’t take a genius to know that a personality who crassly insults a person the audience holds in high esteem is not going to make them want to keep listening.
Why speculate? The facts on the popularity of the shows are widely available, and they simply did not (and are not) getting listeners. Regardless of the quality of their business practices (which I understand to also be not that great), they would need higher ratings to succeed.
And yeah, obviously, it was a bad decision to try. I’m not saying, like Dio appears to be, that liberals don’t like to do the same kind of ideological circle-jerk that conservatives do; I think that’s just a human trait. But there can still be relative differences. I used the phrase “as much.” There is a difference between liking to watch Keith Olbermann and liking to listen to Rush Limbaugh. If nothing else–and I think there are many differences with regard to accuracy and critical thinking–the latter is a multiple-hour affair.
No, but its failure to attract liberal listeners does say something. I’d be curious to hear your compelling alternative hypothesis.
Well, you could always listen to Stephanie Miller, “like a Mensa meeting with fart jokes”. I listened to Ms Rhodes a couple of times and found her humorless and harsh. If she were informative as well, it would be another matter, but I already know about the issues she rants upon. Plus, she talks funny. Not ha-ha funny, annoying funny.
Ms. Miller is vulgar, trenchant, and earthy. She is tapped into the Twain vein, the knowledge that humor is subversive. If I jump up and down, screaming at you, maybe I can change your mind. If I can make you laugh, I’ve already changed your mind.
Plus, she’s hot. Not as hot as Gwen Ifil, but still…
Well if ESPN can suspend someone for making off color comments at a drunken ROAST that was never heard by anyone outside of the room, then I can see this.
I don’t have a hypothesis-- alternative or otherwise. I just think it’s kind of funny how defensive people get about these sort of things. Liberals are so much more intellectual than conservatives, and they don’t need to be spoon fed ideas, so it’s no wonder that liberal talk radio failed. Yeah, right.
Yeah, she’s being suspended for saying something that her bosses didn’t like. But the few times I had to listen to Rhodes, she was so grating and unintelligent that the collective unconscious has probably gotten a little smarter by dint of her silence.
So you don’t have an alternative explanation as to why liberals haven’t flocked to Air America but you know the reasons they tell you they don’t listen are ridicuous?
I don’t listen because I mostly finding it boring and repetitive and I not especially informative. I am much more interested in debates and in shows that feature voices from all sides. I dislike hearing only one political side of anything even if I agree with it. I believe that the kind of audience that listens to Limbaugh and Sean Hannity cannot tolerate ever hearing an opposing viewpoint.
Well, that’s a nice caricature of my point, but it doesn’t address my actual point. Every study that has been done on this subject indicates that liberals prefer a different kind of media than conservatives. The failure of Air America is one more data point supporting that idea that, for whatever reason, more liberals prefer critical media than conservatives. Since you have no alternative explanation for the phenomenon, why do you automatically reject this? You think its impossible for a political preference to correlate with a preference for certain modes of learning?
Sorry, I wasn’t addressing your point so much as Diogenes. But the idea that liberals don’t like a circle jerk, or don’t like as much as conservatives do is just laughable. This board is living testament to the falsehood of that statement. Or, if you don’t like that, then just look at the comments section of any link on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, or MediaMatters.
I’d like to add onto this the datum that conservative media usually depends a great deal on religiosity and faith-based assumptions. That in itself is automatically going to make right wing media appeal to a much less critical – even an anti-critical audience than what progressive thinkers are accustomed to.
But I’ve been told over and over on this board that The Daily Show isn’t liberal in orientation. That it skewers both sides. Are you saying that is not so?
This board welcomes views from all political stripes and the liberals here actually seek out disagreement and debate. There are no circle jerks here. Look how many lefties in this thread are saying they don’t like Randi Rhodes or Air America. You never find righties stepping out of lockstep like that.
Why is it laughable? All you’ve demonstrated is that there are instances in which liberals engage in the same behavior. I conceded that point. Like I said, I think a desire to have your ideology reinforced is part of being human.
My argument is about the relative levels. I think liberals (because of various educational and cultural factors), relative to conservatives, prefer circle-jerks less and critical media more. Nothing you’ve said addresses that.
Here’s a meta-request: give me some evidence of your opinion!
OK, then we’re basically in agreement. I just don’t understand the need to try and quantify the unquantifiable. Liberals are more “x” than conservatives or the other way around. There’s just no way to prove it, and if you don’t think you’re exhibiting confirmational bias, then you’re deluding yourself.
