I have never listened to Air America in my life. I couldn’t have told you who Randi Rhodes was a week ago; I only know of her now because I saw her name on a blog somewhere. Maybe that’s why my opinion of her isn’t quite as colored as others’ here, and maybe that’s why I laughed my ass off when I watched the video of her doing that routine. I thought it was freaking hilarious!
I can’t decide if I think it was right to suspend her or not. On the one hand, it was pretty vulgar. On the other, it was stand-up comedy! That shit’s supposed to be over-the-top. That’s how you get laughs from the audience!
You know, of all the nasty things a Hillary-hater might be tempted to call her, “whore” would never have occurred to me . . . The image they more often ascribe to her is that of a frigid bitch, possibly lesbian, whose snizz hasn’t seen action in years (and there’s this head-biting thing lurking in it) . . .
Pretty clear to me- Republicans love the Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh type shit stirring, ‘here’s why we’re smarter and better than liberals’, liberals for the most part don’t really need to hear bashing of the other viewpoint 24 hours a day to reinforce and confirm that their view is correct. Stewart’s an anamaly because he’s a funny guy who just so happens to talk politics a lot- he’d be popular if he had a Leno type talk show as well. A Micheal Moore news show would tank for sure.
Oh, but they do! For instance, the recent campaign by certain sectors of the reactonary right to promote immigration as the number one issue in the nation. Went over real good with people who already thought that immigration was the number one issue. And the Limbaugh crusade against McCain, which exerted his massive power to sway.
I don’t listen to him much, has he started in sucking that antique organ yet?
Well, I’m just wondering what elucidator’s point was. He’s telling us that The Daily Show’s success is some indicator of something. What does it indicate, in terms of this discussion between liberal and conservative media?
How is it confirmation bias? I’ve been very clear about what I’m basing my opinion on and it isn’t my personal observation of liberals and conservatives.
Why is there no way to prove it? There is loads of circumstantial evidence. That now famous 2003 PIPA poll showing that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than NPR listeners, for example. It is possible to evaluate these things, even if it isn’t done with anything approaching certainty.
I believe the “antique organ” in question belongs to one Sen. McCain (R. AR), and 'lucy was inquiring as to whether Limbaugh has gotten down on his kees and gotten with the GOP program yet. I actually don’t know since I don’t listen either, but I expect that onec McCain’s nomination became a fait accompli, that Rush picked up the water bucket. Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t see him endorsing Hillary or that “Halfrican-American” (how DARE he be of mixed race) Obama.
Even though Maverick doesn’t display as much eye-popping racist rage towards Mexican day laborors as as the right wing would prefer to see, I’d be shocked if the mouthpieces weren’t instructed to knee walk over McCain once Romney quit the campaign.
So, Fox News listeners = conservatives and NPR listeners = liberals? OR are you saying that Fox News is conservatively biased and NPR is biased towards the liberal side of things?
You don’t dispute that Fox News has a conservative bias, do you?
I think the study shows, at the least, that NPR is more informartive than Fox. You may draw your own conclusions about their respective audiences, but like I said upthread, political conservatism is polluted by religionism while liberalism is not. That makes for an inequity in critical thinking all by itself.
The Half Hour News Hour isn’t/didn’t do(ing) all that well because it wasn’t that entertaining, whereas The Daily Show is.
Same with Air America. There are plenty of posters here in this thread saying that it is doing poorly because it is boring and/or repetitive. So, the message needs to be interesting and entertaining, as well as something the audience wants to hear.
I believe Limbaugh’s success is based on the entertaining (to his demographic) way he packages his message. Not the message itself.
There are plenty of lesser (in syndication terms) talk radio hosts who will remain lesser, because the style of the message is less entertaining. The talk radio host McCain had to disavow (for the "Barrack Hussein Obama* style) seems to be an example of this less skilled broadcaster.
Granted, if you strongly disagree with Limbaugh’s or Franken’s opinions, it’s less likely that you will find their show entertaining.
This tends to filter out the polar opposites. The polar opposites are the folks who are lambasting the other side with the labels of “idiots”, “group-thinkers”, and eventually “willfuly ignorant and/or evil”.
I don’t think that the Daily Show is dependent on skewering any particular ideology, but rather feeds on the incompetence of the media. I think it will survive the eventual Democratic wave intact and feisty. Republicans don’t have a monopoly on stupidity and corruption, no matter how hard they try.
That’s a laugh. We’ve just spent weeks debating how much influence a certain pastor has had on the most liberal candidate in this race. For you to state that liberalism is untainted in this way is just completely false.
Completely.
You do know what today is, don’t you? The anniversary we commemorate is the death of a pretty well known liberal who was also a minister. You ought to keep this in mind as well.
I don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t think I want to.