Oops I hadn’t read Litost’s last post so sorry about the OT post. I guess we can have this discussion some other time. However I would still like any links to anti-war Weekly Standard articles if such exist.
I’m hearing that there are some liberal voices out there, but we sure don’t get them around here. I suspect that the reason is as posited by GIGObuster: owner/sponsor opposition.
It is certainly not that a Democratic slant can’t be entertaining and provocative. (See Carville.)
Nor do I buy the argument that Republicans have ideas and Democrats do not. Republicans have ideas, I guess, if you call tearing down environmental protections and handing money to the wealthy ideas. I think a Democratic radio bulldog could make great sport of these “ideas.” There’s sure no reason it couldn’t be entertaining (and educational).
kasuo wrote:
Would that 'twert true.
As I’ve already pointed out, TV news (even if it were slanted toward the Democrats, which it most emphatically ain’t), is not an adequate forum for response to AM radio. On TV, all you get is a sound bite. On radio, you get two hours to state your case, without meaningful opposition.
Nor will I concede your assertion that Democrats control the school curriculum. Most of the Republicans I know got their first dose of Ayn Rand in school. I had high school teachers and college professors who made it a point to try to win converts to conservatism. I wouldn’t say the schools are slanted to conservatism by any means, but it is a fallacy to claim that there’s no balance.
“'twere true,” I meant. Forgive me grammar police.
litost:
If all you listen to is Rush, you’re probably only going to here one opinion on everything, as Rush is only one man. If, however, you listen to a variety of talk radio shows, you’re likely to hear a variety of opinions. When I drive home to visit family, I pass through areas where there’s a plethora of assorted talk shows, and I’ve heard a wide range of opinions from conservatives. Sorry to use print mags as an example, they were just handy tools useful in proving my point.
CyberPundit:
WFB is the only NRO regular I can think of offhand, but they frequently post articles by guests, many of which have been conservative, yet anti-war. If I get a chance, I’ll try to dig up some links. Granted, most of the authors there are pro-war, but you’ll still find a wide range of opinions on how we should approach the war. You also see many differing opinions on censorship, education, civil liberties, the nature of conservatism, and such, more than I’ve found in most liberal mags. I haven’t read Washington Monthly, and I haven’t checked out New Republic in awhile, but I will concede that New Republic is better than most, at least when it comes to foreign policy.
Jeff
What a thoughtful insight into the nature of conservatism. We should give you a radio show so you can broadcast your pithy wisdom to the Great Unwashed Masses.
I could just as easily caricature the Democratic platform as “rape the wealthy and hug trees”, but it contributes nothing the the argument of whether conservatives have more ideas than the libs.
Jeff
Amen. That’s part of my point. It certainly is possible to be Democratic and entertaining (again, see Carville), but I’m not hearing that sort of Democrat on the radio. Unless Democrats find a way to do battle in this arena, they will continue to lose ground in the middle.
Every day, it seems, I hear people mindlessly parroting something they’ve heard on talk radio, and every time this happens, it brings home to me the pervasive influence of this medium. Democrats ignore AM radio at their peril.
Limbaugh does just that sort of thing every day.
And I think you missed the point of my post. I used a pithy charicature of Republican policies to show that it can be done. Easily. And if Limbaugh and his ilk are going to charicature Democratic policies, then the Democrats need a voice that can respond in kind. Fight fire with fire.
Caricature, I meant. gotta start proofing my posts.
Could it be that there are too many left-of-center types who look down on talk radio as an unhealthy mingling with the Unwashed Masses, and would prefer to do genteel battle on the op-ed pages?
There’s gotta be a halfway sane alternative to the Savage Nation out there, who’ll pick up enough listeners to keep the sponsors happy.
It’s not just talk radio. The problem Democrats have is that their policies are no longer coherent. They don’t stand for any basic principles - they just have a whole bunch of ‘issues’ that are not philosophically related.
Ask a conservative what he stands for, and you’ll get an earful: Low taxes, small government, strong defense, strong families, freedom. They believe in the constitution as envisioned by the founding fathers.
Ask a Democrat, and I’m not sure what you’ll be told. They’re for a strong defense, sort of. But they’re against the defense industry. They’re for equal opportunity for all, but for affirmative action. They’re for ‘fiscal responsibility’, but never met a government program they didn’t like. But rarely will you hear a Democrat start explaining his point of view in terms of a fundamental philosophy.
This is why Democrats speak in sound bites and slogans, and Republicans don’t. TV fits Democrats, because TV is all about images and sound bites. Republicans would rather read books and listen to 3-hour radio.
Have a look at the best-seller lists for nonfiction, and see how many books can be categorized as ‘conservative’. It’s usually far more than half. And note that Al Gore’s two books have flopped.
The Republicans are the party of ideas today. The Democrats are the party of issues and special interests.
There. That should get the flames roasting.
Holy crap. December and ElJeffe, are you kidding me? Or have you completely deluded yourselves? Sophisticated? Intellectually curious? Generating new ideas? People who listen to these horrid MFers willingly, gleefully call themselves dittoheads. As in devoid of thought. Conservatives do not think up new ideas – their nature is not progressive. That’s why they are not called progressives. They are regressive. These shows are popular with people who want to be told how it is, and they want that way to fit with what they think already. They are popular with people who are convinced by who can shout the loudest or make the most cutting remark before cutting off a contrary point of view. I challenge you to present any evidence of any one of these morons ever, ever saying, “Hey, wait a minute. Let’s consider this from another point of view.” Bonus points for a quote of someone saying, “Hey, despite this person’s different point of view, we should respect him.” How about, “I have sympathy for this person who is different from me.” Democratic talk shows wouldn’t be as entertaining because, despite what school house rock would tell you, for most people, learning isn’t fun.
I think the AM radio format (FM for the stupid freakin’ bastard here in Pittsburgh) works well for conservatives because of their generally selfish, self-oriented, me-against-the-world point of view. One dude, telling the truth to me here in my car because the rest of the world has been blinded by the liberal media out there, and the liberals controlling academia, and just before I trundle off to my fortified woodland fortress to battle the commies, I can get my last broadcast from Rush. If I only had my decoder ring.
I believe that it has really become a pseudo-grass roots mechanism for spreading talking points, half-truths and lies. It works well to get the message out, and few if any of the listeners bother to consider whether any of it is true. Carville was successful, in part, in 1992 because of the rapid response team smacking this shit down, and I would love to see a talk show hosted by someone like him. But to be honest, I probably wouldn’t become a devoted listener. I like variety.
Gee, Sam thanks for the hijack into triteness. If you want to discuss whether Republicans have any ideas that don’t involve raping the middle class, please start another thread. This thread is about talk radio.
Let me clarify what I meant. I think the right has more ideas than the left currently. (It was the reverse 50 years ago.) I mentioned the magazines as evidence thereof. Talk radio doesn’t breed ideas IMHO, but they disseminate the ideas broadly. Also, the variety of ideas makes possible an engaging discussion.
A strange accusation from someone who gleefully calls himself a Barbarian. 
Actually the term “ditohead” means they admire Limbaugh, not that they agree with him on every issue. It came from callers who would begin their call with a compliment like, “great show.” This was shortened to “dittos” or “megadittos.”
I didn’t mean to say that Limbaugh listeners were sophisticated. The point is they spend many hours a week listening to discussions of public policy, Constitutional issues, specific politicians, leaders of other countries, political pundits, etc. They have greater-than-average interest in stuff that many would find BORING. E.g., many Americans couldn’t even name the Vice President! IMHO Limbaugh does a good job of making this kind of stuff interesting, which is no mean achievement.
gobear I have heard James Carville speak live, and he blew me away. He is dynamite. Still, talk radio reuqires a specific skill set, which Limbaugh mastered over many years. I don’t know whether Carville could be that good initially. It would be fun to hear him try.
Oh, I take no glee in it. It is a burden I must bear.
As to your explanation of dittoheads: Um…yeah…right… What color is the sky in your world? 
Sorry ElJeffe and december: you must be listening to a different radio station. It is usually pointless in these discussions to affirm what it is obvious to the left: because of the entertainment angle, right wing radio does resort to lies and exaggeration with relative impunity. And many times not even that, I can testify that in a local radio last week, while defending Trent Lott, the radio guy called reverend Jesse Jackson an epithet that could be grounds for banning here, but it was ok for him, after all the radio blowhard was telling the truth! :rolleyes: But I have found that this point is harder to dismiss: that Rush and company usually tells the truth, but they do not tell the whole truth.
One former local radio personality Bob Witkowski, noticed also the half truth angle of AM radio in recent weeks: (He is a liberal and gun right proponent! (Yes, there is such an animal))
http://www.atwitsend.org/currentcommentaries.html
You can see he is coming from an AM background by the epithets.
So is that what you guys are calling “more in the way of compelling ideas”?
Heck, this is what I would call a failure of the market. What we have here is a small, but motivated to vote, group; together with well to do listeners and advertisers, that are willing to pay to listen to their own ideas being justified and enhanced.
Nothing illegal about that!
The problem is that by ignoring other positions, they get justifications for points of view by only considering half of the story, and the results are there for all to see when those ideas get to be discussed in the open: that even fair minded conservatives in the SDMB and other places, do point at those half baked ideas and laugh at them together with the liberals.
I am paraphrasing Rush Limbaugh here: but I did listen to this point of his in the 90’s: he barbed that liberals cannot get a bigger share on talk radio because they only bring bad news about America. Rush et al give fun right wing news to the sheep, I mean followers. So, the right point of view gets more ratings. As usual, that is only half the truth: I think it was Orwell who mentioned that a free society has to listen to bad news. (This is IMO the reason why mainstream media is confused as being liberal by the right) Otherwise no progress or dialog is possible, only fear of change is the biggest constant in AM radio right now. They are entertainment, I grant you that, and that is the whole truth.
Well, GIGO, I guess part of the problem is your contempt and hatred for the average american. They’re all sheep and folowers, you know.
I suppose it would be too difficult to imagine for a minute that most people have perfectly valid reasons to hold the political beliefs they do. No, they are all sub-human sheep. Well, if that’s what you liberals think of them, perhaps they have good reason to oppose you all.
Of course I am an American also Lemur866, but do not let that stop you. Anyhow, that was only my opinion, after all, I have said before that followers of AM radio that post here are NOT sheep. I believe in listening and reading other points of view. That is the reason why I never put anybody on the ignore list; Otherwise, I would have joined another board.
ElJeffe wrote:
If all you listen to is Rush, you’re probably only going to here one opinion on everything, as Rush is only one man. If, however, you listen to a variety of talk radio shows, you’re likely to hear a variety of opinions. When I drive home to visit family, I pass through areas where there’s a plethora of assorted talk shows, and I’ve heard a wide range of opinions from conservatives. Sorry to use print mags as an example, they were just handy tools useful in proving my point.
december wrote:
Let me clarify what I meant. I think the right has more ideas than the left currently. (It was the reverse 50 years ago.) I mentioned the magazines as evidence thereof. Talk radio doesn’t breed ideas IMHO, but they disseminate the ideas broadly. Also, the variety of ideas makes possible an engaging discussion.
Both of you seem to be claiming that because the conservative movement has this variety of opinions, they dominate talk radio.
First off, I really don’t hear a multitude of voices. I have been in a couple of cities and what I hear is partisan sniping of positions on the Left with debating standards that could be banned in the SDMB! And, the truth is Rush and Hannity are seen as the stalwarts of conservative talk radio and that says a lot right there. To reiterate, from what I have heard emanating from the radio waves, there is no way it can be an indication of the market choosing quality!
My guesses are:
(1) talk radio provided an outlet to many Americans who saw mainstream reporting as titled towards the Left. May be, it acts as a catharsis for them (which may explain the mocking and bitching)
(2) Someone raised the point of ownership and I think this is something worth digging into
(3) Jackmanii’s point is interesting too. The lack of initiative on the Left’s part to get their hands dirty in talk radio.
I also don’t buy into the idea that Liberal hosts cannot be entertaining. These shows seem to revolve a lot around the hosts’ personality than the positions s/he stands for.
P.S: We also might be overestimating talk radio’s influence in that it could be preaching to the converted. Which adds weight to point #1.
For a liberal host to contest Rush, they’d have to fight according to his rules - none. I nominate Bartcop - fortunately, he’s been having the same idea. I wouldn’t call that fire vs. fire, though - more like napalm vs. carpet bombing.
I think it’s because the right-wing radio hosts are all ruder and meaner and more hostile and self-righteous than the pitiful few lefties that have been on the airwaves, and are therefore simply more entertaining.