Because the right view depends more easily on shouting black and white points, where the left is all about nuance.
Guess which one captures this ADD riddled country more?
That’s because when it’s not, it’s often dull, arcane, eat-your-spinach stuff that concerns only one small segment or another of the community. And I speak as a confirmed liberal and public radio talk listener.
I appreciate that public radio tries for diversity and I’m grateful to wait for issues or topics I care about, and even hang around for a chance to learn about others. But I can see how that wouldn’t sell nearly as much ad time as flirting with white middle-class rage.
I’d like to see that unboiled down; that doesn’t sound like something the **Atlantic **would pronounce. Cite?
(Is it possible it could be boiled down to “Liberals have more faith in the intelligence of the public and so are content to let the media do its job unfettered, because it will all come out in the wash”? Or “Conservative radio listeners see conspiracies everywhere they they turn, but liberals believe that a free press will bring greater knowledge and freedom to all citizens”? Or “Conservative radio listeners need their media sources labeled ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ so they know who to believe, but liberals prefer to make up their own minds about the information they receive from the media”? Something more along those lines?)
I doubt it. I’ve seen precious little, either around here or in the mainstream of American life, to indicate liberals have much faith in, or even cognizance of, the intelligence of the American public.
Zing!
I guess Rush & co. must believe in American intelligence – they so regularly insult it.
I’m not sure that it’s dominated by right wing politics. The hosts tend to be on the right, but half of the callers seem to be liberals who have gotten steamed up enough to get on the phone - and they are those hosts’ bread and butter. These guys seem pretty bored when somebody rings in to agree with them.
In Sydney, the ABC (govt. broadcaster) has talk shows that skew generally to the left.
Conservatives want to hear people that agree with them. Period. Liberals justifiably have enough faith in their convictions to be able to handle hearing opposing or neutral viewpoints. A neutral or liberal talk show would draw only liberals. A conservative talk show gets all the conservatives and a smattering of liberals. Thus there’s more money to be made in Reich wing radio. If Rash Limpballs could make more money by switching to the left, he would.
I think you might be jumping the gun here a little. Liberal talk radio on the national level (Air America, Jones Radio Network) is still in the first two years of syndication. Already many of these shows (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, etc.) are showing major jumps in listenership. Many companies lose money the first 3-5 years in business. If they’re still standing by the next presidential election, I’d say they’re doing fine.
I listen to my local Progressive talk station every single working day. I, like many liberals, have my specific tastes. Maybe it’s the feminist in me, but I prefer the ladies’ shows. Stephanie is exactly what I like to hear in the morning, lots of satire and poking fun at the right. Let’s face it, liberals will always be far superior comedians. When I’m on my way home in the evening, I need someting to wake me and get me fired up, and Randi fits the bill. There is a portion of the left that can’t stand her, she’s very blunt and can be taken as angry. Some days she really is angry. But I’m also in the group that believes if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention. She also is one hell of a information-gatherer and fact-checker.
Ed is a nice guy and not quite my cup of tea. Do I want him taken off the radio? Hell no, he has an excellent following. He recently visited my hometown for a live broadcast and they didn’t advertise for tickets, the local unions had purchased all of them.
I do think it’s unfair that Ed’s show got pulled from AFN. But for some reason, it just doesn’t surprise me. Their requirements, according to the link, say that political radio needs to be “fair and balanced” (wonder where that came from?). I’d hardly characterize the drug-addled blowhard as fair or balanced, but we know how those words have lost all meaning in the past 5 years.
All the conservative stations and talk shows lost money their first few years, so anyone crying that liberal talk will be extinct has no idea how to run a business and how profit and loss is figured in the first few years. If losing money in the first and second years and listenership is indication of how successful it will be years from now, Fox would have never had their news station or talk radio, and neither would Rush.
Not putting Big Ed on AFN is just a further indication of how the current administration is trying to keep dissent down and further pound their agenda into our minds. Ed’s show is very tame and not even a tenth of the vitirol Rush and Dr. Laura spew on a daily basis. The only difference is they (conservative talk shows) spout the talking points and liberal talk rebukes them. Bottom line.
Uh… huh.
Erm… this conservative for one, wouldn’t have stayed on this predominately liberal board for the past four years, including paying a subscription fee twice, if that were true. I have enough faith in my convictions to handle opposing views, even when they are ill-considered generalisations, such as the one you just posted.
Yes, I’m sure BobLibDem meant every single conservative, with zero exceptions, for all time.
Really? It’s not true any more? Gee, somebody forgot to send that memo to the media. Remember Rathergate, just as a example? How about the New Orleans happenings, in which the state and local governments that were responsible for the problems were basically given a pass so that Bush and FEMA could be made to look bad? And mind you, I’m not saying FEMA had a great record. They certainly were NOT the root cause of the problem, but you couldn’t tell that from the liberal media.
Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal bias in the media.
I’ve seen precious little of that around here, either.
Liberals on this board handle opposing viewpoints about as well as an Iranian Ayatollah handles the idea of strip clubs.
There is the exception, of course, but that certainly isn’t the case often enough for it to come anywhere close to being a description of the norm.
Example? Or do you mean simple disagreement equals “not being able to handle” the opposing position?
Bingo. Advertisers work with numbers of people, and there are enough conservatives that DON’T want to hear other opinions that make redneck radio happen. Bush is one notable conservative that doesn’t want to hear opposing viewpoints, as is well noteed.
Even if he meant “most conservatives” he would still be dead wrong.
Conservatives hear the opposing viewpoint all day long. You can hardly avoid the liberal bias present in the mainstream media if you try. So, after hearing views that we disagree with, conservatives are hungry to hear a view that we do agree with. It’s nice to remind yourself that others have the same ideology you do.
This explains why conservatives even do well in liberal markets like Boston, because they are even more hungry for that non-liberal viewpoint.
Plus, as others have said, there simply is more demand for conservative viewpoints. About 45% of the country is conservative, only about 20% is liberal. Conservative philosophy is more mainstream, so it get’s more listeners and better ratings.
But wouldn’t that mean that the conservative agenda should sweep elections by a 2 to 1 margin? But they didn’t, did they, buckaroo?
Perhaps you could apprise us of the the source of your…remarkable…statistics?
Not all democrats are liberals, as I’m sure you’re aware. Democrats have special interests votes in droves.
I’ve posted the poll before often enough in GD. It’s accurate. I’ll try and dig it up again.
The standard response of liberals on the board isn’t denial, BTW. You’re supposed to claim that self-identification isn’t accurate because the mean old conservatives have made “liberal” a dirty word. 
The gallup page with a link to the poll requires registration. You can find it by searching on the following text:
“The American public is significantly more likely to identify as conservative or moderate than as liberal”
The results are reposted at Free-Republic. (Not exactly an unbiased site, but they do have a reprint of the results, which is all I’m after.)
I seem to remember that it was even higher for conservative in more recent years. (The 45% number I claimed.) In any case, it’s clear that more American’s self-identify as conservative than liberal. One only need look at the ratings of Rush Limbaugh compared with Air America to see the result.
And Republicans don’t? Really?
Not a liberal. A radical. Flaming lefty, Tom Paine patriot. And, yes, indeed, there was a concerted effort to make the word “liberal” synonymous with “corrupt, pathetic, debased”. You do recall Newt Gangrene, I trust?
BZZZT Begging the question.
BZZZT Begging the question again.