Badmovies.org Forum

I just heard on Drudge that they finally found someone stupid enough to host the new Liberal talk radio comming out soon. It will be UN-funnyman Al Franken. I also hear that that wheazing windbag Jeanine Garafolo will be on it as well to compete with Michael Savage(as if!)!

Mario Cuomo former guv of NY (god, what a lousy 12 years that was) tried it and bombed horribly.

Can't stand Garafolo or Savage, but fortunately baseball season is starting up.

They also have some former MST3K people working on it....

I don't think it will work...maybe if they got Howard Stern to do it...he's been attacking Bush like crazy.

Talk radio - liberal or conservative - makes me envy people who live in countries that don't have First Ammendments.

I agree with Eirik.  There are very few good talk radio shows anymore.  About the only good ones left are Cyber Line and Coast To Coast (Art Bell).

As for Jayson's original post; dude stay away from flame posts.  There was no point in posting this just to put down Al Fraken and Jeanine Garafolo.  I despise Sean Hannity and his minions, but do you see me making a thread about how stupid I believe he is?  Nope.

jmc wrote:

>...maybe if they got Howard Stern to
> do it...he's been attacking Bush like crazy.

Um, would the point of a Liberal show on talk radio be to bash Bush and/or conservatives in general?  Seems to me that would be a waste of the medium.

The reason Conservative Talk Radio is so successful is that it is INFORMATION.  Facts, references from history, etc.  Some may THINK it is all rhetoric and liberal bashing (there may be some of that), but that is not why millions of highly educated professionals tune in each day (check the demographics of the people who listen to Talk, it ain't "Slackers" ... I was looking into advertising my business on a local talk station, so I researched who would be hearing my ads).

Why can the "Libs" not broadcast and discuss THEIR platform, ideas and values?  That would be informative and allow people to make INFORMED decisions about which platform they prefer; this would be honest.  Bashing the 'enemy' does nothing to tell others what you actually believe.

I'm not against a Liberal Talk Radio show.  If it is just bashing, it WILL fail.  People, in general, don't want to hear that (those that do will tire of it quickly, and you need NEW listeners to grow the market).  If it's honest information, I think it will fail then, too, since the people who listen to serious discussions on serious issues on the radio trend away from far leftist leanings (and Franken and Garofolo are not centrists at all).  If not, that's okay, too; honest information is always good.

Two of my favorite Talk hosts that you may or may not have heard of are Glenn Beck (Conservative) and Neal Boortz (Libertarian).  Boortz is probably the best thinking-on-his-feet debator I have ever heard in my life.  If you call his show to disagree with him, you better have your ducks in a row or he'll wipe the floor with you.

Peace.

When Clinton was in office, all you heard was Clinton bashing from the conservative talk radio shows.  I imagine most of the hosts are praying for a Kerry victory--eight years of Bush will probably force all but the most popular hosts out of a job.  You know all of these people thank God every night that Bill Clinton was elected President for two terms because without him most of them would have had to find some other line of work.

jmc wrote:

> When Clinton was in office, all you heard was Clinton bashing
> from the conservative talk radio shows.  I imagine most of the
> hosts are praying for a Kerry victory--eight years of Bush will
> probably force all but the most popular hosts out of a job.
> You know all of these people thank God every night that Bill
> Clinton was elected President for two terms because without him
> most of them would have had to find some other line of work.

First of all, that is not true at all.  Do you LISTEN to ANY 'conservative' talk radio?  I highly doubt it, or you would not make that claim.  (For the record, I have been listening to talk radio for about 15 years, almost daily, a variety of shows).

Second, everyone said Rush would have nothing to talk about after Clinton left, and that he would wither away.  His program and popularity is growing.  Beck, Boortz, Savage, Hanity, etc, etc have ALL grown into MAJOR new markets almost exclusively SINCE Bush was elected.  Check your facts before you make such claims.

Third, if you listen to Rush, Boortz, Beck (to name a few), you'd know that they do a fair amount of Bush bashing themselves.  Bush has done a lot of things that have a lot of conservatives quite ticked off (some say these things may cost him re-election).   Talk Radio is NOT about 'toeing the party line.'  

The thing that is making 'conservative' talk radio popular is HONESTY.  People can call in to the shows, complain about this or that, or agree with this or that, but the conversation is HONEST.  It is not scripted, nor is it 'talking points' put out by the RNC or other such nonsense.  If those favoring liberal ideology follow a similar path in being honest in their presentation, they have a shot.  If it is scripted and made-up, it will die before it starts; we already have TV for fantasy, those listening to AM listen for more than that.

Thank you ULTHAR. That was very consise and to the point. Well said. :)

FWIW, I've listened since the early 90s, back when Limbaugh was the only real player in the game, the only one people had heard of nationally.  I stand by my statement that without Clinton to galvanize the Republicans few of these shows would be national if they'd come into existence at all.  Had Clinton lost in 1992 it's possible Limbaugh wouldn't have gotten to where he's at now.  And had Dole somehow won in 1996 I doubt anyone would have ever heard of Beck, Boortz, Laura Ingram, or Savage on a national level.
 And yes, I've heard every show mentioned, and yes, they do criticize Bush on occasion but that doesn't mean they're not going to support him in November...at least on the air.  An extended Republican administration in the White House is the worst thing that could happen to the conservative radio business.  I remember listening to Limbaugh back in 1991 and the guy had no direction at all without a significant Democrat to rail against.   However, it's really starting to look like they don't have much to worry about.  ;-)

And personally, I think a lot of these radio people are working the public much as pro wrestlers do, but if you wanna keep believing it go right ahead.      

As far as the original question I still don't think it will work because there are too many differences between the two groups.

jmc wrote:

> FWIW, I've listened since the early 90s, back when Limbaugh was
> the only real player in the game, the only one people had heard
> of nationally.

Fair enough.

> I stand by my statement that without Clinton to
> galvanize the Republicans few of these shows would be national
> if they'd come into existence at all.  Had Clinton lost in 1992
> it's possible Limbaugh wouldn't have gotten to where he's at
> now.

As I recall, Rush was already VERY popular on the national level in '92.  Wasn't his tv show going on about that time, too?  Actually, it was his tv show that lured me to his radio program.  I'd never heard of him until I saw him flipping channels one night (sometime around '90 if memory serves).

>  And had Dole somehow won in 1996 I doubt anyone would
> have ever heard of Beck, Boortz, Laura Ingram, or Savage on a
> national level.

I don't know...one of those unanswerables.  I think Boortz, for example, has enough to complain about the modern Conservatives that he probably would still be popular either way.  Beck's show is pure silliness much of the time, with the Conservative issue oriented stuff as 'backbone,' so I don't know about this one either.  I consider Savage more of a 'complainer,' so I don't listen to him often enough to really evaluate the strength of his show.  I know he is quite popular right now, but honestly I never heard of him until a few months ago.

>  And yes, I've heard every show mentioned, and yes, they do
> criticize Bush on occasion but that doesn't mean they're not
> going to support him in November...at least on the air.  An
> extended Republican administration in the White House is the
> worst thing that could happen to the conservative radio
> business.  I remember listening to Limbaugh back in 1991 and
> the guy had no direction at all without a significant Democrat
> to rail against.   However, it's really starting to look like
> they don't have much to worry about.  ;-)

Well, whatever he may have been in 1991, he is definitely a market leader now, and I don't think he 'needs' a Liberal/Democrat to rail against to succeed.  There is enough fodder in the news in general (Michael Jackson, Martha Stuart

SIDE NOTE: Stuart CONVICTED....YEAH!  Score one for THAT jury!

etc.).  I think Rush has gotten to the point that people care about his opinions no matter what he is talking about.  I have heard him spend most of a show giving relationship advice, for crying out loud, and people kept on calling.  Move over Dr. Laura!!

>
> And personally, I think a lot of these radio people are working
> the public much as pro wrestlers do, but if you wanna keep
> believing it go right ahead.

FWIW, I believe what I hear that (a) I can verify from other sources or (b) is consistent with direct observations I make.  Probably my FAVORITE Talk guy right now is Beck, partly because he does A LOT MORE than just talk about politics.  I really like his satire bits, and hey, the Rallies for America (not his idea, by the way) were really cool (something BOTH sides of the political spectrum could support).
     
Sorry to go on and on about this, guys, but I got to admit.  I listen to FAR more radio than I watch tv these days (I find tv too mindless, but that's only part of it).  If the Liberals DO get their own show (they have shows, btw, they just are not very popular and certainly not national), or rather national network, it will be very interesting to see how it develops.  I don't think it will last; I just don't think people want to hear that message (negativity, doom and gloom, and constant bashing).  Only my opinion, so take with at least one grain of salt.

:)

I listen to Dennis prager and democracy now.  one convervitive, one liberal, both thought provoking.  Mostly I listen to NPR cuz there aren't any ads!!  The right wing guys are often annoying.  Alot of times there's not much to talk about, just not much news, so they act like some thing Jhn Kerry said in 1815 is f some unbeleivable importance.   The only one I really hate is Mancow.  He's like that kid in that tv movie "the wave" who finally fits in then is totally dejected when it ends.

As much as people hate Limbagh,Hannity,Savage, etc.. You have to admit that they are right most of the time.

"if it is just bashing, it WILL fail. "

Why is Mike Savage so popular then?  Well, ok, I've only listened to him like once.  But he's such an enourmous ass that was enough.

Well, let's put it a different way...without Clinton or some other strong Democrat running in 1992, I don't think the talk radio explosion would have happened.  And I really think if Bush [the first] had been re-elected Rush might not be hosting a show today.    Rush was big all throughout 1992, but that was because he had Clinton.

I believe the Limbaugh TV show started in 1992.  Limbaugh's radio show began in 1988.  I tend to agree with the other hosts that he is a little behind the times now...he's become The Establishment.  But he made the business what it is today.      

We had two news talk stations in the city where I lived before moving here, and the way they behaved toward each other made it obvious that a lot of the people in the radio business don't really care about the ideals they claim to advocate.

The main reason I think it will fail is just that talk radio is just not a medium that is usually popular with liberals, for various reasons.  Unless it's similar to NPR I think it will fail in most markets.  If it's just a liberal imitation of the conservative programs I think most people will tune out, or at least most liberals will.  Liberals can be as close-minded as anyone as far as their news sources, but I think they tend to at least pretend to search out information for themselves [even if it's from the same sources that are biased toward their worldview.]  They don't seem to respond to the same things that the conservatives do as far as media goes.

yes--liberal radio will fail miserably

I don't understand Savage, either, I must confess.  I have only heard him in small doses, and it is clear to me he is not in the same league as some of the others.

jmc wrote:

> The main reason I think it will fail is just that talk radio is
> just not a medium that is usually popular with liberals, for
> various reasons.  Unless it's similar to NPR I think it will
> fail in most markets.  

That's right, Liberals DO have a talk radio network...NPR.  And it is publically funded, not supported by market demand.  I *USED* to listen to NPR a lot...but just got sick of it.  Now, when I do tune in, it seems more like a joke to me.

Actually, a friend of mine in rural Western (not West) Virginia told me an NPR station he gets there is quite conservative.

As a corollary to what you said, I think one PART of the medium that is not popular with Liberals is the call-in format.  Boortz and Beck are two examples I know that are often very good at logical argument (and this is where Rush has really been dropping the ball in recent years...he's better at thinking of stuff to say on the air than he is at debating).

I predict the Liberal answer to conservatives calling in will be to hang up, or not put them on the air.  A lot of liberals have the erroneous notion that Talk Radio is all rah rah Gooooo Conservatives....Yea! and the hosts NEVER let libs on the air.  Quite the contrary is true; libs get put to the head of the line on Rush, and the ONLY thing that gets you hung up on on Boortz or Beck is to LIE about what you want to talk about.

But contrast this with democraticunderground.com, where they WILL NOT, under any circumstances, let even centrist posts on their forums.  They don't want debate.  They want free, unchallenged complaining, name calling and, quite frankly, fantasy.  *IF* the radio shows are done with this type of attitude, they are done.  SOME people will tune in daily to hear the daily rants, but by and large, the folks who spend money with the advertisers will not.  And that's the demographic  that will matter most.

One of the best, funniest most entertaining afternoon local talk shows was (sadly its gone now) Spires and Crantz in Charlotte.  They were on for years.  Spires was Libertarian, and Crantz was Liberal.  The counterpoint between them was fun, and they did some fun silliness, too.  Unfortunately, Spires got fired for yelling at a caller (and more than yelling, I guess) or some such...then just a couple of days ago, I heard he was arrested for assault.  Really sad, he seemed like a very cool guy to me.

I consider myself a conservative and even I can't listen to most of the conservative talk radio. All it is, is liberal bashing and stubron old men who can't get off there high horse and see the whole picture.
Hannity is the worst, because he is a self righteous hypocritaical prick, who hates anyone with a opinion other than his own. At least Rush can admit when he is wrong.

I just remembered a fairly Liberal radio host for whom I have tremendous respect.  His name is John Hancock and he broadcasts on WBT (1110 kHz, Charlotte, NC) I believe at 6pm.  WBT is a 50,000 Watt station that can be heard up and down the East coast at night, anyway (I listened to Hancock while driving in Syracuse, NY two years ago).

Anyway, Hancock is 'mostly liberal.'  But he is very intelligent, very repsectful of differing opinions and his points are reasoned, not cliche, hype and talking points.  Don't think I have EVER heard him bash conservatives, either.  He prefers to state his points and beliefs, and let his arguements stand on their own without 'going negative.'

If he went national, he'd be a big hit.  Probably not with Libs, cuz I think they WANT bashing... You may not agree with him on specific points (and hey, I found myself agreeing with him on a LOT of points), but you CAN respect him.

John was fired from BT a few years back for something or other and went to work as morning disk jock for local alternative rock station.  When BT decided to drop Dr. Laura (thank goodness), they brought him back in the 8pm time slot.  He eventually got moved back to the 6pm slot.

Anyway, if you get a chance to listen (and WBT 1110 AM really is heard all over the Eastern half of the country, at night ... ), it will be worth it.  His comments just after 9-11 were quite stirring.

Ulthar,

I'll be sure to check out his show.  I live in NC myself, and will add him to my list of radio shows to listen to.

I am conservitive, but i don't like name calling and invective. It sucks.
Dennis Prager, G. Gordon Liddy, and Barry Farber are all gentlemen. They disagree without being disagreeable.
If Hancock is like that, i'd give him a listen. Glen Beck is funny, and i like his "Spock mode" when some one tries to argue a point, but resorts to vague emotional points, and does not string together a reasoned opinion.
Same with Mike McConnel on WLW's Midday show. Have your S&%# tohgether, or you'll get hung with your own rope. Mike will just spring the trap for ya.

I can't respect limbaugh after he became a junkie.  He's a total 100% hypocrite.  But his fans don't care.  To me that cares that he and his fans are do as I say not as I d.  They don't have morals themselves, but they demand that other people have them.  They just like being mean basically.  

            Anyone who's read Frankens book knows he can be entertaining.  Especially when he makes fun of Sean hannity.  I think the downside will be that no conservitives will listen to it and that's alot of people.

lester1/2jr wrote:

>             Anyone who's read Frankens book knows he can be
> entertaining.  Especially when he makes fun of Sean hannity.  

There is more to being entertaining than making fun of PEOPLE.  Franken's humor is, in my opinion, very very low brow.  The demographics show that the people listening to Talk Radio are highly educated professionals (mostly) and similar demographics.  Such people, whether conservative or liberal (and there are a lot of BOTH ideologies listening to current Talk shows), probably do not want 'lowest common denomenator' humor.  They want stuff that is a little brainier, with a little more subtlety.  They want idea and thought, and though provoking ideas, not cliche, inuendo and dogma.

Sorry, but Franken will almost assuredly fail, and bring the whole attempt down with it.  He is NOT the best choice.

And by the way, Rush's fans continued to support him for a lot of reasons.  Part of it is 'there but for the grace of God go I;' Everyone has problems.  He admitted them and corrected them.  He did not lie about it and try to redefine basic language to suit the defense of his behavior.

He said he was wrong.  What in the world is hypocritical about THAT?

(You don't like Rush, fine.  I am not saying you have to like him, or agree with him.  But he is not a hypocrite for having a problem and admitting it.  Further, you have no basis to characterize his fans as having morals or not.  His fan base is many tens of millions of people; I am sure they range from very good, descent people to some that are not-so-good, and all in between.  Be wary of overgeneralization, it is not a strong position from which to form an arguement).

I realize That Michael Savage goes over the top alot of the time. But if you really listen to him, you will realize that he is very smart.

I used to enjoy Alan Colmes' program during the early Nineties--most of his show involved conservatives calling up and debating him.  Unless there's some kind of conflict or arguing going on it's just not interesting radio.  I don't think they'll just hang up on conservative callers, at least if they want to stay on the air for very long.   The talk programs on NPR also have conservative callers from time to time and they're treated pretty respectfully.  

Some of the more liberal people I know think NPR is too conservative.  You can't please everyone, I guess.   I think if you can keep their biases in mind, their news coverage is far better than anyone else's as far as examining all aspects of a story and not just giving it 10-15 seconds.

Disclaimer:  I have not listened to NPR regularly for nearly 10 years.

That said,  my biggest problem with NPR, at least at that time (and the few times I have heard it since) is a very Eurocentric 'attitude' toward everything.  I got kinda tired of this underlying theme in much of the programming, such as "Fresh Air" and "All Things Considered," that US=bad (or at least not as enlightened) and Europe=good (or at least more considered).

This is just my opinion.  There WERE some interesting stories on NPR from time to time.  It was the totality, the cummulative effect that wore on me over time.

I do listen to NPR, because it does offer more detail than most news shows.  However, it does have an annoying liberal bent; I've got some liberal friends who can't stand NPR's slant.  This isn't in every news segment but it is there.

Now, this liberal slant is more in line with the NY Times liberal "noblese oblige" type, and not a leftist/socialist slant.  Though I do find tiresome the stories about someone, womewhere, who's life is in a bit of difficulty and there's the unspoken implication that we as a society should always help them.

ulther- have you read "lying liars?"  and Rush is a hypocrite because he buys drugs illegaly, class a narcotics, for which posessin of one pill is supposed to get you a year in jail.  He didn't admit anything, he has ten lawyers and is fighting the whle thing.  and his fans are complicit in his lies.

lester1/2jr wrote:

> ulther- have you read "lying liars?"  and Rush is a hypocrite
> because he buys drugs illegaly, class a narcotics, for which
> posessin of one pill is supposed to get you a year in jail.  He
> didn't admit anything, he has ten lawyers and is fighting the
> whle thing.  and his fans are complicit in his lies.

He has not been charged with a single crime.  He has not been charged with buying drugs illegally.  He DID in fact admit to being addicted to prescription pain killers, and he spent about 30 days in rehab to beat that addiction.  So far as what has been announced publically, and is supported by the facts surrounding the ongoing investigation of this behavior, I personally do not believe his entering rehab was in any way part of some negotiated deal.

If he has committed a crime, if he gets charged with this crime and convicted, how are people who enjoy his radio show complicit in this crime?  That simply makes no sense at all.

From Webster's New World Dictionary:  Complicity: partnership in wrongdoing.

A listener to a radio show has no control of what the host of said show does, and therefore cannot be a 'partner' in his activities.  Maybe if you have evidence that specific fans were buying or selling drugs for him, you'd have a basis for your comment.  Otherwise, I'd have to categorize it as unsubstantiated innuendo at this point.  Sorry.  

To my knowledge, none of his fans have said he should not have gone to rehab, or that he should not face charges if a crime has been committed.  Maybe some have, but not in any public forum of which I am aware.  People support him as a man; they empathized and sympathized when he was in rehab.  But, given what I THINK I understand about his fanbase, I doubt they would say he should not do his time if he is charged and convicted of a crime.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "Class A Narcotic."  Illegal drugs are "Scheduled" under the Controlled Substances Act.  Scheduled I controlled substances are those which are considered very dangerous and have no recognized medical use.  Examples include LSD and, uh, marijuana.  Most narcotics (opium derivatives), but not all, are Schedule II controlled substances.  These are known to have high abuse potential, are pretty dangerous when taken without a doctor's supervision, but do have medically recognized uses.  Other C-II's include methamphetamine and amphetamine.

complicit was the wrong word.