OT-Liberal talk radio?

[Jayson]

yes--liberal radio will fail miserably

[ulthar]

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.

[ulthar]

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.

[wickednick]

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.

[ulthar]

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.

[Mr_Vindictive]

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.

[Flangepart]

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.

[lester1/2jr]

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.

[ulthar]

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).

[Jayson]

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.

[jmc]

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.

[ulthar]

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.

[raj]

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.

[lester1/2jr]

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.

[ulthar]

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.