The W
Views: 99348018
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.9.07 1304
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Liberal Radio Is Planned by Rich Group of Democrats Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1844 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (30 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 985/4700
EXP: 21528693
For next: 307969

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1246 days
Last activity: 1043 days
#1 Posted on 20.2.03 0723.31
Reposted on: 20.2.10 0726.53
Click this

The real question is will it work? I have contended for a long time that the reason that liberal radio has not worked in the past is because those liberals who choose to host shows are completely incapable of answering reasonable questions without exploding on their listeners. We shall see...

(edited by Grimis on 20.2.03 0824)
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 1601/5402
EXP: 27085049
For next: 46955

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 20.2.03 0947.23
Reposted on: 20.2.10 0949.24
I would argue if it's going to fail it won't be for the reason you stated. Instead I would say it's because as a fairly lefty liberal I know one of the problems others of my ilk seem to have is being concise and easily digestible. I mean, you listen to Rush Limbaugh, and even though he might spend an hour ostensibly on the topic, you can boil down his opinion on Iraq very neatly to "blow them up." I cannot imagine a left-wing radio host being nearly as easy to package.

If it were going to work, they're going to need to find some people who are willing to get as loud and confrontational as the Limbaughs of the world. I could see James Carville as a choice that could work. Maybe they could find Ann Richards. But if they put on a group of NPR sound-alikes, it's doomed to fail.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1060/2105
EXP: 6585519
For next: 65171

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#3 Posted on 20.2.03 1013.12
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1014.05
Two words: Al Sharpton.

I think this whole thing is very easy - Liberals aren't fun to listen to. I'm as big a lefty as they get, and I listen to and read actual legitimate right-wing stuff to stay informed about the other side. But when flipping through the channels, I'll linger on O'Reilly, not Donahue. Why? Because O'Reilly is funner to listen to. That's it. That's the big secret. It's sad our journalistic industry has come to this, but that the reality. We need to get somebody fun to listen to. Now love him or hate him, Rev. Al is fun to listen to.

Why aren't Liberals fun to listen to? Well, I could be cynical and say it's because we try to present more than a non-factual, bombastic, simplistic analysis of a particular issue. But there's two other reasons also. First, we tend to make people feel bad about themselves. And nobody wants to sit there and listen to what bad people they are anytime outside of Sunday Mornings. And Second, we tend to Preach to the Converted. We don't know how to talk to anyone outside lefties. We use lefty jargon, assumptions, and in-jokes as a matter of course, and then are surprised when anyone who didn't go to Oberlin doesn't understand what they heck we're talking about.

I have contended for a long time that the reason that liberal radio has not worked in the past is because those liberals who choose to host shows are completely incapable of answering reasonable questions without exploding on their listeners.

Now, you've utterly lost me on this one. That's exactly what makes a succesful radio/TV personality. Dr. Laura anyone? Of course, I suppose your milage of what a "reasonable question" is may vary.

Liberal Radio Is Planned by Rich Group of Democrats

This is my favorite little dig by Republicans. It's like everyone is allowed to have money and do what they want with it except Democrats. Every time there's a Democrat who spends money on anything, the Republicans make sure to label them a "rich" Democrat. Who else is going to start a flipping radio network - a poor group of Democrats? A poor group of Republicans? I suppose that retired schoolteacher Edna Mills from Youngstown, OH funds the Cato Institute? Perhaps Montgomery, AL Mechanic Rufus Young started syndicating the Rush Limbaugh show?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 986/4700
EXP: 21528693
For next: 307969

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1246 days
Last activity: 1043 days
#4 Posted on 20.2.03 1043.06
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1046.37

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    This is my favorite little dig by Republicans.

Hey, it was the Times headline. Not exactly a "Republican dig" by any stretch of the imagination.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1062/2105
EXP: 6585519
For next: 65171

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#5 Posted on 20.2.03 1139.51
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1140.11
Ah. Well then. At least it suffised as an excuse to rant about a pet peeve, and really, isn't that all talk radio really is anyway?

Another interesting thing is that the Conservative personalities were essentially no-names. The liberals have been trying to put up Mario Cuomo and the like against them and failing miserably. Maybe it's time to cut out going to the celebs (something Liberals do way too much as it is) and just try to find some talented small-market guys out there and give them a chance to do there thing. I mean, can you really think of another radio personality that got there another way?
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 1604/5402
EXP: 27085049
For next: 46955

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 20.2.03 1207.33
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1207.38
Well G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North and Bill O'Reilly all were famous or infamous beforehand.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 324/561
EXP: 889278
For next: 58046

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 60 days
Last activity: 60 days
#7 Posted on 20.2.03 1213.56
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1229.09

    Originally posted by spf2119
    Well G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North and Bill O'Reilly all were famous or infamous beforehand.


G. Gordon Liddy was awesome on Miami Vice
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 976/1759
EXP: 4917299
For next: 75571

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1292 days
Last activity: 59 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on 20.2.03 1220.34
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1229.14
I have been hearing things about this for a long time, and I am highly skepticle.
For one, there ARE liberal talk show hosts out there, and I even do give them a chance. But they are shrill, illogical, and annoying as hell to listen to. I listened to one guy out here who said that in order for you to be "For" having a death penalty, you had to kill yourself. And anyone who would call to argue against his point, he would reply - "Then kill yourself, prove you really believe what you say..." It was utterly ridiculous.
The think about "Rush" and others like him is that he started small, just like any sucessful national radio talk show host. Take your Mark and Brians, your Howard Sterns, your Dr. Laura's, your G. Gordon Liddys. your Art Bells- these guys all started small, built an audience that grew, and then became popular on a national level.
Quite frankly, I do not think there are enough AM radio "casual listeners" for an instant liberal national host to get any ratings. To throw someone out there for hours a day with NO experience, just because he is a liberal, is not going to produce a good show.
These so called "Rich Liberals" (I thought all Democrats were poor, and that put them in touch with the "common man?") are going to try to force an instant radio force on them, and I really think that the "talk radio listeners," regardless of party, will be too saavy to buy it. They are not listening to the liberal hosts that are out there now- what makes them think that people will just start listening to a new one, simply because he is "national?"
Enojado Viento
Potato korv
Level: 53

Posts: 349/662
EXP: 1153278
For next: 3848

Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 698 days
Last activity: 24 days
#9 Posted on 20.2.03 1355.08
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1358.12

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle

      Originally posted by spf2119
      Well G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North and Bill O'Reilly all were famous or infamous beforehand.


    G. Gordon Liddy was awesome on Miami Vice



. . .and "Super Force." I have no idea how he got the acting chops to play a Japanese businessman.
-LS
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1063/2105
EXP: 6585519
For next: 65171

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 5 days
#10 Posted on 20.2.03 1433.35
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1434.42
shrill, illogical, and annoying as hell to listen to
Again, this is what seems to make conservative talk show hosts show popular.

Other than that, I really agree with the rest of your post. The Democratic party really used to be the "bottom up" party. Ordinary folks came up through a system (given, maybe not the most uncorrupt system in the world). Even after you abandoned the real machine politics, neighborhood activists and the like were the folks that eventually moved up and got elected to Congress, or otherwise gained influence. All this time the GOP's shots were essentially being called by a small group of rich businessmen.

Sometime in the Early 80s or so this began to change, until today, when it's the GOP folks that really are coming up through the ranks and the Dems that are getting celebrities, bored businessmen, and the like to take the reigns, and trying to impose stuff instead of building it.

Hey, if Al Franken or Mario Cuomo or whoever wants to start a local show and build an audience and get viewers, great. But if they think I'm going to listen to them just because of there name, please. It's like the XFL. Fans will tune in big at first because of marketing and names, but if it sucks, and if they don't get what they are expecting, they aren't going to stick around just because they've heard of the guy.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 988/4700
EXP: 21528693
For next: 307969

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1246 days
Last activity: 1043 days
#11 Posted on 20.2.03 1507.41
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1509.11

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    But if they think I'm going to listen to them just because of there name, please. It's like the XFL. Fans will tune in big at first because of marketing and names, but if it sucks, and if they don't get what they are expecting, they aren't going to stick around just because they've heard of the guy.

I think that was the problem with Cuomo's show.

Look at guys like Liddy, and Hannity, and Rush and they started small and worked up big. Sure, they got their breaks over the years(I seriously doubt that Hanntiy would've gotten the gig had it not been for the Fox Show).
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 489/1528
EXP: 4074632
For next: 116516

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2807 days
Last activity: 2650 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 20.2.03 1856.32
Reposted on: 20.2.10 1859.01

    Originally Posted by MoeGates
    Other than that, I really agree with the rest of your post. The Democratic party really used to be the "bottom up" party. Ordinary folks came up through a system (given, maybe not the most uncorrupt system in the world). Even after you abandoned the real machine politics, neighborhood activists and the like were the folks that eventually moved up and got elected to Congress, or otherwise gained influence. All this time the GOP's shots were essentially being called by a small group of rich businessmen.


Maybe it's because I live in Massachusetts, but, I have to wonder what Democratic party you're talking about. Not that I think the Republican party is any different in this aspect, but...
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 13/449
EXP: 645602
For next: 14567

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 523 days
Last activity: 389 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 21.2.03 2108.01
Reposted on: 21.2.10 2117.13
Something has be opposite the idiocy and partisinship of Michael Savage calling liberalism a disease and calling for the arrests of anti-war organizers.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 990/1759
EXP: 4917299
For next: 75571

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1292 days
Last activity: 59 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 21.2.03 2316.55
Reposted on: 21.2.10 2318.05
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Something has be opposite the idiocy and partisinship of Michael Savage calling liberalism a disease and calling for the arrests of anti-war organizers.

Who the hell is Michael Savage?
My point being that he isn't even considered one of the top- mainstream hosts... and there are plenty of "liberal" hosts that are at his level of popularity.

Radio is not government... and editorial talk show hosts can be as partisain as they want. They should have no bearing on the legislative process. And the only way that something HAS to be put in place to counter it is if a- people will listen to it, and b- it makes money. You seriously can't just put people on the radio because "you need all opinions" represented in editorial talk-shows... because quite frankly, that would ruin radio.

Imagine when the facists decided THEY need a voice, and should be given that based on "equal access." The list goes on. You just can;t force an ideology on people. The reason hosts like Rush are popular is because people want to listen to them, not because they were shoved down our throats by people who believe that they have the RIGHT to be.

If there is an audience, someone will fill it. If you force it, it makes the whole endeavor worthless... Might as well turn everything over to the government then, so they can make it "fair."

(edited by Pool-Boy on 21.2.03 2117)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 496/1528
EXP: 4074632
For next: 116516

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2807 days
Last activity: 2650 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 21.2.03 2349.48
Reposted on: 21.2.10 2355.07
You all forget that there already is liberal talk radio. It's called NPR, and it's taxpayer-funded. The reason conservative talk radio thrives is because it's an alternative to mainstream media. Liberal talk radio will be NPR/ABC/CBS/CNN redux.

Edit: And another point I forgot to make...

The liberal constituency is, in essence, people who want other people's money. Leftists of all stripes want more government funding for stuff. So your audience will consist, largely, of three groups:

Poor Minorites. Union Households. Teachers/profs/students. That's not likely to get advertisers excited. Conservative audiences, on the other hand, tend to be middle class and upper middle class (or rich people, if you're a Democrat. After all, anyone making 70 K is rich, to the Dems. Hell, anyone EARNING their own freakin income is "rich.").

(edited by PalpatineW on 22.2.03 0108)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 365/3464
EXP: 13422848
For next: 97695

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#16 Posted on 22.2.03 0039.56
Reposted on: 22.2.10 0042.15

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle
    G. Gordon Liddy was awesome on Miami Vice


I really hope you are kidding here, cause if you think THATS what he was famous for, I should shoot myself right now...

(wc-23)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1011/4700
EXP: 21528693
For next: 307969

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1246 days
Last activity: 1043 days
#17 Posted on 26.2.03 0958.54
Reposted on: 26.2.10 0959.02
Just something from todays' WashTimes

Liberal talk radio? Keep laughing


(edited by Grimis on 26.2.03 1059)
Torchslasher
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 735/3267
EXP: 12718505
For next: 372848

Since: 17.1.02
From: New F'n Jersey

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#18 Posted on 26.2.03 1123.12
Reposted on: 26.2.10 1129.04
Well, if this happens, then Bill Maher HAS to get a slot on the network. Even if he professes to be Independent or even Republican, it is obvious from his PI show that he is very liberal-minded.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1107/3028
EXP: 11224627
For next: 246818

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 26.2.03 1147.29
Reposted on: 26.2.10 1159.04

    Originally posted by Torchslasher
    Well, if this happens, then Bill Maher HAS to get a slot on the network. Even if he professes to be Independent or even Republican, it is obvious from his PI show that he is very liberal-minded.


Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian, but, four out of five times, he's as liberal as I am. I think he'd a good fit. He's funny, and he's got that "what's he gonna say next" quality.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 844/1180
EXP: 2763347
For next: 106411

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3452 days
Last activity: 3446 days
#20 Posted on 26.2.03 1226.18
Reposted on: 26.2.10 1229.04
"You all forget that there already is liberal talk radio. It's called NPR, and it's taxpayer-funded. The reason conservative talk radio thrives is because it's an alternative to mainstream media. Liberal talk radio will be NPR/ABC/CBS/CNN redux."

I think this is the best thing said so far on this issue. Well done Palp.

Conservative radio thrives because it gives a large audience that otherwise doesn't have a major voice for their views something to take comfort in. Issues like liberal hosts not being able to field questions very well or conservatives supposedly being more bombastic than liberals are secondary in my opinion.

DMC

Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: More stuff you can't make up....
Next thread: Interesting article regarding Iraqis at a London war protest
Previous thread: I have never been this pissed off at the French...........
(1844 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Liberal Radio Is Planned by Rich Group of DemocratsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.357 seconds.