Why are there no liberals in Talk radio?

Todd-'o'-Vision

Super xVirgin Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Posts
5,609
The latest numbers showing who is listening to what on the radio dial are good news for talk radio. Only talk radio and Spanish language broadcasts are showing any growth in listenership. This doesn't please liberals. When liberals aren't pleased, something must be going right.

So, what is the source of this discontent for the left? Conservatives. There are just too many conservatives on talk radio. Liberals consider conservatives to be evil, and this makes talk radio evil and something deserving of eradication.

There have been multiple news stories and opinion pieces over the past few months trying to explain the conservative slant of talk radio. So far, nobody has it quite right. Talk radio doesn't skew to the conservative side because that's the way the corporate ownership wants it. There's nothing sinister at work here. No conspiracy ... no grand right-wing plan. Conservatives and libertarians dominate because, to put it bluntly, liberals can't survive in the talk-radio wars.

Newspaper columnists and editorial writers, broadcast commentators, writers and radio talk-show hosts generally offer most of the opinions for mass distribution. Among these, talk-show hosts operate on a completely different playing field.

A newspaper columnist or editorial writer publishes their opinion piece and retreats. Ditto for other writers and most broadcast commentators. They put their thoughts and opinions out there for the general public to digest. When the great unwashed figure out that the editorial, column or commentary is intellectually inedible, the author is safely out of reach, insulated from any challenges to the factual or logical base of their stated opinions.

You can send an editor who has written a hideously flawed critique of some conservative cause all the scathing e-mails you want. They don't have to listen or respond. They're up there basking in the congratulatory hugs and kisses of their fellow leftists, while you're down here on solid ground screaming to be heard on a point of logic or fact. You simply aren't worthy of challenging their obviously superior thought processes. They've told you the way things are, and it's simply up to you to accept their wisdom and applaud their insight.

This is why leftist opinion makers generally survive in newspapers, magazines and on network television broadcasts – everywhere but in talk radio.

So, just what is so different about talk radio? Simple. Radio talk-show hosts can't hit and run. They can throw their opinions out there, just like writers and commentators do, but they then have to sit right there and deal with the feedback. There's a blinking row of lights there, and every one of those lights is another caller just waiting to nail the talk-show host to the wall for any factual or logical error.

If you're writing a newspaper editorial, it's easy to play the class-warfare game and say that George W. Bush's tax cut overwhelmingly favors the "wealthiest 1 percent of Americans." You pen the line, and then sit back to gauge the effects of your little class-warfare salvo.

But ... if you're a liberal talk-show host, and you use the same line on the air, your best bet would be to refrain from taking telephone calls the rest of the show. Soon a caller will tell you that it's an "income tax" – not a "wealth tax" – and that the top 1 percent of income earners in any given year may not necessarily be the same folks as America's "wealthiest 1 percent." One of these top 1-percenters may simply be a widow who has sold some of her husband's assets after his death, or you have an elderly couple selling a business prior to retirement. Uh oh – you're starting to look pretty bad here.

Take the next call and you're likely to be asked to explain why it is so unfair for the top 1 percent of income earners to reap the benefits of a tax cut considering the fact that they pay over one-third of the income taxes while earning only 17 percent of the income. No fancy answer for that one? Now, you're starting to look just a bit ridiculous.

The leftist editorial writer doesn't have to deal with those impertinent questions. They can just hit the e-mail delete button. The leftist talk-show host can't avoid those questions. Soon, he either has to change his opinion to correlate with the facts, or face a complete loss of credibility. And guess what? When talk-show hosts have no credibility, they soon have no talk shows.

Bottom line: Liberals don't do well at talk radio because theirs is a political philosophy based on emotion and legalized plunder. Take enough listener phone calls, and your credibility is shot – along with your ratings. Time to go write a column somewhere.
 
I wouldn't expect much response on this. Should be interesting. It's definitely a question worth asking.
 
The typical liberal isn't afraid to watch TV, go to the movies, or smoke a bole. CONs are because LA pollutes everyone's mind. CONs realize they would in danger of being switched to the darkside if they watched Lord of the Rings and Star Wars with vested interest. Have the talk radio, leave me the rap stations. LIBs actually do listen to crappy CON hosts, it ferments our resolve more than anything. I can't believe more CONs aren't insulted by the paperthin arguments that are presented.
 
What a load of tripe.

Name me a conservative talk show host who actually doesn't hang up when the liberals call him or her on the garbage they serve up - assuming that a liberal can even get past the call screeners who make sure that the only liberals who get on the air are the ones who couldn't conduct an effective argument to save their lives.

The only honest one is Neil Boortz - and he hangs up when anyone gets close to calling him on his nonsense. But at least he tells you to think for yourself and check out all the nonsense he spews.

Just thank God (or what or whomever you believe in) that John - you have no civil rights - Ashcroft hasn't gotten total control yet. If you think talk show hosts of any stripe will have free reign - or people like us exchanging points of view on the internet will be able to continue when he runs the show, you're sadly mistaken. Remember - the good people of Missouri elected a dead man over this guy - and W and Zell Miller decided to make him the attorney general. Your freedom is at stake - conservative, liberal, libertarian or whatever.
 
First of all, Todd didn't write this. He copied and pasted this article without crediting the actual writer. I know this because I've seen what Todd's attempts at original thought are like. Kind of like people who sit around listening to talk radio.

Second of all, radio call-in talk shows are screened. They aren't just going to let anybody get on, callers are interviewed before they get on the air. If a caller sounds like an idiot, they'll move on to the next one. If a caller disagrees with the host, well that's not good for business and the screener has the right to move on. If a caller that has a good opposing argument is clever enough to get past the screen, his audio mysteriously disappears while the host convinces the caller that he's wrong and goes to a commercial. After the commercial break is over it's on to new and more important business. An intelligent person knows this, an unintelligent person thinks the host has once again proven his superior intellect.

If Rush Limbaugh actually had to go head to head with an intelligent person that opposed him, he'd be blown out the water easily. He knows this, and that's why he quit going on other people's shows a long time ago.

Talk radio is for idiots, or people who want to be told what to think. Do intelligent people sit at the kitchen table, phone in hand, waiting for their two minutes of fame on the air?

I think not.
 
No Liberal Talk Shows?

Uh, would you consider Howard Stern to be talk radio? That's his category. Do you consider him Conservative? Fact is this, if it's on an FM station, it's in English, and it' not playing music, it's one of three things. It's either religious programming, news programming, or it's a Liberal talk show. And, there are some of those. The conservative talk shows are all on AM.
 
What do you mean, there are no liberals in talk radio? I thought the whole media was liberal, commie scum?! This doesn't make sense. I'm outraged! Next thing you're going to tell me is that the media is owned by big corporations! THEN you'll tell me that most newspapers endorse Republican candidates!

Next thing you know, Todd will be quoting FAIR!

Where will it all stop?

How will it end?
 
Liberals have better things to do with their time than listen to someone try to make things seem worse than they are. We know how bad conservatives have fucked things up, we don't need a libbie rush limbaugh to tell us.
 
Re: No Liberal Talk Shows?

cg_allstar said:
Uh, would you consider Howard Stern to be talk radio? That's his category. Do you consider him Conservative? Fact is this, if it's on an FM station, it's in English, and it' not playing music, it's one of three things. It's either religious programming, news programming, or it's a Liberal talk show. And, there are some of those. The conservative talk shows are all on AM.

Howard stern is not liberal. He is loose, shocking, and juvenile. That is not liberal.
 
TWB said:
Liberals have better things to do with their time than listen to someone try to make things seem worse than they are. We know how bad conservatives have fucked things up, we don't need a libbie rush limbaugh to tell us.

Please... spare me.
 
Re: Re: No Liberal Talk Shows?

TWB said:


Howard stern is not liberal. He is loose, shocking, and juvenile. That is not liberal.

Uh, a little math here.

Loose + Shocking + Juvenile = Liberal

Seriously though, he does espouse liberal positions on many issues.
 
Gee, and I always thought of radio talk show hosts as folks who were either just radio buffs or they couldn't quite make it on TV.
 
Re: Re: Re: No Liberal Talk Shows?

cg_allstar said:


Uh, a little math here.

Loose + Shocking + Juvenile = Liberal

condecention + selfish + cold hearted = conservative.

I have my own math for the radical conservatives I've met, thanks.
 
Liberals are out learning about the world first hand, gathering data and forming their opinions based on that. Not sitting around waiting to be spoon fed their opinion du jour.

You will find that opinons from liberals are far more diverse than the typical conservative. The typical conservative ideas have become almost dogmatic in their rigidity. Cons were probably the last group to accept that the world is a sphere and not flat. I think Ronald Reagan instituted that change in thought, quietly though, can't have a conservative ever openly admit to being wrong. Actaully he may have just thought the world was flat at first and then those damn liberals twisted it into a ball.
 
Progressive(moving forward)=Liberal

Regressive(can't stand change or a new idea)=Conservative

Actually Howard Stern has quite a few conservative opinions.

Juvenile would more closely resemble a conservative. Juvenile react without thinking. Reactionary, I think the phrase was.
 
Re: Re: Re: No Liberal Talk Shows?

cg_allstar said:


Uh, a little math here.

Loose + Shocking + Juvenile = Liberal

Seriously though, he does espouse liberal positions on many issues.

Damn....a conservative that failed math. Maybe they are right, the school system is failing us. Or more likely it denotes a lack of any critical thinking ability on the part of most conservatives, since this is usually the type of argument they make.
 
The Dao said:
Liberals are out learning about the world first hand, gathering data and forming their opinions based on that. Not sitting around waiting to be spoon fed their opinion du jour.

You will find that opinons from liberals are far more diverse than the typical conservative. The typical conservative ideas have become almost dogmatic in their rigidity. Cons were probably the last group to accept that the world is a sphere and not flat. I think Ronald Reagan instituted that change in thought, quietly though, can't have a conservative ever openly admit to being wrong. Actaully he may have just thought the world was flat at first and then those damn liberals twisted it into a ball.

Thank you, for providing some comedy relief. That first paragraph is pure funny. What nonsense. I thought this thread was going to get all serious for a second. You wanna play? Let's play.

You call it "diverse." I call it "scatter brained" opinions.

Gee are you dense. Of course conservative ideals don't change. That's the point. Conservative, by definition, is to resist change.

So, you think pointing out the world is flat thing from a few hundred years ago is a good way to point up conservative errors? How about we get a little more current with some liberal foul-ups like a corrupt welfare system and failing public schools?
 
The Dao said:
Progressive(moving forward)=Liberal

Regressive(can't stand change or a new idea)=Conservative


I prefer "cautious." It tends to prevent terrible errors of judgement. And FYI, regressive means going backwards.

Actually Howard Stern has quite a few conservative opinions.

Yeah, so?

Juvenile would more closely resemble a conservative. Juvenile react without thinking. Reactionary, I think the phrase was.

Oh yeah. This makes sense. Hence the term "knee-jerk liberal."
 
I have kids in the public education system. They are doing quite well thank you. Resistance to change is a resistance to growth. Most logical beings know this. Most would think intransigence a flaw, not something to crow about.

Whether the welfare system is fouled up or not is a matter of opinion. Your mention of it just points up the one track mind of the conservative. Haven't seen too many conservatives coming up with anu ideas lately. All they do is just sit around and bitch. Hence the popularity of conservative talk radio. Talk is cheap. Like most conservatives.

Lastly, you call it "scatterbrained", we call it the natural result of debate and actually taking the facts into consideration. It doesn't take much brain power to think in lockstep does it?

Mega dittos. Hah.
 
AGAIN I state:

Party politics, party loyalty... it's a waste of fucking time and energy.

Ideas, people. That's what matters .. not a fucking political party. Think for yourself .. if you have to stick a damned label on yourself .. then you're letting someone else do the thinking for you.

Get off it already.
 
cg_allstar said:
I prefer "cautious." It tends to prevent terrible errors of judgement. And FYI, regressive means going backwards.

I know. That's the direction we would take if everyone fell into the conservative mode. Stationery is going backwards. Relatively speaking that is.
 
It's a sad day... ;)

But politics aside, I find myself agreeing with Purple Haze. The first issue is that the writing in Todd's piece is not at all like his other posts. As a writer, I do have a big problem with people posting other people's work, unattributed, as their own. Shame, shame on you, "Todd"... :mad:
 
Back
Top