a constant theme of mine is media bias for dems vs repubs. Sometimes I cant believe how glaring it is.

Here is the latest. For the record I dont like Newt Gingrch.

When the media talks about Barney Frank, the recognize his outspoken nature with a tone of "that loveable guy" who speaks his mind, they comment on his wit and how smart he is

While Gingrich shares similar style to Frank - the media discusses his "acid-tongue" "condescending nature" etc.

Its crazy

They are all guilty of it - the left-leaning and right-leaning media. The glaring bias of a "report" is often apparent immediately from the start just by reading the title.

As a side note "condescending nature"... there's a term that applies to any politician.

Depends which media organization you are talking about.

Barney Frank is a tool as they all are. He is the one who has us playing 3 card Monte with payroll to get paid on loans we close. We CANNOT get paid a commission on a loan. So the money goes to our company. Then we have to take hourly wages, overtime, a set amount per loan closed, quarterly bonuses etc to take the money we earned in the form of pay and adjust our pay every 3 months depending how much money is in our account. Real Estate agents, financial planners and even car salesmen get paid on what they sell and don't have to jump through hoops. It's nonsense. It's part of protecting the consumer! Just like the new 3 page Good Faith Estimate that nobody understands. The old GFE was 1 page and broke down every cost in black and white (no fees blended together) and the customer had to sign it. The new 3 page one doesn't need to be signed and doesn't show the borrower their itemized costs(fees are lumped together) How was this designed by the govt to help consumers if it doesn't require a signature or show them how their money is being spent? The old one showed you to the penny what I was making for commission the new one doesn't. I gave up on this a month after it came out! The attorney's at the closing table can't even tell you what exactly makes up your origination fees. Rant over!

They are all guilty of it - the left-leaning and right-leaning media. The glaring bias of a "report" is often apparent immediately from the start just by reading the title.

As a side note "condescending nature"... there's a term that applies to any politician.

I agree, there aren't too many examples of true "objective" reporting. But from where I sit, 95% of the media is left-leaning. On TV, you have Foxnews which is right-leaning. and literally everyone else which is left-leaning.

I would add CNBC and Bloomberg to the right side of the column with a few noted exceptions. I am surprised over the last 18 months how political both stations' reporters and pundits (on either political side) have become.

I would add CNBC and Bloomberg to the right side of the column with a few noted exceptions. I am surprised over the last 18 months how political both stations' reporters and pundits (on either political side) have become.


Yes. It is very frustrating (and kinda scary actually) to see Andrea Mitchell nearly orgasmic on stuff Obama.

I fear we are a long way from Just the Facts 'mam reporting. I wonder if the pendulum can swing back.

I agree, there aren't too many examples of true "objective" reporting. But from where I sit, 95% of the media is left-leaning. On TV, you have Foxnews which is right-leaning. and literally everyone else which is left-leaning.
Keep in mind that radio is media part of the media as well. There's the occasional left-leaning program, but the airwaves are dominated by right-leaning hosts.

Keep in mind that radio is media part of the media as well. There's the occasional left-leaning program, but the airwaves are dominated by right-leaning hosts.

That's 100% true. I wonder why, since there's enough liberal demand for all those lefty TV stations, why the liberals can't sustain more talk radio? Interesting.

That's 100% true. I wonder why, since there's enough liberal demand for all those lefty TV stations, why the liberals can't sustain more talk radio? Interesting.

It's just easier to change the channel from Spongebob Squarepants to MSNBC, rather than get up and turn the radio on. Besides, the libs like all the colors and movement on tv that they don't get with radio.

That's 100% true. I wonder why, since there's enough liberal demand for all those lefty TV stations, why the liberals can't sustain more talk radio? Interesting.

Iv'e always wondered the same thing. Why don't the lefties sustain more
talk shows. Very interesting. :hihi:

Iv'e always wondered the same thing. Why don't the lefties sustain more
talk shows. Very interesting. :hihi:

Because working your butt off at the office you can sometimes hide a radio but they would frown on a TV.

People with all the cushy liberal jobs have TVs in the office and can watch at any time.

I just made all this up purely for comedic affect though I have a TV in my office so I must be a cushy liberal.

Iv'e always wondered the same thing. Why don't the lefties sustain more
talk shows. Very interesting. :hihi:
I think it's pretty simple.

Conservative hosts tend to reassure their audiences. Look at Rush, the message is always that you're fine just how you are...

Liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong.

Most people would rather be stroked than provoked.

-spence

Interesting, but one should consider that Radio is a two-way communication with callers whereas TV is for the most part a one way broadcast.

I think it's pretty simple.

Conservative hosts tend to reassure their audiences. Look at Rush, the message is always that you're fine just how you are...

Liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong.

Most people would rather be stroked than provoked.

-spence

or,,,,, talk radio provokes discussion and exchange of ideas

liberal programming challenges the audience? whatever

Could also do with an age difference. Older people tend to be conservative, which may translate into being less attuned to technology (Radio, TV), Where liberals may be younger and more in touch w/ technology. Obama did a lot of his Campaign funding via internet w/ this thought process in mind....and it paid off huge for him.

Which could be why there isn't a bigger presence on the Airwaves by the liberal media.

He still does a lot via the internet...which is aimed at the younger people out there.

and this is just a thought...I'm not basing this on fact.

I think it's pretty simple.

Conservative hosts tend to reassure their audiences. Look at Rush, the message is always that you're fine just how you are...

Liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong.

Most people would rather be stroked than provoked.

-spence

Are you aiming at a parallel contrast here? Conservative hosts to conservative audiences and liberal hosts/programming to liberal audiences? And thus Rush telling his audience that they're fine as they are, and liberal programming telling its audience (liberals) that there is something wrong with them and they need to change?

Or are you "mixing apples and oranges" by contrasting that PORTION of Rush's broadcast, small as it may be, where he might imply that they are just fine to the entirety of liberal programming that is constantly saying that this country has something wrong with it and that "liberal" ideology is the cure (discounting, of course, the implication that the programming is telling the liberal audience that it is just fine as they are)?

I think JohnR's point about the two way nature of talk radio makes the liberal approach more difficult than the one way approach of TV.

Are you aiming at a parallel contrast here? Conservative hosts to conservative audiences and liberal hosts/programming to liberal audiences? And thus Rush telling his audience that they're fine as they are, and liberal programming telling its audience (liberals) that there is something wrong with them and they need to change?

Or are you "mixing apples and oranges" by contrasting that PORTION of Rush's broadcast, small as it may be, where he might imply that they are just fine to the entirety of liberal programming that is constantly saying that this country has something wrong with it and that "liberal" ideology is the cure (discounting, of course, the implication that the programming is telling the liberal audience that it is just fine as they are)?

I think JohnR's point about the two way nature of talk radio makes the liberal approach more difficult than the one way approach of TV.
No, I listened to Rush for years and the this element was pretty consistent. I hear a similar tone in the major conservative hosts.

I wouldn't agree either that liberal programming asserts that everything is wrong. Granted, there's a much smaller sample to pull from.

The question may really be, why does conservative talk radio appeal to moderates more than liberal talk radio.

-spence

No, I listened to Rush for years and the this element was pretty consistent. I hear a similar tone in the major conservative hosts.

Hearing "tones" can be, as was discussed in another thread some time ago, problematic. The tone you hear may be a result of what you bring to the transaction. Many who listen to Rush, or other conservative hosts, are usually hearing what they already believe but don't get to hear elsewhere. The host isn't going to intentionally wast air time to actually "tell" them that they are all right as they are, rather, the discussion is on terms to which they are already prone to agree. This is, from the little I've heard from liberal talk radio, what happens in the transaction between the liberal listeners and the liberal host. The positive "stroking" which you ascribe to conservative talk radio happens, in "tone" (what the listener brings), in liberal talk radio as well, so cannot account for the lack of liberal talk shows.

I wouldn't agree either that liberal programming asserts that everything is wrong. Granted, there's a much smaller sample to pull from.

I didn't say such programming asserts that "everything" is wrong, but that something is wrong, which is what you imputed to liberal programming which you claim tends to challenge the audience in order to "justify change" when "somethings wrong." By the way, much conservative talk radio deals with "something wrong" and challenges the audience, including the moderate and liberal listeners, to engage the debate--call in, among other things.

The question may really be, why does conservative talk radio appeal to moderates more than liberal talk radio.

-spence

Maybe, again, because conservative talk radio presents a venue to hear and discuss things they don't hear much elsewhere.

The question may really be, why does conservative talk radio appeal to moderates more than liberal talk radio.

-spence

Because moderates don't like douchebags, either.

Hearing "tones" can be, as was discussed in another thread some time ago, problematic. The tone you hear may be a result of what you bring to the transaction. Many who listen to Rush, or other conservative hosts, are usually hearing what they already believe but don't get to hear elsewhere. The host isn't going to intentionally wast air time to actually "tell" them that they are all right as they are, rather, the discussion is on terms to which they are already prone to agree.
I think the more popular hosts have somewhat diverse audiences. Certainly the best are also good entertainers.

This is, from the little I've heard from liberal talk radio, what happens in the transaction between the liberal listeners and the liberal host. The positive "stroking" which you ascribe to conservative talk radio happens, in "tone" (what the listener brings), in liberal talk radio as well, so cannot account for the lack of liberal talk shows.
Again, I think the issue is what will the middle respond to.

I didn't say such programming asserts that "everything" is wrong, but that something is wrong, which is what you imputed to liberal programming which you claim tends to challenge the audience in order to "justify change" when "somethings wrong." By the way, much conservative talk radio deals with "something wrong" and challenges the audience, including the moderate and liberal listeners, to engage the debate--call in, among other things.
From what I've heard of conservative talk radio, the subject usually is how things would be right if the liberal ideology would be removed. Hence the notion that you don't need to go changing on my behalf.

And don't tell me that Rush lets liberal positions be seriously represented on his show.

Change is hard. I have to help companies deal with it every day.

Maybe, again, because conservative talk radio presents a venue to hear and discuss things they don't hear much elsewhere.

When I listen to conservative talk radio I don't hear subjects or perspectives I don't hear in other media.

-spence

From what I've heard of conservative talk radio, the subject usually is how things would be right if the liberal ideology would be removed. Hence the notion that you don't need to go changing on my behalf.

And what I've heard on liberal talk radio, to put it in your words but exchanging "conservative" for "liberal"--the subject usually is how things would be right if the conservative ideology would be removed. Which "strokes" the liberal audience and assures it that it doesn't have to change. Which, as hearsay on our parts, is not evidence for why there's a much smaller liberal presence in talk radio.

And don't tell me that Rush lets liberal positions be seriously represented on his show.

I didn't say he did. I said that conservative talk radio deals with the "somethings wrong" issue which you say is the meat of liberal talk radio, implying that conservative talk is just about stroking the listeners assuring them that they are right just as they are. I said he challenges his audience to dialog on the "something wrong" stuff (albeit from a different perspective than liberal radio). And, unless he's changed since I used to listen to him, he welcomes liberal callers, puts them ahead of others, and has a substantial dialog with them.


When I listen to conservative talk radio I don't hear subjects or perspectives I don't hear in other media.

-spence

Well, if "other media" includes liberal talk radio, then why is liberal talk radio so less successful? Anyway, I didn't say that subjects or perspectives heard on conservative radio are not discussed elsewhere. The discussions on conservative talk radio which I said listeners hear, including moderates and liberals, are not only about the subjects, certainly about the perspectives, but even more, the time and depth spent on those perspectives, and dealt with by those who have a less apologetically "right" or "conservative" view. Though I have heard some of this type of discussion on television, for the most part, even on fox, it is not as heavily slanted toward the right as on conservative talk radio. And it is not as thoroughly covered in the variety of details, even to the smallest complaints that conservatives have. And, certainly, such discussions on TV are minimal compared to liberal or centrist programs. Hence, my comment that conservative talk radio presents a venue for discussions that listeners don't hear MUCH elsewhere.

Interesting, but one should consider that Radio is a two-way communication with callers whereas TV is for the most part a one way broadcast.

How is it two-way when its screened to get exactly the callers/opinions they want?

How is it two-way when its screened to get exactly the callers/opinions they want?

All radio talk has to be screened in order avoid situations that might cost a program its right to air. Whether some hosts may or may not screen to only allow "excactly" the callers/opinions they want, it is still two way. I haven't heard a large sampling of talk hosts, but of the couple of handfuls that I have, there have been many calls that challenge the hosts with lively discusstions and often get the better of the host. Some of the hosts seem to relish those calls, invite them, and create the discussions that make their show popular. My guess is that they are the more successful and broadly syndicated hosts, and those that narrow the scope of conversation are more boring and much more limited in appeal and therefore confined to local programs.

And what I've heard on liberal talk radio, to put it in your words but exchanging "conservative" for "liberal"--the subject usually is how things would be right if the conservative ideology would be removed. Which "strokes" the liberal audience and assures it that it doesn't have to change. Which, as hearsay on our parts, is not evidence for why there's a much smaller liberal presence in talk radio.
Well, no radio programming would succeed if it didn't respond play to it's audience. The point was that conservatives may have an easier job as they're tweaking a lower level emotion that's more common across all ideologies.

I didn't say he did. I said that conservative talk radio deals with the "somethings wrong" issue which you say is the meat of liberal talk radio, implying that conservative talk is just about stroking the listeners assuring them that they are right just as they are. I said he challenges his audience to dialog on the "something wrong" stuff (albeit from a different perspective than liberal radio). And, unless he's changed since I used to listen to him, he welcomes liberal callers, puts them ahead of others, and has a substantial dialog with them.

I don't think the format (i.e. Rush is ALWAYS right) has changed that much, although over the last decade I think he's become a little less tolerant.

As for having a substantial dialog with liberal callers, I can't say I've ever heard it.

Well, if "other media" includes liberal talk radio, then why is liberal talk radio so less successful?

I think what's been said above, as well as perhaps good timing. Rush emerged as a giant because he's pretty talented and spawned a lot of copy cats.

Anyway, I didn't say that subjects or perspectives heard on conservative radio are not discussed elsewhere. The discussions on conservative talk radio which I said listeners hear, including moderates and liberals, are not only about the subjects, certainly about the perspectives, but even more, the time and depth spent on those perspectives, and dealt with by those who have a less apologetically "right" or "conservative" view. Though I have heard some of this type of discussion on television, for the most part, even on fox, it is not as heavily slanted toward the right as on conservative talk radio. And it is not as thoroughly covered in the variety of details, even to the smallest complaints that conservatives have. And, certainly, such discussions on TV are minimal compared to liberal or centrist programs. Hence, my comment that conservative talk radio presents a venue for discussions that listeners don't hear MUCH elsewhere.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the venue produces that good of a discussion. It's primarily entertainment with little nutrition. About the only widely available programming that consistently gets to substance on a variety of issues is on NPR.

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

got that right :uhuh::)

I don't think the format (i.e. Rush is ALWAYS right) has changed that much, although over the last decade I think he's become a little less tolerant.




-spence

Ya mean you think he's really serious" with 1/2 his brain tied behind his back" remark?
There are times ya have to lighten up. :hihi:

Ya mean you think he's really serious" with 1/2 his brain tied behind his back" remark?
There are times ya have to lighten up. :hihi:
Certainly it's tongue in cheek.

But I also think that's the key to his schtick. Rush is very consistent with his message, and over time his base learns to predict what he'll say. I think that by allowing a listener to think they are as smart as he is perhaps is the foundation of the dittohead.

-spence

But I also think that's the key to his schtick. Rush is very consistent with his message, and over time his base learns to predict what he'll say. I think that by allowing a listener to think they are as smart as he is perhaps is the foundation of the dittohead.

-spence

I agree, if you want more taxes, increase the defecit, and a larger govt
ya need to turn the dial. He is consistant with his message, so much so
that if ya miss listening for a few months ya pick up right where you left. :)

Well, no radio programming would succeed if it didn't respond play to it's audience.

Which is why stroking the audience, as you put it, is not a reason conservative talk is more successful than liberal.

The point was that conservatives may have an easier job as they're tweaking a lower level emotion that's more common across all ideologies.

Is there a subliminal message here? "The point" as described here is unclear.

As for having a substantial dialog with liberal callers, I can't say I've ever heard it.

That you didn't hear it simply means you didn't hear what millions of others did.

I think what's been said above, as well as perhaps good timing. Rush emerged as a giant because he's pretty talented and spawned a lot of copy cats.

Being talented encompasses more than just being entertaining. He's not so entertaining that he would so avidly and for so long be listened to just for entertainment. Contrary to what you "hear" and what "tone" you perceive, millions of others hear and percieve a philosophical and political discussion. And the "spawn" are not mere copy cats. They have their own "talent" and "tone" and many do have guests who they interview, and some of those guests are "liberal," and interesting, informative discussions ensue.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the venue produces that good of a discussion.

You do need to get rid of that "I'm not sure" locution that you often use. Just say "I disagree." Even though it may have a harsher "tone," it is more honest. And if you really are not sure if you would agree, wouldn't it be better not to comment since you would not have formed an opinion? And if "that" good implies some good, but not good enough for you, well, it's good enough for millions and obviously good enough to make it more successful than liberal talk radio.

It's primarily entertainment with little nutrition. About the only widely available programming that consistently gets to substance on a variety of issues is on NPR.

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

Entertainment, as far as radio is concerned, IS "nutrition." Of course, you mean entertainment as a mild pejorative, a superior put down of lesser stuff that can't approach the level of NPR. Perhaps NPR is not as popular because it is boring. Entertainment CAN be derived from substance. Powerful, substantial, truthful, persuasive political and philosophical discourse is very "entertaining" and "nutritious" to open and inquisitive minds.

I agree, if you want more taxes, increase the defecit, and a larger govt
ya need to turn the dial. He is consistant with his message, so much so
that if ya miss listening for a few months ya pick up right where you left. :)
I've tried a few times to listen to some Rush... but find him completely insufferable.

Which is why stroking the audience, as you put it, is not a reason conservative talk is more successful than liberal.

Is there a subliminal message here? "The point" as described here is unclear.
The point was made in my initial post.

That you didn't hear it simply means you didn't hear what millions of others did.
That assumes that they did.

Being talented encompasses more than just being entertaining. He's not so entertaining that he would so avidly and for so long be listened to just for entertainment. Contrary to what you "hear" and what "tone" you perceive, millions of others hear and percieve a philosophical and political discussion. And the "spawn" are not mere copy cats. They have their own "talent" and "tone" and many do have guests who they interview, and some of those guests are "liberal," and interesting, informative discussions ensue.
I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

You do need to get rid of that "I'm not sure" locution that you often use. Just say "I disagree." Even though it may have a harsher "tone," it is more honest. And if you really are not sure if you would agree, wouldn't it be better not to comment since you would not have formed an opinion? And if "that" good implies some good, but not good enough for you, well, it's good enough for millions and obviously good enough to make it more successful than liberal talk radio.
I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

Entertainment, as far as radio is concerned, IS "nutrition." Of course, you mean entertainment as a mild pejorative, a superior put down of lesser stuff that can't approach the level of NPR. Perhaps NPR is not as popular because it is boring. Entertainment CAN be derived from substance. Powerful, substantial, truthful, persuasive political and philosophical discourse is very "entertaining" and "nutritious" to open and inquisitive minds.
Agree that NPR can be quite boring, but perhaps part of that is because you often get information closer to the source, rather than what's been processes multiple times to increase it's entertainment value. Cable news is particular bad in this regard.

But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

I think it's pretty simple.

Conservative hosts tend to reassure their audiences. Look at Rush, the message is always that you're fine just how you are...

Liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong.

Most people would rather be stroked than provoked.

-spence

You have completely, and I mean completely, gone off the deep end. I mean, yuo are actually scary.

Liberals challenge each other? Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz ask tough questions of their guests?

You are really, really out there.

You have completely, and I mean completely, gone off the deep end. I mean, yuo are actually scary.

Liberals challenge each other? Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz ask tough questions of their guests?

You are really, really out there.
First off, you're supposed to be calling me Pyle.

Secondly, the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions. It's that their subject matter tends to be reactive and as such appears negative.

-spence

First off, you're supposed to be calling me Pyle.

Secondly, the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions. It's that their subject matter tends to be reactive and as such appears negative.

-spence

"their subject matter tends to be reactive "

But then why do they call themselves "progressive"?

Still waiting for your answer on how we get an additional $60 trillion to pay for unfinded entitlements? Anything? Anything at all? Or are you waiting for Ed Schultz to tell you what to think?

"the issue isn't really if people like Maddow or Schultz ask tough questions"

You really have a way of denying what you said 5 seconds ago when I show how stupid it is. YOU SAID that liberal programmers tend to "challenge their audience". When? When do they ask their audience, with reasonable supporting arguments, if conservatives have better ideas? When do liberal programmers ask public labor unions why they can't live with 401(k)s like the rest of us? Almost NEVER. The last thing liberals want to have is honest debate, which is precisely why they resort to demonizing conservatives. It's easier to make people irrationally afraid of conservatives (by saying we hate poor people), than it is to debate us. That's why liberals like to storm the stage to keep conservatives from talking, and conservatives almost never do that. We want those discussions, because it's so easy to make the liberal agenda look absurd. Just like I'm doing to you right now. Instead of admitting you might be wrong, you deny what you posted 10 seconds ago.

The point was made in my initial post.

The point you asserted but never really "made" in your initial post was that the reason conservative talk radio is more popular than liberal talk is that it "tends to reassure their audiences" and that Rush's "message is always that you're fine just as you are . . ." And that "liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong. Most people would rather be stroked than provoked." You never demonstrated this, merely asserted it. I similarly used your hearsay method of simply asserting that reassuring stroking also occurs in the liberal talk shows and the "something's wrong" discussions to challenge audiences and callers happens in conservative talk shows so that your assertion is flawed.

That assumes that they did.

Yes, I assume that millions heard what you did not, otherwise he wouldn't consistently hold the audience, and many, as well, say as much when they call. Plus, there is one that assuredly heard what you didn't--me.

I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

Phew! At least you admit the philosophy is there. Progress! Ugh, the philosophy is part and parcel OF the entertainment.

I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

If your "not sure" that the venue produces that good of a discussion, then your "not sure" that it doesn't. So where or what is the opinion there?


But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

All media must build a base of listeners or else it talks to nobody. And all who participate in the building and maintenance of that base must get paid. And there must be value for that base or it will disappear. This is the stuff of life. There must be mutual stroking or starvation will ensue. Various media has its niche. Talk radio can be about many topics. There are financial shows. There are health shows. There are religious shows. Some talk shows are political to a great degree. Some are "conservative" and some are "liberal." The Conservative ones seem to be more popular. Is conservatism more entertaining? Is there even the remotest possibility that, at least as presented on these shows. that it is more persuasive?

I've tried a few times to listen to some Rush... but find him completely insufferable.

Ya, I feel your pain JD, similar to me listening to Obama, teleprompter
or not. :)

Part of the popularity of conservative talk radio is the effectiveness of inciting anger in the listeners. Most liberals I know are just not very angry. Alot of the conservatives I know have wonderful lives and families, but spend an inordinate time obsessing about the government taking their money and coming for their guns.

Part of the popularity of conservative talk radio is the effectiveness of inciting anger in the listeners. Most liberals I know are just not very angry. Alot of the conservatives I know have wonderful lives and families, but spend an inordinate time obsessing about the government taking their money and coming for their guns.

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street? Most of the liberals you know must not listen to liberal talk radio with its share of angry, bitter, sarcastic calls and commentary. And they certainly are not affected by the inflammatory speech of the liberal politicians. And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange. None of the conservativesf I know spend any time inordinately obsessing about government taking there money or coming for their guns. They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate. Conservative talk radio does have a lot of discussion about government spending. Perhaps you think there is just too much talk about it. Government has to do what it has to do. That's government's business. We should just tend to our wonderful lives and how we can sensibly spend our own money and not be so concerned how government spends its money. But the inordinate obsession over government coming for our guns--really? Most conservatives I know don't own a gun. Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation. Sure, there is the desire to have or maintain rights to carry or own. But inordinate obsession? As for conservative talk radio, though the subject comes up, it is a small portion of the talk, but not an inordinate obsession. And the talk revolves around rights such as second ammendment. Of course, as we know, the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to the twenty-first century.

All media must build a base of listeners or else it talks to nobody. And all who participate in the building and maintenance of that base must get paid. And there must be value for that base or it will disappear. This is the stuff of life. There must be mutual stroking or starvation will ensue. Various media has its niche. Talk radio can be about many topics. There are financial shows. There are health shows. There are religious shows. Some talk shows are political to a great degree. Some are "conservative" and some are "liberal." The Conservative ones seem to be more popular. Is conservatism more entertaining? Is there even the remotest possibility that, at least as presented on these shows. that it is more persuasive?
As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street?

There were a few thousand people involved in occupy, there are millions of conservative talk show listeners. Not every angry person is incited by cons. talk radio. Many are.

And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange. :devil2:

They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate.

Difference between caring and obsessing, especially when reality is distorted by obsession.

Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation.

It is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality



:1poke:

t is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality
It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes.

I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process.

Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally.

-spence

As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

Ah . . . more progress. In your initial post you unqualifiedly stated it, as if it were ipso facto true. Now, you've shifted to you "think" it. World of difference. This is just your unsubstantiated opinion formed through the filter of your unique vision into your self reassuring Spencerean opinion. Still doesn't, just because you think it, make it so.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

:1poke:

As you say, not every angry person is incited to anger by con talk. My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk. That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote. That again, is why I pointed out the Occupy crowd, but, on the national scale in terms of movements, political speech, partisan temperaments, what is the evidence that conservatives are angrier than liberals? Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard. No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes. I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process. Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally. -spence

I like it. Some grounds for agreement. Gun nuts and tax freaks, even talk wackos--stereotypes to create wedge issues rather than true representations of conservatives or liberals. I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.
And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.
I was thinking of Thomas Sowell's book "Intellectuals and Society" where he tries to make this point repeatedly. It's perhaps the weakest element to what would otherwise be an excellent book.

I do think conservatives have in the past had the upper hand here, although as I noted more recently, both sides seem to react today more to (often manipulated) perceptions than reality.

This I believe, is fundamental reason so many conservatives are troubled with the state of the GOP.

-spence

My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk.

You are probably right, I just think they are a very small, loud, minority.

That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote.

Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard.
Probably true.

No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

I am not limiting this to a circle of friends. I didn't really know any liberals until I was a teen. Everyone I knew growing up was a republican, so I feel I have a fair amount of experience with rural, bible belt, conservative mentality. Until I was out of high school and out of that area, I believed alot of the crap that was spewed. The New England conservative is typically in many ways a very different creature.


message too short

message too short

You mention that when you were growing up everyone you knew was a Republican and had the rural Bible Belt "conservative mentality." That's one of the paradoxes of present-day "conservative" and "liberal" monikers. When I was growing up in Detroit a lot of Southern Bible Belt folks migrated to Detroit to work in the auto factories. Most of them were Democrats. They saw American history differently than what was being taught in Northern schools-- Abe Lincoln was no hero to them. Their brand of "conservatism" was an antebellum code of states rights and white, Christian Baptist, racial pride--ferociously so. Most of the white people that I knew then were nice, hard-working folks, but racist--and Democrats. It was a different brand of conservatism than what we consider the political conservatism of today. Those folks wanted to conserve a culture that transcended political party. They may have differed heatedly on who to vote for, but not on their racist cultural views. Same for the rural Bible-Belt folks, whether they were Democrat (mostly), or Republican, they were culturally the same and they wanted to preserve (conserve) that culture. The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated. Today's true conservative is classically liberal. The political liberal of today, at least at the ruling and academic level, sees the Constitution as a hinderance to achieving a more egalitarian society which can only be achieved by force of government.

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

Aahh . . . my black brother . . . may we see the light together.

The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios.

Are you speaking of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"? If so, then you're admitting a slanted point of view when you see the difference filtered through the eyes of liberals ("most liberals I know"). How about seeing it through the eyes of classical liberal "conservatives" such as the tea-partiers that liberals love to denigrate. They don't like or agree with liberals and so-called "conservatives" with either a D or R in front of their name who are "maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially." They are very much against the "crony capitalism," that, perhaps you've failed to notice, is supported by the Dems as well and who receive as much or more from big business as Repubs. The massive growth in wealth and power of both corporations and the Federal Government has risen under both parties, even though they may mouth promises and slogans to the contrary. There is a "progressive," anti-Constitutional belief in big central government power in both parties--the Dems just being farther down that road at this point than the Repubs, though a 100 years ago, Republicans were leading the progressive march. It is nearly useless to talk about that mushy center of both parties that more or less coalesces along the path of central power both in government and in business "too large to fail."

Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity.

The problem with this overreaching centralized power is that it sees all decisions on what's "best for the country as a whole" as its responsibility. Under the system this country was founded, most of those decisions began with individuals at local and State levels, and was fueled by an engaged citizenry who valued and were Constitutionally empowered to practice self government. The Central power was limited, though powerful within those limitations. Now, both parties have, approved by willing progressive accomplices in the Supreme Court, transferred much individual and local power to the Federal Government, and a few decide for all "what is best for the country as a whole."

It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes.

Adjusting various tax rates for various people is more of a political trick for power and goes against the only "equality" that the Constitution respects and a country of free individuals must have--equality before the law. It's a class war smokescreen to appease the many into thinking they are benefitting against those who oppress them, and are being protected by a nanny state that is actually making them dependent on continuous government growth to ensure that they needn't worry too much--the government will carry out the final two freedoms of FDR--freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, want and fear are two of the greatest motivators of individual action and responsibility. Once the government can take that burden from you, you are from then on in its care.

The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.

The quantum universe analogy is pretty deep. In the same way my use of obsessive was a bit overboard, your projection of what "classic liberal progressives want" is a bit overboard, no?

The quantum universe analogy is pretty deep. In the same way my use of obsessive was a bit overboard, your projection of what "classic liberal progressives want" is a bit overboard, no?

I don't believe I mentioned "classic liberal progressives." Never heard of such. If you mean classic liberal conservatives (I may have just invented that term, don't know), what they WANT is not overboard--Constitutionally limited government, devolution of power from the politicians back to the people. In terms of what they can actually GET--that may be overboard. Such "conservatives" are a minority even in the Republican party. Maybe the Libertarians are really these "conservatives." Maybe they exist even in the Democrat party. I see the Tea Partiers as this type, but, obviously, still being somewhat a nation of individuals, not everybody in any group is in total politically philosophical agreement. But there is a common thread that exists for group cohesion. Again, for those that I call classic liberal conservatives, that common thread is a return to the Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and its recognition that we are governed by consent of the governed not by consent of the government. If that is overboard, how so?

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

I was a liberal before listening to conservative radio post 9/11.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

"conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially "

I hear this all the time from liberals, that Republicans are all in the pocket of big business. Zimmy, I'll concede that "big business" gives a lot of $$ to politicians, and that most of that $$ likely goes to Republicans. But please answer me this, Zimmy. If it's problematic when corporations buy political influence from Republicans, how is that any different from what happens when labor unions buy influence from Democrats? Labor unions also give $$ to politicians, and virtually all of it goes to Democrats. And when those Democarts reward the unions with insane benefits, that $$ gets confiscated from me in the form of property taxes.

Most towns and states in this country are crippled with debt from insane benefits promised to public labor unions (certainly it's a huge issue in New England).

So again, if you are concerned about Republicans selling favors to "business", why aren't you equally concerned when Democrats sell influence to labor unions?

"They invade Iraq for oil"

Excuse me? What oil? Presumably unlike you, I was there with a gun in my hand. I hear a lot of kooks say we invaded for oil, I'm just wondering where that oil is? We won in Iraq, so where is our loot? Do you think that all conservatives who supported the war, now all have their own oil wells? If so, where do I go to get mine? And if you think only conservatives wante dto invade Iraq, I suggest you look at the Senate vote. Those who wanted to "invade for oil" included right-wingers like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer...

"It is just different priorities, I guess. "

Here's the difference in priorities. Conservatives think the best way to help those in need is that for those who can work, to get a good job, with upward economic upward mobility. Liberals would rather expand their voting base by giving all these people welfare, which has the side effect of crippling these people for life. Conservatives want everyone to be well off. Liberals want poor people to vote for liberals, even if that means crippling them by making them addicted to welfare.

Another difference in priorities...conservatives don't want to leave our grandkids with crippling debt. Liberals seemingly have no issue with that, because I don't know a single liberal who suggests that we need massive spending cuts and entitlement reform. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a conservative suggests that the only way to fix this is to cut spending, liberals shriek "YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!" Liberals frame the issue to make it sound like all we need to do is tweak taxes on the wealthy, but the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to tax our way out of this (if we could solve all our problems simply by tweaking taxes on the rich, no one would be opposed to that). Conservatives don't like this reality any more than liberals do...the difference is, we admit the ugly reality and want to roll up our sleeves and begin the difficult task of fixing it. Liberals would rather ignore the problem so as to get re-elected. And leave the problem for our kids and grandkids.

Tell me where I'm wrong.