stuff that makes me wonder
 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Because moderates don't like douchebags, either.

I think the more popular hosts have somewhat diverse audiences. Certainly the best are also good entertainers.

Again, I think the issue is what will the middle respond to.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

got that right :uhuh::)

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

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. :)

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

The point was made in my initial post.

That assumes that they did.

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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