Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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.