stuff that makes me wonder

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[mosholu]

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

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

[JohnR]

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by 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

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

liberal programming challenges the audience? whatever

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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