stuff that makes me wonder

[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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.