stuff that makes me wonder

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

got that right

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

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.

[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.