stuff that makes me wonder

[RIJIMMY]

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

[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.

[zimmy]

Depends which media organization you are talking about.

[WESTPORTMAFIA]

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!

[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.

[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

[The Dad Fisherman]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[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.