President Obama's Address to the Nation/Congress Feb 24 2009 - Page 3

I agrree. Out of those three I can listen to Savage with no problem. Part of the reason is that even though he's batshit insane, at least he gets off the talking points and has his own take on things. Rush, Hannity, Hewitt, Ingram, etc. are literally interchangeable Republican Talking Point delivery devices.

Here's my take on some of the conservative talk radio hosts out there:

-Rush is pretty entertaining because of his ego shtick (which probably crossed the line from shtick to reality a decade or two ago). But his callers are mostly sycophants or the stupidest people to ever claim to be liberals/Democrats/progressives that Rush can make to look foolish on the air.

-Glenn Beck is actually intentionally funny at times and tries to use humor more than any other host. Even more than Rush, Glenn is more about conservatism than Republicanism. Glenn in particular was a pretty harsh critic of Bush and McCain on a lot of issues.

-Sean Hannity is more of a Republican cheerleader who is obsessed with being the heir to the Limbaugh throne. He's tough for me to listen to because he toes the party line more than any other host. He won't stick his neck out to criticize his party unless Rush does it first.

-Laura Ingraham is another conservatism-first host who has taken on a lot of Republicans. She has some immature humor (sound effects, small sound bites taken out of context and played over and over), but she is one of the sharpest political hosts on the radio. She knows what she believes and can articulate why she believes it.

-Michael Savage is just an egomaniacal right wing nut. If Rush Limbaugh believed his own press and then got hit in the head with a hammer about a dozen times, he would be Michael Savage. If I were a liberal, he would be by far my favorite conservative talk radio host. For me, he's borderline entertaining in small doses. He can be counted on to say something offensive to me at least once every five minutes.

On the liberal side, Alan Colmes' show is the only one regularly broadcast in my area. He's very likable, but, in my opinion, more of a parrot than an effective advocate for his side. He also gets the most vile racists and brain-dead conservatives to represent the right on his show. The average Che t-shirt-wearing pothead college freshman could outargue the idiots Colmes puts on as his opposition.

Which is more assinine:

Political Talk Radio or Sports Talk Radio?

Both serve a purpose and in the end is Phil The Mets Hater bitching about Ryan Howard not winning the MVP really any different than some Dittohead regurgitating bullshit about illegal immigrants or the evils of big government?

People don't have any say over who gets to pitch for The Mets. People can actually affect politics and disseminating false information.

Yep.

All of these guys bank on the ignorance of their listeners/viewers and i think that's a tragedy.

Somehow I think the health of the democratic process is the last thing on the minds of the majority of listeners/callers to the Limbaughs, Hannities, etc. In the end, neither group gives a shit about politics: they just want a mouthpiece or a forum.

Regardless, they're listening to these guys and they're getting all riled up over whatever the Limbaughs, Hannities, etc. can muster up. It's dog-whistle politics, and these guys have a corner on them. I don't know if it's so much the audience wanting a forum as it is needing to have their outrage dictated to them. It's a mouthpiece, but it's also more than that.

Sorry to interrupt, but it looks like Jindal may not have been totally honest during his Katrina anecdote.

And they're all rushing out to do what exactly? Vote? Make Lists? Jerk off in sinks?

Outrage has nothing to do with it; these same people are already "outraged". Rush Limbaugh didn't create these small-minded, closeted bigots and fiscal, fuck the poor, anti-big government conservatives (and I know I'm generalizing) but they never had something marketed to them specifically or a national media forum until the rise of Limbaugh and those that followed in his wake.

These are impotent people looking for someone to agree, endorse and validate these ass backward opinions and they've got it. It is, in the end, about being heard and being told they're right than anything else. It's why Liberal talk radio doesn't pull the numbers or flounders: We all have better shit to do like post on message boards about politics.

Agreed, actually. Republican mouthpieces are pretty bad about getting people to get out and protest, and even some of the more fervent counter-protests I've seen at the antiwar protests I've attended were like a drop in the bucket compared to the crowds who came out in support of the antiwar movement.

Well, that and the majority of radio stations are not locally owned & operated, and the corporate owners are conservative, so they're programmed without any market consideration, and you end up with zero choice in many places as a consumer.

The right is screaming paranoia about the Fairness Doctrine and I never hear that mentioned by the left. What I do hear a lot on the left is the drive to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, particularly wrt media ownership, which was put into law by a Republican (Sherman) and subsequently killed by a Republican (Reagan).

http://www.hulu.com/watch/59624/late-night-with-jimmy-fallon-jack-mcbrayers-response-to-the-internet-response-to-the-republican-response-to-the-presidents-address-to-congress

I don't know where this weird right-wing obsession came from but I'm not about to disabuse them of the notion if it keeps them occupied.

That and Obama's birth certificate. It's like an activity box for nutjobs!

If a liberal talk radio host could pull in a few million listeners, the so-called "Corporate Media" would put them nationwide in heartbeat. I don't know how you can think that corporate owners are "conservative." Based on what? Corporations exist to make money. Corporate owners own corporations to make money. Right now, there is no money in progressive talk radio programs. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage and the rest pull huge audiences. Other companies want access to these audiences and pay through the nose to advertise their goods to these audiences. Hence, the corporate owners make money. And in the process, they employ a hell of a lot of people.

Of course, you can pass some crappy anti-market legislation that will kill conservative talk radio under the guise of "fairness", "local content", "diversity of ownership" or whatever you want to call it. You will not create a lucrative new market for progressive voices on talk radio. You will kill the market entirely. Advertisers will go elsewhere and a lot of people will be out of work.

Bill Press was yapping about it on the radio and TV.

jvc, if there's no choice to listen to a progressive talker, it's not going to have an audience. Why don't you read the study I linked to. I'm pretty sure it won't change your mind at all, but it might open your eyes. Corporate ownership of stations, corporate advertisers, pro-corporate talkers -- who loses? The consumer. Monopolies choke the public discourse because alternative points of view can hurt the bottom line, exposure of malfeasance can hurt the bottom line. Why do you think ADM became such a huge supporter of NPR following NPR's investigative reporting of ADM's price fixing schemes? What was the result: NPR stopped doing investigative reporting.

It's not an anti-market concept. It's a pro-consumer, pro-American democracy concept.

Wait, so NPR is "corporate media" now too? Because I love me some NPR.

No, I just made that point to show the influence of corporate advertisers.

Also, one more for jvc: Thom Hartmann, who just ranked #10 in Talkers Magazine's rankings even though he's available in a tiny percentage of the markets of Limbaugh et al, and he beats Limbaugh and Hannity in markets where they go head-to-head. In LA, he's on the AM station, but he's not available everywhere. The reason they don't compete with the conservatives is because they're not allowed to compete by the corporate ownership.

I'll read the article with an open mind.* And Alan Colmes is syndicated nationally. Air America is on satellite radio too. Internet radio is another source for progressive programs. And Thom Hartmann sounds like the type of host who could gain some traction. According to his bio here, he's already broadcast live in Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Santa Fe, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Grand Rapids, and on over fifty other stations nationwide including Chicago, Washington DC, Santa Barbara, Minneapolis, and on XM and Sirius Satellite radio. Sounds like he's getting a fair shake to me. Reading up on him, I wouldn't mind listening to his show.

* Although I'm noticing right away it is from John Podesta's Center for American Progress. What could I expect if the study were done by, say, the Heritage Foundation? Also, the Center apparently manages a radio station and provides the studio for Bill Press's nationally syndicated show...

ETA, yeah, it's an advocacy piece.

Yeah, it's from the Center for American Progress, but its methodology is completely transparent. It would have to be from a progressive point of view - do you think the Heritage Foundation would be interested in collecting this kind of data? You can draw your own conclusions surely, but you can't write off the facts.

I discovered Thom Hartmann on Sirius Left, but it cuts him off after an hour for the irritating Lynn Samuels. Then I discovered that in LA he's on KTLK AM 1150 for all three hours. I highly recommend his program - I listen every day. He has conservatives on regularly, and in fact today broadcast his show from the CPAC.

The Heritage Foundation doesn't have a financial interest in a progressive radio station. So no, I don't think they would be interested in collecting this data. Also, CAP's methodology apparently meant not accounting for any programming on the over 250 NPR stations nationwide. Not to mention leaving out Al Sharpton's show and many others shows hosted by obvious or admitted liberals or progressives as pointed out here. It looks like a case of having your conclusion in mind before you begin and gaming your methodology to allow you to cherry-pick the data that will prove your conclusion. Not that I'm arguing there is balance. But the imbalance is not as large as advertised and is due to audience demand.

I respect a progressive who will debate a guy like Bill Bennett on his show. Hartmann sounds like a good one. I'll try to track him down.

I def acknowledge your point, but I don't consider NPR lefty in the least. In seems to aim for "balance," but in Limbaugh's America, "balance" hedges far to the right.

The only NPR show I listen to is Diane Rehm, who is the best interviewer/moderator I've ever heard, and who has amazing guests. Strong recommend there as well. I listen to her on NPR Talk on Sirius; I'm not sure where else she's available, but her show streams online here.

If all else fails, you can listen online at 9-12 Pacific time here.

It turns out this may have happened in the week or the day after Katrina actually hit. I think most normal people will understand "during Katrina" as a bit more days than the literal instance when the Hurricane touches the ground. Specially when you are talking about boat rescues, which took more than a few days.

Another example of blogger like sloppy "journalism".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wO5S5LGT1s

Doesn't that seem like a different order of events than: