Why liberals are not in talk radio

World Net Daily ^ | 09/10/2002 | Neal Boortz

[Marie]

My daily dose comes out of Pittsburgh via the web. (97AM Quinn and Rose) You guys have some very smart people in PA!

[Pokey78]

His argument and reason that he believes that Augusta should allow women is because "it makes the south look bad." He kept saying "this doesn't reflect well on the south" or others are thinking "There go those southerners again, living in the last century." And that was tied in with the whole liberal "its not fair" touch-feely emotional argument.

Feelings . . . .
Nothing more than feeling . . . .
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face . . .
Trying to forget my feelings of love.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,

[Wondervixen]

>>Separated at birth?

If so, why, oh why did the one on the left wander off from the one on the right at death?

[doc30]

Recently, I had XM satellite radio installed in my car for long trips and commutes. One of the seeling points to me was that it carried Sean Hannity on one station, and another station carries the audio of the Fox News Channel. Unfortunately, they also have a talk channel devoted entirely to African American causes. I think it's supposed to be the closest thing to a 24 hr Liberal talk network. I listened for 3 minutes and needed a major Barf Bag. THey were talking about white oppression and how the feeding paterns of sharks in the Atlantic had been changed from slavers dumping dead slaves overboard. Personally, I'd like to get Boortz and Savage on the XM sometime. On the ABC News and Talk channel they have Sam Donaldson instead of Rush. The talk and news channel line-up can be found at: http://www.xmradio.com/programming/talk_stars.html

[M. Peach]

Here's my explanation - Liberals are at home not working and sitting on their duff - so they can watch more TV. Conservatives are out in the cars working or at work, so they only have access to radios.....

[Phantom Lord]

THey were talking about white oppression and how the feeding paterns of sharks in the Atlantic had been changed from slavers dumping dead slaves overboard

Algore talked about that nonsense during the 2000 campaign.

[Wondervixen]

>> Well, when the papers were returned mine didnt have a grade on it. Instead the teacher had written the following on the cover page...

"Too conservative, rewrite"

I would have circled "Too conservative, rewrite" and written underneath that "TOO LIBERAL...GRADE THE DAMN PAPER!"

[KC_Conspirator]

I have heard these liberal professors will withhold a passing grade on folks who are conservative.

Oh yeah, its happens all the time. In fact, in college I was forced to abandon a paper I was writing on Margaret Thatcher and change the topic. Oh, the feminazi gave me a choice though - either Pat Schroeder or Anne Richards. Mind you this was to finish my degree. I had to complete my degree at another school.

I also know that its even worse when you try to get a job as an instructor at a university and it comes out that you are a Republican, or even worse a conservative. I know a lady who was on track to get hired by the same college but was black balled because she was a strident pro-lifer. She even sued the university and won.

[Aquinasfan]

So, just what is so different about talk radio? Simple. Radio talk-show hosts can't hit and run.

It seems so obvious now. Good insight.

[Billthedrill]

You can send an editor who has written a hideously flawed critique of some conservative cause all the scathing e-mails you want. They don't have to listen or respond. They're up there basking in the congratulatory hugs and kisses of their fellow leftists, while you're down here on solid ground screaming to be heard on a point of logic or fact.

Worse, they'll be smirking "looks like we hit a nerve" to one another.

I think the real reason that the left seems cut out of the current talk radio mix is that its rhetoric has devolved from thoughtfulness into doctrinaire screaming, ridicule, and accusation. That is a consequence of its radicalization - what happens is that it is much easier to draw its identity boundaries by demonizing the other side and stating that that's what they're against, than to provide an ideological foundation of what they are for. The radicals, having grabbed the microphone, don't want to be too specific about what they're for, or rather, don't even want to face its logical consequences - it's one thing to state that you want to solve world hunger, for example, it's quite another to state that you intend to do so by expropriating land and crops from current farmers without payment. The left has bought into the old "focus on the ends and ignore the means" fallacy; that your opponents may be against your means without necessarily opposing your ends is allowed in logic but not in rhetoric, and they're focused on the rhetoric, because it is the rhetoric that ignites a satisfying level of emotion and passion. What they've begun to seek since the 60s is that level of emotional satisfaction - the movement is long on style but short on substance, and for good reason, style and passion translate into votes.

There is a certain self-regarding hubris at work here, and although it is hardly restricted to the left it seems more at home there, and that is that persons smart enough to exploit these means to power figure that they're smarter than everyone else, that power, rather than becoming a tool to the ends becomes an end in itself, and that acquisition of power absolves them of any duty to examine their means with any particular intellectual rigor. It is no surprise that these often adhere to the doctrine that all truth is relative to the observer - that is not the credo of the intellectually pliant, but of the intellectually lazy.

But talk radio does not dance in these lofty demesnes, it has to make a buck in order to survive. The bottom line is that shrill, shallow, accusatory, demagoguery is boring and temporary. It only needs to be temporary in order to convince voters long enough to acquire political power, but it needs to be a little less superficial than that in order to keep folks listening to the laundry soap commercials day after day. The irony here is that it turns out that it's more intellectually demanding, and satisfying, to sell laundry soap day after day than it is to smear your opponents and sit back basking in self-satisfaction. That is not a conclusion that is particularly congenial to the snoots in academe, but I think it's a true one.

[Aquinasfan]

I have heard these liberal professors will withhold a passing grade on folks who are conservative.

In high school I did a well-researched (OK, it was high school) paper on nuclear power as part of an English assignment. My friend spent half an hour on his research paper regarding the wonders of solar power. He didn't believe a word he wrote, but he knew he would get a good grade. He got an A. I got a C.

[goodnesswins]

Why aren't liberals on the radio? Because their liberal listeners can't work, walk, talk, drive a car, make a meal, run a business......AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO at the SAME TIME. IN other words, I don't think liberals have the brain cells to listen and do ANYTHING else at the same time. I thought this was obvious?

[EternalHope]

If you have a strong stomach, it is worth listening to a liberal talk radio show. (Not often, of course.)

You must NEVER be "judgmental".
To be (or even sound) judgmental will get you judged right away (you heartless dumb person...). No "Love the sinner, hate the sin" garbage.
To be judgmental is to be a "HATER".

The most interesting recent development centers on Islam versus Christianity.
"Islam is a religion of peace" is a mandatory mantra.
So is, "Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent."

The moral equivalency argument has taken a remarkable turn. Islamic "fundamentalists" and Christian "fundamentalists" are considered equivalent. To fly a plane into a building, or to use weapons of mass destruction, is apparently no worse than to consider abortion a sin.

In other words:
Muslims who kill, and Christians who oppose killing, have been lumped together as equally morally repugnant.

[Cyber Liberty]

"Take enough listener phone calls, and your credibility is shot – along with your ratings."

Can you say, "Hightower?" I thought you could!

[Cyber Liberty]

BWAAAAAHAAAAA!!!!

[Uncle Hal]

It is obvious to me why there only conservatives on talk radio. The only way the conservatives can get there message accross is on talk radio and the internet. The mainstream media is dominated by liberals. They control the content and the way the news is presented. They slant the news to there views. Obviously the liberals hate talk radio and they fear the internet because it is a threat to there control of the news. I am sure once the democrats take over the Presidency and both houses of congress they will try to muffle both talk radio and the internet. We must be vigilent.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

You are so far wrong it's hilarious. Savage is an independent conservative. He has spent the major part of his airtime for the last few years calling for the heads of liberals and leftists. He may be over the top a lot of the time and rude and arrogant much of the time, but his principal theme on show after show is that liberals are the single greatest danger to this country. That's why his message resonates with so many people.

[Cyber Liberty]

NPR isn't a valid comparison. They're insulated from the consequences of bad ratings because their hand is in your pocket whether you buy a sponser's product or not.

[Carry_Okie]

Why liberals are not in talk radio

You mean Bernie Ward and Ray Taliaferro (KGO) don't exist?