EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2010 19:19:34 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 21, 2010 23:22:48 GMT -5
Good riddance. As I said in the cheating thread, when liberals copy conservatives' methods, it ends in disaster. Talk radio and Olbermann/Maddow/O'Reilly/Beck types are not compatible with the way liberals think. As a liberal, I find them insulting to my intelligence.
Maybe MSNBC will follow them down the drain.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Jan 22, 2010 9:37:33 GMT -5
Good riddance. As I said in the cheating thread, when liberals copy conservatives' methods, it ends in disaster. Talk radio and Olbermann/Maddow/O'Reilly/Beck types are not compatible with the way liberals think. As a liberal, I find them insulting to my intelligence. Maybe MSNBC will follow them down the drain. I was going to ask this on the elections thread but I'll do it here -- can you explain a bit what you mean by 'the way liberals think' and how their thinking is different from conservatives. Seems others agree with you, so I am intrigued by the statement. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 22, 2010 11:39:22 GMT -5
Political talk radio sucks on both ends of the spectrum -- mostly people working themselves up in a room of people who either agree with them or don't think for themselves.
I never actually listened to Air America, and I don't care either way, but I find it hard to take anyone seriously who regularly listens to it, since the little I've heard (solely on the conservative side) is not real discussion.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 22, 2010 13:04:27 GMT -5
Good riddance. As I said in the cheating thread, when liberals copy conservatives' methods, it ends in disaster. Talk radio and Olbermann/Maddow/O'Reilly/Beck types are not compatible with the way liberals think. As a liberal, I find them insulting to my intelligence. Maybe MSNBC will follow them down the drain. I was going to ask this on the elections thread but I'll do it here -- can you explain a bit what you mean by 'the way liberals think' and how their thinking is different from conservatives. Seems others agree with you, so I am intrigued by the statement. It's hard to put into words, to be honest. I just know that whenever I watch MSNBC or listen to something a liberal talk radio person has said, I feel embarrassed to be a liberal. The complete lack of any intellectual discussion or examination of the issues is awful. I always turn it off feeling stupider than when I turned it on. I've got a lot of liberal friends, and I know most of them feel the same way. I don't know any who watch MSNBC regularly. I'm just speaking for myself here, so don't assume all liberals agree with me on this. I'm just going off of what I feel and what I've observed, and it may be 100% wrong. I don't think the whole "This is the truth, all other arguments are blasphemy/Our side is always right, the other side is the enemy" style works with liberals. That's generally what you get from the talk radio/MSNBC crowd. We want a more thorough, intellectual examination of the issues, like you'd find at a place like PBS. We obviously don't mind a liberal bias, but we don't like to be banged over the head with it. We also don't like news sources that act as if they're our only news source. The 24 hour networks act as if people only get news from their network. Big egos also don't play too well with us, which is a major strike against Olbermann and any talk radio host. The shows that seem to mesh best with the way liberals think, especially young liberals, are the Daily Show and Colbert. Funny but smart, playing to a well-informed and well-educated audience, pointing out stupidity in others, definite liberal bias but not banging you over the head with it. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 22, 2010 13:08:26 GMT -5
Political talk radio sucks on both ends of the spectrum -- mostly people working themselves up in a room of people who either agree with them or don't think for themselves. I never actually listened to Air America, and I don't care either way, but I find it hard to take anyone seriously who regularly listens to it, since the little I've heard (solely on the conservative side) is not real discussion. I treat it a little differently on the conservative side, which truly exists as both politics and entertainment. Rush, for all his faults, is amazingly entertaining (he came from other radio programs before he did politics). Listening to him, especially if you're commuting to work, is kind of like listening to Dingo and the Baby, with the exception that all of the jokes are political and geared to a right-wing sense of humor. Air America never had that. Its shows got low ratings because of a low entertainment value - its personalities were angry, not funny. There are idiots who listen to Howard Stern, and there are idiots who listen to Rush. Just because some of his fanbase shouldn't cross the street by themselves doesn't mean that it's an evil medium. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 22, 2010 13:31:08 GMT -5
The comedic value of Rush Limbaugh may be ideologically-based. There is undoubted social value to talk radio, particularly on the sports side IMO, but I am not sure I would put Rush's comedic value on the same scale as his political commentary, which many people find highly offensive. The emergence of lockstep and nihilist Republicans speaks to some of the unifying value of a Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and their organizational value for groups like the Tea Sippers.
I never listened to Air America, but it seems like they failed due to their business model as much as anything else. The Imuses/Limbaughs of the world (and successful sports talk) have sponsors, and I suspect Air America didn't quite have that, maybe because of a mismatch between what potential sponsors would want to hear and what was being discussed on Air America.
I find it disappointing all the same that these kinds of shows go off the air if only because some people listen to them and the station produced jobs. I don't like as a matter of principle that political speech/ideas are filtered by a supply and demand concept - that leads to the successes of the Olbermanns as much as the failure of the Air Americas. I don't think they did any damage to the US while they were on the air, being that they would not have supported the Iraq War or the tax cut and spend policies of the prior administration that facilitated economic turmoil.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 22, 2010 13:33:47 GMT -5
Evil's a strong word.
But I'm not a fan of listening to someone reinforce your already-held opinions. There's no honest discussion, and that's a shame when it is something this important.
While I love humor, I do think political "humor" is sometimes just as reinforcing of your current opinion and discourages real dialogue.
Of course, I think Howard Stern is boring and I think 99% of morning shows are not funny and vapid. I have started listening to some local sports radio, but only because in San Francisco they are really reasonable people.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 22, 2010 13:33:50 GMT -5
Political talk radio sucks on both ends of the spectrum -- mostly people working themselves up in a room of people who either agree with them or don't think for themselves. I never actually listened to Air America, and I don't care either way, but I find it hard to take anyone seriously who regularly listens to it, since the little I've heard (solely on the conservative side) is not real discussion. I treat it a little differently on the conservative side, which truly exists as both politics and entertainment. Rush, for all his faults, is amazingly entertaining (he came from other radio programs before he did politics). Listening to him, especially if you're commuting to work, is kind of like listening to Dingo and the Baby, with the exception that all of the jokes are political and geared to a right-wing sense of humor. Air America never had that. Its shows got low ratings because of a low entertainment value - its personalities were angry, not funny. There are idiots who listen to Howard Stern, and there are idiots who listen to Rush. Just because some of his fanbase shouldn't cross the street by themselves doesn't mean that it's an evil medium. What is a right wing sense of humor? I find it hard to imagine politically motivated humor of any ilk being particularly funny. Give me an equal opportunity offender like Matt Stone and Trey Parker anyday. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 22, 2010 15:31:52 GMT -5
Not right-wing sense of humor - jokes that mock lefties (king of like if there was a radio show that mocked all things Syracuse). Stern and others obviously go for more of a "blast everybody" approach - it all works. A show that mixes in politics and humor has a niche appeal.
|
|
