Re: Outsized Influence Of Talk Radio
> OA, I must correct you here. Al Franken is a very active
> person in the political arena. He spends many weeks of the
> year attending fundraisers and stumping for candidates. Does
> he use his show to announce causes, probably not as much as
> many true believers would like, but I think the more vocal
> "caller to action" is Randi Rhodes. She expends a lot of
> energy trying to huddle the masses and regularly encourages
> listeners to take action in the grassroots, by contacting
> politicians, or other methods to be effective in making
> issues heard...
The liberals here take this as a criticism from me of libtalk, which is incorrect, but I believe this type of Deanesque grassroots stumping is bad for the format. It creates a fence around the politically active listeners and those who are channel surfing, looking for entertainment, etc. The difference politically between Franken and Miller is rather negligable, but I've listened to both and Miller keeps me around a lot longer. I've listened to Randi a lot recently, and while I find her talented, even if many people do find her gruff, I think she could ease up on the talk about C-SPAN and candidates noone has heard of except the connected. While it can be said that conservatives never stop talking about Fox News, they're a bit more mainstream that C-SPAN, where the hosts applied for the job in order to hide from authorities.
In the last election cycle, I attended a few of the Dean fundraising parties with some friends who supported him and while I understand the function of those events, it seems like that mentality exists in some progressive talk. While I'm no far right-winger, I just don't feel like I completely fit in there. And I doubt I'm alone. I've consistently said that the sea of conservative hosts has so overflown that we need good libtalk talent. It just needs to be mainstream in its appeal.
> OA, I must correct you here. Al Franken is a very active
> person in the political arena. He spends many weeks of the
> year attending fundraisers and stumping for candidates. Does
> he use his show to announce causes, probably not as much as
> many true believers would like, but I think the more vocal
> "caller to action" is Randi Rhodes. She expends a lot of
> energy trying to huddle the masses and regularly encourages
> listeners to take action in the grassroots, by contacting
> politicians, or other methods to be effective in making
> issues heard...
The liberals here take this as a criticism from me of libtalk, which is incorrect, but I believe this type of Deanesque grassroots stumping is bad for the format. It creates a fence around the politically active listeners and those who are channel surfing, looking for entertainment, etc. The difference politically between Franken and Miller is rather negligable, but I've listened to both and Miller keeps me around a lot longer. I've listened to Randi a lot recently, and while I find her talented, even if many people do find her gruff, I think she could ease up on the talk about C-SPAN and candidates noone has heard of except the connected. While it can be said that conservatives never stop talking about Fox News, they're a bit more mainstream that C-SPAN, where the hosts applied for the job in order to hide from authorities.
In the last election cycle, I attended a few of the Dean fundraising parties with some friends who supported him and while I understand the function of those events, it seems like that mentality exists in some progressive talk. While I'm no far right-winger, I just don't feel like I completely fit in there. And I doubt I'm alone. I've consistently said that the sea of conservative hosts has so overflown that we need good libtalk talent. It just needs to be mainstream in its appeal.