Paglia: Good politics doesn't mean good talk radio

[nwebster]

Self-described liberal and feminist professor of culture and media studies Camille Paglia is not a fan of Al Franken, Air America Radio, Terry Gross or NPR. She said the following in an interview with the Madison, WI Capital Times newspaper:
<ul>
[*]Al Franken: "Good lord! I want to fall asleep. Narcolepsy."
[*]Air America: It isn't even broadcast in Philadelphia because of low ratings. "It's even slower than NPR. Like a record being played at the wrong speed."
[*]Terry Gross: "Oh god. Awful. I never listen to her show." Gross broadcasts "Fresh Air" from a studio a couple of blocks from where Paglia teaches. "She is such a PC queen that when I first came on the scene in the early '90s with 'Sexual Personae,' she refused to have me on the show."
[/list]
Paglia is critical of much of the media but...
<blockquote>... mainly she loves to listen to talk radio, she said, even when the politics is different from hers.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do great radio, Paglia says.

"People on the liberal side, people on my side, have not mastered that medium yet and they need to figure out what it is. They are out of touch with the mass audience, that's for sure. If there is any sign of the problems with my party, it is that."</blockquote>

Paglia is the author of "Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson" and teaches at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

PS: I agree AAR's on-air product is too often bad radio (but showing some improvement). Conservative examples of bad radio include (but are not limited to): Mike Gallagher, The O'Reilly Factor, G. Gordon Liddy.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

The problem with most of the hosts mentioned is that they don't seem to understand it's not about politics - it's about doing compelling radio.

It ain't just the libs either; there are more than a few self-described "conservatives" doing some godawful radio, not that I would ever mention any by name (cough cough Lars, cough cough Laura Ingraham, cough cough)...

 

[kaufcom]

First of all, who gives a rat’s ass about what some lesbian libertarian thinks about talk radio. Second of all, anyone who considers calls themselves a liberal and enjoys listening to Limbaugh and Hannity is obviously into some kind of kinky masochism.

> Self-described liberal and feminist professor of culture and
> media studies Camille Paglia is not a fan of Al Franken, Air
> America Radio, Terry Gross or NPR. She said the following
> in an interview with the Madison, WI Capital Times
> newspaper:
>
> Al Franken: "Good lord! I want to fall asleep. Narcolepsy."
> Air America: It isn't even broadcast in Philadelphia because
> of low ratings. "It's even slower than NPR. Like a record
> being played at the wrong speed."
> Terry Gross: "Oh god. Awful. I never listen to her show."
> Gross broadcasts "Fresh Air" from a studio a couple of
> blocks from where Paglia teaches. "She is such a PC queen
> that when I first came on the scene in the early '90s with
> 'Sexual Personae,' she refused to have me on the show."
>
> Paglia is critical of much of the media but...
> ... mainly she loves to listen to talk radio, she said, even
> when the politics is different from hers.
>
> Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do great radio, Paglia says.
>
> "People on the liberal side, people on my side, have not
> mastered that medium yet and they need to figure out what it
> is. They are out of touch with the mass audience, that's for
> sure. If there is any sign of the problems with my party, it
> is that."
>
> Paglia is the author of "Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence
> from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson" and teaches at the
> University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
>
> PS: I agree AAR's on-air product is too often bad radio
> (but showing some improvement). Conservative examples of
> bad radio include (but are not limited to): Mike Gallagher,
> The O'Reilly Factor, G. Gordon Liddy.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[zoey]

> First of all, who gives a rat’s ass about what some lesbian
> libertarian thinks about talk radio. Second of all, anyone
> who considers calls themselves a liberal and enjoys
> listening to Limbaugh and Hannity is obviously into some
> kind of kinky masochism.
>

An attack based on sexual orientation?

So much for your liberal credentials.

 

[billybee]

> > First of all, who gives a rat’s ass about what some
> lesbian
> > libertarian thinks about talk radio. Second of all,
> anyone
> > who considers calls themselves a liberal and enjoys
> > listening to Limbaugh and Hannity is obviously into some
> > kind of kinky masochism.
> >
>
> An attack based on sexual orientation?
>
> So much for your liberal credentials.
>
is she a libertarian or a liberal? Big difference.

 

[zoey]

>
> is she a libertarian or a liberal? Big difference.
>

More of a classical liberal.
She does not favor "political correctness" or the politics of "victimization."
She might be called a social liberal; analogous to so-called "social conservatives," in that mostly she speaks and writes about sexual and moral issues. She opposes government regulation of sex and morality, which gives her common ground with libertarians (and '60's-'70's liberals).
She supported Clinton and Ralph Nader.

She calls herself bi-sexual, not lesbian.

And, unlike some, she apparently enjoys she challenge of hearing viewpoints different than her own, if they are presented in a way she finds interesting.

 

[autopaint-1]

> The problem with most of the hosts mentioned is that they
> don't seem to understand it's not about politics - it's
> about doing compelling radio.
>
> It ain't just the libs either; there are more than a few
> self-described "conservatives" doing some godawful radio,
> not that I would ever mention any by name (cough cough Lars,
> cough cough Laura Ingraham, cough cough)...


In response to the initial post;


Just because an individule without broadcasting credentials isn't entertained by the programing on Air America does not mean that Air America isn't entertaining. I happen to think the show American Idol is junk. There are many who disagree. This entire argument is silly and childish. For those who don't like Air America I'd recommend a simple solution...find another station. The whole Air America isn't entertaining but Limbaugh nonsense comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about or what the definition of the word Entertaining is. Don't like it, don't listen but don't think that your opinion means anything to anyone else. All of Air America isn't perfect (but I do like Franken's show) but to me listening to Limbaugh is a painful experience. He's a loudmouthed bore (and suspected biggot) who adds nothing in my opinion. BUT it's my opinion and mine alone. I have over 30 years in major market radio. It's still only my opinion. I can find peope who hate Limbaugh and those who hate Air America. Why do you bother making predictable statements, WHO CARES!!!

 

[Scribbler]

Paglia v. Connie

> Self-described liberal and feminist professor of culture and
> media studies Camille Paglia is not a fan of Al Franken, Air
> America Radio, Terry Gross or NPR.

OMG! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Camille Paglia (who?) doesn't like Air America! And her opinion is much more valuable than that of my friend Connie, who "loves everybody" on Air America. You've outdone yourself with this one, Merriam! This is worthy of Brian Maloney!

 

[nwebster]

Connie + Brian

>
> OMG! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Camille
> Paglia (who?) doesn't like Air America! And her opinion is
> much more valuable than that of my friend Connie, who "loves
> everybody" on Air America. You've outdone yourself with
> this one, Merriam! This is worthy of Brian Maloney!
>

Connie loves everybody on AAR.
Brian hates everybody on AAR.
Predictable, knee-jerk response.
Two sides of the same coin.

I can see independent thinking would be outside the box in your world (and Maloney's).

You never heard of Paglia? Try reading a book sometime.

 

[nwebster]

You miss the point.

Man bites dog. A politically active person is capable on making an independent judgement and of differentiating what she finds entertaining and interesting from what she agrees with politically.

That's unusual.

 

[Scribbler]

Re: Connie + Brian

>
> Connie loves everybody on AAR.
> Brian hates everybody on AAR.
> Predictable, knee-jerk response.
> Two sides of the same coin.
>
> I can see independent thinking would be outside the box in
> your world (and Maloney's).

My world? As I've said, I don't particularly like Rhodes or Springer. Connie does. So do a lot of other people, including many "independent thinkers."
>
> You never heard of Paglia? Try reading a book sometime.

I read a lot of books and am one of the relatively few people who has heard of Paglia. My point, which you obviously missed, is that most people have never heard of her and that when it comes to radio, her opinion is no more valuable than anybody else's (except to AAR bashers like yourself).
>

 

[autopaint-1]

> You miss the point.
>
> Man bites dog. A politically active person is capable on
> making an independent judgement and of differentiating what
> she finds entertaining and interesting from what she agrees
> with politically.
>
> That's unusual.
>
But in the end what is the difference and I know many activists who hate Air America or those on the other political extreme, who think Ingraham and her ilk are fake neo cons, posing as true conservatives. Life just isn't that black or white. It's still only their opinion and to be honest I don't care what their opinion is. My wife, who is a graduate of one of the IVY league universities and has gone from being a journalist to an attourney, enjoys the Satelite sisters and she isn't a fan of Air America either because she doesn't like phone in shows (she feels they are a waste of time). She's far more liberal than I am and prefers NPR to any of this junk. If the woman you mentioned likes Limbaugh but not Air America because she finds one entertaining and not the other, I'd say it's only her "opinion" (Key word) I don't quite understand it though. Limbaugh and his ilk are boring and predictable and add nothing to political discourse. That's not entertaining in my book. If you know what the answer is already, IE; Republican good, Democrat bad, why bother wasting your time listening to this junk. Most of it is for the simple minded anyway.

 

[raccoonradio]

> The problem with most of the hosts mentioned is that they
> don't seem to understand it's not about politics - it's
> about doing compelling radio.
>
> It ain't just the libs either; there are more than a few
> self-described "conservatives" doing some godawful radio,
> not that I would ever mention any by name (cough cough Lars,
> cough cough Laura Ingraham, cough cough)...
>
Laura Ingraham, with hundreds of affiliates and millions of listeners.
Lie of the Day, Sound bite contest, interesting interviews (including of
our soldiers in Iraq). I'd agree with your first paragraph but not your
second--well, at least not the part about Laura!<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[nwebster]

Re: Connie + Brian

>
> My world? As I've said, I don't particularly like Rhodes or
> Springer. Connie does. So do a lot of other people,
> including many "independent thinkers."
>
> I read a lot of books and am one of the relatively few
> people who has heard of Paglia. My point, which you
> obviously missed, is that most people have never heard of
> her and that when it comes to radio, her opinion is no more
> valuable than anybody else's (except to AAR bashers like
> yourself).
>

Maybe we missed each other's points. Mine was not that her opinion is more valuable or more informed than anyone else's. Rather, I saw her forming her opinion about different hosts apart from whether each host shares her political viewpoints. Some AAR boosters appear to agree with AAR and therefore are willing to ignore short-comings in their on-air product. And bashers condemn AAR for no reason other than political disagreement.

Some of the discussion here gets very Black and White. Some people assume one must be all-liberal or all-conservative, that one must be either totally for AAR or totally against AAR, and that any comments or criticism of AAR must be politically driven.

I found Paglia's G-D independent point of view refreshing.

I think fair comment and criticism is not the same as bashing. The main difference is bashing is a pre-determined viewpoint. Maloney finds material, twists material or makes up material to fit what he has already decided.

FTR: I enjoy Randi, although personally I still prefer Steph and Thom. However, if I were PD of a progressive talk station outside the Northeast corridor, I'd take Big Ed live (although I don't enjoy his show as much as I did at first). I still admire Rush as a broadcaster (something I can not say about Hannity, Beck, et al) but I find his show less interesting now that he is an administration shill (compared to early on when he spoke for the populist or paleo-conservative viewpoint).

 

[nwebster]

> But in the end what is the difference and I know many
> activists who hate Air America or those on the other
> political extreme, who think Ingraham and her ilk are fake
> neo cons, posing as true conservatives. Life just isn't that
> black or white. It's still only their opinion and to be
> honest I don't care what their opinion is. My wife, who is a
> graduate of one of the IVY league universities and has gone
> from being a journalist to an attourney, enjoys the Satelite
> sisters and she isn't a fan of Air America either because
> she doesn't like phone in shows (she feels they are a waste
> of time). She's far more liberal than I am and prefers NPR
> to any of this junk. If the woman you mentioned likes
> Limbaugh but not Air America because she finds one
> entertaining and not the other, I'd say it's only her
> "opinion" (Key word) I don't quite understand it though.
> Limbaugh and his ilk are boring and predictable and add
> nothing to political discourse. That's not entertaining in
> my book. If you know what the answer is already, IE;
> Republican good, Democrat bad, why bother wasting your time
> listening to this junk. Most of it is for the simple minded
> anyway.
>

Can't disagree with that. As I read your post, it occured to me the reason I found Paglia's interview interesting is that I am much more interested in how people arrive at their opinions than in their opinions.

 

[kaufcom]

> You miss the point.
>
> Man bites dog. A politically active person is capable on
> making an independent judgement and of differentiating what
> she finds entertaining and interesting from what she agrees
> with politically.

Why are so obsessed with this woman's opinion? Is is because it is line with yours?

It is irrelevant what one person, who most people have never heard of, thinks about talk radio.

You are wasting bandwidth by pursuing this.
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[kaufcom]

The only opinions that count are the ratings. Or maybe Michael Harrison's.

> Can't disagree with that. As I read your post, it occured
> to me the reason I found Paglia's interview interesting is
> that I am much more interested in how people arrive at their
> opinions than in their opinions.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>

 

[dampier]

> Air America: It isn't even broadcast in Philadelphia because
> of low ratings. "It's even slower than NPR. Like a record
> being played at the wrong speed."

Two shows were on WHAT I believe - Al and Randi. But as I recall, WHAT was one of AAR's lower powered affiliates, and the real format of the station was ethnic African American talk/info? I'm not sure how much of their audience is going to connect with Franken, but Randi is well-liked by the Congressional Black Caucus and frequently features them.

> "People on the liberal side, people on my side, have not
> mastered that medium yet and they need to figure out what it
> is. They are out of touch with the mass audience, that's for
> sure. If there is any sign of the problems with my party, it
> is that."

From someone who doesn't listen, I'm not sure how much relevance that has. I'd think she'd respond reasonably well to Randi Rhodes and find entertainment in Stephanie Miller. I think political humor is very important to holding an audience.

 

[dampier]

> An attack based on sexual orientation?
>
> So much for your liberal credentials.

It's not an attack to indicate someone's sexual orientation. If it was "dirty lesbian," I'd be in agreement with you.

 

[nwebster]

>
> It is irrelevant what one person, who most people have never
> heard of, thinks about talk radio.
>
> You are wasting bandwidth by pursuing this.
>

Are you sure you want to go there? One might say a thread about two local (non-syndicated) LA hosts is "irrelevant" to this national format board. One might say a post about a new progressive talk station in Phoenix a few days after the same information was fully discussed in an earlier thread is redundant.

This is a bulletin board - not a blog. On your blog you decide what's relevant. Here any user can post what they consider relevant (within certain limits) and if others also find it relevant, they read and reply. There have been 19 replies so far, and you accounted for three of them. The purpose of starting threads is to stimulate traffic and discussion and the original post did that.

Besides, this board is all about what each individual things of talk radio - and most of us have never heard of each other. The original article was relevant enough for the Madison newspaper and was relevant enough for RadioDailyNews.com to pick it up.

If you don't think what's being posted is relevant or interesting enough find stuff you like better and post it. But be prepared: Somebody is going to tell you they don't like it and therefore you should not have posted it. Then again, maybe you want to save the good stuff for your own blog. Too bad, your article about how Clear Channel saved AAR might have started an interesting thread.