"Progressive" talk versus "liberal" talk.

[Radio_Realist]

Could someone please explain to me what this so-called "progressive talk" format is? Every "progressive" talk show host I've heard has been a liberal. Is "progressive" some sort of euphemistic code word that has come to replace "liberal", the way that people now refer to formats targeted at African-Americans as "urban"?

 

[fred flintstone]

Air America Radio described themselves as a liberal talk network and the phrase "liberal talk" is commonly used in the media.
Clear Channel Radio started calling the format "progressive talk" when they began flipping stations to the format.
The earlier poster who said AAR programs can more accurately be described as liberal than progressive has a point. AAR programs tend to follow the postions of members of the Democratic Leadership Council and other so-called moderate Democrats or New Democrats, who often avoid the L-word (even though opponents often apply the label to them).
Progressive Democrats are a self-declared faction within the Democratic Party including Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, the late Paul Wellstone, and often supporters of the Green Party, as well.
For more, see factions in the Democratic Party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Factions

 

[Radio_Realist]

I see. So it is just another euphemism for liberal.

Is it just me, or does anyone else miss the days when spades were called "spades" and not "manual excavation devices"?

Maybe that's why talk hosts who avoid euphemisms get better ratings than the hosts that have to use the politically correct euphemisms for everything they talk about.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I see. So it is just another euphemism for liberal.

There are many libtalk hosts who have no problem using the "L word" on the air to refer to themselves or their political leanings. Most of the "progressive talk" wording seems to have come from branding by CC's libtalkers, for whatever reason.

 

[robbbc]

Come on now. I have heard many Conservatives use the word Libertarian to describe themselves- are they running away from the word conservative? Liberal means open minded- a person who doesn't beleive that the old ways are the best ways. Conservative means the opposite. They beleive that change is almost always bad. Both words hardly accurately describe any talkers on the air who are simply opinionated in such a way as to generally support the positions of the Republican or Democratic parties, respectively. Is support of an Income tax liberal or conservative? A consumption tax? Property tax? Most conservative talkers support the last two but not the first- a very anti-capitalism stance (and very popular in liberal countries in Europe with flat taxes, VAT and massive properly taxes- and lackluster economies). While liberals suport Income tax which encourages massive consumption- not entirely good for the environment and has created a massive consumer of the worlds resources along with large private debt and little incentive for investment. Which view point is open-minded and which holds to our historical values? Who knows- you can always take it to Off the Air to discuss further.

 

[fred flintstone]

You are over-simplifying things into a unidimensional, either-or, black-or-white frame.
No political scientist looks at the American political spectrum that way.
You are the one insisting on labels and forcing people into one of only two arbitrary categories.

 

[racconradio]

>>Progressive Democrats are a self-declared faction within the Democratic Party including Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, the late Paul Wellstone, and often supporters of the Green Party, as well.

Oh, OK...so, Moonbats! Yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! (Cue the WE! WILL! WIN! Wellstone funeral/political rally)

 

[Radio_Realist]

"I have heard many Conservatives use the word Libertarian to describe themselves- are they running away from the word conservative?"

It depends. There is a bona-fide difference between a libertarian and a conservative. Though by capitalizing the word, you have changed it from meaning a specific political position to meaning a member of a fringe political party. If a conservative calls himself a libertarian, he's calling himself something he's not. If a libertarian calls himself a libertarian, he's simply being accurate. Telling the difference between a libertarian and a conservative can be difficult because too many conservatives call themselves libertarian.

But then telling the difference between a liberal and a progressive is also difficult for the same reason. Look at liberals like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich have started calling themselves "progressive". No wonder people get confused. I could call myself an elm tree, but that doesn't make me one.

"No political scientist looks at the American political spectrum that way."

But this isn't about political science. It's about radio station programming. And radio programmers don't give a flying fig about what political scientists say. They just put whatever they think will get the most listeners over the air.

And I contend that they'll get more listeners for talk hosts who don't play silly word games than they will with talk hosts who use politically correct euphemisms.

"Moonbats!"

See, there's another example of a euphemism for liberals.

 

[kaufcom]

Is it just me, or does anyone else miss the days when spades were called "spades" and not "manual excavation devices"?

Yeah, like calling right-wing talk radio "fair and balanced" or "stimulating" or just "talk radio"

 

[fred flintstone]

People listen to talk radio for confirmation - not information. They are looking for agreement.
Neo-cons have pre-empted the "conservative" label in the common political discourse.
So-called moderate DNC Democrats have pre-empted the "liberal" label.
Neo-cons and Moderate-Liberals agree far more with each other than Neo-cons do with Libertarians or Moderate-Liberals do with Progressives.
Political Scientists are attempting to describe the political landscape.
Media types want to over-simplify it for their own convenience: Only two sides to anything. People are either on Team L or Team C and people on each team agree on everything. Red or Blue and nothing else.
The reason Salem went into the talk radio business is because Rush (and others) did not address the moral-spiritual concerns that are paramount to the religious right (Social Conservatives).
To Libertarians, Bush's attempts to centralize power in the executive branch or the federal government, his undeclared "war," his Patriot Act, are athema - and they don't want to hear Rush praising Bush for them.

 

[MightyFrenchman]

People listen to talk radio for confirmation - not information. They are looking for agreement.
Neo-cons have pre-empted the "conservative" label in the common political discourse.
So-called moderate DNC Democrats have pre-empted the "liberal" label.
Neo-cons and Moderate-Liberals agree far more with each other than Neo-cons do with Libertarians or Moderate-Liberals do with Progressives.
Political Scientists are attempting to describe the political landscape.
Media types want to over-simplify it for their own convenience: Only two sides to anything. People are either on Team L or Team C and people on each team agree on everything. Red or Blue and nothing else.
The reason Salem went into the talk radio business is because Rush (and others) did not address the moral-spiritual concerns that are paramount to the religious right (Social Conservatives).
To Libertarians, Bush's attempts to centralize power in the executive branch or the federal government, his undeclared "war," his Patriot Act, are athema - and they don't want to hear Rush praising Bush for them.

Interesting how the term "libertarians" has started coming up as if they comprised a substantial percentage of radio listeners. If a station wants to tweak its talk format to appeal to the 11 Libertarians out there, they might as well put their station up for sale now.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"If a station wants to tweak its talk format to appeal to the 11 Libertarians out there, they might as well put their station up for sale now."

I don't suggest that a station tries to target libertarians. But, as I said in an earlier post, Libertarians (with a capital "L") are members of a very small, fringe political party. But libertarians (with a lower case "l") are people who share a common political philosophy. A libertarian talk show host can be very successful at appealing to a large market if he is careful to stick to discussing those topics upon which libertarians and conservatives are in agreement, such as being against high taxes and government programs for the redistribution of wealth. A libertarian talk show host will not appeal to conservatives if he discusses topics where the two sides disagree, such as over social agenda issues like outlawing gay marriage.

In fact, some of the best talk radio I've ever heard was when a libertarian guest-host filled in for a conservative host and the conversation turned to passing laws to enforce sexual moral standards. The conservative callers disagreed with the libertarian host, yet the guest-host was skillful enough to keep the disagreement from turning into nothing but invective and quarreling.

Another really interesting hour of talk radio I remember hearing was on a Christian station where the fundamentalist Christian host got into a discussion with mainstream Christians over fine points of theology. Rather than being bored by a host pontificating on something that merely confirmed what I already believed, I was informed and entertained by a fascinating give-and-take discussion. It's too bad the discussion was not only heard by only a small handful of people, it also resulted in the host getting fired.

 

[gr8oldies]

Two hosts who are very successful at least locally are Neal Boortz and Mike McConnell (Boortz has been syndicated for awhile; McConnell is syndicated on the weekend and soon to be on weekdays). Both disagreed with Limbaugh, Hannity, et al on Terri Shiavo..McConnell jsut kept digging up case files and provided facts to the shrill emotionalism of everyone else. He can take apart far left and far right on the same day.

I always thought "progressive" referred to the "inevitable" march to Socilaism and Communism.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Two hosts who are very successful at least locally are Neal Boortz and Mike McConnel"

I never heard McConnel, but Boortz used to be on in Pittsburgh, and I listened to him. He's entertaining. Like Glenn Beck says about his own show, a good talk show has to be a combination of entertainment and enlightenment. Too many radio programmers make too many snap decisions about talk show hosts based on the host's political alignment without paying enough attention to how entertaining they are.

Howard Beall wasn't "cancelled" for not having the correct political beliefs, he was cancelled for being boring. What was a fantasy movie three decades ago is more like a documentary today.

"I always thought "progressive" referred to the "inevitable" march to Socilaism and Communism."

And I was taught that the "progressives" were those back in the early 20th century that championed such legal innovations as initiative, referendum, and recall. Those "progressives" championed more citizen involvement in government, greater accountability of the government to the electorate, and less government intrusion into peoples' personal and private lives.

But that just goes to show everyone how all political factions like to co-opt words and labels. Orwell was right. Implement Newspeak so that words no longer have specific meanings, and no one will be able to even think anymore.

 

[doc9464]

[quote ]
Air America Radio described themselves as a liberal talk network and the phrase "liberal talk" is commonly used in the media.
[/quote]

correct to describe AAR and the majority of its programming....

Clear Channel Radio started calling the format "progressive talk" when they began flipping stations to the format.

also correct

The earlier poster who said AAR programs can more accurately be described as liberal than progressive has a point. AAR programs tend to follow the postions of members of the Democratic Leadership Council and other so-called moderate Democrats or New Democrats, who often avoid the L-word (even though opponents often apply the label to them).
[/quote

WRONG, I don't know where your politics are but you are wrong in so many ways........Franken/Springer would consider themselves moderates if you asked them but neither would shy away from being called liberals.....

I don't like Schultz in the least but he positions himself as a moderate/progressive which is ok with me....I don't think he likes being called liberal

Stephanie miller and her team are proud liberals (Chris Lavoie is moderate if asked - but is ok with liberal term)

Everyone else on AAR is proud to NOT be a DLC democrat. From Rhodes to Malloy to the Weekend team, they are all proud liberals and wear the label with no objection. I think they would all "slap the taste out of your mouth" if you called them DLC democrats.....and I would too if you put me in with that bunch. Thanks to millions of dollars and 40 years of poisoning in the media, the other side has caused the word liberal to be looked at in a lesser light than conservative (which to me is just horrible) but there are many who use the term interchangably......