The best lib talkers

[dampier]

> Malloy, since joining aar has really toned himself down alot
> imo, compared to his old i.e. america days. He's not quite
> so...shrill... but it is still an entertaining show.

You're kidding. During his first hour screamfest, he is by far the angriest AAR hosts there. I can't imagine what the original sounded like if we're getting toned down now.

He behaves himself a lot when he is subbing for other hosts, although he does let loose on occasion with the Bush Crime Family label and other favorites.

> Randi is also doing well, from her wjno days.

Randi suffers from periodic burnout. You can predict her next week or two off based on her tone on the air and how much she relies on reading articles on the air (the more reading, the more burned out). When nothing is really breaking in the news, she loses energy but gets re-fired up on things like Katrina.

I think her show also suffered when Tim, her oft-heard producer, left the show. They had a good rapport.

 

[dampier]

> only serious comment I had in your post was Lionel...hes
> smart and well informed but I don't like him because I think
> he has a disdain for his listeners and he seems sometimes
> annoying...and his voice....and you complain about
> randi....LOL

It's like someone gave Joe Pesci some anger management and then gave him a radio show. Lionel is okay, but the ad load and the fact 30 minutes in the middle of his show is dumped locally for a relay of the 11pm news from a local TV station means I usually don't bother.

 

[dampier]

> The purpose of talk radio - conservative or liberal - is not
> to change minds. People listen to talk radio have their
> views confirmed.

The Rush revolution belies that to some degree. I think talk radio can have a major impact on politics and views. You need to tap into discontent among your target audience, then you create an on-air classroom which then organizes that disillusionment and anger and channels it into politics and social causes. The propaganda (and that is not by itself a negative word) rallies your audience base and allows you to keep them together on a whole range of views. If you listen to Rush fans, they all repeat the same talking points, have the same general views, and respond with the same auto-responses to visual imagery. Sit with one and put on a news channel and listen what happens when they see Ted Kennedy's image on the screen, or Bill Clinton.

I know a Rush listener because they have the same trigger responses to these stimuli. Occasionally they mangle the talking points and get them wrong, but they are generally consistent.

When things fall apart is when you question them beyond the base talking points and ask them to explain them. Many cannot beyond repeating other talking points or things they heard from Rush's show. It always reaches the point where they simply insist they are right and you are wrong, even if they can't explain it. These people aren't George Will.

Talk radio was instrumental in 1994 when the conservative hosts gave Republicans valuable airtime to promote the Contract With America. Robert Walker, former congressman from Pennsylvania, said exactly that and still says this.

> I also wonder how many of the vocal supporters of
> progressive talk radio on this board are actual regular
> listeners. Some comments seem to suggest some may like the
> concept but don't consume the product much (sort of like how
> people say in surveys they want healthy menu choices at fast
> food restaurants but don't actually order them).

I am a daily listener.

 

[dampier]

> What is it with you, anyway?
>
> My original post only mentioned AAR "begging" in their email
> and on their website.

They weren't begging.

> I also speculated in that post that this program could
> indicate cash flow programs for AAR. I then posted the New
> York Post article in which a legitimate news organization
> also raised the possibility of financial programs at AAR.

"Could" isn't news ... it's speculation. The NY Post knows all about that when it comes to reporting on AAR.

> No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising
> pitches (do you?). I did listen a fair amount early on and
> I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny. Too New
> York-centric. Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not
> really against the war itself but Bush should be doing
> better running it).

You had the wrong station on then. Outside of one morning show, there is not a lot of talk about NYC on AAR. Randi and Mike Malloy, Sam Seder and Jeaneane Garofalo are no fans of the war.

> Weak opposition to the Patriot Act.
> Anti-Palestinian. Cheap shots at Bush but not really for
> anything. Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really
> progressive. And worst of all, incompetent as broadcasters
> and entertainers.

None of this applies to most of their hosts. Anti-palestinian? Listen to Malloy sometime.

What is this obsession people who don't agree with Democrats have with criticizing the DLC wing of the Democratic party? It's actually refreshing to believe there are some moderates left in one national party. The talk radio people on the other side rip apart their party's moderates. Ask McCain what the Christian Coalition did to his candidacy in the south with the help of Rush and other like minded hosts. Chris Shays is being chased by a few Salem hosts for being mean and nasty at Mr. Ed from FEMA and not laying blame only on Democrats.

Everyone starts somewhere in this business. Some won't be around 10 years from now - that's the way the business works. But what some on the right assume is that if one host on the left goes down, there won't be an immediate replacement as the format gets tweaked.

 

[dampier]

Re: Headless Body In Topless Bar

> Maybe more people in
> this country would still be reading newspapers if he had a
> tabloid tradition like Britain, which the Post represents,
> rather than ponderous broadsheets.

Yeah, those ponderous broadsheets that deal in the business of facts, not opinion and slanted news to fit the views of the papers' owners.

Americans started looking beyond yellow journalism after they realized concentrated media power in the hands of a few with an agenda actually managed to get us into the Spanish American War over a pack of lies about atrocities supposedly being committed before our intervention and threats to our long term peace with a hostile threat allowed to exist. Wow... deja vu all over again, and we're still paying for that war on our phone bill every month. It'll be another hundred years before we pay back the Chinese for this one.

> I mostly listened earlier in the day. I could not get past
> Randi's fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice and her repeated
> kvetching about Ed Schultz (which did get me interested and
> I started listening to Ed Schultz instead).

Randi's accent becomes part of the "act" over time, but it's a tolerance curve one must develop. I never heard her before she started on AAR and it took me a week. Now, her accent works as much as Judge Judy's does for her. She rarely spends show time on Ed Schultz, and only usually when a caller brings him up. Randi and Stephanie Miller seem to be bonding a lot lately, more so than Randi and Garofalo.

> I really would rather get
> into comparing and sharing different experiences and
> viewpoints about radio and specific programs, instead of
> attacking each other for having those experiences and
> viewpoints - which seems to happen a lot on these boards. I
> don't much like AAR and I've tried to explain why. I would
> like better to understand its appeal for those of you who do
> like it.

AAR is a company. I guess it's comparable to saying you hate Clear Channel. That's probably too broad to use as a criticism if you are really claiming to focus on bad on air talent. You don't say "I hate CC" because you don't like a talk show host they have on a station in Miami.

Further, to bolster your personal dislike of AAR, you trend towards posting the inflammatory Attack AAR crowd news articles, further flame them with new headlines about AAR 'begging,' and then claim later you are confused about why people would take you on when you are only stating your personal opinion that you personally don't like AAR. Nobody is going to "attack" you for personally not liking Randi Rhodes. If you, for example, were to post biased news about Randi being investigated by the Secret Service and wants the president dead, you will have an appropriate response from some of us.

 

[dampier]

Re: What questions?

> A reporter? Your profile says your occupation is
> "Sales and Marketing." And nobody on these boards or
> anywhere else has ever heard anybody on AAR solicit
> donations on the air. When are you going to concede
> that this is a right-wing urban legend?

Uh, in the radio business these days, being in sales and marketing and also doing the news for the station is not out of the realm of possibility! "And now Fred the Janitor with sports...."

> But the only material that you seem to find "interesting"
> is anti-AAR material. PW had a similar preoccupation,
> which led to the obvious conclusion that after he was kicked
> off these boards he adopted the user name "mwebster."

It's the return of "here's an article I found called 'AAR Hosts Investigated for Using Non-Recycled Office Supplies: Has the Veneer Been Ripped Away to Expose These Traitors?' by Bill O'Reilly" quickly followed by the poster pondering in writing, "I wonder what this all means?" It's as innocent as OJ.

> Then you may be the only non-conservative in the country
> who thinks that NPR is "liberal." All the liberals I know
> think that NPR is far too concerned with pleasing its
> corporate underwriters and their friends in the Bush
> administration and the Republican-controlled congress.

Yes... like the Louisana governor hours after Katrina, they are running scared of going against an administration that will go to any lengths to punish their critics and enemies. Now we have people like Ken Tomlinson at CPB, who is also singlehandedly destroying the Voice of America's 50+ years of credibility, doing super secret squirrel investigations into Bill Moyers. Yeah, that's a friendly environment for NPR!

The end result is that Bill Kristol and David Brooks should have their own personal offices there considering how often they are in-studio guests.

 

[mwebster]

Re: What questions?

Sales and marketing is what I do now. Not a lot of money in broadcasting - maybe you've heard.

How do you know "nobody on these boards or anywhere else has ever heard anybody on AAR solicit donations on the air?" Have you talked to them all? Likewise, have you talked to all the non-conservatives in the country to determine what they all think of NPR? You make a lot of assumptions. You don't even seem clear about what I think of NPR. Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully, not just the headlines.

As for what you say all your liberal friends think, it is not a theory I can discount entirely. (And if you re-read my posts on the non-commercial board more carefully, you might see the possibility I raised and the theory of your liberal friends are not inconsistent.) But then, how do you know what anyone "thinks?" Are you telepathic?"

I also suggest you look at my posts on various topics on different boards to get a better idea of what I find interesting. Again, this is a discussion board. I bring up things I think are worth discussing. If you don't agree, you can always skip the thread.



>
> A reporter? Your profile says your occupation is
> "Sales and Marketing." And nobody on these boards or
> anywhere else has ever heard anybody on AAR solicit
> donations on the air. When are you going to concede
> that this is a right-wing urban legend?
>
>
> But the only material that you seem to find "interesting"
> is anti-AAR material. PW had a similar preoccupation,
> which led to the obvious conclusion that after he was kicked
>
> off these boards he adopted the user name "mwebster."
>
>
> Then you may be the only non-conservative in the country
> who thinks that NPR is "liberal." All the liberals I know
> think that NPR is far too concerned with pleasing its
> corporate underwriters and their friends in the Bush
> administration and the Republican-controlled congress.
>

 

[mwebster]

Journalism 101

> Americans started looking beyond yellow journalism after they realized
> concentrated media power in the hands of a few with an agenda actually
> managed to get us into the Spanish American War over a pack of lies about
> atrocities...

You really don't know much about the history of American journalism. And if you think "yellow" journalism is dead, you have not watched TV in a while (speaking of getting us into a war with lies about atrocities). But your explanation of changing styles in newspapers in the past 100 years is both simplistic and inaccurate.

Sensationalism was never limited to tabloids, of which there were never all that many in this country - mainly because department stores and other advertisers wanted bigger pages for their display ads. And sensationalism never went away - even after World War II, when newspapers no longer had direct competitors in most cities, most circulation was by home delivery subscription (you did not have to get people to buy a copy on the street), and newspapers strove for one-size-fits-all middle-class respectability to accomodate mass advertisers. Sensationalism exists in television today for the same reasons it existed in newspapers early in the 20th century - competition, and the need to attract an audience.

>
> AAR is a company. I guess it's comparable to saying you
> hate Clear Channel.
>

Lot of people on these boards say they hate Clear Channel. Lots hate Microsoft, too. I'm not one of them but individuals having a disregard for a given company is neither new nor unique. You seem to have an animus toward the Hearst Corporation, although it's possible you have never read one of their newspapers.

 

[mwebster]

It's a chicken and egg question. Do they listen to Rush because they hold certain views or do they hold certain views because they listen to Rush? There is a substantial body of research over seven decade to strongly indicate the former.

And, yes, that same research inidicates mass media can activate those already holding or predisposed to holding a given viewpoint.

>
> The Rush revolution belies that to some degree. I think
> talk radio can have a major impact on politics and views.
> You need to tap into discontent among your target audience,
> then you create an on-air classroom which then organizes
> that disillusionment and anger and channels it into politics
> and social causes. The propaganda (and that is not by
> itself a negative word) rallies your audience base and
> allows you to keep them together on a whole range of views.
> If you listen to Rush fans, they all repeat the same talking
> points, have the same general views, and respond with the
> same auto-responses to visual imagery. Sit with one and put
> on a news channel and listen what happens when they see Ted
> Kennedy's image on the screen, or Bill Clinton.
>
> I know a Rush listener because they have the same trigger
> responses to these stimuli. Occasionally they mangle the
> talking points and get them wrong, but they are generally
> consistent.
>
> When things fall apart is when you question them beyond the
> base talking points and ask them to explain them. Many
> cannot beyond repeating other talking points or things they
> heard from Rush's show. It always reaches the point where
> they simply insist they are right and you are wrong, even if
> they can't explain it. These people aren't George Will.
>
> Talk radio was instrumental in 1994 when the conservative
> hosts gave Republicans valuable airtime to promote the
> Contract With America. Robert Walker, former congressman
> from Pennsylvania, said exactly that and still says this.
>

 

[dampier]

> It's a chicken and egg question. Do they listen to Rush
> because they hold certain views or do they hold certain
> views because they listen to Rush? There is a substantial
> body of research over seven decade to strongly indicate the
> former.

Where is it? The Center for Excellence in Broadcasting? Show us the research.

 

[dampier]

Re: Journalism 101

> > Americans started looking beyond yellow journalism after

> You really don't know much about the history of American
> journalism. And if you think "yellow" journalism is dead,
> you have not watched TV in a while (speaking of getting us
> into a war with lies about atrocities).

Instead of debating against your own points, how about debating mine. I said "started looking beyond" - not that it was dead. There is a reason people do seek out factual newscasts - to get an honest and impartial assessment of the news so they can apply that to their own lives and form their own views about it. That's far different than the dog and pony show we get from opinionwriters/casters who lead people around their version of truth on leashes.

> Sensationalism was never limited to tabloids, of which there
> were never all that many in this country - mainly because
> department stores and other advertisers wanted bigger pages
> for their display ads. And sensationalism never went away -
> even after World War II, when newspapers no longer had
> direct competitors in most cities, most circulation was by
> home delivery subscription (you did not have to get people
> to buy a copy on the street), and newspapers strove for
> one-size-fits-all middle-class respectability to accomodate
> mass advertisers. Sensationalism exists in television today
> for the same reasons it existed in newspapers early in the
> 20th century - competition, and the need to attract an
> audience.

Thank you for this non-answer answer. Since I am not suggesting sensationalism is dead, this answer doesn't apply to why people do seek out broadsheets to gain an honest, factual, unbiased assessment of the news. When your readers find out you lied to them because of your own agenda, you lose credibility with everyone except those who want their side to win, not necessarily the truth to win out. For that, you need to move beyond the bar fight press.

When you are caught making it up as you go along, or being a paid shill, or are caught essentially in bed with the people you are reporting about, people do notice on both sides of the political spectrum.

> You seem to have an animus toward
> the Hearst Corporation, although it's possible you have
> never read one of their newspapers.

You have a license for that crystal ball? Stop worrying about what you think I am thinking and go back and rewrite your reply.

 

[mwebster]

Ever heard of a library? Sorry, I did not keep all my class notes from grad school. Look it up yourself.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it never happened. Just because it doesn't fit how you think things are supposed to be, doesn't mean it's not possible.

And it's not just about Rush. It cuts both ways. Mass media reinforce attitudes; people tend to seek out media content they agree with. Do you listen to progressive talk because you agree or do you agree because you listen? Have your politics changed because of progressive talk radio or conservative talk radio for that matter? I don't know you but I'd be willing to bet you were liberal before anybody ever dreamed of Air America Radio.


>
> Where is it? The Center for Excellence in Broadcasting?
> Show us the research.
>

 

[mwebster]

Re: Journalism 101

> There is a reason people do seek out factual
> newscasts - to get an honest and impartial assessment of the
> news so they can apply that to their own lives and form
> their own views about it.

You are living in fantasy land. Just based on your comments on this board, even you don't do that. You already know what you think and you have no room for anything that does not fit with that.

Like most people, what you perceive as "honest and impartial" (or "fair and balanced") is what supports what you already think. Social psychologists and political sociologists and have been plowing this field for years. The only people who don't have their minds made up are those who don't care; and they tend not to seek mass media political content any way. This principle is as well established in social science as evolution is in biology; but then there are people unwilling to accept evolution, too.

 

[dampier]

> Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it never
> happened. Just because it doesn't fit how you think things
> are supposed to be, doesn't mean it's not possible.

I hear that a lot from the UFO and tinfoil people. Spend some time with Google and find some links before you just go and say it.

> And it's not just about Rush. It cuts both ways. Mass
> media reinforce attitudes; people tend to seek out media
> content they agree with. Do you listen to progressive talk
> because you agree or do you agree because you listen? Have
> your politics changed because of progressive talk radio or
> conservative talk radio for that matter? I don't know you
> but I'd be willing to bet you were liberal before anybody
> ever dreamed of Air America Radio.

I actually was a Republican during the Reagan Administration and very conservative on foreign affairs issues. I supported the first Gulf War and also supported the hard line taken against Communism. I gave due credit to Reagan for his consistent efforts against oppressive regimes (while criticizing the same efforts he made in supporting far right contras and other masochistic leaders in Central America.)

My politics changed when I began reading and actually searching out facts instead of just blindly accepting everything I heard. When you actually start reading and listening to information, you usually turn out to be a Democrat, especially these days when those of us on the left are living in a "fact based" world instead of this make the facts fit the agenda we get now. Talk radio that tells you not to trust talk radio but informs you and encourages you to go do your own research had a major influence on me. Randi Rhodes tells her listeners never to trust anything she says or any other talk show for that matter. Instead, she tells you to go do your own research. That's a marked difference from the Rush crowd that tells you you don't need anything but Rush, that magazines and books and radio and TV is infested with some liberal media bias so you can never trust any of it (convenient, isn't it). Instead, Rush tells you to read or listen to approved media outlets which turn out to be conservative propaganda media. O'Reilly tells you to trust The Factor because that is unbiased and true while the BBC can't be trusted because they are in bed with the terrorists.

The media - you are either with us or with the terrorists, the evil liberals, the baby killers, the atheists, the illegal immigrants, the Communists (insert your enemy here).

I'm no elitist, nor am I wearing clothing made out of kenaf or some renewable fiber, and meat tastes good, so I'm not a left wing nutbar. I'm just a guy who uses common sense and gets real suspicious when someone tells me I don't need to do my own research - that I just need to rely on some talk show host for everything. That attitude among the new right is pervasive - all the way to the president who tells us he doesn't have much use for reading newspapers or magazines - he gets all his info from the people around him, and those are the ultimate in yes men and women.

Talk radio that demands engagement from listeners and tells them to find the truth themselves can and will change a lot of opinions. It did it for me.

 

[dampier]

Re: Journalism 101

> You are living in fantasy land. Just based on your comments
> on this board, even you don't do that. You already know
> what you think and you have no room for anything that does
> not fit with that.

There is an energy crisis. Turn down the use of the crystal ball to conserve resources. My entire political and personal outlook is based on and evolves through what I learn on a daily basis. You don't have any idea who I am. Worry about figuring out yourself.

> Like most people, what you perceive as "honest and
> impartial" (or "fair and balanced") is what supports what
> you already think.

That's not true either. I listen mostly to the BBC because I don't want reporters injecting their own opinions into my news, regardless of which position they take. I don't consider AAR news - in fact, I don't rely on AAR newscasts which I think are as biased on the left as Fox News is biased on the right. I don't have time to listen to untrustworthy news.

> Social psychologists and political
> sociologists and have been plowing this field for years.

You didn't keep those notes and sources either, did you?

 

[mwebster]

If you are really interested, start with Klapper, Joseph T, "The Effects of Mass Communication," (Free Press) It's the first thing I read on this topic and it completely changed my way of looking at things. If it does the same for you, don't say I did not warn you. It's old but I notice when I checked online that newer texts continue to cite it, most university libraries still have it and in some of those libraries, copies are currently checked out. It's a comprehensive and readable summary of what are still the landmark studies in mass communication research.

Among the more interesting tidbits: Orson Welles did not really cause a panic with "The War of the Worlds."

 

[Scribbler]

Re: What questions?

> Sales and marketing is what I do now.

But you said, "As a reporter, my experince tells me..."

Guess you forgot what you're doing now. Selling
and/or marketing for an AAR competitor perhaps?
>
> How do you know "nobody on these boards or anywhere else has
> ever heard anybody on AAR solicit donations on the air?"
> Have you talked to them all?

Not to all of them. But nobody has posted on this board
that he or she has heard any such thing and a web search
turns up nobody who has heard any such thing.

>You
> don't even seem clear about what I think of NPR. Perhaps
> you need to read my posts more carefully, not just the
> headlines.

Headlines? What headlines? Here's what you said on this
board on September 28th:

Good radio/bad radio has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, agree/disagree.
Rush is good radio; Mike Gallagher is bad radio; both are conservatives.
NPR is good radio; AAR is bad radio; both are liberal.

"Both are liberal." Seems pretty clear to me what you think of NPR.

> As for what you say all your liberal friends think, it is
> not a theory I can discount entirely. (And if you re-read
> my posts on the non-commercial board more carefully, you
> might see the possibility I raised and the theory of your
> liberal friends are not inconsistent.) But then, how do you
> know what anyone "thinks?" Are you telepathic?"

I can't "re-read" your posts on the non-commercial
board "more carefully," because I've never read them
in the first place. And I'm not going to take the
time to do so -- I simply don't have time to read all
of your posts since you started flooding these boards
with your opinions (and material that "interests" you)
after PW was banned. As for knowing what my liberal friends
think, I have no reason to think they're lying when they
tell me what they think of NPR.

> I also suggest you look at my posts on various topics on
> different boards to get a better idea of what I find
> interesting. Again, this is a discussion board. I bring up
> things I think are worth discussing. If you don't agree,
> you can always skip the thread.

I have no intention of looking at your posts on
other boards to get a better idea of what you find
interesting. And yes, I suppose I could look the other
way when you post misinformation, but if I happen to read it
I sometimes feel compelled to set the record straight.
>
>
> > A reporter? Your profile says your occupation is
> > "Sales and Marketing." And nobody on these boards or
> > anywhere else has ever heard anybody on AAR solicit
> > donations on the air. When are you going to concede
> > that this is a right-wing urban legend?
> >
> >
> > But the only material that you seem to find "interesting"
>
> > is anti-AAR material. PW had a similar preoccupation,
> > which led to the obvious conclusion that after he was
> kicked
> >
> > off these boards he adopted the user name "mwebster."
> >
> >
> > Then you may be the only non-conservative in the country
> > who thinks that NPR is "liberal." All the liberals I know
>
> > think that NPR is far too concerned with pleasing its
> > corporate underwriters and their friends in the Bush
> > administration and the Republican-controlled congress.
> >
>

 

[kaufcom]

> I have not had a chance to hear everybody who has been
> mentioned in this thread and in previous threads identifying
> non-AAR and local progressive talk hosts, but my personal
> favorite is Arnie Arnesen. Thoughtful. Informed.
> Excellent Interviewer. Not tied to the party line and
> willing to call liberals or Democrats to task when she
> things it's warranted. I know she has tried syndication
> without any luck so far. Somebody must be listening,
> because her audio server is "at capacity" more and more.

I've tried about a dozen times to catch Arnie's show I have yet to be successful. Sounds like her station does not want to spend the $2 a line it costs to do streaming. She's never going to get a syndication deal if you can't sample her show.
<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkingradio.blogspot.com/</P>