Where is the Center

[joebtsflk1]

Quote Originally Posted by joebtsflk1 View Post
In my fantasy world, I envision someone adopting the seemingly oxymoronic moniker "The Marauding Moderate" that would attack the excesses of both the left AND the right. TMM would take no prisoners in the quest for reform.


I know hosts like that.

They're out of work.


That's because they haven't tapped into THE DEEP ANGER most of us moderates feel about the excesses of the extreme left and right. Everyone assumes because we occupy the middle that we are just passive sheep.

The link to the article the moderator deleted from my earlier post described one person's disgust with our current two-party system. We independents have to watch helplessly on the sidelines while the the two parties elect primary candidates that appeal to the base of the party, which tends to be either considerably to the left or the right of the independent voter.

Remember this: The largest group of voters are not democrats or republicans, they're independent. The talk show host that can truly engage the middle may revitalize the format.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Remember this: The largest group of voters are not democrats or republicans, they're independent. The talk show host that can truly engage the middle may revitalize the format.

People have been trying this for decades. It has never worked.

 

[joebtsflk1]

In your opinion, why has this been the case? Did they fail to truly engage, to entertain the audience? In decades past, was the political climate less polarizing than today? (OK, I already know the answer to the last question is yes, having observed the process for well over three decades...plus two decades of being a snot nosed kid before that)

 

[Small Market Guy]

In your opinion, why has this been the case? Did they fail to truly engage, to entertain the audience? In decades past, was the political climate less polarizing than today? (OK, I already know the answer to the last question is yes, having observed the process for well over three decades...plus two decades of being a snot nosed kid before that)

I think the "moderate" audience is as an average so disillusioned with the process that they don't even want to hear about it. They listen to other stuff on the radio. Sports, music, whatever. The majority of people who listen to political talk radio just want their own views repeated back to them. This CAN be done in an entertaining way that's fair to other views, but in the end the host should align with his audience the majority of the time.

And the political process has ALWAYS been polarizing. As I've mentioned before, it's likely MORE civilized now. At least we don't have people beating each other with canes on the Senate floor.

 

[davideduardo]

You're talking about the days when Lucy and Ricky, or Rob and Laura, or Ozzie and Harriet had to have twin beds.

No, Lucy and Ricky were 50's, and Ozzie and Harriet barely made it into the 60's. Rob and Laura were early to mid 60's. The interactive talk with things like Bill Balance's "Feminine Forum" was very much the 70's... 15 to 20 years later at its inception.

 

[Avid Listener]

Remember this: The largest group of voters are not democrats or republicans, they're independent. The talk show host that can truly engage the middle may revitalize the format.

Remember this. The largest group of voters who are independent are that way because they are apathetic, and don't give a damn about politics. They'd prefer to listen to music or talk about sports. The term "bread and circuses" was coined to describe the concerns of "independent" voters.

 

[Avid Listener]

No, Lucy and Ricky were 50's, and Ozzie and Harriet barely made it into the 60's. Rob and Laura were early to mid 60's. The interactive talk with things like Bill Balance's "Feminine Forum" was very much the 70's... 15 to 20 years later at its inception.

The point is that all media tended to be sanitized to avoid the possibility of offense to anyone for a long, long time. The days of keeping everything vanilla lasted well into the late 80s.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The point is that all media tended to be sanitized to avoid the possibility of offense to anyone for a long, long time. The days of keeping everything vanilla lasted well into the late 80s.

I doubt if anyone in our discussion has any desire to return to the rules, the standards, the mores of the period immediately following WWII, but up for a good free-for-all discussion is whether the American people are really happy with today "un-sanitized" lack of standards for everything from media to personal style. I live in a very interesting "transitional geography" so if I decide to take Mrs. Cowboy down to one of the restaurants on the leeward side of our community, there is no telling what the level of personal expression is going to be from the people sitting at the next table or in the booth behind us at the restaurant. One night I was sitting back-to-back with some guy wearing a tee-shirt that proclaimed: "Liberalism is a MENTAL Disorcer". I will leave it your imagination what some of the words of spoken language were that we heard.

At what point is it acceptable for even freedom-loving Americans to stand up and yell: "Then pendulum has swung too far!!!!"

Not that I would ever mention it, but I might stand up and yell the same thing when I listen one of the two dominant radio signals you can tune in at that restaurant location.

 

[Avid Listener]

One night I was sitting back-to-back with some guy wearing a tee-shirt that proclaimed: "Liberalism is a MENTAL Disorcer".

So, someone was wearing an accurate t-shirt message. What's your point?

At what point is it acceptable for even freedom-loving Americans to stand up and yell: "Then pendulum has swung too far!!!!"

Stand up and yell anything you want. But when you do, don't be surprised when people disagree with you, and let you know that they do.

I think the practice of wearing pants so low that the entire boxer-shorts clad buttocks are above the belt is "going to far", but there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I think the intellectually bankrupt opinion that all opinions deserve equal respect, even the damn-fool stupid ones, is a pile of sheep dip (and I cleaned it up by saying "sheep dip"). I think euphemisms like "Gol durn it" or "Dag nab it" are quaint and sometimes good for comic effect, but people who seriously use them strike me as excessively obsessed. I think that people who get the vapors when they hear something slightly off-color need to rethink their perceptions.

But again, there's nothing I can (or should) do about any of those things.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

So, someone was wearing an accurate t-shirt message. What's your point?

You might not be quite as sanguine if you walked into a restaurant somewhere along your daily travels and spotted someone wearing a shirt that proclaimed: "I wanted to be a conservative, but my knuckles kept getting bloody from dragging the ground."

Stand up and yell anything you want. But when you do, don't be surprised when people disagree with you, and let you know that they do.

/// - - - - - - //

But again, there's nothing I can (or should) do about any of those things.

No, I am much too reserved, too conservative (in a non-political sense) to ever cause that kind of scene. But I used to frequent that restaurant maybe twice a week. Now I go maybe once every 3-1/2 months. One of these days one of the managers making their rounds to check on customer satisfaction will recognize us, stop for some chat, and ask why they haven't been seeing us lately. And with a bit of GRC flair for the dramatic, I will explain in comical terminology with a bit smile just how painful it is to sit back-to-back with someone who is a social and mental misfit.

Over time the restaurant can mull over all the customer complaints of all sorts... and depending on whether anyone else is as uncomfortable as I was, things might change. Keep in mind: It wasn't just the shirt. If I had driven the other direction and stopped at a restaurant where some "left-over preppie look" guy 50 years old climbed out of his freshly washed BMW and sat down near me wearing a clean, expensive looking shirt with the same words, I would probably engage him in conversation, and again, GRC style say something that was both offensive-and-abraisive about something conservative and the two of us would have a good laugh. In the first restaurant, I was fearful the guy would have no sense of humor, and might pull a gun on me and claim I was threatening his well being. (Avid: you will understand this though no one else reading it may: I was in the city of "Awesome Bill", the city that says they first invented boot-legging, and then they invented stock-car racing. They are highly miffed that the hall-of-fame was built up in the Charlotte area instead of North Georgia.)

You're right. If one guy goes by with his pants at half-mast, there isn't anything I can do.... INSTANTLY.... ON THE SPOT! But over time I can do what Americans have done for a long time. Where ever he eats, I go somewhere else. What ever car becomes the favorite of him and his compadres, I refuse to own and drive. Sometimes it take 20 years, but "the American System" eventually gets the message over to people: "Hey, civilization took this turn in the trail. Want to follow along in the same direction we are going?" That's how a society works that doesn't want a regulation for everything. The problem comes when we over-do it, when we institutionalize it. When we get carried away, we end up with a mess that can only be fixed with a Civil Rights Act, or a Voters Rights Act, or some Welfare programs and Healthcare programs of various sorts.

So has this thread totally abandoned the concept that we are talking about RADIO in theory? NO. The radio industry will either exercise some judgement about some aspects of programming, or eventually when the train gets far enough off the tracks, new legislation and regulation will happen to do for the industry what it was not wise enough to do for itself.

It's the American system. It ain't perfect. But it's best we got! (And a big part of the world can see that it is a good system.) But the rest of the world sometimes focuses on the fact that we have pimples and warts decorating an otherwise beautiful complexion.

 

[JeffM]

Dennis Miller is a libertarian. Which is about as close to "center" as talk radio audiences will tolerate.

Libertarian is just a "Fancy Dan" word for anarchist.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Libertarian is just a "Fancy Dan" word for anarchist.

You may be focused on the loudest of the Libertarians and not realize who else is out there under their umbrella. Some of them are pragmatic and practical. Some of them are hard-core and theoretical. Some of them are like people in the middle who don't quite fit the Republican mold and don't quite fit the Democratic mold, and they don't fit the hard-core, theoretical, anarchist wing of their group.

I would think trying to do a Talk Radio program aimed only at Libertarian crowd would be a real challenge.

[sound of forum poster off-mic, off-camera]: Oh? What? Yeah, you're right. [back to forum writing:]

Talk Radio has spent the last three or four years being out front for the Libertarian (hard core) crowd and now even Talk Radio won't speak to old fashioned Republicans... even in the privacy of the hallway.

 

[radiophiler]

I'm coming in a bit late to this thread, so here are several thoughts, not necessarily on the most recent posts in the thread.

A moderate talk radio host will have a more difficult time having a successful (read: profitable) show if the host takes moderate to mean "neutral," as in "I don't express my opinion." If a so-called moderate expresses his/her opinions (some considered liberal, some conservative, some libertarian, etc.) and makes the usual strong, passionate arguments for his/her point of view, that person has a shot.

Part of the problem will still be that people will try to categorize the moderate. Liberals will think the host is conservative, and vice versa. That might be the truest test that you have actually put a moderate on the air ... if liberals and conservatives both think the person isn't in their camp.

Isn't there enough ridiculousness on both sides of the political aisle for a host to regularly point out that both sides have done some pretty outrageous things over the years, and currently? The closest example in the media I see of this is Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. He does call out both sides. And he also calls out some of the ridiculousness in the media. In fact, picking on TV news can be a real winner for a talk show host. See what Conan O'brien does when he calls out local TV newscasts for their copycat news. On the other hand, there is a news anchor who is doing a short-form of this regularly on his show: See Anderson Cooper's Ridicu-list segments.

Besides Jim Bohannon, another example of a moderate radio talk show host is Michael Smerconish. He started out being considered a conservative. In 2008 he declared his support for Obama. He has staked out the middle ... and for whatever reason, he didn't get nearly the number of affiliates as some of the other daily syndicated hosts. Now he's on Sirius/XM and CNN.

As for the original question ... on some issues it might be difficult to stake out exactly what the middle is. Example: Most stories on opinion polls on gay marriage emphasize the fact that a majority of Americans now favor it. But, it's still a slim majority. I don't think there's been one poll yet that has those in favor at 60%. It's usually 52, 53, 54% in favor. That's a pretty even split. So, if you're a moderate in the U.S. today, which side are you likely to take on the gay marriage issue? Saying you favor civil unions might be considered a wishy-washy opinion.

NPR seems to have staked out the interview type shows ... more guests than on nationally syndicated radio talk shows. I don't think commercial radio could start to compete in this area.

No one on radio has seemed to be able to do what Oprah did on TV ... or what Ellen is doing, or even Rosie O'Donnell in her heyday.

If you develop talk radio that a wider cross section of people want to listen to, they will come ... sports talk radio proves that. People will still listen to AM radio if there isn't an FM station doing sports talk. And this is the problem: no one has been able to develop "the next sports talk," so to speak.

I still don't understand why more stations aren't trying the New Jersey 101.5 format. It's like having morning show on all day. And, you don't have to have talk all the time. You can play music on the weekends. I know the argument: The only reason it works in New Jersey is because the entire state is ignored by TV stations. That might be a contributing factor, but IMHO, I think more stations should try this approach. Their hosts have strong opinions, but you wouldn't call this your typical conservative talk station.

 

[Avid Listener]

You may be focused on the loudest of the Libertarians and not realize who else is out there under their umbrella. Some of them are pragmatic and practical. Some of them are hard-core and theoretical. Some of them are like people in the middle who don't quite fit the Republican mold and don't quite fit the Democratic mold, and they don't fit the hard-core, theoretical, anarchist wing of their group.

I would think trying to do a Talk Radio program aimed only at Libertarian crowd would be a real challenge.

[sound of forum poster off-mic, off-camera]: Oh? What? Yeah, you're right. [back to forum writing:]

Talk Radio has spent the last three or four years being out front for the Libertarian (hard core) crowd and now even Talk Radio won't speak to old fashioned Republicans... even in the privacy of the hallway.

Actually, he's cluelessly describing a few yahoo's he has heard who self describe themselves as libertarians. Anarchists who self-describe as libertarians are to real libertarians what Marxists who self-describe as "progressives" are to Democrats.

But, it should be noted that there is a world of difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. When the word is capitalized* it refers to a member of a lunatic fringe 3rd party that has accomplished nothing in over 40 years of existence, aside from sometimes having its candidates serve as spoilers to keep incumbent office holders from being replaced by new challengers. The it is typed with a lower case initial letter, it refers to a person with a particular political philosophy expressed by Thomas Jefferson, "He governs best who governs least". Please note, Jefferson never said, "He governs best who doesn't govern at all". Libertarianism is not about anarchy. It's about using the government as a last resort to handle those few things that must be handled by the government. It means laws against actions which cause tangible harm to people or property, but no laws against actions which merely bother some other people. It means maintaining necessary infrastructure for the common good, but not building new sports stadiums with tax payers' money. Etc.

* Except as the first word of a sentence, which shouldn't have to be mentioned except there are some nitpickers in here who would steer the whole thread to a debate of the subject if I didn't include this disclaimer.

 

[boombox4]

I remember when KGO San Francisco was all talk during the 1970's / 1980's, and some of the hosts there who didn't seem to deliver a left or right bent in political outlook still exhibited some passion about the issues or subjects covered. Instead of being politically oriented, some of the shows seemed more issue oriented.

They also seemed to have a lot more callers than most of the shows on the radio today (left or right).

Even though there were KGO hosts who definitely were politically right or left wing, the station as a whole (at least at night, when I could hear it) seemed to be reasonably balanced in scope, and all the shows I heard made for compelling listening. I wish there were more stations on the air like that today.

 

[Legend City]

Talk radio listeners only want to hear the opinions that agree with their opinions, makes them feel wanted, intelligent and secure. They don't want to have 50% content where they might have to change their opinions more right or more left.

Which is a shame, because polarization to the far right and far left has made everyone less informed and more angry.

 

[JeffM]

Talk radio listeners only want to hear the opinions that agree with their opinions, makes them feel wanted, intelligent and secure. They don't want to have 50% content where they might have to change their opinions more right or more left.

Which is a shame, because polarization to the far right and far left has made everyone less informed and more angry.

And frankly, the internet has only added to all this.

 

[flybynight]

Talk radio listeners only want to hear the opinions that agree with their opinions, makes them feel wanted, intelligent and secure. They don't want to have 50% content where they might have to change their opinions more right or more left.

Talk listeners have always "tolerated" the other side, because talk stations didn't pander to such an extreme. The positive byproduct was an audience (or electorate) that, whether they wanted to or not, had a clearer picture of a situation they were forming an opinion about.
This was good for the format (much more inclusive) and good for the country (not so much unchallenged rhetoric).

Which is a shame, because polarization to the far right and far left has made everyone less informed and more angry.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Avid Listener]

Everyone seems to be forgetting something. As all of us have gotten older, everyone's attitudes and perspectives have changed. All of the comments about the way things used to be forget that the attitudes of us 60-somethings today are not the same as they were when we were 40-somethings in the 90's. We've been through some stuff. So has everybody else. And one of the most influential things we've gone through was discovering that the media routinely lied to us for as long as we can remember. The mainstream media lied by telling us falsehoods, and it lied by suppressing the truth through non-reporting. It was a bitter and rude awakening to discover that we couldn't believe Dan Rather. Once we learned that most of American corporate media was lying to us about most things, and we discovered that there was alternative news sources, our willingness to sit still and politely listen to bullsh!t evaporated. Back when it seemed like the "other" side had a different but honest perception of things, we could listen to their side. When we learned that they were often lying while screaming at us that we were lying, then any willingness to treat their side of issues as something that was worthy of consideration disappeared.

When one encounters those who long to a return to those happy days of yesteryear, one also sees that they usually have blinders on when it comes to recognizing that times have changed in many, many different ways. They display a sense of longing for the days when people were always polite, and kids said "sir" and "m'am", and "please" and "thank you", and everyone knew their place and was happy in it. I can empathize with a longing to return to a time when things were less complicated, but I'm too grounded in reality to think it will ever happen.

That's why I display such a knee-jerk reaction to the hypocrites who denounce name-calling, except when they do it. And, I'll include those who set rules against name-calling, but only enforce those rules against people who are on one side of the spectrum even if it means characterizing the use of accurate descriptions as name-calling. That's why I display such disbelief over those who defend the status only because they have a personal vested interest in seeing it continue. I learned a long time ago that you never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

The important thing to realize is that it is not the polarization of the extreme ends of left and right that have lead to more anger and less information. Rather, it is the discovery that those we used to trust for information turned out to be untrustworthy liars that made us angry, and the loss of most credible sources of information that makes us less informed.

 

[flybynight]

Everyone seems to be forgetting something. As all of us have gotten older, everyone's attitudes and perspectives have changed. All of the comments about the way things used to be forget that the attitudes of us 60-somethings today are not the same as they were when we were 40-somethings in the 90's. We've been through some stuff. So has everybody else. And one of the most influential things we've gone through was discovering that the media routinely lied to us for as long as we can remember. The mainstream media lied by telling us falsehoods, and it lied by suppressing the truth through non-reporting. It was a bitter and rude awakening to discover that we couldn't believe Dan Rather. Once we learned that most of American corporate media was lying to us about most things, and we discovered that there was alternative news sources, our willingness to sit still and politely listen to bullsh!t evaporated. Back when it seemed like the "other" side had a different but honest perception of things, we could listen to their side. When we learned that they were often lying while screaming at us that we were lying, then any willingness to treat their side of issues as something that was worthy of consideration disappeared.

When one encounters those who long to a return to those happy days of yesteryear, one also sees that they usually have blinders on when it comes to recognizing that times have changed in many, many different ways. They display a sense of longing for the days when people were always polite, and kids said "sir" and "m'am", and "please" and "thank you", and everyone knew their place and was happy in it. I can empathize with a longing to return to a time when things were less complicated, but I'm too grounded in reality to think it will ever happen.

That's why I display such a knee-jerk reaction to the hypocrites who denounce name-calling, except when they do it. And, I'll include those who set rules against name-calling, but only enforce those rules against people who are on one side of the spectrum even if it means characterizing the use of accurate descriptions as name-calling. That's why I display such disbelief over those who defend the status only because they have a personal vested interest in seeing it continue. I learned a long time ago that you never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

The important thing to realize is that it is not the polarization of the extreme ends of left and right that have lead to more anger and less information. Rather, it is the discovery that those we used to trust for information turned out to be untrustworthy liars that made us angry, and the loss of most credible sources of information that makes us less informed.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the so-called NON-mainstream media, a/k/a Fox news and talkradio, are demonstrably BIGGER liars and propagandists. And only a small niche of the then-40's, now-60's aged listeners seek out those sources that just tell them what they want to hear. *cough*UNSKEWED POLLS*cough*

Who do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?

The only thing that's actually changed, is that people like Roger Ailes have decided to turn our nation's discourse into a shallow football game-like environment where it's always "us vs. them", and you defend your side no matter what. It's not good for the country, but it's definitely good for the shareholders.