Why bother listening to Conservative talk?

[joshzz]

Arbitron numbers indicate a smaller and smaller audience is listening to talk radio. Here in Philly, Limbaugh and company are sinking like an old ship with many holes and why not?

The American people are starting to realize there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. All of our leaders agreed to spying on American citizens. You don't see any argument from the Republicans but in fact, hear from many like Republican Rep King that are mad as anything about Snowden revealing that we have spy government not seen on this earth since the forties in Germany. I expect that the 2 share Limbaugh gains will further deteriorate as he like the rest is a supporter of the Spy State.

 

[umfan]

People listen to programming of any genre for much the same reason: to be informed, entertained or for background noise. Limbaugh seems to be holding his own with the ratings. I expect he'll continue to do so.

 

[FredLeonard]

Limbaugh's numbers have gradually eroded over the years. Even more important, so have his demographics. Not a political observation: Almost all long-running broadcast personalities wear out their welcomes if given enough time. Some step down when they are still at or near the top of their game. Others hold on.

Talk radio's biggest problem is its refusal to reinvent itself.

 

[ProducerGuy]

Oh, look. THIS thread again. It must be Saturday.

 

[joshzz]

I do wonder how long IQ in Philly will keep the grumpy talk format going.

 

[Blackroc]

I just turned off a talk show. It was sports. I don't care anymore there are better things to listen to.
It isn't the talent per se --some are quite good-- it's more the tired format which is about as happening as a newspaper.

So do I listen to Cons talk? No. Non-Cons' talk, also no.

 

[cefgw]

Who needs Con talk? I'm so lucky because I look forward every day to the dulcet drone of Morning Distortion and Not Much Considered, and Weekend Distortion. Spoon feed me the news I am required to receive, tell me how I'm supposed to think. Seriously, Con Talk and Prog Talk tells you up front what their bias is. If this type of honesty in radio formats is dying, then our society is dying.

 

[boombox]

Like cefgw said, the con and prog talkers let you know up front where they're coming from -- unlike a lot of newspaper reporters who claim to be impartial, but will often bury important facts in the middle of the bottom story in the least read section of the newspaper (usually the business section). Or they will omit them altogether.

 

[joshzz]

next message

 

[joshzz]

The real news isn't that one political party claims to be conservative and the other liberal. The real news is that there is no difference between the two political parties. Both are the very same. The both push for big and over-reaching government. The problem is that listeners actually believe there are two political parties when in fact they're both the same flavor. So whether it's Limbaugh or Maddow they're both peddling the same disastrous prescription.

 

[landtuna]

So whether it's Limbaugh or Maddow they're both peddling the same disastrous prescription.

If you equate Limbaugh with Maddow it is clear you are not listening to one or the other.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The problem is that listeners actually believe there are two political parties when in fact they're both the same flavor. So whether it's Limbaugh or Maddow they're both peddling the same disastrous prescription.

Josh..... you really put that message out here.... and are not embarrassed to attach your name to it?

In legislative output, because of the need to reach compromise on some issues, we sometimes realize that the people in one party cause as much irritation and problem as to the people in the other party. That much we may agree on.

But if you will take the time to actually listen to both the broadcast talkers, and the politicians themselves, there is no way with integrity that you can say there is no difference in message from the various political factions. There is no way with integrity that you can say there is no difference in message from the various talk broadcasters.

And I am not sure what methodology we would use to prove one of us right and the other wrong.

But to say there is no difference in the message of Rush and the message of Rachel.... boggles the mind. Tell me this message is an April Fools prank that got stranded in the calendar and fell out today by mistake.

If you haven't read the book "Drift" written by Maddow, get it, now! The woman is a Rhode's Scholar with a Doctorate in the area of healthcare in American and British prisons, and her undergrad work in Public Policy. (Politics!) Read "Drift" and then come back here and see if you can convince us that Rush and Rachel are "preaching the same Gospel".

Let me know when you are coming and I will see if we can round up a platter of crow for the occasion.

 

[wadio]

The woman is a Rhode's Scholar with a Doctorate in the area of healthcare in American and British prisons, and her undergrad work in Public Policy. (Politics!)

None of which necessarily leads to the ability to articulate common sense. Just sayin'.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The woman is a Rhode's Scholar with a Doctorate in the area of healthcare in American and British prisons, and her undergrad work in Public Policy. (Politics!)

None of which necessarily leads to the ability to articulate common sense. Just sayin'.

I you haven't, read the book.

Then we will have a conversation on which of the players in the drama called "America, the 21st Century" have some common sense, and who doesn't.

Whether you agree with or disagree with Rachel, whether you like her broadcast style or don't like it, if we were to line up all the "talking heads" across a stage and then try to figure a way to rank them by "Common Sense".... she would be up close to, or AT the head of the line.... I think.

And to mention the name that always comes up in the discussion of Talk Radio (and TV), at which end of the line would we finally find Rush located? And his degree is what? from where?

 

[raccoonradio]

On CNN Thom Hartmann said Flush Rush effort backfired...hurt prog talkers etc.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1308/04/rs.01.html

Hartmann: "David Brock and Media Matters were leading the boycott Limbaugh crusade, which did presumably some damage to the Limbaugh show. I can tell you it did a lot of damage to progressive talk radio, because a lot of advertisers right across the board said just pull me out of all talk radio. "

Michael Medved: "... not a victory for anybody if all of a sudden you have less political conversation. I want my friend, Thom Hartmann's show to be successful. We disagree on everything, but I think it's great when people are listening to progressive talk radio. I think it's great when people are listening to conservative talk radio."

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And that is why students in the military academies apparently study the history of war, including battles all the way back to empires even before the Roman Empire. Winning one battle is not always the success hoped for.

Your post about the comments of Thom Hartmann presents a situation that people on both sides of the political warfare have to sit down and talk about, game-plan, and evaluate.

I read this into Harmann's comment: For the short term, complaining about Rush, trying to take action against Rush resulted in something of the opposite: Liberal broadcasts suffered when advertisers decided to pull back.

If, and that is a big all capital letters IF... , Talk Radio has any effect on the political future of our country, here is the battle field the generals have to evaluate in planning future battles: How big of a hit did Rush and other Conservative Talkers take when Media Matters and others tried to influence who gets time on the radio and who doesn't. If most Talk Radio is Conservative, and the push had been successful, Conservatives would have lost a BIG VOICE. Since Liberal Radio is so, so small in comparison, the loss of influence over the population that was lost, would be lost in the future, by the Liberal side of the political struggle would be very, very small.

This is cold and cruel. But sometimes a general sends out a squad or a company on something of a suicide mission and the other side comes rolling out with a big, big troop force and expose themselves to future BIG, BIG loses now that the general knows where the other side is, and what they have going for them.

Maybe in this case, Media Matters was the "suicide mission".

War is not simple, Politics is not simple. 30 or 40 years from now, no matter where the political journey of this nation goes, people in On-line forums will look back and shake their heads on our sometimes blundering steps in the current era of politics. So will historians writing books. So will political leaders trying to plot their next bold step in further forming our nation.

 

[landtuna]

War is almost always simpler than politics.

In traditional war the combatants wear uniforms and you can almost always tell who is who by their uniform. You can never be sure in politics as their uniforms are identical.

Soldiers, no matter which side they are on, all take an oath which, if followed, means they operate within a series of rules which, hopefully, both sides stay within. No such morals or behavior from politicians.

In war politicians set the strategic goals and soldiers carry out the tactical programs to meet those goals. When politicians attempt to direct the tactical programs it usually results in a losing effort.

Soldiers risk everything. Politicians risk nothing.

When a soldier comes home, successful or not, they are almost always quickly forgotten. Politicians live on in a festering pile of smoot seemingly forever.

 

[joshzz]

Maddow and Limbaugh both want bigger and bigger government. They both advocate the new "manifest destiny" of endless wars in the Middle East, all for the glory of the big banks, oil and defense corporations. There is no difference between them.

Both also agree that the NSA is right in violating the constitution and in taking our constitutional rights away. They view Snowden as a traitor just like all the Democrats and Republicans (President, Congress and Senate) in office when in fact, the vast majority of Americans view him as a hero.

We have a government that no longer represents the people and the same goes for all national political talk show personalities (they are all paid by the same companies whose sponsors benefit from these wars and violations of the constitution) save Alex Jones.

It' no wonder why fewer and fewer people are listening to the puppet masters.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Maddow and Limbaugh both want bigger and bigger government. They both advocate the new "manifest destiny" of endless wars in the Middle East, all for the glory of the big banks, oil and defense corporations. There is no difference between them.

Both also agree that the NSA is right in violating the constitution and in taking our constitutional rights away. They view Snowden as a traitor just like all the Democrats and Republicans (President, Congress and Senate) in office when in fact, the vast majority of Americans view him as a hero.

Josh... those of us who grew up on farms where we grew "truck crops" and are now addicted to being life-long gardeners know what it is like when you leave a cabbage in the patch too long and it "goes to seed". When I read what you just wrote, I see a message that looks like it is past ripe and now gone to the seed producing stage. It gives something of an impressionist art view of a deranged peacock.

How many times have you sat down and watched Maddow's TV show? Have you read the "Drift" book that I mentioned earlier? i realize not too many people in this world are fond of Rachel's view. But at least be honest in reporting what her views are. And be honest in reporting the views of Rush.... if you can figure out what they are on any given day.

They don't agree on birth control and women's health. They don't agree on gun control or the lack there-of. Rachel wants a government big enough to educate the young and care for the disabled and elderly but has no love for wasteful defense spending. Rush wants a government big enough to conquer and keep the world under empire status but apparently has no love for our youth or our elderly. Neither of them expresses the perfect answer and we are left to wonder what either of them would say in private conversation with friends they trust not to spill the bean as to what they really believe.

Am I reading you correctly? If you were going to follow a leader into the battle to save our nation, you want to march under the flag of Alex Jones? The rest of us have spent part of our lives looking for a communist under our bed before we settle in for the night. Alex Jones goes to bed every night hoping a new conspiracy theory will crawl out from under the bed and wake him up? That Alex Jones?

You may have titled this topic incorrectly. Maybe it should have been: "Why bother listening to the radio!" nobody can be trusted today.

Sleep well my friends. Who knows who is lurking under YOUR bed tonight.

 

[landtuna]

Maddow and Limbaugh both want bigger and bigger government. They both advocate the new "manifest destiny" of endless wars in the Middle East, all for the glory of the big banks, oil and defense corporations. There is no difference between them.

I will admit to not knowing what rubbish Rush is drooling over currently because I haven't listened to him in years. I really doubt he has changed much though and I tend to think he blabs because (a) it enriches him and (b) he loves to hear the sound of his own voice. He is truly worthless.

Rachel OTOH tends to present facts and let you decide for yourself a conclusion. I don't remember her ever making a pitch that would eliminate the ability to think for yourself. Although I have not listened to her show since the last presidential election I doubt she has changed.

I do know you are totally and ignorantly wrong that "there is no difference between them" as well as your other ascertains that she supports more government and more wars. She most certainly doesn't support either. If you were to read her latest book you would understand. Give that a try before spewing more disinformation here.