Why bother listening to Conservative talk?

[kaysguy]

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'.

That doesn't equate to honesty either. She has been caught repeatedly making up stories to make them fit her party line.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That doesn't equate to honesty either. She has been caught repeatedly making up stories to make them fit her party line.

I'm an open minded learned. Tell me where I can read about these made up stories.

Has she been "caught making up stories" by an "honest broker" or is she accused of making up stories by people who want stories that fit their party line?

Curious minds want to know.

Give us some examples.

 

[RadioTalker101]

Every post is the same: Conservative talk radio is dead... broke... too old... 8 months from folding... horrible.

Enough.

 

[FredLeonard]

Every post is the same: Conservative talk radio is dead... broke... too old... 8 months from folding... horrible.

Enough.

And when it folds, then we can read the same kinds of posts we see now on the Oldies and Standards board about (1) how wonderful it was and how much people miss it and (2) how unfair it is that advertisers don't advertise to us because we have all this disposable income.

 

[landtuna]

That doesn't equate to honesty either. She has been caught repeatedly making up stories to make them fit her party line.

I call bullsheet! I have never heard Rachel pound her own opinion as does Rush. She always either uses sources or she has guests that provide the talking points.

I challenge you to cite even one case where she has been convicted of "making things up". This type of behavior would instantly crater her credibility.

 

[umfan]

Maddow has credibility?

When did this happen?

 

[joshzz]

Why does talk radio have to take ONE position? Does anyone really want to be indoctrinated into a particular mind-set? I know Hitler was a fan of such methods but we're in the 21st Century now! Wouldn't it be more attractive to listeners if both multiple positions were provided by a group of hosts with positions that actually represented Americans rather than the position of corporate America being the only position that's represented.

Regarding the never-ending wars in the Middle East and Snowden, the Democratic and Republican Parties are in agreement. We need the position of Americans to be represented. Have three hosts: 1) the Elite Right (Limbaugh type), 2) the ELite Left (Maddow type) and 3) the will of the people.

That would be a huge improvement over today's stale "what's good for the elite" talk radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You raise an interesting question.

Who does have credibility?

Who decides when someone has credibility and has the standing to announce to the world: "Here: Look right here. THIS PERSON has credibility. I hereby tap you on the shoulder with my sword and declare that you officially have credibility.

Is credibility only achieved when you have universal credibility... that people of all political persuasions, all religious faiths, all races, all sexual orientation unanimously declare: YOU have credibility.

One could argue that partisan speakers/writers have credibility within their own like kind. Is that true credibility?

I look upon George Will as a credible spokesperson for conservatism, but also a credible spokesperson who can be respected by liberals for his logic, even when they disagree with his final point.

Does Rush have credibility? Does Alex Jones have credibility? Does Dianne Sawyer have credibility? Did Jerry Fallwell have credibility?

Who decides?

Rachel Maddow has a prime time slot on a credible cable channel and has held that post for several years.
Rachel Maddow is becoming a someone regular guest commentator on Meet the Press.
Rachel Maddow has a book actually published by a standard publishing firm and available at bookstores like Barnes & Noble.
She went through the testing and convinced the academic powers at Oxford that she should be able to walk the earth wearing her earned doctorate.

So, when she finally grows up someday and decides what she wants to do when she grows up, what does she need to do for us to say: "Oh, Rachel NOW has credibility!"

By the way... do YOU have credibility? What have you done that would empower us to rise up and say: "UMFAN is now a person of credibility!"

When I hear some on the radio make claims and I do my research and find out that what they reported appears to be true, I assume the person has gained just a little bit of credibility. And when that happens over and over and over... then I assume the person has credibility by the truckload. I have yet to dig into a story in which Rachel surprised me with something new, and when I checked into it found out she had it all wrong. Maybe tomorrow she will get it all wrong. But as of tonight.... pretty good record.

Your turn. Share with us what you caught her saying that is all wrong. Maybe you can gain some credibility for yourself.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Why does talk radio have to take ONE position? Does anyone really want to be indoctrinated into a particular mind-set? I know Hitler was a fan of such methods but we're in the 21st Century now! Wouldn't it be more attractive to listeners if both multiple positions were provided by a group of hosts with positions that actually represented Americans rather than the position of corporate America being the only position that's represented.

Regarding the never-ending wars in the Middle East and Snowden, the Democratic and Republican Parties are in agreement. We need the position of Americans to be represented. Have three hosts: 1) the Elite Right (Limbaugh type), 2) the ELite Left (Maddow type) and 3) the will of the people.

That would be a huge improvement over today's stale "what's good for the elite" talk radio.

Josh- I don't sense that talk radio is speaking with one voice. And it certainly is NOT the mouth piece of corporate America. And you are corrupting/bastardizing the definition of the word elite. When Talk Radio now and then actually takes a phone call, you don't have to listen long to realize that there is nothing elite about the talk radio audience. Rude and crude? heavy-handed? Not well informed? Typically selfish?

Josh, you are making a good effort at trying to generate some good discussion and discussion that needs to take place.... but what you assume is the target leaves me scratching my head. Democrats and Republicans are not in agreement over wars in the Middle East. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are at war within their own parties on what to say and push for when it comes to Snowden.

If Limbaugh is a flawed spokesman for the Right, who do you think would be the credible spokesman for Republican thinking.

If Maddow is a flawed spokeswoman for the Left, who do you think would be the credible representative for Democratic party thinking.

Who does speak for all these Americans who have an opinions? If we could arrange a broadcast with three participants as you suggested at the end of your post... let Limbaugh speak for the Right, let Maddow speak for the Left, WHO, pray tell, would you cast in the role of speaking for "the will of the people"?

 

[umfan]

Rachel Maddow has a prime time slot on a credible cable channel and has held that post for several years.
Rachel Maddow is becoming a someone regular guest commentator on Meet the Press.
Rachel Maddow has a book actually published by a standard publishing firm and available at bookstores like Barnes & Noble.
She went through the testing and convinced the academic powers at Oxford that she should be able to walk the earth wearing her earned doctorate.

Rachel Maddow has abysmal ratings by any objective standard.
Rachel Maddow has one book published which paled in sales comapred to either of Limbaugh's books.

What REAL jobs has she held? In my view she lacks perspective and thus credibility. Does Limbaugh have any more, maybe not. You ask who decides who has credibility, I would submit that the number of people willing to give of their time to listen to what you're saying is a fair measure. By that metric, she has far, far less than does Limbaugh.

This is where you dismiss those who listen to Limbaugh as sheep, morons or both. Do what makes you feel good, but it won't give Maddow an ounce more of credibility which would give her exactly one ounce if she obtained it.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Not the the sycophants will believe any of this, but here's the official tally on Maddow's lies:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/

 

[Small Market Guy]

Rachel OTOH tends to present facts and let you decide for yourself a conclusion.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite a while.

 

[RadioTalker101]

Why does talk radio have to take ONE position? Does anyone really want to be indoctrinated into a particular mind-set? I know Hitler was a fan of such methods but we're in the 21st Century now! Wouldn't it be more attractive to listeners if both multiple positions were provided by a group of hosts with positions that actually represented Americans rather than the position of corporate America being the only position that's represented. [/u]?[/b]

Absolutely ridiculous. The free market is at play here, there is not government indoctrination taking place here. If anything Rush is speaking AGAINST the government so this argument is childish and stupid.

AND ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL DISCUSSION AND NOT A RADIO ONE.

This is why talk radio works.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What REAL jobs has she held? In my view she lacks perspective and thus credibility. Does Limbaugh have any more, maybe not. You ask who decides who has credibility, I would submit that the number of people willing to give of their time to listen to what you're saying is a fair measure. By that metric, she has far, far less than does Limbaugh.

Careful. You are beginning to formulate a guide that would say that Huey Long and Adolph Hitler were credible. After all, they gathered a lot of listeners.

This is where you dismiss those who listen to Limbaugh as sheep, morons or both. Do what makes you feel good, but it won't give Maddow an ounce more of credibility which would give her exactly one ounce if she obtained it.

I don't remember using those words to describe the Limbaugh audience.... but then again... maybe I have come close to that. ;D

I don't quite understand the struggle in your mind that you are trying to express here. Is it possible that both Limbaught and Maddow each have credibility in their own areas of expertise? Is it possible that NEITHER of them have credibility in their own area of expertise? This isn't a discussion that can ever prove that one of them has to be right and the other one has to be wrong.

Those both have credibility in the following way: Limbaugh speaks the Conservative message. He knows what issues attract and upset the Conservative audience. So he puts on a "dog and pony show" that will attract and amaze Conservatives.

Maddow speaks the Liberal message. She knows what issues attract and upset the Liberal audience. So she puts on a "dog and pony show" that will attract and amaze Liberals.

Here is where I begin to evaluate credibility: One of them calls people sluts, feminazis and other warm and cuddly names. One of them regularly invites people from the other side to appear on the show. Some do. A lot don't. One of them does not use harsh terms like sluts, feminazies, etc.

 

[KFodor]

What's crazy about threads like this is that it's the same people spouting their opinions. And that's OK, because they're allowed to have them. BUT...

The fact is: there are still very successful conservative talk outlets in America. And there not all in areas rich with conservatism.

Some stations are losing numbers. But, instead of looking behind the numbers and seeing if the stations are actually making programming mistakes, these people are convinced that the problem is conservative talk itself.

It's always easier to blame the host of a show than the programming people, or their managers.

There are some of us who know better.

And yes, the format does reinvent itself. With some programs, that reinvention is already underway...But I can't give trade secrets here by telling you who or how.

 

[stevensonair]

Doesn't the entire argument about Maddow's book sales and ratings imply that ratings in some way correlate to honesty or intellect?

Quality and popularity are not always, or even often, the same thing.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Doesn't the entire argument about Maddow's book sales and ratings imply that ratings in some way correlate to honesty or intellect?

Quality and popularity are not always, or even often, the same thing.

Maddow's lack of popularity and her lack of honesty are completely different topics.

 

[FredLeonard]

It's interesting how "true believers" on either side can't help seeing all those on the other side as evil. Political Kool-Aid drinkers are like sports fans: Our guy is always safe; their guy is always out (no matter how the ump calls it and no matter whether the ball or the runner got there first).

From there it's a short step to people voting for any political hack (or ho) who says what they want to hear. Afterwards, this person can break all his promises or screw up completely, and the great brainwashed unwashed will live in denial. Our guy is never wrong (their guy always is).

Talk radio is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is why this country has gone to hell in a hand basket.

 

[boombox]

People seem to want a source of news and information that speaks to them. Conservative talk radio serves one side, liberal news blogs serve the other side. Somewhere in the middle is the 'mainstream press', i.e. newspapers, (which may or may not present all the facts in a news story); the major TV networks, and radio outlets like NPR.

As Fred Leonard mentions, it's a reflection of what Americans want in their news media. Something to help them believe.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

People seem to want a source of news and information that speaks to them. Conservative talk radio serves one side, liberal news blogs serve the other side.

There is strong truth in what you wrote.....BUT: The way you stated it leaves me wanting to say.... there's more to the story!

From the receiver's point of view, from the "what makes a well thought-out society work well" point of view, here is my quarrel with your working.

Conservative talk radio noew not serve the conservative listener very well. Liberal news blogs do not serve the liberal listener/audience/reader very well.

Today's talk media has to first serve the mechanism. It has to assure that funds (normally advertising) will flow which will pay for the mechanism (radio/Internet/printed newsletter etc). So Talk Radio and much of the news blogs primarily serve the originator(s). If the consumer receives some valid service from all this, wonderful! If the consumer ends up simply being the victim of shabby communications while the provider regularly goes to the bank smiling, the our American communication system as we know it today is parallel to the drone missiles that some time kill some innocent bystanders in the process.

If some of the consumers get "bombed" with bad info, misleading info, misunderstood info.... tough. Collateral damage.

As a consumer/citizen I am not content to shrug my shoulders and say "Well, that's just the way it is!" We have to express our discontent with shabby handling of information. And that is a task that doesn't pay very well. :