• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

"Why Is Talk Radio So Conservative?"

Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
> >
> No. We were better off and safer with Saddam in power. Tens
> of thousands of Iraqi's and two thousand Americans would
> still be alive today (not to mention the wounded) and Iraq
> would be safer. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to us or our
> interests in the middle east. Iraq was no fan of Iran and
> the two of them could have continued to be at each other's
> throats. Now, they will be good friends- a new member of our
> Axis of Evil, courtesy of the US government. Not to mention
> a new source of terrorists. No high minded erudite
> Conservative faith based response can refute that.
>
> But no Democrat will say it because democrats are too scared
> to state the truth on these shows (look at Mertha (sp?), the
> only guy in the house that seems to get it on the war- Kerry
> and Hillary both ran from his comments, when they should
> have embraced them).
>
> Until Liberal talk starts addressing the conservative
> talking points it will be playing second fiddle. Right now
> only a few liberal blogs and independent newspapers are
> going that far.
>

Not sure where you get the "tens of thousands of Iraqi's" - are you referring to all of the people Saddam killed through various means, including sending them through a plastic shredding machine? Are you forgetting about the many rape rooms, and all of the torture chambers ( No, not Abu Ghraib, where we pulled pranks not up to par with that of frat houses! ). Also, in light of all the terror Saddam put upon his citizens, and that he killed far more than have been killed by the terrorists attacks like the car bombings, How do you come up with the idea that the Iraqi's would be safer? To say that Saddam was no threat is something else to me. GW Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton and many other's were sure he was a threat, based on evidence they saw and we did not. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > power?," for example.
> >
> > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> >
>
> And the answer is...
>

To reframe the issue correctly. Liberals have to be as smart as those who depend on the words of Frank Luntz and other media consultants who train and share information thats targeted to attack the liberals credibility. Conservatives currently have an advantage in framing at this point. Libs are getting it and doing more to not allow themselves to be trapped in questions like this that in no way really address the real issue which is ...does a nation attack a country that did not attack us (Al Queda attacked us on 9/11), and can we justify 2000+ soldiers deaths, over $200 billion of capital, and countless iraqi citizens killed to capture a man who never was (and evidence now supports this) the massive threat our administration said he was.

Thats how you reframe stupid questions. Tom Betz was right to call it that.

A another way to answer would be ...well the people that were going to be better off with Saddam out of power were the Iraquis..but because we have botched the postwar planning, allowed corruption to prevent real reconstruction, and have angered the Iraqui people, no we aren't better off.
The Iraquis aren't better off despite the rushed constitution and government that is still not seen as more than an extension of the US government.
We also aren't better off because Al Queda now has a playground with real targets to become better terrorists...Iraq. Saddam wasn't a massive threat. There was time to assemble the resources to do it correctly if it absolutely necessary to go in at that time. It wasn't and the evidence shows that it wasnt the time to do it. Bush failed to follow an excellent example, his father's.
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> But no Democrat will say it because democrats are too scared
> to state the truth on these shows (look at Mertha (sp?), the
> only guy in the house that seems to get it on the war- Kerry
> and Hillary both ran from his comments, when they should
> have embraced them).

Regrettable but true.....and conservative pundits and talk radio keeps making Hillary the defacto nominee via repetition so as to make the media and the uninformed believe that Hillary is already the choice of Liberals/Democrats...this of course is clever to setup a target for the hosts and pundits to make a pariah...thus "stimulating" the core audience against the person who is made to be a horrible person via repetition...Libs and informed on the left are smart enough to not let the right choose who is going to be their person in subsequent elections. Now libs need to work on the courage issues. Thats where AAR/Progressive Radio comes in...theres a platform now to compete with the massive RW repettion engine that is conservative talk radio. The hope is that there will be more places to get out the other side.....for now the voice is not strong enough to compete..but if gradual growth continues...well there might be hope for the other view.
>
> Until Liberal talk starts addressing the conservative
> talking points it will be playing second fiddle. Right now
> only a few liberal blogs and independent newspapers are
> going that far.

And liberal talk radio....and AAR are doing it as well......more resources are being developed...
>
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

>> Not sure where you get the "tens of thousands of Iraqi's" -
> are you referring to all of the people Saddam killed through
> various means, including sending them through a plastic
> shredding machine? Are you forgetting about the many rape
> rooms, and all of the torture chambers ( No, not Abu Ghraib,
> where we pulled pranks not up to par with that of frat
> houses! ). Also, in light of all the terror Saddam put upon
> his citizens, and that he killed far more than have been
> killed by the terrorists attacks like the car bombings, How
> do you come up with the idea that the Iraqi's would be
> safer? To say that Saddam was no threat is something else
> to me. GW Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary
> Clinton and many other's were sure he was a threat, based on
> evidence they saw and we did not. What evidence do you have
> to the contrary?


Folks if you want to ever think that talk radio doesn't work....just read this post above....i present this as clear evidence that conservative repetition leads to posts (and thinking) like this....hard to correct unfortunately
 
Re: Another Blog Groupie

>
> To be honst with you I dont see any reason to read blogs.
> Most of them are full of thoughts with no real support. You
> can say ANYTHING and accuse ANYONE of whatever you feel
> like. Whenever someone quotes a blog I immediately dismiss
> it.
>


I would opine that the way to get correct info in these days is to dig and dig more. If you depend on talk radio, nope - uninformed, if you depend on the MSM - nope not enough detail or there may be deflection to less imnportant issues, newspapers - still pretty good - but you need to consider more than just one.

The idea is to read as many sources as you can read to gain your satisfaction and understanding. Any one who just relies on blogs will just the view of the bloggers on that web page....but if you use various sources as "stations" along the track to being informed, one has a better chance of digesting the issue better.

Unfortunately, this doesn't happen in america as much as we all probably would like and people tend to resist digging further so far....usually this leads to bad decision making (my opinion only)
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> > Why are you preaching? Did I miss you convocate your D.D.
>
> > in Political Talk Radio Theology?
>
> So Johnny, based on what you are calling preaching, wouldn't
> you want to think that the article posted is "preaching".
> This post from Free Republic is based on ideology and is
> definately "fact free" but loaded with plenty of "belief
> calories". Im surprised at your recent lack of reason...when
> these discussions occur.
>
>
> > Please stop with the "you" and "you people". We're not
> > adherents of your religion, whatever it may be. If I want
>
> > to be preached at, I'll plug in Brother Stair or old
> re-runs
> > of Jimmy Swaggart, B.C. (before crying).

Doc, you missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do with talk radio personalities, or discussion of issues, or anything like that. It had to do with his tone in the past couple of posts, specifically the "you" and "you people" thing. That is unprecedented here at Radio-Info and I'm not taking kindly to being talked at.

I have no comment at all on the Free Republic thing. Which is why I didn't post in response to it.

As for my lack of reason--huh? Is it because I have questioned the whole Plame investigation? Or still support the war?

Maybe it's because I haven't had time to post as in-depth as I'd like, as work has been really busy the past couple weeks.

Whatever.
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

>> Doc, you missed the point of my post. It had nothing to do
> with talk radio personalities, or discussion of issues, or
> anything like that. It had to do with his tone in the past
> couple of posts, specifically the "you" and "you people"
> thing. That is unprecedented here at Radio-Info and I'm not
> taking kindly to being talked at.

Fair enough...that sounds more like the Johnny im used to a healthy banter with....


> I have no comment at all on the Free Republic thing. Which
> is why I didn't post in response to it.
>
> As for my lack of reason--huh? Is it because I have
> questioned the whole Plame investigation? Or still support
> the war?

Nahhh, agreement isnt required by a long shot....im just more used to you arguing more the facts but you said i missed your earlier point, so ill leave it at that....
>
> Maybe it's because I haven't had time to post as in-depth as
> I'd like, as work has been really busy the past couple
> weeks.
>
I have times like that too.....
>
 
For the same reason that every white singer in 1957 looked and sounded like Elvis: Rush was a success story, ergo (goes the line of reasoning) to be successful, sound like Rush.
Sadly, most talk programmers wouldn't know an original idea if it bit them on the bum.
 
Re: Conservative ownership = conservative talk

The thing with talk stations like WAMT is that there's one or more (we've had up to nine in Phoenix) like it in every market. Put a computer in a broom closet somewhere and you have a station that costs $0.12 a day to run. The morning show is piped in from sister WWBA/Tampa, which allows Genesis to sell both stations.

> The successful companies are putting on shows that bring in
> ratings and revenue. Salem is all about ideology and having
> "conservative talk stations" rather than "good talk
> stations" and the same can be said for AAR.

Salem programs weekdays for ideology and generates money with weekend brokered programs.<P ID="signature">______________
http://talkwatch.blogspot.com
</P>
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> Finally, Id like to ask you why conservatives on Fox and the
> shows always try to define what the liberal is? Why do the
> shows need weak people like (Juan Williams, Alan Colmes,
> Mara Liassen, Susan Estrich, and others who would not be
> considered strong liberals to help the conservative audience
> form an incorrect view that liberals are "milquetoasts". Is
> Hannity so incapable of making his point that he fails to
> allow Colmes (as show policy) to not confront him? Why does
> the Fox News pundit show on Sunday bring in the heavy
> hitters but doesnt have the guts to put a real liberal on
> the air with Bill Kristol and Brit Hume?

This is absolutely an excellent point, and this stark difference between the NPR-style "liberal" show and the red meat conservative talk shows is readily apparent to any honest judge of show format.

Libtalk is derided as boring and handwringing when applying the NPR format of inviting one or two conservatives and one or two liberals and then trying to have a moderated discussion of the issues on the table. No "Crossfire" yelling allowed. But that's boring we're told.

Then we have libtalk shows like Springer who tolerate conservative callers and, if the argument is coherent, Springer will actually give ground and agree or concede a point.

Then we have the talk shows of all sorts that engage in false debate. Recognize these common signs?:

1) Caller who disagrees is brought on less than one minute before commercial break. Caller is barely coherent and is cut off after 30 seconds with a shout-down, then cue break music.

2) Caller who disagrees brings up point but is interrupted. Show host demands that the caller answer show host's question instead of making original point. When caller asks to just be able to make his/her point, show host yells at them to answer their question first and then they can make their point. If caller answers show host question, show host then yammers on about that question. Oops, time for commercial, no time for caller to make original point. Bye.

3) Caller begins making point, show host interrupts them immediately (and quietly drops the call) and attacks half-made premise of question, tells them they are basically scum, and says they are not welcome on the show.

The conservative talk shows that feign "balance" do so, in part, because they claim a liberally biased media in inherently unbalanced so they can do better. The result are half-hearted liberals (or conservatives/moderates sold as "liberals" like Fox actually tried with Mort Kondracke of all people!) who "know their place." Any true liberal is going to be throwing things at the TV or radio because these so-called liberals do an impotent job of representing the liberal position on anything. The Mara Liasson's of the world are intimidated by the panel because she says one thing on Fox and reports the opposite on NPR. Does anyone think Juan Williams wasn't the "chosen one" for minority views on Fox because of his staunch defense of Clarence Thomas? Ahh... "a liberal we can do business with!" O'Reilly has banned people like David Brock who are fully prepared and have offered to debate Bill on the issues he raises. But listening to O'Reilly, David Brock is a smear merchant who is banned from the Factor for being dishonest and dangerous. Apparently so much so O'Reilly is afraid to confront him. I suspect it's really out of fear it could lead to a defining "at long last have you no shame" moment for Bill and then it's back to tabloid syndicated news shows.

> We all know that talk radio targets its "true believers" as
> its main audience. Conservatives tend to "stack the deck"
> rather than let the view go to the audience clearly. If you
> take a look for yourself, I doubt you will disagree.

One need look no further than the byzantine rules in place on Hannity and Colmes where they have a pseudo Crossfire format except Hannity and Colmes are not supposed to challenge and interact with one another. The consistent exception to this is when Hannity attacks liberals and stares at Alan while doing it, which usually leads to a barely audible and nearly always interrupted Alan Colmes weakly offering an alternative view, but you can't usually hear him because they are cranking up the commercial break music.

When pressed for reasons why these rules are in place, Colmes will either say that was the way "Sean set up the show" or "it's not our format."

If we're on an adventure to garner some truth out of all of this debate, should the rules not allow for a free flow of exchange instead of limiting the discussion?
 
Give Saddam His Own Talk Show!

> > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > power?," for example.
> >
> > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> >
>
> And the answer is...

We should give Saddam his own talk show! Hell, I used to joke that Tariq Aziz would do great hosting one of those daytime social issue talk shows. Call it Tariq, paint the studio pink flamingo, and do Maury topics. Al-Jazeera hired him first though. Damn.

Saddam could do a show and reduce Iraqi unemployment by giving all those Revolutionary Guards security work on the show.

"Today on Saddam, Missy caught Bo sleeping with Shana in the trailer park, but Bo denies it. We'll be sending Bo into the Infidel Room and we'll learn the truth with the use of Kathy Lee Gifford's new CD box set 'Cody and Cassidy - My Loving Treasures.' Also, a delicious new cookie recipe perfect for the holiday season: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, our former Iraqi Information Minister will be here with a recipe for Wahalashalahala Cookies. He promises there are so good, there won't be a single crumb anywhere in your little Baghdad. Also one of my wives, Martha Stewart on how to discipline the unruly help. It's a good thing, all today on Saddam!"
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> No. We were better off and safer with Saddam in power.

Well, this has now gone well off of radio. I suggest that since the retirement of our last moderator, we could all try and self-regulate and moderate the forum. If we can do this well enough, maybe we won't even need a replacement moderator and we can do it "free market deregulation style."

We should probably move the discussion about Saddam and Iraq to Off the Air.
 
You Too

Relax, Johnny.

My earlier post was a reply to "raccoonradio." In that post "you" was he. "You people" was he and those who share his views.

Now, I am replying to you and "you" is you. Get it?

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
 
Are you sure you heard Pre-Rush conservative talk?

Sorry, I can't accept your generalities. I don't know how it was in Florida (although what you describe does fit my impression of Flordia) but it is not typical of pre-Rush conservative talk in the markets with which I am familiar.

Pre-Rush, not that many stations adopted the talk format. Local talk was/is expensive to produce. And the view in much of the industry was syndicated talk would not appeal to an audience.

Pre-Rush conservative talk was confrontational. Prime examples were Joe Pyne, Wally George and Morton Downey, Jr (whom Rush replaced in Sacramento). It was more about life-style than straight politics. They bashed hippies, anti-war protesters and women's lib more for their appearance than their views. They did not debate. They ranted and insulted callers. Insulting callers was the key component of the show. They also had non-political kooks to insult (sort of a hostile version of Art Bell). They did wave the flag but said far less about issues than post-Rush hosts. It was essentially about insults and put-downs of weirdos. One hold-over from that era is WOR's Bob Grant, although he has toned-down some.
 
Re: Are you sure you heard Pre-Rush conservative talk?

> Pre-Rush conservative talk was confrontational. Prime
> examples were Joe Pyne, Wally George and Morton Downey, Jr
> (whom Rush replaced in Sacramento).

In the 1970s and early 1980s, talk radio was much calmer than it is today, and politics, if handled, was much calmer with all sides getting airtime. Our local talk shows rarely hung up on callers. The talk radio of old sounded more like today's C-SPAN call ins. Any outrage came from the callers, not the hosts. Morton Downey was a mid-late 1980s figure. His audience was the closest thing to a rally of brown shirts you could get.

> They did
> wave the flag but said far less about issues than post-Rush
> hosts. It was essentially about insults and put-downs of
> weirdos. One hold-over from that era is WOR's Bob Grant,
> although he has toned-down some.

Yeah, if Bob Grant wants to stay employed, he had to tone down the outrageous racist and bigoted lines he used regularly on his show.
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> Then we have the talk shows of all sorts that engage in
> false debate. Recognize these common signs?:
>
> 1) Caller who disagrees is brought on less than one minute
> before commercial break. Caller is barely coherent and is
> cut off after 30 seconds with a shout-down, then cue break
> music.
>
> 2) Caller who disagrees brings up point but is interrupted.
> Show host demands that the caller answer show host's
> question instead of making original point. When caller asks
> to just be able to make his/her point, show host yells at
> them to answer their question first and then they can make
> their point. If caller answers show host question, show
> host then yammers on about that question. Oops, time for
> commercial, no time for caller to make original point. Bye.
>
>
> 3) Caller begins making point, show host interrupts them
> immediately (and quietly drops the call) and attacks
> half-made premise of question, tells them they are basically
> scum, and says they are not welcome on the show.

Sam Seder is a true student of these techniques.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> Sam Seder is a true student of these techniques.

I actually hear these techniques on talk shows of all kinds. Conservatives and liberals do it. Is this technique in Talk Show Hosting for Dummies? It's really irritating regardless of who does it. The host should just shut up, let the caller make the point, and debate that issue, not the distraction issue the host brings up. I suspect the reason this happens is that the host in unfamiliar with the issue the caller wants to bring up and doesn't want to be embarrassed by not having a ready response.
 
Re: If you had only heard Pre-Rush conservative talk...

> A few generalities...

...and my responses...
>
> Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows opened with "Stars and
> Stripes Forever"

Most post-Rush conservative talk shows open with cheesy, overproduced bombast, hyping the host as The Sole Purveyor Of Truth. Some also play "Stars and Stripes Forever"...

> Most pre-Rush conservative talk show hosts hated rock 'n'
> roll, blaming it for promiscuity and the promotion of
> liberal values

Most post-Rush conservative talk show hosts hate hip-hop, blaming it for promiscuity and the promotion of liberal values...

> Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows got their talking
> points from the John Birchers and other conspiracy theorists
> and books... Fluoride is corrupting our precious bodily
> fluids, and refined white sugar is making teenagers want sex
> before marriage... The Trilateralists, the Bilderbergers,
> the Council on Foreign Relations... It was the collective
> wail of being out of power.

Most post-Rush conservatives get their talking points from "News Max," and "World Nut Daily." Immigrants are ruining America, Islam is synonymous with fascism, and Christians are a persecuted minority. It's the collective wail of being out of power...


> Most pre-Rush conservative talk shows were 1) Gun control
> and 2) Abortion. Rinse, lather, repeat....

Most post-Rush conservative talk shows consist of the following: 1) Bush can do no wrong, 2) anyone in the least bit critical of the current commander-in-chief is an ally of Osama bin Laden and 3) the Clintons are responsible for pretty much everything that's wrong with the world. Rinse, lather, repeat...


> Most pre-Rush talk shows, conservative, liberal, or
> opinion-free moderators, could not go three hours talking
> about race without some unreconstructed cornpone using the
> N-word... which was not bleeped in those days...

Most pre-Rush talk shows, conservative, liberal, or opinion-free moderators, could not go three hours talking about ANYTHING without *several* unreconstructed cornpones parroting word-for-word talking points from Rush or some unimaginative conservative "columnist"...

> Most pre-Rush talk show hosts read articles on the air... a
> lot... badly.

Most post-Rush shows read articles on the air...a lot...badly. The main difference is these most of articles now come off the internet...

>
> Most pre-Rush talk show callers read articles on the air...
> a lot... badly... and slowly.

Ditto...
>
> Most pre-Rush talk show callers left their radios turned up.
> (To experience this kind of talk radio in the 21st century,
> tune in KDWN 720 Las Vegas when in range...)

One area where things have truly improved is on the technical end, though I've heard some godawful-sounding talk station in recent years...
>
> Most pre-Rush talk show hosts had only the morning paper for
> show prep.

Most post-Rush talk show have a wealth of sources available to them. Unfortunately, they only use a handful of preaching-to-the-choir websites (see above). One difference: most of today's hosts don't even bother with the morning paper...
>

As the French say, le plus change...
 
Re: What conservatives won't admit

> > Sam Seder is a true student of these techniques.
>
> I actually hear these techniques on talk shows of all kinds.
> Conservatives and liberals do it. Is this technique in
> Talk Show Hosting for Dummies?

If there were such a book, these tactics would undoubtedly be on page 1. Who doesn't use them on a caller- or guest-driven show? They're pretty much universal.
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
> >
>
> To reframe the issue correctly. Liberals have to be as smart
> as those who depend on the words of Frank Luntz and other
> media consultants who train and share information thats
> targeted to attack the liberals credibility. Conservatives
> currently have an advantage in framing at this point. Libs
> are getting it and doing more to not allow themselves to be
> trapped in questions like this that in no way really address
> the real issue which is ...does a nation attack a country
> that did not attack us (Al Queda attacked us on 9/11), and
> can we justify 2000+ soldiers deaths, over $200 billion of
> capital, and countless iraqi citizens killed to capture a
> man who never was (and evidence now supports this) the
> massive threat our administration said he was.
>
> Thats how you reframe stupid questions. Tom Betz was right
> to call it that.
>
> A another way to answer would be ...well the people that
> were going to be better off with Saddam out of power were
> the Iraquis..but because we have botched the postwar
> planning, allowed corruption to prevent real reconstruction,
> and have angered the Iraqui people, no we aren't better off.
>
> The Iraquis aren't better off despite the rushed
> constitution and government that is still not seen as more
> than an extension of the US government.
> We also aren't better off because Al Queda now has a
> playground with real targets to become better
> terrorists...Iraq. Saddam wasn't a massive threat. There was
> time to assemble the resources to do it correctly if it
> absolutely necessary to go in at that time. It wasn't and
> the evidence shows that it wasnt the time to do it. Bush
> failed to follow an excellent example, his father's.
>

The answer to your question in paragraph one is a resounding "YES!!"
I'm interested to see the evidence that you have garnered, that Saddam was not the threat Kerry, Clintons, gore, and GW Bush all said he was. Maybe at the same time you can explain what would then be all of the "useless" resolutions passed by the UN, for a guy whois not a threat? Alsom please note, although there are "countless" Iraqi deaths post-Saddam, this number is WAY less than with Saddam in power. No real postwar reconstruction? You watch way too much CNN, ABC, CBS (All you "C" is "BS")! Talk to people who have actually been there. Ask them how the schools are doing. Ask them how the water supply is. Ask the what the electric is like. All are much better than they were under Saddam. Maybe we have a difference of terminology, but in my book, that is real reconstruction. Bush senior had an excellent example? By what standard? He went into Iraq to remove Saddam from power, FAILED to do so, and when the going got tough, HE LEFT. This is a good example? There was time to assemble resources, yes, We've been out for over a decade, and the UN issued many resolutions against Saddam in that time, which he never obeyed. "The evidence shows that it wasnt the time to do it." What evidence? Was the "right time" sometime in the '90's? All Clinton did was bomb an asprin factory, that achieved nothing. We have angered the Iraqi people? How?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom