Unlike you, I have provided a detailed discussion of my point, which is simply this: talk radio in its present format is simply inadequate for creating a firm intellectual foundation. It must necessarily deal with issues on a very shallow basis. That's because it depends on the opinions of a single host, who doesn't have time to do much more than to prepare for the next day's show. It's just not possible for them to go into the depth required to build a serious intellectual foundation.
The result, unfortunately, is "conservatives" like you, who do great with the emotional responses, but who can't be bothered to think.
I absolutely disagree that talk radio cannot be a forum for developing firm intellectual foundations and here’s why:
How do people primarily communicate? They talk. It used to be around the campfire. Now it’s around the radio.
How do they remember what was said? They write it down. Long format “talks” take the form of books.
Pictures convey certain types of information more efficiently than words, but they distract from the “text” part of understanding because they require a different type of concentration than words do. Abstract logic is for the most part left behind and “visual logic” steps in. For this reason pictures are more distracting than words alone if what you want is to deal with things like principles.
The Television uses both pictures and words. But the distraction of the pictures overrides the processing of the words and that is what explains TV’s capacity to entertain while comprehension is reduced.
THE POINT is that when a human is engaged in primary communication - words - that person can bring their full powers of concentration and logic to the issues at hand. Radio most closely resembles a primary talking environment. As a result, logic and deeper understanding is possible without the distraction of pictures. Abstract thinking - such as defining principles - is enhanced.
WHY DO LIBERALS FAIL ON RADIO BUT NOT SO MUCH ON TV? Because on radio there are no pictures to distract from the logical analysis of the words being offered. This allows most people to hear the sophism and weak or deceptive argument techniques of the left.
Someone like Rush, who relies heavily not only on humor but on carefully reasoned logical arguments, CAN in fact set up a very logically constructed framework for principles that ends up being very persuasive.
Liberals, on the other hand, use lesser and pseudo-arguments and those are recognized, even subconsciously, by listeners. They respond by turning off the radio.
Liberals have intellects made for TV and other picture media. Witness their success there as opposed to radio.
SO, if we stick to words and logic we can use radio to mass communicate. If we want specifically visual information to override the logical construction of our communication then we use TV.
Radio is therefore the perfect medium for mass communication of exactly such things as political principles.