Why the Right Rules the Radio Waves

New York Times ^ | 12-08-2002 | John Leland

[bigaln2]

This is the story that was featured on "Washington Journal" this morning.

[Always Right]

Hard to believe a fairly honest piece on Rush in the New York Times.

[anniegetyourgun]

Where radio conservatives have thrived by drawing hard distinctions between right and wrong, he said, "the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values." In the heat of drive-time squawk, he said, "That's easily thrown back in their face by making them look mealy-mouthed."

Contrarywise, NO ONE has to MAKE liberals look mealy-mouthed. It's a natural state.

[Wonder Warthog]

Hey, John-Boy Leland---the Democrats "DO" have a "destruction machine", and you work for one cog of it. The Republicans have talk radio, the Democrats have the print media, television, and most university faculty. Sounds like the "propaganda advantage" STILL goes to the Democrats.

What a maroon!!!!!

[PLK]

As for the earnest Ivy League variety, ever eager to engage in serious debate over significant issues, they can always go write for "The West Wing." Its ratings have been falling, by the way.

Good one.

[martin_fierro]

The NYT -- liberal "Newspaper of Record" -- whines about conservative control of the radio airwaves. Pardon the irony.

[goldstategop]

The liberal Landrieu won in Louisiana by pretending to be a conservative. Which is exactly the point. We do rule even in defeat!!!

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[A_perfect_lady]

Translation: when you're backed up on the expressway and a radio voice is howling at you, why isn't that voice ever a liberal?

This is called the Free Market. Wow, huh? Never heard of that, did ya? This is what you get when you offer people a CHOICE rather than deluge them with state-funded (or Ted Turner-funded) propaganda 24/7.

[moneyrunner]

Not so honest. I refer you to the close: "As for the earnest Ivy League variety, ever eager to engage in serious debate over significant issues, they can always go write for "The West Wing."

[Kerberos]

Then there is also this line.

""If you take a group of people who never listened to talk radio before, and then look at their attitudes six months later, you'll see a clear change" reflecting the views of Mr. Limbaugh."

Which to me is another way of saying that conservatives don't know what to think until they listen to Rush. The liberal Rushbot idea.

[leadpenny]

Bump.

[fporretto]

The Times has a gift for missing the point and presenting its prejudices instead.

Conservative talk radio tends to be contentious, impassioned -- and highly interactive. Conservative hosts engage their callers, often getting back as good as they give.

Leftists cannot do this. The reasons should be obvious -- and they make utter nonsense out of the Times's contention that leftists' embrace of "diversity" is less entertaining than conservatives' "hard distinctions between right and wrong."

You will never, ever hear a leftist admit to being wrong. You will never, ever hear a leftist admit that he might not have all the answers. And you will never, ever hear a leftist concede the moral equality of anyone who disagrees with him. Of course these things don't fly in talk radio!

But don't look for any such analysis in the pages of the New York Times.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com

[Arkie2]

I notice the "fairness doctrine" popped up in this article. Rush has mentioned it a few times on his show, as in, the only way they can compete is to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Wonder if the socialists ( I've decided to stop calling them liberals ) will start a campaign to put it back in place? "The Republicans are in charge and it won't happen" you say? Well, they're patient. If the noise level about the fairness doctrine ( like the SUV chorus has ) goes up, expect it to be on the agenda the next time Dims get an opportunity.

[CurlyDave]

There are very few liberal talk radio hosts because of their poor ratings. The poor ratings come from the fact that there are very few liberal talk radio listeners.

Why is this? Very simple, most people who listen to talk radio do this in their car during the commute. What distinguishes these people from others?

They all have a job and they all pay taxes. Otherwise they would not be commuting.

These people are the backbone of America. We are the ones who actually go out and work for a living, producing something of value for the rest of the country.

[thedilg]

"The NYT -- liberal "Newspaper of Record" -- whines about conservative control of the radio airwaves. Pardon the irony."

The irony is all persuasive. The liberals also own the universities, hollywood, almost all national newspapers and the mainstream TV, a huge proportion of the think tanks, most of the big philanthrophic organizations. They have a powerful nexus with the UN. They also own the grammar and high school educational systems.I could continue, but that is enough. It is their common strategy, accuse the others of doing what you do.

I believe that this is the prelude to put a muzzle on talk radio.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[johnnyb93]

It is pretty easy to understand why conservatives rule the airwaves. They are consistent in their views and passionate in their approach. Liberals, by definition, are not "true believers" as are conservatives. They, by definition, are open to change and are, as so many in this forum describe them, "meally mouthed". They are more willing to admit they do not have any answers and the typical commuter in traffic wants answers, not questions. Liberals, by nature, think that there is a better way to do things, while conservatives, in general, believe that there is little to improve on the traditional ways, so new things must be assaulted with passion. It makes better radio.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is an almost-correct article from the New York Times. It notes that conservatives are successful on air, but liberals are not. It notes that this is a market-driven medium, so success depends solely and immediately on drawing and keeping an audience.

The one glaring error is the quote from the so-called expert that "liberals" are too "tolerant of differing viewpoints" to develop the hard edge that conservatives use to succeed. Obviously this maroon has never listened to the persistent bias of the Rt. Rev. Jesse Jackson on "Both Sides." Obviously this fool has never listened to a single sentence of the venom that has poured out of the mouth of James Carville for 11 years now.

The article is good, except for its bottom line. Liberals have a "yap gap" because the audience doesn't like them or their ideas. That's the truth. But like many truths in America today, it is one the Times is afraid to face, or print.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Enrons Are Everywhere" Also posted on FR.

Click for latest book, "to Restore Trust in America"

[CurlyDave]

conservatives don't know what to think until they listen to Rush

The alternative explanation is that after listening to a few months of sound reasoning and sensible opinions, people tend to agree with the opinions presented.

[PaulJ]

...the liberal tradition as we understand it acknowledges a diversity of people and values.

What a crock! That is why liberal radio hosts can't make it?? It's such a typical meaningless bunch of words that explains nothing.

Conservative radio works because conservatives like ideas. Liberals prefer emotion and feel good platitudes.Symbolism over substance. And that type of thing just doesn't make for good radio.