Liberal Radio Is Planned by Rich Group of Democrats

The New York Times ^ | 02/17/03 | JIM RUTENBERG

[pollwatcher]

BTW, when I goggled the Drobnys, I saw mostly references to their religious endowments and institutes. I wonder if they'll get the same lamestream reaction as religious Right-Wingers get for such ventures.

[timestax]

I hope they go for it--and spend huge amounts of money on it! Yes, by all means!! Why not scoop a few mil out of the 2004 election coffers, Dems? 21 posted on 02/17/2003 7:08 AM PST by ez (WHERE'S THE POLLING DATA ON THE ESTRADA FILIBUSTER???) [ Post Reply

Yes, the more they spend, the more they keep the economy going strong!

[arthurus]

The bottom line: America does not support the liberal beliefs of large, bureaucratic government,

I don't think it even gets so far as that. Liberals cannot debate. All they can do is yell slogans and hang up on a caller that disagrees with them because their whole system of "belief" is incompatible with logic and noncongruent with facts. Conservatives calling these shows insist on logic and facts. Even a dedicated liberal can listen only so long to a talk show host who does not take calls or who only takes laudatory or "yeah!-what-you-said" calls. If the host tries to argue with a caller the lib listeners just get embarrassed .

The liberal listener already knows all the slogans and the VRWC stuff gets old fast. The lib host offers nothing new- no new slant that isn't available on the TV networks.

The liberal host soon has almost only conservative listeners who are lined up to straighten him out and who won't admit to a ratings service that they listen to the guy. If the liberal host lasts it is because he doesn't discuss politics much any more and confines himself to describing weird sex or telling fat jokes.

[PUGACHEV]

You wonder why Sheldon and Anita Drobny didn't just donate more money to Pacifica Radio instead of going to the trouble of producing their own programs. Surly, it's because the venture capitalists from Chicago find Pacifica Radio's frequent rants againt venture capitalists too liberal.

[jaz.357]

To Save time and trouble,,just give the CA$H to one of your VENOM SPEWING pRESIDENTIAL cANDIDATES,,try to BUY OFF LIMBAUGH,,or just throw the bucks DOWN A "RAT HOLE! Same result!!

[arthurus]

bad, but because they're also lousy broadcasters.

They don't feel they need to put any actual work in their broadcasts because they believe their positions are so totally self evident that they don't have to back them up logically or with anything like facts. Actually they must believe in the obvious self-evidence of liberalism because it just is not amenable to rational analysis.

[Budge]

"They say their concern is that there are far fewer successful, outright partisan voices on the left than there are on the right."

They CAN'T really believe that.......can they? Rush must be laughing himself silly.

I think they do believe that.

The left has yet to understand, nor will they ever, that the success of Rush (21 hours a week) dominates the news.

They think that FOX leans (hell, not "leans," but is conservative in their little minds) is due to the fact that FOX presents both sides of the story, not just their side.

They can't see the forest for the trees. :)

Someone please explain to me how Geraldo, Gretta, Colmes and others on FOX are "conservative."

[arthurus]

he biggest hurdle facing the venture is assigning blame to who when the venture fails.

That's easy. It is the stationa managers with their greedy focus on Profits and the Rich Capitalist Owners with their focus also on that almighty dollar. They refuse to keep the Liberals on the air and finance the right wing extremists because rich corporate owners are necessarily rightwing oppressors.

Actually the left faces an impossible task in getting their word out through the media because most of Big Media is owned by those big conservative corporate capitalists. At least that is their current occasion for breastbeating.

[blackdog]

Isn't that why we have NPR? I mean when any liberal venture fails because it's mission cannot be supported by standard economic factors any private venture must live with, it then becomes a need for taxpayer funding. Will we now have NPR, NPR1, NPR2, NPRINFINITY...?

[arthurus]

it cannot be declared this failure was due to lack of funding

Oh yes it can! It will be loudly "declared" as due to insufficient funding, at least for a while. You see, those right wing extremists are funded by Big Corporate sponsors to keep them on the air. Liberals will say they just can't compete with that. They don't seem to have any notion at all of profitibility and of choice among listeners. They think all they have to do is keep a show on the air and everybody will hear it and be edified. After all, that's how Rush does it. Rich conservatives just keep him on the air and everyone hears him. It's not fair.

[Budge]

I don't know if this audio link will work or not, but give it your full attention if it does.

Click.

[arthurus]

I hope they understand that it takes billions of dollars and are ready to spend those billions to keep their viewpoint on the radio.

[SupplySider]

They can rig elections with ballot fraud, illegal immigrant voters, etc. They can't succeed in a capitalist marketplace because they can't cheat!

[rpage3]

As I said on the other thread, folks, I recently read a book titled, "Double Take - Politically Incorrect Limericks" by some body named Jaggero; it's a funny as heck and cheap book that makes some great observations about this particular idiot (FRANKEN) and those of his ilk, terrorists, politicians (ours), pop-culture and society, in general. Check out their website here:

http://www.doubletakebook.com

I'll say this too, if this book had a liberal slant it would be hailed by the media as a pure work of art! A picture I took of a poster ad (in NYC) can be seen here:

http://home.nyc.rr.com/sandr/poster1.jpg

[William Terrell]

Give Hannity a break. While I'm often critical of his style on opposing viewpoints, he is still a very good, intelligent, thoughtful, well experienced talk show host. His only problem is that he believes central authority is appropriate for handling purely moral issues not involving injury to another.

[arthurus]

the constant listing of what is coming next.

That's his television training. It does not translate well.

[c0rbin]

"Conservativism has never been about the status quo "

In the above sentence do you mean Conservative to be synonymous with Republican? IE - "Republicans [in the year 2003] do not want to maintain a status quo..." ??

[No Truce With Kings]

"The argument is valid, but irrelevant if no one is watching, listening to, or reading liberal media drivel."

Which is exactly why we should encourage their efforts. Let them pour their money into a RAThole.

[c0rbin]

"look at the liberal resistance to try anything new"

Thanks for replying.

This confuses me. Isn't the sentence above a contradiction (barring some new convention where Liberal = Democrat and Conservative = Republican)?

It seems to ma that someone who is willing to try something new is NOT conservative, yet you say a libral was not willing to try something new.

This makes sense in light of your first paragraph ("Conservatives are the ones..."). Now my question would be, why not address the issues and stances on those issues?

Every talk radio personality I hear rants about "liberals." Yet rarley do I hear an issue and the depths behind it from either camp.

I am concerned because it is easy to apply a label and dismiss someone outright: "Oh, she's just a libral [therefore every thing she says is tainted]."

That seems pretty closed-minded to me and not the road a "free thinker" should take.

[Nachum]

As the Joker said to Batman:

He who laughs last, laughs GOOD.