stuff that makes me wonder

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, I listened to Rush for years and the this element was pretty consistent. I hear a similar tone in the major conservative hosts.

Hearing "tones" can be, as was discussed in another thread some time ago, problematic. The tone you hear may be a result of what you bring to the transaction. Many who listen to Rush, or other conservative hosts, are usually hearing what they already believe but don't get to hear elsewhere. The host isn't going to intentionally wast air time to actually "tell" them that they are all right as they are, rather, the discussion is on terms to which they are already prone to agree. This is, from the little I've heard from liberal talk radio, what happens in the transaction between the liberal listeners and the liberal host. The positive "stroking" which you ascribe to conservative talk radio happens, in "tone" (what the listener brings), in liberal talk radio as well, so cannot account for the lack of liberal talk shows.

I wouldn't agree either that liberal programming asserts that everything is wrong. Granted, there's a much smaller sample to pull from.

I didn't say such programming asserts that "everything" is wrong, but that something is wrong, which is what you imputed to liberal programming which you claim tends to challenge the audience in order to "justify change" when "somethings wrong." By the way, much conservative talk radio deals with "something wrong" and challenges the audience, including the moderate and liberal listeners, to engage the debate--call in, among other things.

The question may really be, why does conservative talk radio appeal to moderates more than liberal talk radio.

-spence

Maybe, again, because conservative talk radio presents a venue to hear and discuss things they don't hear much elsewhere.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hearing "tones" can be, as was discussed in another thread some time ago, problematic. The tone you hear may be a result of what you bring to the transaction. Many who listen to Rush, or other conservative hosts, are usually hearing what they already believe but don't get to hear elsewhere. The host isn't going to intentionally wast air time to actually "tell" them that they are all right as they are, rather, the discussion is on terms to which they are already prone to agree.

I think the more popular hosts have somewhat diverse audiences. Certainly the best are also good entertainers.

This is, from the little I've heard from liberal talk radio, what happens in the transaction between the liberal listeners and the liberal host. The positive "stroking" which you ascribe to conservative talk radio happens, in "tone" (what the listener brings), in liberal talk radio as well, so cannot account for the lack of liberal talk shows.

Again, I think the issue is what will the middle respond to.

I didn't say such programming asserts that "everything" is wrong, but that something is wrong, which is what you imputed to liberal programming which you claim tends to challenge the audience in order to "justify change" when "somethings wrong." By the way, much conservative talk radio deals with "something wrong" and challenges the audience, including the moderate and liberal listeners, to engage the debate--call in, among other things.

From what I've heard of conservative talk radio, the subject usually is how things would be right if the liberal ideology would be removed. Hence the notion that you don't need to go changing on my behalf.

And don't tell me that Rush lets liberal positions be seriously represented on his show.

Change is hard. I have to help companies deal with it every day.

Maybe, again, because conservative talk radio presents a venue to hear and discuss things they don't hear much elsewhere.

When I listen to conservative talk radio I don't hear subjects or perspectives I don't hear in other media.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've heard of conservative talk radio, the subject usually is how things would be right if the liberal ideology would be removed. Hence the notion that you don't need to go changing on my behalf.

And what I've heard on liberal talk radio, to put it in your words but exchanging "conservative" for "liberal"--the subject usually is how things would be right if the conservative ideology would be removed. Which "strokes" the liberal audience and assures it that it doesn't have to change. Which, as hearsay on our parts, is not evidence for why there's a much smaller liberal presence in talk radio.

And don't tell me that Rush lets liberal positions be seriously represented on his show.

I didn't say he did. I said that conservative talk radio deals with the "somethings wrong" issue which you say is the meat of liberal talk radio, implying that conservative talk is just about stroking the listeners assuring them that they are right just as they are. I said he challenges his audience to dialog on the "something wrong" stuff (albeit from a different perspective than liberal radio). And, unless he's changed since I used to listen to him, he welcomes liberal callers, puts them ahead of others, and has a substantial dialog with them.


When I listen to conservative talk radio I don't hear subjects or perspectives I don't hear in other media.

-spence

Well, if "other media" includes liberal talk radio, then why is liberal talk radio so less successful? Anyway, I didn't say that subjects or perspectives heard on conservative radio are not discussed elsewhere. The discussions on conservative talk radio which I said listeners hear, including moderates and liberals, are not only about the subjects, certainly about the perspectives, but even more, the time and depth spent on those perspectives, and dealt with by those who have a less apologetically "right" or "conservative" view. Though I have heard some of this type of discussion on television, for the most part, even on fox, it is not as heavily slanted toward the right as on conservative talk radio. And it is not as thoroughly covered in the variety of details, even to the smallest complaints that conservatives have. And, certainly, such discussions on TV are minimal compared to liberal or centrist programs. Hence, my comment that conservative talk radio presents a venue for discussions that listeners don't hear MUCH elsewhere.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And what I've heard on liberal talk radio, to put it in your words but exchanging "conservative" for "liberal"--the subject usually is how things would be right if the conservative ideology would be removed. Which "strokes" the liberal audience and assures it that it doesn't have to change. Which, as hearsay on our parts, is not evidence for why there's a much smaller liberal presence in talk radio.

Well, no radio programming would succeed if it didn't respond play to it's audience. The point was that conservatives may have an easier job as they're tweaking a lower level emotion that's more common across all ideologies.

I didn't say he did. I said that conservative talk radio deals with the "somethings wrong" issue which you say is the meat of liberal talk radio, implying that conservative talk is just about stroking the listeners assuring them that they are right just as they are. I said he challenges his audience to dialog on the "something wrong" stuff (albeit from a different perspective than liberal radio). And, unless he's changed since I used to listen to him, he welcomes liberal callers, puts them ahead of others, and has a substantial dialog with them.

I don't think the format (i.e. Rush is ALWAYS right) has changed that much, although over the last decade I think he's become a little less tolerant.

As for having a substantial dialog with liberal callers, I can't say I've ever heard it.

Well, if "other media" includes liberal talk radio, then why is liberal talk radio so less successful?

I think what's been said above, as well as perhaps good timing. Rush emerged as a giant because he's pretty talented and spawned a lot of copy cats.

Anyway, I didn't say that subjects or perspectives heard on conservative radio are not discussed elsewhere. The discussions on conservative talk radio which I said listeners hear, including moderates and liberals, are not only about the subjects, certainly about the perspectives, but even more, the time and depth spent on those perspectives, and dealt with by those who have a less apologetically "right" or "conservative" view. Though I have heard some of this type of discussion on television, for the most part, even on fox, it is not as heavily slanted toward the right as on conservative talk radio. And it is not as thoroughly covered in the variety of details, even to the smallest complaints that conservatives have. And, certainly, such discussions on TV are minimal compared to liberal or centrist programs. Hence, my comment that conservative talk radio presents a venue for discussions that listeners don't hear MUCH elsewhere.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the venue produces that good of a discussion. It's primarily entertainment with little nutrition. About the only widely available programming that consistently gets to substance on a variety of issues is on NPR.

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

got that right

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think the format (i.e. Rush is ALWAYS right) has changed that much, although over the last decade I think he's become a little less tolerant.




-spence

Ya mean you think he's really serious" with 1/2 his brain tied behind his back" remark?
There are times ya have to lighten up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Ya mean you think he's really serious" with 1/2 his brain tied behind his back" remark?
There are times ya have to lighten up.

Certainly it's tongue in cheek.

But I also think that's the key to his schtick. Rush is very consistent with his message, and over time his base learns to predict what he'll say. I think that by allowing a listener to think they are as smart as he is perhaps is the foundation of the dittohead.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

But I also think that's the key to his schtick. Rush is very consistent with his message, and over time his base learns to predict what he'll say. I think that by allowing a listener to think they are as smart as he is perhaps is the foundation of the dittohead.

-spence

I agree, if you want more taxes, increase the defecit, and a larger govt
ya need to turn the dial. He is consistant with his message, so much so
that if ya miss listening for a few months ya pick up right where you left.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, no radio programming would succeed if it didn't respond play to it's audience.

Which is why stroking the audience, as you put it, is not a reason conservative talk is more successful than liberal.

The point was that conservatives may have an easier job as they're tweaking a lower level emotion that's more common across all ideologies.

Is there a subliminal message here? "The point" as described here is unclear.

As for having a substantial dialog with liberal callers, I can't say I've ever heard it.

That you didn't hear it simply means you didn't hear what millions of others did.

I think what's been said above, as well as perhaps good timing. Rush emerged as a giant because he's pretty talented and spawned a lot of copy cats.

Being talented encompasses more than just being entertaining. He's not so entertaining that he would so avidly and for so long be listened to just for entertainment. Contrary to what you "hear" and what "tone" you perceive, millions of others hear and percieve a philosophical and political discussion. And the "spawn" are not mere copy cats. They have their own "talent" and "tone" and many do have guests who they interview, and some of those guests are "liberal," and interesting, informative discussions ensue.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the venue produces that good of a discussion.

You do need to get rid of that "I'm not sure" locution that you often use. Just say "I disagree." Even though it may have a harsher "tone," it is more honest. And if you really are not sure if you would agree, wouldn't it be better not to comment since you would not have formed an opinion? And if "that" good implies some good, but not good enough for you, well, it's good enough for millions and obviously good enough to make it more successful than liberal talk radio.

It's primarily entertainment with little nutrition. About the only widely available programming that consistently gets to substance on a variety of issues is on NPR.

Perhaps I need to listen more.

-spence

Entertainment, as far as radio is concerned, IS "nutrition." Of course, you mean entertainment as a mild pejorative, a superior put down of lesser stuff that can't approach the level of NPR. Perhaps NPR is not as popular because it is boring. Entertainment CAN be derived from substance. Powerful, substantial, truthful, persuasive political and philosophical discourse is very "entertaining" and "nutritious" to open and inquisitive minds.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which is why stroking the audience, as you put it, is not a reason conservative talk is more successful than liberal.

Is there a subliminal message here? "The point" as described here is unclear.

The point was made in my initial post.

That you didn't hear it simply means you didn't hear what millions of others did.

That assumes that they did.

Being talented encompasses more than just being entertaining. He's not so entertaining that he would so avidly and for so long be listened to just for entertainment. Contrary to what you "hear" and what "tone" you perceive, millions of others hear and percieve a philosophical and political discussion. And the "spawn" are not mere copy cats. They have their own "talent" and "tone" and many do have guests who they interview, and some of those guests are "liberal," and interesting, informative discussions ensue.

I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

You do need to get rid of that "I'm not sure" locution that you often use. Just say "I disagree." Even though it may have a harsher "tone," it is more honest. And if you really are not sure if you would agree, wouldn't it be better not to comment since you would not have formed an opinion? And if "that" good implies some good, but not good enough for you, well, it's good enough for millions and obviously good enough to make it more successful than liberal talk radio.

I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

Entertainment, as far as radio is concerned, IS "nutrition." Of course, you mean entertainment as a mild pejorative, a superior put down of lesser stuff that can't approach the level of NPR. Perhaps NPR is not as popular because it is boring. Entertainment CAN be derived from substance. Powerful, substantial, truthful, persuasive political and philosophical discourse is very "entertaining" and "nutritious" to open and inquisitive minds.

Agree that NPR can be quite boring, but perhaps part of that is because you often get information closer to the source, rather than what's been processes multiple times to increase it's entertainment value. Cable news is particular bad in this regard.

But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The point was made in my initial post.

The point you asserted but never really "made" in your initial post was that the reason conservative talk radio is more popular than liberal talk is that it "tends to reassure their audiences" and that Rush's "message is always that you're fine just as you are . . ." And that "liberal programming by contrast tends to challenge the audience. You can't justify change unless you think something's wrong. Most people would rather be stroked than provoked." You never demonstrated this, merely asserted it. I similarly used your hearsay method of simply asserting that reassuring stroking also occurs in the liberal talk shows and the "something's wrong" discussions to challenge audiences and callers happens in conservative talk shows so that your assertion is flawed.

That assumes that they did.

Yes, I assume that millions heard what you did not, otherwise he wouldn't consistently hold the audience, and many, as well, say as much when they call. Plus, there is one that assuredly heard what you didn't--me.

I've never said there's no philosophy involved in the formula, or that a copy cat can succeed without any talent. Though, I do think the philosophy is subordinate to the entertainment.

Phew! At least you admit the philosophy is there. Progress! Ugh, the philosophy is part and parcel OF the entertainment.

I disagree. Just because something isn't black and white or you haven't reached a conclusion doesn't mean there may still be an opinion.

If your "not sure" that the venue produces that good of a discussion, then your "not sure" that it doesn't. So where or what is the opinion there?


But ultimately, the primary motivation of talk radio is to build a base of listeners to drive advertising revenue, I think Rush has even said as much of himself. Would this be possible if the message wasn't reassuring to the listener? I don't think they could do it on pure entertainment value alone.

-spence

All media must build a base of listeners or else it talks to nobody. And all who participate in the building and maintenance of that base must get paid. And there must be value for that base or it will disappear. This is the stuff of life. There must be mutual stroking or starvation will ensue. Various media has its niche. Talk radio can be about many topics. There are financial shows. There are health shows. There are religious shows. Some talk shows are political to a great degree. Some are "conservative" and some are "liberal." The Conservative ones seem to be more popular. Is conservatism more entertaining? Is there even the remotest possibility that, at least as presented on these shows. that it is more persuasive?