stuff that makes me wonder

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As I've said several times, I think the content is inherently more self reassuring.

Ah . . . more progress. In your initial post you unqualifiedly stated it, as if it were ipso facto true. Now, you've shifted to you "think" it. World of difference. This is just your unsubstantiated opinion formed through the filter of your unique vision into your self reassuring Spencerean opinion. Still doesn't, just because you think it, make it so.

The audience for conservative talk radio is really quite diverse, if it was that much more persuasive you'd think it would be creating more conservatives.

-spence

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And it would be logical to assume that someone who's "seen the light" would be much more likely to spread the word, in fact, it would also be really logical for a host to even emphasize these calls.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

Aahh . . . my black brother . . . may we see the light together.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your original "point" related to why conservative talk radio had a larger audience than liberal. In that arena, it may well have created more conservatives. A significant number of callers to various talk shows have said that they were once liberal, but, after listening, were persuaded to convert.

I was a liberal before listening to conservative radio post 9/11.