Asymmetrical Information

As for nasty partisan name calling, they made Ann Coulter look like Ann Taylor. 'Howard Kurtz is a pig', 'liars, criminals, Nazis", blahblahblah.

I see others have an even stronger reaction. Some of the backers must be embarassed to be associated with this.

You act almost as if you think that that this is not what the backers had in mind.

Some portion surely had name-calling in mind. Of those, how many had badly produced and tragically unfunny name-calling in mind?

It's pretty similar to Hannity and Rush in tone.

It seems that that is what the format demands.

I read an L.A. Times columnist, an avowed liberal, who spent all day lsitening to Air America, and said the difference between Limbaugh and A.A. is that Limbaugh is a much funnier hurler of insults. I've never heard A.A., and stopped listening to Limbaugh in the mid 90s, so I can't say.

Out of curiosity, I listened to it for a while over the Web.

It's ghastly.

Limbaugh is entertaining. I have to give him that. He pisses me off to no extent because he is the primary person anyone near the right is associated with. But he is funny to listen to. I'm at work during his show so I get a good reason to ignore him.

Hannity, however is on during my ride. George Bush could murder an entire class of school children on a field trip to the zoo and Hannity would praise him. Plus, he'll plug his show. Repeatedly.

I prefer those who are on my side of the political spectrum to not be shills for anyone. I like it when someone calls it as it is rather than how they want to see it.

This is why I listen to Schnitt instead. He's entertaining, right-leaning, highly critical of the Bush Administration, and funny as hell.

Because of my blood pressure, I don't think I want to listen to A.A.

I tried listening to Air America a couple of times. Randi Rhodes was the host. She struck me as the left-wing equivalent not of Hannity (who never engages in ad hominem attacks) or Limbaugh, let alone a thinker like Ingraham, but rather of Michael Savage - all angry name calling, no humor, no analysis. I don't listen to him, either.

The show also seems to attrack the denizens of the fever swamps (which may be true generally for call-in radio). Sample: she and a male caller were happily agreeing with each other that Condi Rice is a liar and a scoundrel, etc. when suddenly the caller said that Rice looks just like the female chimpanzee from Planet of the Apes - well, Randi knew that was a bridge too far and so she cut him off after giving a little speech about how she, unlike Rush, didn't believe in hate, blah, blah. I say, when you lie down with dogs, etc. etc.

Ingraham is a thinker??

A thinker?

Hannity doesn't engage in ad hominem's?

"Who cares what you think?"

-- George W. Bush

I don't know why liberals cannot have a lot of success in talk radio. Before Rush, most of the hosts of local talk radio shows were liberal. That changed with Rush. What Rush brought for conservatives was a sense that they were not alone in the world. That there were others how felt as you did about the issues of the day. When the ONLY media voices seemed so predominately liberal, Rush was like a drink of water to someone walking through a desert. Before Rush, you had to wait a full week to hear George Will on ABC's Sunday talk show. Rush brought a word of encouragement 3 hours a day 5 days a week.

Today the airwaves are filled with conservatives hosting their own radio show. If liberals feel as lonely as conservatives once did, almost any liberal radio host will do -- as long as they are entertaining. But, since liberals still have the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., I doubt liberals are nearly as desperate to hear someone agree with them as conservatives once were.

I've been wondering why the AA people decided they needed a network, rather than concentrating on putting together a successful (say) three hour show. According to Mindles' link to James Ruhland, at least two stations wanted to carry just Franken's show, but were not allowed to (because they also carry Rush).

It seems to me that "liberal talk radio" would be much more likely to survive if it started small and, as they work the kinks out, expanded the length and number of shows, as well as the number of stations carrying them. Instead, they seem to have decided they needed to be instantly "nationwide", and needed 17 hours of programming right away.

BTW, this press release on the AA site says they've settled with MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting as far as the Chicago station goes. "As part of the settlement, Air America Radio will remain on WNTD until April 30, 2004." Um, isn't that next week? I guess they have another Chicago station on tap; either that, or they really are running out of money (smile).

Air American should hire Dave Chappelle immediately. I can't figure out whether he is liberal or conservative or neither, but he's funny. His "Black Bush" sketch last week was absolutely hilarious.

Although I think he's probably liberal, his skits seem to ultimately endorse the conservative position. (Well, you've got to overlook the fact that he may or may not be an overt black racist, depending on whether you think he's serious or not. The show features at least one racial revenge killing of a white man every week.)

The "Black Bush" segment was classic. It featured Chappelle as Bush, trash talking the U.N. At one point, Chappelle said that the Iraq war was payback for the attempted assassination of Bush's father. I tend to believe that myself, although if it is the case, my admiration for Bush would only increase.

A nation that will not avenge an attack on its senior father figure is a nation that has lost its mind and its courage. But, then, I'm just an old male chauvinist who lives in the real world. I stand ready to take my beating from those of you who live in the perfect world of great ideals. Proceed.

And before you begin the beating, I confess to listening to Hannity.

Hannity invites both conservatives and liberals onto his program and he doesn't shout down anybody. He's remarkably well mannered and soft spoken.

If you think otherwise, I suspect you haven't really listened to him. Try it. He's a pretty reasonable guy. And I often disagree with him.

Hannity invites both conservatives and liberals onto his program and he doesn't shout down anybody. He's remarkably well mannered and soft spoken.

If you think otherwise, I suspect you haven't really listened to him. Try it. He's a pretty reasonable guy. And I often disagree with him.

That’s been my impression as well although I don’t care much for his particular brand of “nice guy” conservatism as he tends to fawn a bit too much over the opposition and he spends too much time with idle chit-chat with his callers rather than picking ones that offer interesting or substantive points. Plus I tend to avoid radio programs where the host is on a book tour as they tend to bring it up every other segment and make it the focus of some of some of their programs by inviting guests to come on and talk about their book. However his self-promotion aside, he does tend to draw an impressive array of guests.

BTW if you want to listen to really good talk radio program, I highly recommend Dennis Prager. Prager does invite people from the Left on to debate issues with him and tries to pick those who can make the strongest argument for their POV (rather than setting up a strawman argument like some of the morons who usually get set up a the “liberal caller”) and gives them ample time to make their case rather than trying to box them into some absurd position. He is also highly respectful of his listeners and callers, not prone to sappy “can I be your buddy” banter, rarely promotes his book unless it pertains to a topic he is addressing, and generally puts out a thoughtful and engaging program.

"Hannity, however is on during my ride. George Bush could murder an entire class of school children on a field trip to the zoo and Hannity would praise him."

You should listen more often... he opposes Bush on several issues.

Comments are Closed.