TIO: Conservative talk radio misconceptions

[TR1992]

I can sum this up real quickly. I used to be what I thought a liberal was supposed to be,I was open to other people's point of view
I was willing to listen to what others had to say and I still am. The problem is the word liberal does not mean IMHO what it used too
These days when you disagree with a "LIBERAL" your branded as an angry white male nutjob. If you don't agree with Al Gore you
are "OUT OF TOUCH" if you don't want Senator Clinton elected President you are a "ANTI-WOMAN" it has nothing to do with the fact
that you don't agree with them,you are just automatically branded a bigot! That is why people like Rush,Savage,Hannity became
so popular because they validated other people's point of view. Wow there is someone out there that does not think I am nuts for
not wanting to be facist or a socialist or a communist and there our callers out there too and a lot of them,that agree with this!
When Rush first came on the air I still thought i was a "LIBERAL" after listening to him a few times I realized that "LIBERALS" are
angry socialists who want to control every aspect of my life take as much of my hard earned money out of my pocket as they can
to keep them in power. People out there seriously wake up Adolf Hitler did not just pop out of no where and start throwing people
into gas chambers,he did what he did because people believed his lies long enough that in there minds it became the truth and if you don't beleive me why not read his book and compare it to todays democratic party,you wont find much difference.

[Steven21]

I can sum this up real quickly. I used to be what I thought a liberal was supposed to be,I was open to other people's point of view
I was willing to listen to what others had to say and I still am. The problem is the word liberal does not mean IMHO what it used too
These days when you disagree with a "LIBERAL" your branded as an angry white male nutjob. If you don't agree with Al Gore you
are "OUT OF TOUCH" if you don't want Senator Clinton elected President you are a "ANTI-WOMAN" it has nothing to do with the fact
that you don't agree with them,you are just automatically branded a bigot! That is why people like Rush,Savage,Hannity became
so popular because they validated other people's point of view. Wow there is someone out there that does not think I am nuts for
not wanting to be facist or a socialist or a communist and there our callers out there too and a lot of them,that agree with this!
When Rush first came on the air I still thought i was a "LIBERAL" after listening to him a few times I realized that "LIBERALS" are
angry socialists who want to control every aspect of my life take as much of my hard earned money out of my pocket as they can
to keep them in power. People out there seriously wake up Adolf Hitler did not just pop out of no where and start throwing people
into gas chambers,he did what he did because people believed his lies long enough that in there minds it became the truth and if you don't beleive me why not read his book and compare it to todays democratic party,you wont find much difference.

While that may be true to SOME extent, is the answer to that mentality, an equally as irrational mindset on the other side---completely shutting out any reason or varied opinion? It's all very childish.

Reasonably intelligent adults who want to be entertained DO NOT fear varied opinions or philosophies.

Catering to the closed minded lunatic fringe in a closed market has become talkradio's M.O.

[TR1992]

Your right I was out of line with some of my comments, I was in a bad mood the night I typed that, and I sincerely apologize to
anyone I may have offended with my post .

[Brother Bear]

Liberals misperceive talk radio beacuse it's natural to fear or hate (or both) things you don't understand. Terms like 'closed-minded lunatic fringe' bear that out. I guess by their definition the 20+ million that listen to Limbaugh and Hannity every week fall into that 'lunatic fringe'.
There is no more effective way to communicate to the masses than radio, and that will always be the case as long as radios outnumber TV's by the ridiculous margin they do now.
Radio frustrates Liberal talking heads because of the abject failure of Air America as well as the pathetic comercial unviablilty of NPR. You could go into reasons for their failure, which would prove to be a fascinating sociological study, but the bottom line is this ... they hate CONSERVATIVE talk radio becuase it effectively unites conservatives across the country by spreading the word.
As far as Air America and NPR are concerned I remind you of the old paradigm ... if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make any noise?

[Sean Gilbow]

Liberals misperceive talk radio beacuse it's natural to fear or hate (or both) things you don't understand. Terms like 'closed-minded lunatic fringe' bear that out. I guess by their definition the 20+ million that listen to Limbaugh and Hannity every week fall into that 'lunatic fringe'.
There is no more effective way to communicate to the masses than radio, and that will always be the case as long as radios outnumber TV's by the ridiculous margin they do now.
Radio frustrates Liberal talking heads because of the abject failure of Air America as well as the pathetic comercial unviablilty of NPR. You could go into reasons for their failure, which would prove to be a fascinating sociological study, but the bottom line is this ... they hate CONSERVATIVE talk radio becuase it effectively unites conservatives across the country by spreading the word.
As far as Air America and NPR are concerned I remind you of the old paradigm ... if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make any noise?

Misperception goes both ways.

1.  The reason NPR is not commercially viable is because NPR is only heard on non-commercial stations.

2.  If you combined the audiences for Limbaugh and Hannity, based on the latest numbers from Talkers magazine, the bear would be correct.  However, the latest numbers put Limbaugh at 13.5 million and Hannity at 12.5 million.

3.  If you were to talk with the so-called founder of modern conservatism, Richard Viguerie, he would agree that conservatives are united...in that true conservatives are disgusted with what the current administration and their minions have done to hurt the Republican party.  Mr. Viguerie is a regular guest with Ed Schultz, the nation's leading progressive talker with 3.25 million listeners (tied with Bill O'Reilly) after nearly four years on the air.

4.  The liberal talkers with audiences in excess of 1 million (only 39 talkers achieved this during the spring of 2007) either have no affiliation with Air America (Jones Radio's Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, Fox News Radio's Alan Colmes) or had an established audience before joining Air America (Lionel, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes).  What makes the numbers real interesting is the audiences increased for these talkers while their number of affiliates decreased.  Then again, all of these talkers are heard on stations where conservative talkers can also be heard.

Yes, I was an Air America listener.  But my listening is now strictly to Rachel Maddow and "State of Belief."  The only podcasts I subscribe to are Big Eddie and Steph, both of whom have a reputation for driving hardcore liberals nuts.

Big Eddie is hunting this weekend, by the way.  So Bear, you will hear something in the forest this weekend--gun shots.  We're all thankful that Cheney did his shooting last weekend without incident.

One last thing...both Big Eddie and Steph have had Ron Paul as a guest.  As in the Republican Congressman from Texas who just raised $4 million in one day.

[Brother Bear]

I bring NPR to the table because it is bolstered by the taxpayer and not forced to compete in the radio marketplace like conservative talkers and Air America. Any corporate sponsors of NPR are allowed to write off their support as a tax deductable contribution, and if all goes as planned with the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, NPR will NOT have to abide by it. An interesting, if uneven playing field.
I voted for Bush twice and am disgusted by the fiscal irresponsibilty he has shown as far as spending is concerned. Tax cuts that have the Treasury rolling in loot are for nought because of out of control spending by a congress that has been and continues to be ineffective at anything except losing the confidence of the American people.
Ron Paul raked in $4 million in a day because so many people have become disenthralled with the status quo, and that's pretty much all the current list of Presidential hopefuls offer ... more of the same empty promises, and some promises that eclipse our worst nightmares!

[noborderwall]

I understand your anger TR.  I also get angry at the simple-minded conservative talk show hosts who tend to lump anyone who disagrees with them into one group they label as "liberal".  There are too many issues, and too many opinions on those issues, for anyone to be labeled anything.  There are degrees of liberalism, just as there are degrees of conservatism, with Rush and Sean being on the fringe.  But just when my blood begins to boil, I realize that Rush and Sean are not really changing anyone's mind.  They're just preaching to the choir.  Unfortunately that choir is pretty big.  I still believe there is a left-leaning talk show host out there somewhere who can garner a similar audience -- those who are open-minded, those who understand that the problems of this world are not black and white -- that there were other solutions than going to war with Iraq, and that Iran is not Iraq, etc...

[Sean Gilbow]

I bring NPR to the table because it is bolstered by the taxpayer and not forced to compete in the radio marketplace like conservative talkers and Air America. Any corporate sponsors of NPR are allowed to write off their support as a tax deductable contribution, and if all goes as planned with the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, NPR will NOT have to abide by it. An interesting, if uneven playing field.
I voted for Bush twice and am disgusted by the fiscal irresponsibilty he has shown as far as spending is concerned. Tax cuts that have the Treasury rolling in loot are for nought because of out of control spending by a congress that has been and continues to be ineffective at anything except losing the confidence of the American people.
Ron Paul raked in $4 million in a day because so many people have become disenthralled with the status quo, and that's pretty much all the current list of Presidential hopefuls offer ... more of the same empty promises, and some promises that eclipse our worst nightmares!

The resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine is a myth.  And hosts like Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz do not want it returning.  In Stephanie's case, it would result in losing comic material from the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly which makes up the first hour of her show.

As for the fiscal irresponsbility, you have only yourself to blame for voting for Bush twice.  The only way for America to get back toward fiscal solvency is to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

[Brother Bear]

I still wonder why Miller & Schultz rely on whatever Hannity and O'Reilly say for material. If indeed the issues are so diverse and complex, why would they cull what they regard as simplistic drivel from those two? Wouldn't it make sense for Stephanie and Ed to express their agenda in their own words and use their own talents rather than draw attention to their adversary?
Which are more relevant to them? The war, the economy, and immigration, or Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly?
I stand by my votes for Bush because the ultra-leftist alternatives in '00 and '04 would have ruined any credibility we had left after 8 years of bombing aspirin factories and turning down custody of bin Laden as an excuse for foreign policy.
For everyone who is misguided enough to believe Islamist extremist governments can be dealt with through normal diplomatic channels, I remind you Chamberlain thought the same thing of Hitler. How long after Chamberlain waved that piece of paper and declared 'peace in our time' were British and French civilians being killed by the tens of thousands?

[Sean Gilbow]

I still wonder why Miller & Schultz rely on whatever Hannity and O'Reilly say for material. If indeed the issues are so diverse and complex, why would they cull what they regard as simplistic drivel from those two? Wouldn't it make sense for Stephanie and Ed to express their agenda in their own words and use their own talents rather than draw attention to their adversary?
Which are more relevant to them? The war, the economy, and immigration, or Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly?
I stand by my votes for Bush because the ultra-leftist alternatives in '00 and '04 would have ruined any credibility we had left after 8 years of bombing aspirin factories and turning down custody of bin Laden as an excuse for foreign policy.
For everyone who is misguided enough to believe Islamist extremist governments can be dealt with through normal diplomatic channels, I remind you Chamberlain thought the same thing of Hitler. How long after Chamberlain waved that piece of paper and declared 'peace in our time' were British and French civilians being killed by the tens of thousands?

And as a result, tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, along with nearly 4,000 U.S. troops, and we have no credibility with respect to foreign policy.

And one of your so-called ultra-leftist alternatives just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

If you stand by your vote, you admit to your role in the deaths of not only the aforementioned people, but those who died as a result of Hurricane Katrina and other smaller disasters made possible through Bush administration "incompetence."

I'd rather be misguided than have blood on my hands.