In article
,
Leonard Martin wrote:

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote:



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ed/articles/20
0
4
/03/30/lib
eral_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/



The upshot of this article, shorn of all it's chest-beating in
favor
of
right-wing concepts, is that AM talk radio has the ears of
ignorant
people, there are far more ignorant people in America than
educated
ones, therefore liberal AM talk won't work.

Can't argue with that.

And to think, some of these right-wing ninnies actually see
liberals
as arrogant, condescending, and overly impressed with their own
intelligence. How far off-base can you be!


And lots of right-wingers think they're "the real people" simply
because
they don't know much about much of anything. At least us snooty
liberals
generally have sizeable collections of facts and ideas at our
disposal!


If only you'd put those collections on exhibit once in a while.

Your last two posts are Exhibits A & B in why the left has so much
trouble winning elections in this country despite being
disproportionately represented in dominant media outlets. Those
great unwashed you sneer at are smart enough to realize what you
really think of them.



It has always been thus. In society there's always a conservative
peasantry--sticking religiously to the most ancient and outdated
ideas, taking them all en masse without critical examination--, and
an educated avant garde who's members are willing to think new ideas
and try new things, which is a necessary preparation for meeting
changed conditions.

Example: tradiitional Islamistist CANNOT be induced to treat women
like people, no matter how hard some of their leaders try to make
them do so.

Our right-wing commentators know how to restate the unexamined
traditional ideas, essentially YELLING them back at the great
unwashed over and over again (which yelling the G. U. take as a valid
form of argument), and thereby give the G. U. the erroneous
impression that those ideas have been carefully examined and endorsed
by a true thinker. This gives the listeners a temporary sense of
security about things they'ed been growing a little uncertain about
because they've heard their society's true thinkers calling them into
question.

Example: The ridiculous idea, clung to by some of our more benighted
G. U., that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago.

I don't see how it's possible not to have contempt for this process,
or for its practitioners or consumers.

You are a real left wing looney.

Liberals used to own all radio along with the other mass media. AM had
liberal hosts that were for the older group and FM between playing
records was liberal talk for the younger set. Listening to the same
ideological crap got old real fast along with the hosts shouting and
cutting off anyone that disagreed with them. They all sounded like a
liberal version of Mike Savage having his worst day.

I always had a hard time deciding what I liked least about the "liberal
talk" radio. Was it that they treated anyone who thought differently
like crap or was it the indefensible positions they would take and
miserably defend. If they didn't kick people off that disagreed with
them quickly the host soon found himself defeated in the debate of
ideas so I guess it was all they could do.

This is not to mention most of the rest of the mass media today with
their liberal bias. There certainly is no shortage of liberal views
there.

Liberal talk radio died everywhere except San Francisco and for the
same reason communism died. They have unworkable ideas.

It's obvious you are a "real thinker."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California