|
Boston Globe Op-Ed on Liberal Talk Radio
|
= = = ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
= = = ... .. From: "Corbin Ray" http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...icles/2004/03/ 30/liberal_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/ Interesting opinion, but a little biased. What would you expect a conservative talk show host to say? MWB - Back At You :o) ~ RHF [ Interesting opinion, but a little biased. What would you expect 'MWB' to say? :] .. .. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) .. |
|
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...2004/03/30/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. Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... In article , "Corbin Ray" wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi.../articles/2004 /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! |
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote: "Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... In article , "Corbin Ray" wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi.../articles/2004 /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! Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
" Drug-Free Radio" with Al Franken
& Randi Rhodes... ( quite good) http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/pub/prg4Bio.htm http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...icles/2004/03/ 30/liberal_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/ |
"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...d/articles/200 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. |
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...d/articles/200 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. Leonard P.S., Do YOU really feel comfortable taking part in this kind of pep rally argumentation? -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... P.S., Do YOU really feel comfortable taking part in this kind of pep rally argumentation? I've never been to a pep rally that contained "argumentation," and I don't feel comfortable at all with mixed metaphors. Otherwise, I'm uncomfortable only to the extent the discussion is basically OT for the group (assuming there is such a thing). I'm not uncomfortable at all with letting you exhibit your own quirky brand of elitism. In fact, I only regret that I can't see your face to see if you're really serious. |
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 |
Subject: Boston Globe Op-Ed on Liberal Talk Radio
From: Telamon lid Date: 4/7/2004 1:58 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: 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 "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." Sounds just like Rush Limbaugh to me! Les |
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon
wrote: You are a real left wing looney. The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted in fear and insecurity. |
"B Banton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon wrote: You are a real left wing looney. The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted in fear and insecurity. I love the smell of a good over-generalization in the morning. Please distinguish between this alleged "fear and stupidity" and that exhibited by the poster to whom he was replying--assuming you bothered to read it. |
"B Banton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon wrote: You are a real left wing looney. The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted in fear and insecurity. Your stupidity is rooted in your brain. And yes, you are a loon. |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... In article , "Corbin Ray" wrote: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...les/2004/03/30 /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. The article doesn't say the conservative audience is less educated than the liberal audience. Check it out: "But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue (Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know, essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue (potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting booth." In fact, the article says about the audiences: (Bush), college educated (Gore), less well educated Perhaps the author might have been clearer if he had used Blue for True Blue Americans and Red for Commie Simp Pinkos. Can't argue with that. Leonard Frank Dresser |
Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston
Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative but he characterized the blue electorate as more educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy, but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs, and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer. Oz Frank Dresser wrote: The article doesn't say the conservative audience is less educated than the liberal audience. Check it out: "But take another look at that map. The death knell you see lurking is audience demographics (i.e. it's the economy, stupid). Red (Bush) vs. Blue (Gore) is a distinction of ideology, but it is also, as frankly we know, essentially a division of social class, race, and income. The red audience is largely suburban, college educated, professional, middle class; the blue (potential) audience more urban, less well educated, lower income. And this difference will matter infinitely more in the radio booth than the voting booth." In fact, the article says about the audiences: (Bush), college educated (Gore), less well educated Perhaps the author might have been clearer if he had used Blue for True Blue Americans and Red for Commie Simp Pinkos. Can't argue with that. Leonard Frank Dresser |
Larry Ozarow wrote: characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs, ^^^^^^ Oops, I meant "snobs" not "slobs." Must be one of them Freudian slips. and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer. Oz |
"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message ... Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative but he characterized the blue electorate as more educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy, but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs, and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer. Oz Any generalization about liberals, or any group, will probably be unfair. But I don't think it's unreasonable to counter one unfair generalization with another unfair generalization in an discussion. Everyone gets a fair chance to clarify their points. And as far as the analysis of education and politics -- I don't know how much can be made of it. It might be true that liberals(or democrats) have more formal education than conservatives(or republicans), but so what? My formal education ended when I dropped out of a junior college trade school. I'm capable of learning independently, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't consider myself anyone's fool. And I haven't seen any proof that formal education is immunization from foolishness. Frank Dresser |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Larry Ozarow" wrote in message ... Frank, it's true that this is what the Boston Globe op-ed piece says, but it's based on a total misunderstanding of the analysis that (AFAIK) started this whole red-blue thing - David Brooks' article in 2001 in the Atlantic. Brooks is a conservative but he characterized the blue electorate as more educated, and by no small margin. It's well-known that I am not a confrontational polarized kind of guy, but it's unfair that conservatives can get away with characterizing liberals as effete over-educated slobs, and as undereducated boobs, glued to Jerry Springer. Oz Any generalization about liberals, or any group, will probably be unfair. But I don't think it's unreasonable to counter one unfair generalization with another unfair generalization in an discussion. Everyone gets a fair chance to clarify their points. And as far as the analysis of education and politics -- I don't know how much can be made of it. It might be true that liberals(or democrats) have more formal education than conservatives(or republicans), but so what? My formal education ended when I dropped out of a junior college trade school. I'm capable of learning independently, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't consider myself anyone's fool. And I haven't seen any proof that formal education is immunization from foolishness. Frank Dresser I'm sure you're no fool. What you may well lack (and if you do you'll have no way of knowing it) is intellectual and historical context for today's prevailing ideas. Contextual knowledge help in analyzing and evaluating ideas. I still remember the wide new panoramas of insight and understanding that I discovered in college. Leonard -- "Everything that rises must converge" --Flannery O'Connor |
Frank Dresser wrote: Any generalization about liberals, or any group, will probably be unfair. But I don't think it's unreasonable to counter one unfair generalization with another unfair generalization in an discussion. Everyone gets a fair chance to clarify their points. Sure, just to clarify - I was pointing out the the guy who wrote the op-ed piece in the Globe employed a stereotype about liberals which was opposite to the stereotype that was used in David Brooks' article, which introduced the pseudo-scientific blue/red dichotomy that he was employing. Since Brooks also identifies himself as conservative, this wasn't a political disagreement, Severin just needed an unflattering pseudo-fact to support his thesis that liberal radio is bound to fail, so he made one up. It might fail, but not because the liberals are all too busy watching Jerry Springer, as he claimed. (Nor because they'll all be at wine and cheese parties listing to Elliot Carter). And as far as the analysis of education and politics -- I don't know how much can be made of it. It might be true that liberals(or democrats) have more formal education than conservatives(or republicans), but so what? My formal education ended when I dropped out of a junior college trade school. I'm capable of learning independently, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't consider myself anyone's fool. And I haven't seen any proof that formal education is immunization from foolishness. Frank Dresser True. I might add that not all liberals are snobs and not all conservatives are regular guys. |
"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message ... [snip] True. I might add that not all liberals are snobs and not all conservatives are regular guys. CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary |
"Leonard Martin" wrote in message ... I'm sure you're no fool. What you may well lack (and if you do you'll have no way of knowing it) is intellectual and historical context for today's prevailing ideas. Contextual knowledge help in analyzing and evaluating ideas. I still remember the wide new panoramas of insight and understanding that I discovered in college. Leonard I find out what I don't know every time I'm challenged and I can't back up what I say. Frank Dresser |
On 07 Apr 2004 13:29:56 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Wed 07 Apr 2004 08:15:42a, B Banton wrote in message : On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:58:15 GMT, Telamon wrote: You are a real left wing looney. The above says it all about conservatives. Their stupidity is rooted in fear and insecurity. "Tweeeet! Off-setting Penalties, Drop back five-yards and punt!" Is not your reply above simply using more words to say (basically) the same thing? Perhaps in the immediate exchange between "B Banton" and "Telemon", they've unintentionally confirmed a generality: Liberals and Conservatives both sling the same arrows; however, Conservatives tend to be less verbose about it and Liberals more verbose. -=jd=- Point taken. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com