Should conservative talk radio be funded by the government?

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I've always thought the reason right-wing radio succeeds commercially is the right-wings' craving for vitriolic reinforcement of their views. It's porn for right-wingers.

Right wing radio having the most easily influenced and gullible audience is a gold mine for advertizers. The left wing listeners have a lower bull-shit tolerance.

I'll have to remember this the next time the left brings up MSNBC and Keith Olbermann gaining popularity.

Rocks your world, huh? edit; demographics are a bitch.

 

[tk149]

I like NPR. Government should not fund it, and government should not force others to fund it.

Based solely on the OP's article, Obama really fvcked up by appointing this new Chief Diversity Officer Czar. The only question is whether Obama is deliberately trying to bankrupt conservative talk radio, which would be akin to censorship.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: tk149
I like NPR. Government should not fund it, and government should not force others to fund it.

Based solely on the OP's article, Obama really fvcked up by appointing this new Chief Diversity Officer Czar. The only question is whether Obama is deliberately trying to bankrupt conservative talk radio, which would be akin to censorship.

The answer is no.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

If you think NPR is 'liberal' you are out of your mind. Have you ever listened to NPR? Study after study has shown NPR to be very centrist with a slight establishment bent.

As for why liberal talk radio is not as popular as conservative talk radio, the idea that somehow conservatism relates better to Americans, thus reaching higher ratings, is an absurdity. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are all relative terms, and 'conservative' talk radio is on the extreme right wing of American society. It doesn't get more listeners because somehow what they are preaching is more representative of what Americans really think, (in nearly all cases their opinions are minority ones) it's because people who agree with them like the titular figures and they like the format. Come on people, use your heads.

As for these (yet again) trumped up fears about the fairness doctrine, it's no more true now than the last 20 threads we've had on here with conservatives shrieking and flailing at imagined enemies.

So let me get this straight. Liberal raidio isnt as popular because it represents more American's views?

LOL hey pass that man I want a toke...

How you got that out of what I posted is beyond me.

He was attempting to claim that conservative talk radio was more popular because America was a 'center right nation', which refers to the US in comparison to the rest of the world, not by the situation inside the US. (how would be be center right as compared to ourselves on a relative scale!?)

If you think of both liberal and conservative talk radio, both are preaching to the extremes, the ends of the bell curve. There are similar audiences on both sides of this bell curve, yet one side's radio is vastly more popular. Maybe it's because the format is more conducive to right wing shows than left wing ones? As an example, we see that liberal leaning comedy shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are enormously popular, but there is no right wing equivalent. (well, the one attempt at a conservative equivalent failed horribly) Is that because there are no conservative people to watch it? Of course not. The format doesn't work as well for them.

Whatever the cause, it's extremely unlikely that it's because more American's agree with the right wing talk show hosts, considering Rush Limbaugh's approval rating was all of 19%... and it's only likely to get worse from there. People at large HATE these guys.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

That's true, but there have been countless studies where the stories were objectively analyzed for types of words used, "% positive" vs "% negative" coverage etc, and the results of those studies (at least the ones that I have seen) all pretty much agree that in general the media tends to favor establishment and liberalism. Talk radio and fox of course don't lean left, but the rest does, to one degree or another.

Take for example NPR. When they talk about illegal immigration, they'll always refer to them as "undocumented workers", not "illegal immigrants", and they will usually start with some story of a hard working immigrant who's family will now be ripped apart by the heartless law enforcement groups as he gets deported. In other words, they present the story from a liberal perspective. If you heard the same story on Fox, they'd probably show scenes of Mexican gang-members fighting, and then show how the good guys in law enforcement are trying to do something to help solve the problem. That's the right-wing view. There's a LOT more liberal view presented in the general media.

Yeah, take for example NPR. The same station that refuses to call waterboarding 'torture', instead choosing to call it 'harsh interrogation' as the right would wish it to. See how that works? While on individual cases

Furthermore 'countless studies' most certainly do NOT say that the media tends to favor liberalism as I have quoted several studies (out of many) on here probably dozens of times. Long term meta analysis spanning decades shows virtually zero perceptible liberal media bias. (awaits discredited UCLA link)

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: spidey07
Another czar? A "diversity czar". This is just getting too difficult to believe and yet here it is.

NPR is flaming liberal if you've ever listened to it, if you think it's center that's because you're too far to the left. I had to turn it off many times because it was just dripping with it (having barney frank on and the hosts chuckling about how it's all bush's fault, etc and on and on). It's bad enough that we have that little bit of government sponsored propaganda, let's not have more.

No, the only government involvement in radio should be the emergency alert system and assignment of channels.

Spidey you are so far right you suspect your left nut of liberal tendencies.:beer:

Well it is true. My girl is pretty liberal and she sees right through NPR and frequently will change the channel when the propaganda starts pouring. It's always on in her car so I get to listen to it frequently.

Eitherway I don't think this diversity czar is a good idea and his past idealogies reak of trampling the 1st amendment.

-edit-
Crap, left myself wide open for some jabs. I won't edit so you can have your fun.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: spidey07
Another czar? A "diversity czar". This is just getting too difficult to believe and yet here it is.

NPR is flaming liberal if you've ever listened to it, if you think it's center that's because you're too far to the left. I had to turn it off many times because it was just dripping with it (having barney frank on and the hosts chuckling about how it's all bush's fault, etc and on and on). It's bad enough that we have that little bit of government sponsored propaganda, let's not have more.

No, the only government involvement in radio should be the emergency alert system and assignment of channels.

Spidey you are so far right you suspect your left nut of liberal tendencies.:beer:

Well it is true. My girl is pretty liberal and she sees right through NPR and frequently will change the channel when the propaganda starts pouring. It's always on in her car so I get to listen to it frequently.

Eitherway I don't think this diversity czar is a good idea and his past idealogies reak of trampling the 1st amendment.

-edit-
Crap, left myself wide open for some jabs. I won't edit so you can have your fun.

Still waiting for examples of 'NPR propaganda'.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Still waiting for examples of 'NPR propaganda'.

I've already provided it. All you have to do is listen to it and it's all right there. It's like saying the ny times isn't liberal propaganda.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

If you think NPR is 'liberal' you are out of your mind. Have you ever listened to NPR? Study after study has shown NPR to be very centrist with a slight establishment bent.

As for why liberal talk radio is not as popular as conservative talk radio, the idea that somehow conservatism relates better to Americans, thus reaching higher ratings, is an absurdity. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are all relative terms, and 'conservative' talk radio is on the extreme right wing of American society. It doesn't get more listeners because somehow what they are preaching is more representative of what Americans really think, (in nearly all cases their opinions are minority ones) it's because people who agree with them like the titular figures and they like the format. Come on people, use your heads.

As for these (yet again) trumped up fears about the fairness doctrine, it's no more true now than the last 20 threads we've had on here with conservatives shrieking and flailing at imagined enemies.

So let me get this straight. Liberal raidio isnt as popular because it represents more American's views?

LOL hey pass that man I want a toke...

How you got that out of what I posted is beyond me.

He was attempting to claim that conservative talk radio was more popular because America was a 'center right nation', which refers to the US in comparison to the rest of the world, not by the situation inside the US. (how would be be center right as compared to ourselves on a relative scale!?)

If you think of both liberal and conservative talk radio, both are preaching to the extremes, the ends of the bell curve. There are similar audiences on both sides of this bell curve, yet one side's radio is vastly more popular. Maybe it's because the format is more conducive to right wing shows than left wing ones? As an example, we see that liberal leaning comedy shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are enormously popular, but there is no right wing equivalent. (well, the one attempt at a conservative equivalent failed horribly) Is that because there are no conservative people to watch it? Of course not. The format doesn't work as well for them.

Whatever the cause, it's extremely unlikely that it's because more American's agree with the right wing talk show hosts, considering Rush Limbaugh's approval rating was all of 19%... and it's only likely to get worse from there. People at large HATE these guys.

Rush's approval rating? With whom? The Us at large? Considering the scope of his audience, thats pretty good.

The rest of it...I guess if I misread it, I apologize. My bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Still waiting for examples of 'NPR propaganda'.

I've already provided it. All you have to do is listen to it and it's all right there. It's like saying the ny times isn't liberal propaganda.

If it's so obvious, certainly you can provide a specific example.

EDIT: It can't be that hard. They've had hundreds of thousands of hours of programming, you can't even find one?

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Can anyone recommend to me some good liberal talk radio hosts/stations in the bay area, or even some moderate stations that have both points of view?

You already listen to Armstrong and Getty - they are pretty balanced as well as being very entertaining.

If you want something more liberal, listen to KGO (810) or KQED (88.5).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: spidey07
Another czar? A "diversity czar". This is just getting too difficult to believe and yet here it is.

NPR is flaming liberal if you've ever listened to it, if you think it's center that's because you're too far to the left. I had to turn it off many times because it was just dripping with it (having barney frank on and the hosts chuckling about how it's all bush's fault, etc and on and on). It's bad enough that we have that little bit of government sponsored propaganda, let's not have more.

No, the only government involvement in radio should be the emergency alert system and assignment of channels.

Spidey you are so far right you suspect your left nut of liberal tendencies.:beer:

Well it is true. My girl is pretty liberal and she sees right through NPR and frequently will change the channel when the propaganda starts pouring. It's always on in her car so I get to listen to it frequently.

Eitherway I don't think this diversity czar is a good idea and his past idealogies reak of trampling the 1st amendment.

-edit-
Crap, left myself wide open for some jabs. I won't edit so you can have your fun.

Well, Mark Lloyd has certainly and unabashedly targeted conservative radio since his days at CAP. Sen. Chuck Grassley sent an interesting letter to the FCC chairman about his concerns along these lines.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Rush's approval rating? With whom? The Us at large? Considering the scope of his audience, thats pretty good.

The rest of it...I guess if I misread it, I apologize. My bad.

From a business perspective I don't think Rush's approval numbers matter much at all, they are high enough to attract a big audience. I was only mentioning his numbers in reference to the idea that conservative talk radio is more popular because the ideas being expressed are more popular. If Rush's ideas were so popular, probably more than 19% of people would approve of him.

 

[ZeGermans]

Liberal radio isn't popular because liberals generally don't require 5 hours of radio shows to develop their ideas.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Post one example of NPR having a liberal bias.


Do it, do it now

No idea as I've never listened to it. The only proof I have is that the most liberally biased people on these forums are the ones defending it as not being biased. I then must assume that it is at least somewhat biased. But what's wrong with that? Everything is biased to some degree.

Describe "fair and factual reporting" so we have a control to measure the media "BIAS". Otherwise quit talking out of your own bi-ass.

Why are you quoting me? Where did I refer to reporting? Fairness? Facts? I already stated that I never listen to talk radio (well, sometimes sports talk) so there's one fact for you.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Liberal radio isn't popular because liberals generally don't require 5 hours of radio shows to develop their ideas.

I thought it was because they were all on welfare and either have no radio to listen OR advertisers know they can't afford to buy anything anyway.

/joke

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Still waiting for examples of 'NPR propaganda'.

I've already provided it. All you have to do is listen to it and it's all right there. It's like saying the ny times isn't liberal propaganda.

If it's so obvious, certainly you can provide a specific example.

EDIT: It can't be that hard. They've had hundreds of thousands of hours of programming, you can't even find one?

Here you go. NPR's own ombudsman.

Last week, NPR?s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR?s talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" ? a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics ? airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O?Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

 

[DesiPower]

I totally agree that NPR has become a left wing loonbag. I listen to it all the time, still do. I was a member in 2007 but as the election season came around they just went haywire... Just listen to the Diane Rehm show, she is so mean to the conservatives, she almost admonishes them, does not give them enough time to speak, she almost has an attitude of like... why are you alive...

and whats up with the Latina USA... i didnt tune in to listen to the plight of illegal immigrants...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Still waiting for examples of 'NPR propaganda'.

I've already provided it. All you have to do is listen to it and it's all right there. It's like saying the ny times isn't liberal propaganda.

If it's so obvious, certainly you can provide a specific example.

EDIT: It can't be that hard. They've had hundreds of thousands of hours of programming, you can't even find one?

Here you go. NPR's own ombudsman.

Last week, NPR?s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR?s talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" ? a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature, and also politics ? airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on September 3, and then on October 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O?Reilly. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the [O'Reilly] interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

See? There you go. Of course independent academic research actually shows slight conservative bias at NPR in terms of guests (they have significantly more Republicans on air than Democrats, even in Democratic administrations) and things like that. It's not that you can't find individual cases of bias, as my edit was specifically referring to, it's that on the aggregate there's no quantifiable amount.

The myth of media persecution that's harbored by Republicans is getting really old to me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

That's true, but there have been countless studies where the stories were objectively analyzed for types of words used, "% positive" vs "% negative" coverage etc, and the results of those studies (at least the ones that I have seen) all pretty much agree that in general the media tends to favor establishment and liberalism. Talk radio and fox of course don't lean left, but the rest does, to one degree or another.

Take for example NPR. When they talk about illegal immigration, they'll always refer to them as "undocumented workers", not "illegal immigrants", and they will usually start with some story of a hard working immigrant who's family will now be ripped apart by the heartless law enforcement groups as he gets deported. In other words, they present the story from a liberal perspective. If you heard the same story on Fox, they'd probably show scenes of Mexican gang-members fighting, and then show how the good guys in law enforcement are trying to do something to help solve the problem. That's the right-wing view. There's a LOT more liberal view presented in the general media.

It's not the Medias Job to make a Judgement, it's to Inform. They are supposed to be a neutral Third Party and not you Gut.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

That's true, but there have been countless studies where the stories were objectively analyzed for types of words used, "% positive" vs "% negative" coverage etc, and the results of those studies (at least the ones that I have seen) all pretty much agree that in general the media tends to favor establishment and liberalism. Talk radio and fox of course don't lean left, but the rest does, to one degree or another.

Take for example NPR. When they talk about illegal immigration, they'll always refer to them as "undocumented workers", not "illegal immigrants", and they will usually start with some story of a hard working immigrant who's family will now be ripped apart by the heartless law enforcement groups as he gets deported. In other words, they present the story from a liberal perspective. If you heard the same story on Fox, they'd probably show scenes of Mexican gang-members fighting, and then show how the good guys in law enforcement are trying to do something to help solve the problem. That's the right-wing view. There's a LOT more liberal view presented in the general media.

It's not the Medias Job to make a Judgement, it's to Inform. They are supposed to be a neutral Third Party and not you Gut.

But in this case, NPR is intentionally taking the left or liberal stance by calling them undocumented workers, and not illegal aliens. If they were so unbiased, they would call them what they are-illegals. THAT would be reporting.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Lothar

If there's a slant or bias to NPR, I've certainly never noticed it.

I for one would love to see some examples of this 'librul' bias that NPR supposedly has.

The facts have a liberal bias. I've noticed this over and over as I paid more attention.

I've almost never seen a GOP position based on facts, science and falsifiability. I've never seen GOP opposition to legislation based on facts or even reasonable logic. It's like they are making decisions based solely on emotions. Look at the healthcare debate. The GOP has rarely attacked the healthcare reform based on solid facts, but rather, they take small passages from the 5 different bills out there and blow them up to ridiculous measures. Counseling on end of life treatment becomes death panels that will kill your grandma and disabled child. There's no chance for a reasonable debate when the opposition is wholly unreasonable.

Not to say the Democrats are much better, but they often times do develop legislation based on facts and science. Not very often, but at least they try.

In their Defence. I think they've done the "Facts" behind the scenes, then drew Conclusions. From that point they then use whatever Tactics that will result in what they want. They want something Dead, they'll make crazy shit up if it gives them the desired result.

I think that's a big mistake and only poisons the well for All, so to speak. Also I think their "Facts" probably have less to do with the Issues at hand and more to do with "How to regain Power".

 

[Analogsoul]

Fresh Air is a talk show, not a news show like All Things Considered or Morning Edition, sorry try again.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

That's true, but there have been countless studies where the stories were objectively analyzed for types of words used, "% positive" vs "% negative" coverage etc, and the results of those studies (at least the ones that I have seen) all pretty much agree that in general the media tends to favor establishment and liberalism. Talk radio and fox of course don't lean left, but the rest does, to one degree or another.

Take for example NPR. When they talk about illegal immigration, they'll always refer to them as "undocumented workers", not "illegal immigrants", and they will usually start with some story of a hard working immigrant who's family will now be ripped apart by the heartless law enforcement groups as he gets deported. In other words, they present the story from a liberal perspective. If you heard the same story on Fox, they'd probably show scenes of Mexican gang-members fighting, and then show how the good guys in law enforcement are trying to do something to help solve the problem. That's the right-wing view. There's a LOT more liberal view presented in the general media.

It's not the Medias Job to make a Judgement, it's to Inform. They are supposed to be a neutral Third Party and not you Gut.

But in this case, NPR is intentionally taking the left or liberal stance by calling them undocumented workers, and not illegal aliens. If they were so unbiased, they would call them what they are-illegals. THAT would be reporting.

Incorrect.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Liberal radio isn't popular because liberals generally don't require 5 hours of radio shows to develop their ideas.

I only listen to Rush for the 15 minutes it takes to go see my wife for lunch.