# Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining. 
I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
Any other logical reasons?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2014)

We're not much for propaganda.


----------



## Pennywise (Apr 30, 2014)

Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.

And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> We're not much for propaganda.



C'mon, Boop. There hasta be something real in a POV that gets about 50% of America's candidates elected. Doesn't there?


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2014)

Bombastic and conspiratorial deliveries such as those offered up by Rush "pass the oxycodone" Limbaugh and Glenn "the sky is falling" Beck do not appeal to anyone who thinks.  We Liberals seem to prefer National Public Radio where the news is filled with facts, not editorializations, the programs are fun and informative rather than alarms about conspiracies and the conversation is multisyllabic and stimulating.

Ever notice how Right Wing radio plays on themes of militarization and violence?  Rush broadcasts from his "Southern Command".  A local host claims he is broadcasting from "The War Room".  Makes me wonder if any other theme could possibly appeal to the modern Conservative.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> 
> And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.



I dunno. There's plenty of Cons who fit that description. It just seems that in conversation lib politics is ... BORING.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 30, 2014)

Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,

because it has 2 shows in the top 4.


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

I caught a bit of Rush today. A woman called in, complained that it 'wasn't american' for 'them' to take away Donald Sterling's team and livelihood. She said 'they' should just let the market take care of it, but that it wasn't right for 'them' to to do anything to him.

Rush played along with her. Never did he correct her on the market forces that were in work in Sterling's ban, or that the 'they' in this instance was the NBA and by their rules they're fully justified in acting as they have to protect their industry and was not in any way, shape, or form the government as she seemed to imply. Then he went on a tirade about how women, minorities, and basically anyone but white, christian males has it easy.

That's why liberal talk radio doesn't work. Not enough dishonesty to make it entertaining.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



Shinola doesn't sell very well.

As for Liberals being embarrassed by silliness....yes.   I guess that makes Conservatives NOT embarrassed by silliness, eh?


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> 
> because it has 2 shows in the top 4.








And were it not for taxpayer dollars it would have folded up shop years ago.


----------



## Mr Natural (Apr 30, 2014)

The conservatards are far more entertaining.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Bombastic and conspiratorial deliveries such as those offered up by Rush "pass the oxycodone" Limbaugh and Glenn "the sky is falling" Beck do not appeal to anyone who thinks.  We Liberals seem to prefer National Public Radio where the news is filled with facts, not editorializations, the programs are fun and informative rather than alarms about conspiracies and the conversation is multisyllabic and stimulating.
> 
> Ever notice how Right Wing radio plays on themes of militarization and violence?  Rush broadcasts from his "Southern Command".  A local host claims he is broadcasting from "The War Room".  Makes me wonder if any other theme could possibly appeal to the modern Conservative.



I admit I don't do talk radio - I prefer music - but there has to be enough from the lib POV that's interesting enough to talk about. Right? Yet Lib talk radio fails miserably.
You're saying you prefer to be told what you are thinking (or are to think) by NPR rather than air your thoughts publically?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> 
> And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.



Smart is bad....yes, we get it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 30, 2014)

To address the OP, the main reason why is you have a bunch of very shrill, completely biased, angry as hell, mean spirited people involved in it.  I truly am a liberal Democrat but I can't listen to the likes of Ed Schulz and Maddow.  I can't listen to idiots like Hannity or O'Reilly either though.

On radio I prefer Tom Sullivan and occasionally Lars Larson.  On TV I don't like any of them.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> 
> because it has 2 shows in the top 4.



In what market?
NPR doesn't have to turn a profit so they get ratings by default. If the follies of Air America and its predecessor don't make clear to you that Lib talk shows are a bust, you are living in denial. Carry on, soldier.


----------



## Pennywise (Apr 30, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> ...



Smart is good, but I never heard much from the left. They tend to confuse snotty arrogance with intelligence. 

When I first began to listen to talk radio a lot (mid 80's) on WABC in NY, they had a woman named Lynn Samuels (RIP) on for two hours before Rush. This was when his national show just started. I liked her show a lot. I didn't agree with her on almost anything, but she was entertaining and a real NYC character. She is the only person I ever heard on the left who understood the importance of entertaining her audience.

Listen to Bill Moyers for twenty minutes and you're looking for your pistol to take the big sleep.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?


I don't know why you say that liberalism in radio is a failure.  Liberalism is a failure and so the radio programs simply follow that trend.  You could say that liberal radio is a success because it perfectly mimics the ideology.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> I caught a bit of Rush today. A woman called in, complained that it 'wasn't american' for 'them' to take away Donald Sterling's team and livelihood. She said 'they' should just let the market take care of it, but that it wasn't right for 'them' to to do anything to him.
> 
> Rush played along with her. Never did he correct her on the market forces that were in work in Sterling's ban, or that the 'they' in this instance was the NBA and by their rules they're fully justified in acting as they have to protect their industry and was not in any way, shape, or form the government as she seemed to imply. Then he went on a tirade about how women, minorities, and basically anyone but white, christian males has it easy.
> 
> That's why liberal talk radio doesn't work. Not enough dishonesty to make it entertaining.



I don't know if that is typical of Con talk radio or you are cherry picking but Rush seems to do OK. Goofy as that stuff may often be at least it is entertaining enough to draw.
Lib radio is boring because...


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

bodecea said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Perhaps but at least it's entertaining (for some). Lib radio is BORING.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 30, 2014)

Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"



that's not true. i listened to a bit of rush limbaugh today.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"
> ...



Good for you.  I have yet to tune in to the blowhard.


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 30, 2014)

I don't listen to talk radio to inform me. I listen to it for entertainment. I find conservative radio hosts more entertaining. Most of them are full of shit too, but at least they keep we awake.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Mr Clean said:


> The conservatards are far more entertaining.



Than Libtards? OK, but why is Lib talk so boring?


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 30, 2014)

Talk Radio in general is geared heavily toward the more elderly, senior population.   Younger generations rarely listen heavily to talk radio, if ever.    Kind of the same reason newspapers are dying,  social media and the internet are taking over the market for younger crowds.

It's common knowledge that senior populations vote more conservatively,  so talk radio tends to be dominated by conservative hosts, because it's much easier for them to reach success because older crowds aren't interested in social media or internet news sites and thus the conservative talk radio hosts won't have to compete with them.

If a liberal talk radio hosts ever does try to compete then they often go head to head with social media and the like and almost always lose out.  

Make no mistake, talk radio in general is dying, it's just that old people are still around (for now...) to keep Rush and the rest alive.  I think Rush's audience's average age was posted to be 71 a while ago.....SEVENTY ONE....AVERAGE AGE....think about that.


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


truthfully that kind of entertainment really isn't good for anyone.

but it does go to show that liberals will tune in to someone whining about 'it's not fair'


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> ...



I believe he meant pretentious. Evidently you don't get it.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

aaronleland said:


> I don't listen to talk radio to inform me. I listen to it for entertainment. I find conservative radio hosts more entertaining. Most of them are full of shit too, but at least they keep we awake.





you mean watching martin bashir fantasize of sh*thing in Palin's mouth doesnt do it for you for entertainment?

or is that serious news to an idiot like you?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



*Actually the better question is why right wing radio is so successful.  And the question and answer is:  Who spends the most time in their cars (trucks?).  Truckers, Bible salesmen, carnival workers, delivery workers, and other unskilled, high school educated laborers.
The other segment of those radio listeners are over 65, retired, white and watching Fox when they aren't listening to Rush. 

Liberals use their iPhone to read the WSJ online, and get the latest on the NYT app. *


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > We're not much for propaganda.
> ...



Beats me. I don't do talk radio, and apparently most liberals don't.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Talk Radio in general is geared heavily toward the more elderly, senior population.   Younger generations rarely listen heavily to talk radio, if ever.    Kind of the same reason newspapers are dying,  social media and the internet are taking over the market for younger crowds.
> 
> It's common knowledge that senior populations vote more conservatively,  so talk radio tends to be dominated by conservative hosts, because it's much easier for them to reach success because older crowds aren't interested in social media or internet news sites and thus the conservative talk radio hosts won't have to compete with them.
> 
> ...



i happen to believe older people are generally wiser. 

America is greying overall and FAST.

think about that


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Dude, half of our elected officials are of the liberal variety. There must be something interesting in their POV.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

you're right left-wing idiots; let's be guided by the youthful voices of people you've already brainwashed; who largely havent experienced life yet.

no wonder left-wing idiots sit around calling record welfare and food stamps "forward progress"


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> > I don't listen to talk radio to inform me. I listen to it for entertainment. I find conservative radio hosts more entertaining. Most of them are full of shit too, but at least they keep we awake.
> ...



*That wasn't exactly what he said or did, but then again you probably got the twisted story on.....right wing radio.*


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"



Yeah-huh.

Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! : NPR


----------



## Nutz (Apr 30, 2014)

Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

aaronleland said:


> I don't listen to talk radio to inform me. I listen to it for entertainment. I find conservative radio hosts more entertaining. Most of them are full of shit too, but at least they keep we awake.



So are there no entertaining libs or is the ideology just boring?


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > aaronleland said:
> ...





you're right dork; i'm sure he didnt really mean he wanted to take a dump in her mouth; it just came out wrong!1

or out of context huh?


what an idiot you are


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 30, 2014)

Because it's redundant. Mainstream media is already left-leaning so more lefty opinion is unnecessary. Right wing opinion offers an alternative and that's why it is successful.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Why?  

This does not pertain to JUST liberals, but why would you say that?  Today's successful Politician (success is defined as actually getting elected, nothing more) is successful because they simply give away free shit, or promise to do so if elected.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

Nutz said:


> Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.



*And what does the right want to hear?  Whatever Darrell Issa and Rush tell them?  Yup.

Did you hear Rush LimpBalls trying to defend Donald Sterling?  Said it was all that woman's fault. Hilarious.  And his lapdog audience just ate it up.  You lap out of the same foul bowl? *


----------



## kaz (Apr 30, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> We're not much for propaganda.



True.  You all have the same, correct position on every issue and you all justify it with the same, correct arguments and your media present that one correct view and only that correct view for every issue.  You don't need to be bothered with looking at multiple sides or challenging your beliefs.  Fox News in their overt bias allows liberals on to speak for themselves.  Oly propagandists go around presenting multiple sides of an issue, I see what you mean...


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.
> ...





george soros told you to say that

what an idiot you are


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

i dont need Issa or Rush to know obama is a failure leftard; the record welfare and food stamps speak for themselves


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



This thread isn't about news sources but rather the utter failure of Lib talk radio.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



becaus3 people see how crazy they are. They cant just play gotcha with words, they have to articulate a position amd they cant do that well.


----------



## kaz (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.
> ...



Of course, liberals, people who think and don't just accept what they are told, agree on every issue.  On the other hand, neocons, socons, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, RINOs and establishment Republicans, we all take marching orders from Rush.  It's genius, isn't it?  How he gets us all to disagree and yet parrot what he's saying?  Pure, evil genius.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

you call record welfare and food stamps, and the lowest rate of participation in the labor market in 40 years....................."forward progress"


you have no business speaking on lapping up talking points

what an idiot you are


----------



## Pennywise (Apr 30, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"
> ...



You linked to quite possibly the most perfect example of why liberal radio sucks monkey ass. That show is the worst hunk of pretentious bullshit I have ever heard, anywhere.

NPR is really about as bad as it gets. All their self-produced programming comes off like a College Radio station. A bad college radio station.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I suspect most Cons don't either.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 30, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Even liberals can't stand listening to people whining that "It's not fair"
> ...



You couldn't pay me to listen to NPR.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2014)

Lib radio is like a 3 hour long 2 minute hate. It's shrill, pointless and just not fun.

I listened to Randi Rhodes when she was on in NY like 10 years ago and imagine Rdean or FranCoWTf with a microphone


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



It's very simple. It's the same reason liberal cable news like cnn and MSNBC is a flop. Liberals, the base of the Democratic party, are the willfully uninformed voter. They rather not watch the news and instead watch so-called reality TV. They get their news from Jon Stewart or the Jersey Shore.

With radio they would rather listen to music than talk radio. 

Conservatives on the other hand rather stay informed and be mindful of what is going on in the world. Therefore they watch news at home and listen to talk radio in the car!


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Bombastic and conspiratorial deliveries such as those offered up by Rush "pass the oxycodone" Limbaugh and Glenn "the sky is falling" Beck do not appeal to anyone who thinks.  We Liberals seem to prefer National Public Radio where the news is filled with facts, not editorializations, the programs are fun and informative rather than alarms about conspiracies and the conversation is multisyllabic and stimulating.
> 
> Ever notice how Right Wing radio plays on themes of militarization and violence?  Rush broadcasts from his "Southern Command".  A local host claims he is broadcasting from "The War Room".  Makes me wonder if any other theme could possibly appeal to the modern Conservative.



You mean when obama bragged about his kill list and killing osma or when the movie war room about carville and begala?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



*Maybe, but at least I can remember things correctly so what does that make you?

From the transcript:*

*BASHIR:* """It&#8217;lll be like slavery. Given her well-established reputation as a world class idiot, it&#8217;s hardly surprising that she should choose to mention slavery in a way that is abominable to anyone who knows anything about its barbaric history. So here&#8217;s an example.

One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation. What is most shocking about Thistlewood&#8217;s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime.

In 1756, he records that &#8220;A slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.&#8221; This became known as Darby&#8217;s dose, a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners savagery and inhumanity.

And he mentions a similar incident again in 1756, this time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. &#8220;Flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth.&#8221; I could go on, but you get the point.

When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn&#8217;t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate."""

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/04/hold-up-martin-bashir-defecate-sarah-palins-mouth.html




*So, BedWetter, want to try again?*


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


"wait wait don't tell me" is pretty good.
i enjoy 'radiolab' and 'bob edward's weekend'


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Woo. That's distressing. Where do I sign up?


----------



## Nutz (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.
> ...



LOL...I don't listen to el rushbo, I think for myself.  You are right, conservative radio can be boorish...and those who listen for talking points are lemmings.  But, with that said, there are many who listen to talk radio to learn more about a particular topic.  Regretfully, liberals don't need to know facts beyond what they already believe and know.  

From what I see among liberals and conservatives...a conservative is more likely to disagree with a fellow conservative than a liberal is to disagree with a fellow liberal.  That, IMO, is the result of getting all of the facts and making independent decisions as opposed to blindly following an ideology.


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> > I don't listen to talk radio to inform me. I listen to it for entertainment. I find conservative radio hosts more entertaining. Most of them are full of shit too, but at least they keep we awake.
> ...



There are entertaining liberals in media, but certainly not in talk radio, in my opinion. I had listened to Air America a couple times. It bored me to tears.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.
> ...



But if it was just about Rush and what he says, Con radio would be a failure just like Lib radio. This thread isn't about his success but rather Lib talk radio failure.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



*You've obviously never watched Jon Stewart.*


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

Nutz said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Nutz said:
> ...



i'd believe you if my local conservative talk radio station didn't broadcast what amounts to 7 different hosts saying 'ditto' to each other 5 days a week and their greatest ditto hits on the weekend.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...





wow such an uneducated bunch. you would think the loser Left than could stop blaming all the failures of their "brilliant" obama and the failed Progressive agenda on truckers and carnival workers on the Right



or is it we just dont know how good we got it under obama?

 yea that's it; record welfare and food stamps is "forward progress"

what an idiot this liberal is


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...





good one stupid; as if every unhinged lib on MSNBC isnt saying ditto to what the other unhinged left-wing talking heads say

what hypocritical crybabies left-wing nutjobs are!


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



left-wing morons actually think Stewart is real news

what an idiot you are


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2014)

Why is Liberal Radio such a flop?   Because the vast majority of Americans do not enjoy being harangued, condescended to, and insulted.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



I dunno. There's plenty of loony cons who don't articulate their POV well but Con radio survives them.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Why is Liberal Radio such a flop?   Because the vast majority of Americans do not enjoy being harangued, condescended to, and insulted.





are you sure about that? every obama speech is an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



*Occasionally I make a round-trip drive to Pittsburgh from New Jersey, it's a long drive and I really get a HUGE kick out of Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Hannity, et al.  

I especially find it fascinating the way all of them start out with a narrative, very forceful, very righteous and segue it right into an advertisement.  It's seamless.  It's also very unethical.  But WTF, most righties who lap up their bullshit don't even notice.  *


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




articulate?

easy; the progressive agenda is failing

record welfare and food stamps isnt "forward progress"

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Not me. I prefer music but I like to think I know what's going on. Then again...


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



you'll get more news out of a half hour of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart than you will 3 hours of Sean Hannity. between ads for whatever identity theft protection they're shilling for, jabbering with the support staff, the 13,000th time a montage of silly things liberals have said is played, introductions, bumper music, and callers thanking them for taking their calls (and then the calls themselves) by the time you throw in regular commercials and news breaks there isn't a lot of real, original content  in an hour of talk radio.


----------



## kaz (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You learn more about what's going on by listening to music than you do by listening to liberals anyway


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...





cuz you're too stupid to be able to make your own decisions on what to buy?

 if obama sold it to you i bet  you'd buy it; he sold you "change" even though he NEVER changed anything for anybody, anywhere, ever

what an idiot  you are


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



you'll get more because you say we will

you're a joke; nothing you say matters

there is no fool bigger than the loser that WANTS to believe the lies

 you are a useful idiot though for left-wing millionaires; including entertainers


----------



## Pennywise (Apr 30, 2014)

The question that should be asked is actually why is right-wing talk popular. It became popular because it was the only outlet discussing current events without the left-wing slant the rest of the media employs.

It became popular because suddenly people of the conservative persuasion were able to hear someone speak who reflected their own sensibilities. The arrogant leftists have it all wrong (as usual) when they vomit their own talking point that right-wingers listen to Rush so they will know what to think. No, they listen because he says what they already are thinking most of the time.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Liberal Radio such a flop?   Because the vast majority of Americans do not enjoy being harangued, condescended to, and insulted.
> ...



*Really?  So what does that mean for, um, speeches like this?*

_"Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people."Charlottesville, Va., July 4, 2008_

*Please don't make me say who made that speech.  Please.  *


----------



## kaz (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



So that bothers you, but hosts on MS-NBC doing actual commercials for the Democratic Party doesn't, LOL.

Then there was Air America which was funded by the Democratic party.  I miss that, it was a hoot.  You people are nuts.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Nope liberals will goto mother jones, daily kos, and huffpo. Thats about all i see from  them.

But what is really interesting about your post is how you look down upon ordinary americans. 
Which ive always said, libtards hate the midle class, because they dont support the lefts socialism andnever have......in fact the left calls the middle class the bourgoisie in a perjorative manner.
Whats funny is the left says they care about these people, they dont, tney use them to bitch about wages and try to increase taxes

this guy is so full of stereotypes and yest if i said a black person is a watermellon eating, chicken loving basketball player he would say that was racist and he would never use stereotypes.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



sounds like you tune in on a regular basis

thanks genius!


----------



## KNB (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> the progressive agenda is failing
> 
> record welfare and food stamps isnt "forward progress"
> 
> idiots and hypocrites


Does the Republican party have a realistic alternative to record food stamps and welfare?  "Get a job"?  Is that all that Republican can come up with?  The jobs are in China and the job creators are making record profits.  Record profits plus record welfare doesn't mean that Liberal policies are failing, it means that "trickle-down" theory is failing.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




dont tell me leftard; a Navy corpseman said it?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nutz said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Nutz said:
> ...



You mean Libs don't need to know facts beyond what they think they know and if my experience here is any indication, I get as much blowback from Cons as I do from Libs.
Guess I'm doing something right, eh?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



*And you've obviously never watched his show, either.  

And I doubt you've ever read anything by Mark Twain or understood the value of Will Rogers commentary, either.  *


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

KNB said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > the progressive agenda is failing
> ...





my bad moron; get a job wont work; there are no jobs in the obamaconomy


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



i never said i didn't enjoy it. everyone has their guilty pleasures. some people like watching 'keeping up with the kardashians' or 'the real housewives of wherever.' i listen to talk radio.

now excuse me while i go buy some identity protection, window blinds, and mail order lobster. and you can forget me ever paying my taxes again because rush has a company that'll settle my irs tax problems for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?


Media market is already flooded with progressives. Only so many advertizing dollars to go around.

Also, I think that there is something to what Randi Rhodes said about progressive types using radio as a resume builder, rather than as their niche.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

aaronleland said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > aaronleland said:
> ...



I tried it too. Same reaction.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bombastic and conspiratorial deliveries such as those offered up by Rush "pass the oxycodone" Limbaugh and Glenn "the sky is falling" Beck do not appeal to anyone who thinks.  We Liberals seem to prefer National Public Radio where the news is filled with facts, not editorializations, the programs are fun and informative rather than alarms about conspiracies and the conversation is multisyllabic and stimulating.
> ...


NPR has talk shows too.  But they are moderated by well read folks, not former DJs.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...





i doubt you walk outside much dork; instead of listening to will rogers or mark twain; walk outside and see the PROGRESSIVE FAILURE everywhere


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



....and funded by big bad mean ol corporations by grants


 idiots n hypocrites


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 30, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



*No, the 43rd President of the United States.  Want to see his remarks about health care reform and a gynecologist's inability to practice his "love for women all over this country"?  That was a gem.

Oh fuck it, I can't resist:*



*So when I see some idiot on this board talk about how insulting Obama's speeches are to the American intellect, I just have to ask myself if they have severe amnesia prior to 2009.*


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Or perhaps like you most "righties" listen just for the laughs. From what I've heard of it, Rush's show should come with a for entertainment only disclaimer. I wish Lib radio could say the same.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


And This American Life and Fresh Air with Terri Gross.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Soooo, Lib talk radio needs more DJ types? Why didn't Air America think of that?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 30, 2014)

bbecause there aren't enough nutters out  there to keep it going.... look at NPR.. it'd have been gone years ago except for taxpayer funding.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Apr 30, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> bbecause there aren't enough nutters out  there to keep it going.... look at NPR.. it'd have been gone years ago except for taxpayer funding.


For a donation of $100.00, we will send you this lively NPR oven mitt!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 30, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are idealists, they don't want to hear the facts, they just want to simplify the issues down to right or wrong according to their ideology.  Thus, the need to fully understand an issue is irrelevant, they just operate like the pussy brigade and have knee jerk reactions.
> ...


I'm sure you don't listen to Limbaugh so you're take is most likely an out-of-context relay from another lefty parrot. Those who do listen to right wing radio, etc., at least already have the left wing take because it's infused in mainstream media. Lefties like you are dishonest and repeat bogus twisting of right wing alternatives because you get it from lefty propagandists.


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



Because the right wing needs  limbaugh and hannity to tell them how to think?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 30, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Perhaps it's about open minded people getting a more comprehensive take instead of allowing left wing mainstream media tell them how to think.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 30, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



no, we just like to hear people who dont think of the 60s as the golden years


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2014)

Nutz said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Nutz said:
> ...



I've been on this forum for a couple years, one of the most popular right wing retorts is  
"I don't listen to rush".  Sure.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



The ratings at MSNBC are in the crapper.
Maybe Maddow gets decent numbers....

Maybe all the Libs are watching FOX


----------



## Nutz (Apr 30, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



Probably because most conservatives don't listen to Rush.  I personally don't like hosts who don't have guests or allow dissenting opinions on their program.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2014)

Look.  Liberals and Conservatives are going to find entertainment in different venues.  Just because Liberal radio talk shows don't draw an audience does not mean that Liberals don't listen to the radio.  We listen to NPR.

Just as you won't find a lot of Conservatives lining up for a Willem DeKooning exhibition at MOMA, you won't find a lot of Liberals at a NASCAR match.  You won't find a lot of Conservatives tuning into Downton Abbey and there won't be that many Liberals subscribing to a wrestle mania pay per view event.

Liberals don't break down the doors at a gun show and Conservatives won't line up for Madame Butterfly tickets at The Met.


----------



## Nutz (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Look.  Liberals and Conservatives are going to find entertainment in different venues.  Just because Liberal radio talk shows don't draw an audience does not mean that Liberals don't listen to the radio.  We listen to NPR.
> 
> Just as you won't find a lot of Conservatives lining up for a Willem DeKooning exhibition at MOMA, you won't find a lot of Liberals at a NASCAR match.  You won't find a lot of Conservatives tuning into Downton Abbey and there won't be that many Liberals subscribing to a wrestle mania pay per view event.
> 
> Liberals don't break down the doors at a gun show and Conservatives won't line up for Madame Butterfly tickets at The Met.


You make a LOT of generalizations there that I would disagree with if I cared to argue about it.  But I will say, it isn't a NASCAR match.  It would be a race...just saying.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2014)

Nutz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Look.  Liberals and Conservatives are going to find entertainment in different venues.  Just because Liberal radio talk shows don't draw an audience does not mean that Liberals don't listen to the radio.  We listen to NPR.
> ...


I thought it had something to do with advertising!  Now you tell me it's a race?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2014)

Rush is fun, informative and entertaining, in comparison libs sound like Gollum

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Sallow (Apr 30, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> 
> And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.


Well no.

AM radio is a very old medium. If Liberals are listening to radio? It's music.

Advertisers know this and don't bother.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 30, 2014)

westwall said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> ...



Taxpayer dollars pay for what ads for fad diets and fake boner pills pay for on commercial radio.

All Things Considered and Morning Edition on PBS radio have audiences about the same as Limbaugh and Hannity.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



That's how you explain Lib talk radio's repeated failures? 
Woo ... now I see why it fails.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Rozman said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



...leaving them little time to participate in Lib talk radio! A viable retort to my theory but I am not swayed.


----------



## Nyvin (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Well I have to say...if all it took was "libs hear themselves speak" to shut down liberal talk radio....why doesn't the same thing happen to all the liberal youtube channels?  

Heck, on those you not only hear yourself, you can SEE yourself too!


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Look.  Liberals and Conservatives are going to find entertainment in different venues.  Just because Liberal radio talk shows don't draw an audience does not mean that Liberals don't listen to the radio.  We listen to NPR.



But ... but ... NYCarbineer says Lib talk radio is a smashing success. The fact is this thread isn't about where you get your marching orders but rather why Lib talk radio is so freakin' BORING that it regularly fails.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Nah, you were right ... it's an advertising match.


----------



## The T (Apr 30, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> 
> And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.



And who but leftist nutballs that already hate America and blame it for all the ills of the world even listen?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



Soooo you're saying Lib talk radio sucks because libs can't see themselves? Interesting.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 30, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> bbecause there aren't enough nutters out  there to keep it going.... look at NPR.. it'd have been gone years ago except for taxpayer funding.



I guess it's fortunate then that the People can vote.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 30, 2014)

One day the rightwing nuts are crying about the domination of the 'liberal' media, the next day they're crowing about how much conservatism dominates radio.

And the next day they'll be bragging up Foxnews' ratings.

So which is it?


----------



## blackhawk (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> 
> because it has 2 shows in the top 4.



Don't forget part of it's revenue comes from the taxpayers. Would it be doing as well if it had to compete in the market without that? The fact the rest of liberal talk radio that does that does not fare very well suggest it wouldn't.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 30, 2014)

As I posted a few days ago, Radio Streaming has Michael Savage creaming Rush, Hannity, Levin and others.
I will listen to Savage, Andy Dean or Thom Hartmann until they discuss an issue to death.
I can listen to Randi Rhoades until every road she takes leads to Obama being the most brilliant president in US history (which he is not).
I cannot listen to the mentally handicapped Hannity, the hypocrite Levin or Rush discussing the merits of American Exceptionalism being defined as using Asian human beings for slave labor.

Apps and Streaming Radio will expose truth of the ratings.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> 
> because it has 2 shows in the top 4.



If NPR is so successful, why does it take taxpayer money? Why not let the free market support it? Taxpayers don't need to pay for liberal content. Perhaps you lefties would like taxpayers to fund Limbaugh and Beck. Now that's a true fairness doctrine,


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> One day the rightwing nuts are crying about the domination of the 'liberal' media, the next day they're crowing about how much conservatism dominates radio.
> 
> And the next day they'll be bragging up Foxnews' ratings.
> 
> So which is it?



Because radio is a medium that requires you to actually "sell your product" to an engaged audience.

Talking about tree hugging and and tingles up your leg and the plight of homos isn't really that interesting.

Should we prevent toxins from entering our air and waters? Yes.
Should the Government discriminate against gays? No.

Are either of these issues really that important with the NSA, NDAA, Ukraine and the near-Civil-War that almost spewed out of the Bundy Ranch crisis? No, not really. We have bigger fish to fry.

Let the counties and local towns handle the homosexual and environmental issues, where they are handled best.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 30, 2014)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> ...



I don't care if they cut off NPR. Government contributions only make up 4% of their budget anyway.As a liberal, I have been asking the same question you have. I send them a check every year. They don't need government funding, and it should be cut off.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 30, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Bombastic and conspiratorial deliveries such as those offered up by Rush "pass the oxycodone" Limbaugh and Glenn "the sky is falling" Beck do not appeal to anyone who thinks.  We Liberals seem to prefer National Public Radio where the news is filled with facts, not editorializations, the programs are fun and informative rather than alarms about conspiracies and the conversation is multisyllabic and stimulating.
> 
> Ever notice how Right Wing radio plays on themes of militarization and violence?  Rush broadcasts from his "Southern Command".  A local host claims he is broadcasting from "The War Room".  Makes me wonder if any other theme could possibly appeal to the modern Conservative.



Actually right wing radio substance seems to avoid violence and militarization. Maybe those concepts are the left wing radio's problems. How can people trust a radio network (NPR) that starts with the word "National" as in politically funded?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 30, 2014)

The2ndAmendment said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > One day the rightwing nuts are crying about the domination of the 'liberal' media, the next day they're crowing about how much conservatism dominates radio.
> ...



ENGAGED?
I can't remember the last time one of my friends who used to "listen" to "White Noise" Rush in their car actually recalled one thing he said.

Everybody knows Hannity is a "Great American"; It's just that nobody can answer my question of what makes Hannity Great.


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Apr 30, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> ENGAGED?
> I can't remember the last time one of my friends who used to "listen" to "White Noise" Rush in their car actually recalled one thing he said.
> 
> Everybody knows Hannity is a "Great American"; It's just that nobody can answer my question of what makes Hannity Great.



I happen to listen to the Classical Music on NPR every day and even past midnight when my catering job lets us out, and I often sing along in the baritone range where I can.

I cannot recall the specific selections or even the composers that were premiered today, nor yesterday, nor the the day before.

Does this mean I'm not engaged?

Bear in mind that I know the name of composition and the composer of practically every selection on NPR within the first two measures.


----------



## Londoner (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



It's called revenue > corporate advertisers. 

Corporations don't want to advertise for a radio station that advocates increasing their taxes and regulations. This is why corporations prefer to invest in the Right, and why they only invest in the Left when they have no choice. It's also why the GOP is primarily the party of corporate welfare. Corporations don't invest in the Right for nothing - they pay handsomely for FOX and Limbaugh to confuse Americans about who really owns government. 

Clinton understood that the Left could not remain viable without corporate funding, which is why he ditched Labor and courted Wall Street - a move which had terrible consequences.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2014)

_*Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop?*_


Because we are too busy working each day.

How can you pay attention to your job if you are trying to listen to political commentary?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2014)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> ...




Because it's non-commercial, dumbfuck.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 30, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




you're pwned s0n!!


Like 17 people listen to PBS.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 30, 2014)

Liberal radio doesn't catch because liberals already know how stupid their positions are, and don't like to be reminded that their ideology is a joke and they are frauds, just trying to stay in with the "hip" crowds, knowing they're idiots.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's *entertaining*.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



I think you already touched on it (in bold).

Your term "flop" refers in broadcasting to ratings, which is used to set ad rates.  Ratings are derived from emotion, especially that involving conflict.  If you've got a guy on the air who, say, attacks the daughter of the POTUS as the White House dog or starts yelling "SLUT! SLUT! SLUT!", you have drama, and listeners tune in for drama and conflict.  That's how you get ratings.  Talk all day about real or imagined (doesn't matter which) scandals, conspiracy theories, dichotomies of "good" versus "evil" and "us" versus "them" and watch your ad rates soar.

OTOH if you have a dry voice just saying truthful things, they may be true but it's boring in terms of LCD mass appeal.  Audiences are drawn to drama, not facts.

Ratings measure _attention_, and attention is achieved through hair-on-fire emotion and morality plays.  Doesn't matter if they're real or entirely made up.  Nobody watches NASCAR to see who wins; they watch for the wrecks.

Logical enough for ya?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 30, 2014)

LockeJaw said:


> Liberal radio doesn't catch because liberals already know how stupid their positions are, and don't like to be reminded that their ideology is a joke and they are frauds, just trying to stay in with the "hip" crowds, knowing they're idiots.



Ideology doesn't even enter into it.  If you think ratings are some kind of "vote" on approval or disapproval of what's on the air, you're very naïve.

See previous post.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Apr 30, 2014)

*Moved to more appropriate forum.

Party on.*


----------



## AVG-JOE (Apr 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



In a black and white world, where everything and every attitude is either Conservative or it's wrong, perhaps Liberal radio is everything that Conservative radio is not.  That would leave several success stories.

Define "Liberal Radio Failure".


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > bbecause there aren't enough nutters out  there to keep it going.... look at NPR.. it'd have been gone years ago except for taxpayer funding.
> ...



We vote for NPR funding? Really? Evidently you are as every bit delusional as you seem.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> One day the rightwing nuts are crying about the domination of the 'liberal' media, the next day they're crowing about how much conservatism dominates radio.
> 
> And the next day they'll be bragging up Foxnews' ratings.
> 
> So which is it?



Except I'm not crowing about anything. I simply posited the reality about Lib talk radio and you squealed like a stuck pig. Perhaps Dems should dump the jackass and do the pig instead.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Which is good of you but doesn't explain why Lib talk radio is such an abject failure. Why are Lib talk shows so boring that they fail the free market test?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Perhaps but none of that explains why Lib talk radio so sucks that it doesn't survive the litmus test.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Camel crap. NPR actively pursues & attracts corp funding.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

Londoner said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



And yet NPR attracts plenty of corp funding, rendering your post the BS it is.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 30, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



Air America Radio.


----------



## Howey (May 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



Philips Phile. Real Radio 104.1 Orlando. Can't miss.


----------



## The2ndAmendment (May 1, 2014)

Howey said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



No offense, but is his stage name really "Phile." ????

This is why Lib radio fails.


----------



## Clement (May 1, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> I caught a bit of Rush today. A woman called in, complained that it 'wasn't american' for 'them' to take away Donald Sterling's team and livelihood. She said 'they' should just let the market take care of it, but that it wasn't right for 'them' to to do anything to him.
> 
> Rush played along with her. Never did he correct her on the market forces that were in work in Sterling's ban, or that the 'they' in this instance was the NBA and by their rules they're fully justified in acting as they have to protect their industry and was not in any way, shape, or form the government as she seemed to imply. Then he went on a tirade about how women, minorities, and basically anyone but white, christian males has it easy.
> 
> That's why liberal talk radio doesn't work. Not enough dishonesty to make it entertaining.



That was Rush's trademark sarcasm, which libs never get.


----------



## Clement (May 1, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> The question that should be asked is actually why is right-wing talk popular. It became popular because it was the only outlet discussing current events without the left-wing slant the rest of the media employs.
> 
> It became popular because suddenly people of the conservative persuasion were able to hear someone speak who reflected their own sensibilities. *The arrogant leftists have it all wrong (as usual) when they vomit their own talking point that right-wingers listen to Rush so they will know what to think. No, they listen because he says what they already are thinking most of the time.*



That's exactly how I found Rush all those years ago when he first started. It was refreshing to hear someone speak for me for a change.


----------



## Clement (May 1, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > bbecause there aren't enough nutters out  there to keep it going.... look at NPR.. it'd have been gone years ago except for taxpayer funding.
> ...



And for $500 you get a CD of Wayne Newton's favorite hits!


----------



## ogibillm (May 1, 2014)

Clement said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > I caught a bit of Rush today. A woman called in, complained that it 'wasn't american' for 'them' to take away Donald Sterling's team and livelihood. She said 'they' should just let the market take care of it, but that it wasn't right for 'them' to to do anything to him.
> ...


maybe there was some sarcasm in his 'protected minorities' spiel but the rest was played straight.


----------



## Pogo (May 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



AirAmerica was an _organizational_ failure; the business failed because it was badly organized _structurally_.  The talent that was on the air is still on the air today, marketed and distributed by other vendors like Dial Global and Premiere --- the same distributors who handle the Limblob and Inannity shows.  Around here you can listen to either political "side" on your choice of stations --- *both* of which are owned by the same entity, ClearChannel.  They don't care which one you listen to, as long as they have your ears.

As I said before, it's not about ideology; it's about money.  As far as commercial broadcasting, it always was and always will be.  The listener is just an enabler.  If they thought broadcasting the entire contents of the San Francisco phone book would draw listeners, it would be on the air tomorrow.

I may have missed it but I'd like a definition of the word "flop".


----------



## Pogo (May 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LeftofLeft said:
> ...



Yes they do.  That's part of their problem.  It's also the best argument for public funding.  And that corporate shilling has been made necessary by demagogue posers in Congress who periodically start crowing about defunding the CPB to their low-info constituents, and systematically bleed it dry.

That said, NPR itself is a bloated top-heavy organization that could do what it does on the air more efficiently, but NPR and PBS are only a portion of what CPB funds; you want to see the real worth of what CPB does, look at a station like KILI in Porcupine, South Dakota.

This country has a piss-poor structure for public broadcasting because of those cretins who would keep us all dumbed down just so they can personally stay in power.  More advanced countries like Germany and Japan, and even Canada, put us to shame.


----------



## Pogo (May 1, 2014)

LeftofLeft said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> ...



Because unlike your examples, it's not SELLING anything.  DUH.



LeftofLeft said:


> Taxpayers don't need to pay for liberal content. Perhaps you lefties would like taxpayers to fund Limbaugh and Beck. Now that's a true fairness doctrine,



Would it now.

In what way?

This oughta be good.


----------



## Pogo (May 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > The2ndAmendment said:
> ...



What exactly IS this "litmus test"?

I don't think we can really continue until this basis is defined.


----------



## SAYIT (May 1, 2014)

I thought this thread would be good for some tongue-in-cheek posts by our twisted posters and a few laughs. As this did not occur I sought and found a MSM opinion piece on the subject at Variety Mag. The comments are even more revealing than the article. Enjoy:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0ILADg&usg=AFQjCNFsgCJac19-YGugMg09A0PpmtCp8A


----------



## elektra (May 1, 2014)

Liberal radio is a flop because there is no law mandating advertisers and corporations buy advertising on radio stations nobody listens to.


----------



## elektra (May 1, 2014)

Liberal radio is a flop because they could only find enough morons to watch cnn, msnbc, cbs, abc, and nbc.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> I thought this thread would be good for some tongue-in-cheek posts by our twisted posters and a few laughs. As this did not occur I sought and found a MSM opinion piece on the subject at Variety Mag. The comments are even more revealing than the article. Enjoy:
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0ILADg&usg=AFQjCNFsgCJac19-YGugMg09A0PpmtCp8A



So when you say "flop" or "litmus test" you're talking about.... selling ads?



The more basic starting point: what is the purpose of radio?



Pogo said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > Taxpayers don't need to pay for liberal content. Perhaps you lefties would like taxpayers to fund Limbaugh and Beck. Now that's a true fairness doctrine,
> ...




Never got an answer here I see.


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 2, 2014)

Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!


----------



## SAYIT (May 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this thread would be good for some tongue-in-cheek posts by our twisted posters and a few laughs. As this did not occur I sought and found a MSM opinion piece on the subject at Variety Mag. The comments are even more revealing than the article. Enjoy:
> ...



If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop. Why all the squirming, Pogo? We have Lib posters here who claim Lib talk radio failure is a function of lib youth who don't tune in. A valid point but it doesn't challenge the rising of the sun as you seem wont to do.


----------



## elektra (May 2, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!



conspiracy theory? you mean the bengahzi cover-up?


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I wanted you to define the terms you start with.  I think that's a reasonable place to start -- is it not?

So you think the purpose of radio is to sell things?  Is that it?  Sorry, you've been asked for two days at least to define what you mean by "flop" so it's not me doing the squirming.


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 2, 2014)

elektra said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!
> ...





No, I was thinking more along the lines of Limbaugh , who determined that the entire racist incident involving Sterling was actually a set up arranged in such a way as to force him to sell his team for a pittance to an African -American.

I...well, never mind....


----------



## SAYIT (May 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Really? Your first post on this thread was little more than 24 hours ago (http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/352231-why-is-liberal-radio-such-a-flop-9.html#post9023388) in which you thoughtfully explained why you thought Lib talk radio is such a flop. You then returned about 15 hours ago and asked for a definition of "flop." 
Since you didn't seem to read my definition (above in bold) I will repeat it:
If a radio show can't sell advertising or otherwise attract private funding - or for that matter listeners - it's a flop.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I didn't describe it as a "flop" -- you did.  I posted some musings based on assumptions but you hadn't said what you meant by "flop", so assumption was all I had.
Sorry, what you have in bold up there -- I've read it twice now -- is not a definition.  It's one example of what "success" is _not_.  Doesn't tell us what "success" _is_.

I don't think a question can really be explored before we find out what question we're asking.  So I'll try again -- do you think the purpose of radio is to sell commodities?
That is a yes or no question.  If that's not it, what _is_ the purpose of radio?  What then makes a given radio content "successful" or "unsuccessful"? 

Here's why I ask:  Back upthread a ways you posted this:


SAYIT said:


> Why are Lib talk shows so boring that they fail the free market test?



It appears you're under the impression that radio -- talk radio at least -- exists in order to "sell" an ideology. (?)
If it is, what does music radio exist for?  Or sports radio?  Or news radio?
Or is its purpose to sell commodities?  Or something else?

We'll pick it up tamorra.


----------



## Politico (May 2, 2014)

*Why is Liberal Radio Such a Flop? *

Because it is Liberal radio.


----------



## elektra (May 2, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



A caller on Rush's show said that, not Rush.

What Rush did state is why, when it was known all these years, why did the Media ignore Sterling's Racism.

Further, knowing that everyone knew about Sterling, Rush ask's why was the NAACP awarding Sterling a Lifetime achievement award, after giving Sterling awards in the past.


----------



## candycorn (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



When the host of right wing hate radio mischaracterizes lefties there is some residual goodness remaining.  Liberalism has its flaws and what happens on talk radio is you take those flaws to extremes.  When a liberal does that on the air to a conservative, it's easy to make them out to be pure evil.  While the mischaracterizations are both equally off base...one sounds much meaner than the other and Americans simply don't wish to hear that in broad numbers.  Keith Olbermann is probably the best example.


----------



## SAYIT (May 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The market determines the utility and value of products. Viagra was developed as a hair growth drug but the market found a much better and more valuable use. 
Radio's utility has been info and entertainment. Talk radio is a mixture of the two. Get it right and you have a successful show. Get it wrong and you have Lib talk radio.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 2, 2014)

Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 2, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.



Did you worst enemy hack your account to make you look like a tool

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 2, 2014)

Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?

Yeah, there's chronic failure, Dennis Miller but he can't even get arrested. 

So?


----------



## Vandalshandle (May 2, 2014)

elektra said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Whatever. I admit that I did not listen to the show. In fact, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to his show.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So --- you see radio _itself _as a "commodity"?  Kinda like movies?

Quick post, gotta run...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 2, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Why is liberal radio a flop? it isn't. While the Right is listening to Beck and Limbaugh's latest conspiracy theories, laced with fear mongering and paranoia, us liberals are listening to The Prairie Home Companion, and laughing so hard that our sides hurt!



True but NPR isn't liberal. 

Those who never listen to have said it is but all one has to do is actually listen to NPR to know it really is "public" radio. 

We need to make sure the Rs never succeed in getting rid of it or of PBS.  The cost of both are minimal and they serve a public service to those who choose to avail themselves of it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 2, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I've listened to bits and pieces. Its entertainment for the brain dead. Really. 

By his own admission, he says what he is paid to say. He's just a fat, drug/alcohol addicted whore. He has found his niche - stupid people who react with knee jerk hatred for what they don't understand.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 2, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> 
> And, they lack the skills and think they are so smart that no one will care.



How does one try to sound smart?  I understand how some are able to 'sound' (post, actually) stupid - it is easy for most of them.

The answer to the question seem self evident, liberals are educated and able to see the world for all of its intricacies; others - the Ditto Heads and Fox News fans - need to be told what to believe and can be fooled by history rewrites and other less subtle propaganda tools used by the demagogues and charlatans who lead them.


----------



## Pennywise (May 2, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are angry people and all of them try too hard to sound smart, when they just end up looking like poseurs playing a part. Plus, their agenda is way out of the mainstream of thought.
> ...



You can tell when people are trying to sound smart because they lack any ability whatsoever to be self-effacing or otherwise express genuine humor. They tend to be nasty and snarky little bitches, whose only attempts at humor are at the expense of others and it is always a nasty tone, like David Letterman exhibited after he 'came out'.

There you go.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 2, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...


Do you think that talk show hosts should be more humble?  Like Rush Limbaugh humble?


----------



## elektra (May 2, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



This is the problem with liberal talk radio, they have to lie and attempt to be anything but their true selves. Hence liberal talk radio is nothing but insults and epithets hurled against freedom and all that is good in the usa.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2014)

elektra said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Actually you've just described Lush Rimjob, who largely invented that style of attack-dog radio ("slut! slut! slut!").  When AirAmerica came up they largely tried to mimic the same thing from the other side.  It just didn't fit the sensibilities of listeners on the left.  (And I think the genre tried (and still does) far more to be leftist than to be Liberal.)  So well does the attack-dog model work for the right in fact, that they adopt the same tactic here, a good example being the very post above.  This question always makes me think of the idea behind [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Eliminationists-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982"]this book[/ame].

If we can't get a starting definition of "radio flop", perhaps this is a better question: why are listeners on the right so receptive to attack-dog radio while listeners on the left are not?  I've posed that question for years and I don't claim to have an answer.  Yet.  On the other hand the left fares far better with humor while the right seems to view it as an obscure foreign language.  Just a coupla musings...


----------



## HenryBHough (May 2, 2014)

Any kind of programming exists so long as there are sponsors to pay for it.

When businesses try advertising with a program and find business does not increase they try another program.

Stations (except the few funded by communist front organizations) exist by selling the "availabilities" in programs and in between programs.  When local businesses see the ratings figures (pimped by competing stations) they quickly figure that there's nothing in it for them except the prestige of appealing to the few very rich liberals who won't do business with them anyway.

The programs could continue with front-organization donations indefinitely but commercial stations can't survive when what they have to offer (read "sell") is unsaleable.  Therefore they swap out the format and go maybe all sports or all Latino.  

Ob-la-di-Ob-la-dah......life goes on......


----------



## Synthaholic (May 2, 2014)

Liberal TV is a smash hit!

Go to HBO.com and watch Bill Maher Overtime, right now!

HBO


----------



## HenryBHough (May 2, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Liberal TV is a smash hit!
> 
> Go to HBO.com and watch Bill Maher Overtime, right now!
> 
> HBO




Liberals.

No money for food - food stamps instead.

No money for phones - Obamaphones instead.

But they got money to buy HBO.

Go figure.

Or......is Your New Messiah handing out Get-HBO-free prepaid credit cards now?


----------



## Synthaholic (May 2, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal TV is a smash hit!
> ...




What the fuck you talkin' about, loser?  I gots HBO AND Showtime!

And you know those are really Reaganphones, don't you?  It's his program.

Of course you don't - you're a dumbass.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 2, 2014)

HBO and Showtime are pay-for type channels.

Unless, of course, someone is clever enough to steal them.

Or too stupid to understand they are paying though, in fairness, perhaps through some other contractual agreement.


----------



## elektra (May 2, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Really, thank you for confirming my post as being fact. Given the chance to prove differently Pogo begins the rebuttal by hurling epithets, such as a Bigot does. 

Then Pogo again resorts to exactly  what I describe in my post, pure attack with no basis on reality, Pogo tells us what we should think, nowhere does Pogo actually provide a quote, which is easily done, simply go to Rush's page and do a search of the archives. 

Further Pogo continues to the Attack to end, mischaracterizing ordinary Americans "sense of humor" well insulting us people who work at real jobs making life easier for Pogo.

Everything in Pogo's post is nothing more than insults, lies, and political propaganda talking points, which I in so many words described as to why Liberal radio fails. 

Pogo validates my post by being a Bigot, Stereotyping millions who Pogo does not know, and will never know.

It is that kind of blind Bigotry that killed the Jews and Blacks, simply a bad trait of human nature, a shame we did not see the end of people such as Pogo with the Republicans winning the Civil Rights movement or our ideals and actions winning World War II.

Sad shame you are Pogo, and any time you feel like going one on one, over the content of any Radio show, feel free to start a thread in "Media".


----------



## Synthaholic (May 2, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> HBO and Showtime are pay-for type channels.
> 
> Unless, of course, someone is clever enough to steal them.
> 
> Or too stupid to understand they are paying though, in fairness, perhaps through some other contractual agreement.


What the fuck are you babbling about, loser?


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



??

Do you have any clue what the word _epithet_ or the word _bigot_ actually mean?  Either one?



elektra said:


> Then Pogo again resorts to exactly  what I describe in my post, pure attack with no basis on reality



-- where did I attack you?  Where?



elektra said:


> , Pogo tells us what we should think



again --------- where?



elektra said:


> , nowhere does Pogo actually provide a quote, which is easily done, simply go to Rush's page and do a search of the archives.



uhh... what the fuck do you think "slut slut slut" is?



elektra said:


> Further Pogo continues to the Attack to end



What the fuck is an "attack to end"?  What's being attacked?  To what end?

Are you drunk or what?  This post gets more and more incoherent...



elektra said:


> , mischaracterizing ordinary Americans "sense of humor" well insulting us people who work at real jobs making life easier for Pogo.



What in the wide world of Blue Fuck are you talking about?  Where the fuck did I make reference to anyone's job?  Are you on drugs?  



elektra said:


> Everything in Pogo's post is nothing more than insults, lies, and political propaganda talking points, which I in so many words described as to why Liberal radio fails.



What I did was raise questions.  And point out that I don't know the answer to them.  Do questions confuse you then?
You know that by this point I'm long past the point where I'm addressing your post and have moved on to addressing the general readership because it ain't all about you--- you know that, right?



elektra said:


> Pogo validates my post by being a Bigot, Stereotyping millions who Pogo does not know, and will never know.



The insane?



elektra said:


> It is that kind of blind Bigotry that killed the Jews and Blacks



Wait, hold up......

*Raising questions of audience psychology "killed the Jews and Blacks"??*

Are you hallucinating?

Who told you the Jews and Blacks are dead?   _WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???_



elektra said:


> , simply a bad trait of human nature, a shame we did not see the end of people such as Pogo with the Republicans winning the Civil Rights movement or our ideals and actions winning World War II.








elektra said:


> Sad shame you are Pogo, and any time you feel like going one on one, over the content of any Radio show, feel free to start a thread in "Media".



Uhhhhhhh ---- this IS a thread in "Media".  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





This is a perfect example of the lesson that PWI never ends well.   Holy _shit_ that was a verbal clusterfuck.


----------



## elektra (May 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Actually, I did not know the meaning of one word as you stated, but the other fits you quite well, a bigot.

Lush Rimjob is in your response to me? Am I to think that is your idea of a warm welcome, what exactly is your purpose using such an insult while responding to me? Am I to think your are simply an intelligent reasoning man, engaging me in a reasonable discussion.

So yes, asshole, I know what a Bigot it is, its a person that labels without thinking, without knowing, they have a tendency to use insults while engaging those they hate.

yea, I see your other post, your scratching your skull asking if I am drunk, you began the rant, your reply was nothing but an attack, I am not surprised that you can not understand that, the bigot never sees himself for what he is, ironic yes, but if it was otherwise there would be no bigots. 

go ahead reply, find an error in punctuation or my use of a word, its all you got, its all you're capable of, intellectually, oh, and I look forward to your "Rush Limbaugh" thread in media, I can not wait.

anyhow, Mark Levin if by far the most important voice in America, Rush is about tied because of the number of people that listen to Rush. 

go ahead, I can't wait for your thread and your next astonishing post.


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Are you Lush Rimjob?

--- Then it's not your concern, is it? 

Rimjob is a third party.  And part of mass media, which is what this thread and this forum category is about.

What the fuck are you suggesting ---- that no one may dare criticize some third party just because you obsequiously fawn over him?  And this after ludicrously posting, "Pogo tells us what we should think" with a straight face?  

What do you have, an emotional relationship with a radio blowhard?

I think you'd better sleep this one off, Gomer.  You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## elektra (May 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Lush, that term means a drunk?

Rimjob, if I can quote the urban dictionary:

Urban Dictionary: rim job



> the act of orally stimulating the external anal sphincter to cause sexual arousal



 mr pogo, opening with this type of insult, has the audacity to believe anyone could consider pogo to be anything less than a bigot.

a true piece of work you are, I am happy I will never meet you,


----------



## elektra (May 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



hey pogo, take a look at your sentence, are you drunk. "so well does the"? Pogo's grammar is very poor.

Why did you not state, "The Attack-Dog model works so well that".

To much drink yes? 5$ super market vodka?


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




Exactly what part of "you are not Lush Rimjob" is sailing over your head here, Gomer?

I cannot insult Lush Rimjob if he is not here.  I could insult you, but you seem to have that covered.  You're burying yourself faster than I could.  And you still have no clue what the word _bigot_ means.

This is a free speech zone, Bub.  I will hold whatever opinion of Lush Rimjob I damn well please and there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it, nor should there be.  If you want to control what everybody else thinks, get thee to a plane bound for North Korea.  Doesn't fly in this country, pun intended.  And if you actually have such an emotional relationship with a voice on the radio you've never met that you melt down at the first hint that the emperor has no clothes, then I submit you need a psychologist even more than you need a travel agent.

Sleep it off, Otis. It's hard to watch.


----------



## elektra (May 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



"What the fuck are you suggesting", I did not suggest anything, I stated you are a bigot, I state that morons are bigots, I state that pogo is bigot and the fact that proves this is how pogo chooses to address my posts with literal, vulgar insults. 

only a moron would expect anyone to respond to such vulgarity any other way. It does not matter who Rush Limbaugh is, what matters is that pogo's first choice of terms to use while responding to me, is "rimjob". 

I cannot help if pogo chooses to behave exactly as a bigot behaves, so I call pogo a bigot. No suggesting nothing, its how pogo acts, pretty crazy as far as I am concerned.

I never begin conversations as pogo does, yet pogo acts innocent, like rimjob is a term one would use when talking with ones mother, neighbor, or with strangers.

rimjob, really, that is your understanding, very bigoted moron!


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



"*So well does* (the model work) *that *they adopt the same tactic".  "So well... (how well?)  well enough that..".  Not a damn thing wrong with the grammar. 

We speak English here.  What is your native tongue?  You don't seem to have figured this one out yet.

English does not have rigid syntactical rules.  We can express syntax however we would like it to flow.  I don't need to lead with the subject.  Again, word fascist, *I* write my own stuff -- not you.  Like it or lump it.


----------



## Two Thumbs (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



radio doesn't have moving colors to distract them with.  In radio you have to consider what the person is saying, not just stare blankly.


----------



## Two Thumbs (May 3, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> We're not much for propaganda.



Not the 'lie of the year' but in the top 5 easy peasy.


----------



## elektra (May 3, 2014)

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...





> Do you have any clue what the word epithet or the word bigot actually mean? Either one?



correct me if I am wrong, but pogo's above quote is the equivalent of what pogo is claiming to be "fascist", pogo why is it okay for you to use this tactic, first against me, but when pogo receives the same tactic it becomes, "fascist". 

Are you drunk, pogo? If I can ask what you implied of me. Or would that be "fascist", go ahead, explain you're hypocrisy.


----------



## Clement (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



I lived in a place one time that could only receive one station on FM, and that was an NPR/Classical music station. (To me, the classical music format is NPR's only saving grace). 

The only problem was that the only times they actually played classical music was when I was asleep or at work. The rest of the time it was propaganda like "Stale Air with Terry Disgusting". It would have been nice to get some music to go with that.


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.



Silliness. Commercial talk radio like any commodity is intended to MAKE MONEY or, as in the case of NPR, at least break even. If you have a successful Lib talk show you will get sponsors. The truth you claim to want made public is that socialism, like Lib talk radio, is an abject failure. Get off your butt and help pull the train ... there's a lot of peeps riding it who genuinely need our help.


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?
> 
> Yeah, there's chronic failure, Dennis Miller but he can't even get arrested.
> 
> So?



How does that explain the failure of Lib talk radio? You wouldn't be deflecting, would you?


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Whatever the shortcomings of Con talk radio - and there's many - it generates enough listeners to attract sponsors. Are you really saying there's not enough stupid liberals who react with knee jerk hatred to do the same for Lib talk radio? Evidently not enough smart, thoughtful libs either.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 3, 2014)

Musing on a silly scenario of about five years ago.

In a relatively small American city a failing AM radio station - I have no idea what the format was - was sold at a bargain price to a trade union.

The format became liberal talk with some of the "big" names mentioned above but local hosts dealing with local issues went over better.

Pretty well, in fact.

Then the local staff attempted to go union.  There was a rather nasty battle.  Some local hosts were silenced.  Strangely, the union owners didn't want their employees to unionize.

Go figure.

It wasn't long before the station was sold and the liberal talk went away. I believe the next iteration was all sports.  I say "I believe" because I did occasionally listen to the lib-talk (know thine enemy) but have no interest in all-sports so I changed the buttons on the car radio and haven't kept track of the station since.   Should anyone really want to know I guess I could check around and see what the format is today but I'm not interested.

The car radio doesn't get much use outside of traffic hours these days.  I need the traffic reports and can tolerate the all-news (not commentary) format of the station that does the best work with traffic.  

Oh, the radio button that got changed?  It went over to the last remaining station in the market that was playing a variation of the Music of Your Life format.  Shortly thereafter the no sponsor/falling numbers bug bit there and now that station is all sports all the time.

Other phenom I've noticed in several markets:  When a station runs through about 4 format changes in 2 years and still fails it is sold.  In the case of AMs to local churches.  In the case of FMs to national religious entities like the K-LOVE group.  I can't say whether those religious stations have the numbers and commercial sponsorship to survive or whether they're subsidized so as to continue to preach to the converted.

Hey, they're providing at least a few jobs, giving people choices, and aren't forcing anyone to listen.


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Musing on a silly scenario of about five years ago.
> 
> In a relatively small American city a failing AM radio station - I have no idea what the format was - was sold at a bargain price to a trade union.
> 
> ...



Funny how capitalism is soooo evil until the workers get their hands on something. Then they act just like capitalists ... in their own best interest.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...


Is Rush Limbaugh the humble host missing in Liberal radio?  Is Rush Limbaugh a humble host?


----------



## Papageorgio (May 3, 2014)

No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## ogibillm (May 3, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.



explain glen beck then. end of the world is his bread and butter


----------



## Papageorgio (May 3, 2014)

ogibillm said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.
> ...



I don't listen to Beck, why don't you tell me more about why you listen to him.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 3, 2014)

My curiosity got the best of me this morning.  One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive.  Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.

The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd.  I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!

The station is now a FOX affiliate with a network schedule generously leaning toward the right as one might expect.  BUT the local hosts in between the "big names" carried by FOX are largely liberal!  Some of them carry-overs from the most Marxist-leaning days of the former owners.  

This all makes sense! 

There are three other right-leaning stations in the market, each carrying the really big names in conservative talk and with strongly conservative local hosts.  This station's carry-over liberals represent the most entertaining of those who got their start in the all-leftist-all-the-time days of union, anti-unionist ownership.  The chaff is gone but the wheat remains.  A couple of them really do put some effort into making left-leaning commentary on LOCAL issues.  It's not "party line" - they really do put some thought into it and some of their points are valid and well taken.  They do it well.  The others are so virulently Marxist - applying Obamalogic (if there is such a thing) to local issues where it's obviously hard work to have that pertain.  But they're so _comically_ leftist that they're amusing to hear.

I used to listen more than just occasionally to those particular professional liberal hosts and sort of missed them when they disappeared.  True, much as one might miss a case of shingles were it to suddenly be healed, yet the good ones are good enough that they're worth giving some ear to and the comics - well laughter is said to be good in moderate doses.

My belief (there's that word that so troubles the liberals again) is that some "capitalist bastard" has found a way to make lemonade out of what was once the most sour of lemons and will make a decent buck off the format.  And that's gotta _realllllllly_ piss off some liberals.  But they'll listen 'cause it's the only game in town.  Maybe in protest they'll boycott businesses who sponsor the liberal talkers?  That'd be about their intelligence level.  Never saw a liberal unwilling to gnaw on the hand that feeds it.


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> My curiosity got the best of me this morning.  One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive.  Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.
> 
> The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd.  I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!
> 
> ...



The funniest humor is dipped in truth.. 
The comment in bold is similar to the reason for the failure of Lib talk radio stated in the OP. 
That is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> The funniest stories must be dipped in truth..
> 
> The comment in bold is similar to the reason for the failure of Lib talk radio stated in the OP.
> 
> That is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.



Now some jackass will hobble along and try to derail the thread by demanding you be punished for "editing" my original post by adding the bold-faced emphasis.

To them I say:  "Piss Off".  I am in no way upset by the addition of the bold face emphasis.  Indeed, I am most pleased!.  I should have done it originally to assist liberals with their ongoing comprehension problem.  Thank you for making it easier for them!!!!


----------



## MaryL (May 3, 2014)

I just listened to Limbaugh's show on the Sterling issue about  racism and liberals. I don't like Rush, but I wondered from the onset about the whole Sterling affair if this wasn't just blacks/liberals over reaction.  Sterling  paid people (blacks)  millions of dollars to play a children's game.  Sterling never ever hurt anyone. I noticed how nobody offered to return the money he paid in their outrage. Liberal radio does just fine on NPR. They push agendas too, and I can live with that. But as for a balanced approach, not perceiving it anywhere  accept on the internet. Facts don't follow agendas or party lines.


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Because Radio is paid for by Corporations and they don't want the truth out to the public.
> ...



I have yet to see you address the question but it's looking like you believe the purpose of radio is to sell things.*

We already know the purpose of advertising is to sell us things we don't need (things we do need, we're already seeking).  Therefore in your view radio has no purpose but advertising, which is to say, you apparently believe radio has no constructive purpose at all.  

And if that's the premise, then content on that radio is irrelevant, except as it serves ratings.  And ratings measure attention, not assent; and attention is won by controversy and drama and strong emotion -- certainly not by rectitude or accuracy.  Therefore ideology is irrelevant.  It's all in how the message is framed, i.e. the style.  If one treats radio as nothing more than a commodity, then what "sells" that commodity is not liberal talk or conservative talk or sports or any genre of music ---- it's how well the psychological manipulation of attention-seeking is executed.

In other words when Lush Rimjob declares his "talent on loan from God", he doesn't win listeners for his alleged "talent" -- he wins listeners for his overabundant _arrogance_.  And that's got nothing to do with his subject matter; it's personal.


*(Not that I agree at all with that assessment of the purpose of radio; I think it hopelessly boxes itself in with a slavish commodity mentality -- a Ferengi world where everything has a price and must be transacted in order to have validity.  "Flop", after all, derives from a world of top 40 music radio --- a world where art is reduced to a commodity for sale.  And that's the problem with the whole pretense of the question; it's invalid.  _Discourse _is not a commodity.)


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone already ask/answer why there are no successful late-night rw shows? No successful rw comedians?
> ...



That's not a deflection at all -- it reignites my musing earlier on why the audiences on the right seem to respond more to vitriol while those on the left respond to humor.  What I mean to suggest is that maybe liberal radio (as commodity) "flops" because it's trying to use the wrong tools.


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



What you seem to be saying then is that the political talk format, as established by conservatives, is by nature an exercise in dishonesty.  The logical conclusion then is that liberals (by which I still think you mean leftists) are just not as good at dishonesty.

Is that where you're going with this?


----------



## Pogo (May 3, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> My curiosity got the best of me this morning.  One of our vehicles has a pretty weak radio - that's the one I normally drive.  Today I purposely took the one with the better radio so I could tune in the once union-owned station of which I earlier spoke.
> 
> The call letters have been changed (surprised?) and the programming seemed a bit odd.  I checked their internet website and found something not just odd - downright peculiar!
> 
> ...



Safe to say if Millie Henry's posts were a radio station, these endless diatribes yammering on and on and on about da evul liburruls and what his last fart smelled like would qualify as a "flop"....


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



You've certainly seen my description of radio's purpose (post #168) but you seem more interested in ignoring it and putting your words into my mouth. I assure you, to the owners of radio stations their asset exists to earn money but just to show what a good sport I am, even in the fact of willful obstinance, I will repost:
"The market determines the utility and value of products ... Radio's utility has been info and entertainment. Talk radio is a mixture of the two. Get it right and you have a successful show. Get it wrong and you have Lib talk radio."


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Well, that's not what I was saying (you do expend much effort reading your thoughts into my posts rather than just taking them at face value) but I'll play.
Most adults, with varying degree of success, manage to determine what is truth and what is BS. As such, Lib talk radio fails to attract & hold an audience large enough to be commercially viable.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 4, 2014)

Imagine what a success a liberal radio format might enjoy if it were 24/7 devoted to aberrant sexual practices with anal emphasis!  

I mean, it's a subject that, in the thread above, is obviously dear to their little hearts.  And other parts, too.....


----------



## Pogo (May 4, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Imagine what a success a liberal radio format might enjoy if it were 24/7 devoted to aberrant sexual practices with anal emphasis!
> 
> I mean, it's a subject that, in the thread above, is obviously dear to their little hearts.  And other parts, too.....



Oh that already exists.  It's called the "the shock jock".  And when it ventures into the political it's called "The Glenn Beck".


----------



## Pogo (May 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You continue to dance around a definition without giving one.  Describing what happens if you pick from Column A and what happens when you pick from Column B, is NOT a definition.

You seem to assume above (and of course I can't put words in your mouth but it's implied) that the purpose of radio is to "sell things".  Not sure why that's such a bugaboo to answer but there it is -- and to follow the statement out to the end, it also seems you see some correlation between accuracy and ratings response.  And I defy you to demonstrate where that theory has any validity at all.


----------



## Pogo (May 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Same point as above, deja vued all over again.  Your pretense above speaks of "stupid (listeners) with knee jerk hatred" as the requisite ingredient for ratings "success"...

Well you can't have it both ways.  Either what generates more ratings is honesty and accuracy, or what generates more ratings is fakery, disingenuousness, sensationalist exaggeration and psychological manipulation.   One of these is actually correct.  Pick a side.


Here's a handy hint:


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Now you are back to offering reasons for why it flops ("it's using the wrong tools"). 
You seem to think that those who produce and broadcast Lib talk radio shows aren't bright enough to figure out a winning formula. I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I see commercial viability or the lack of same as market validation or rejection. 
Radio shows that can't afford to keep the lights on - in this case Lib talk radio - are a flop. Sometimes success means corp sponsors, sometimes it's private grants, and sometimes it's volunteers ... a formula that NPR, with a bit of public funding, uses relatively successfully.


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I do not disagree with the entertainment component in Con talk radio but this thread is not about Con radio but rather the abject failure of Lib talk radio.
As you already noted, the problem may well be the formula employed or perhaps Lib talk radio, thanks in large part to the subject matter, is just plain BORING.


----------



## Pogo (May 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



--- and I keep telling you, the subject matter is irrelevant.  An issue that is hot at the time could be the same subject matter on both right and left talk radio.  I submit that it's all about the _presentation_.

For example -
Who watches WWE (above) out of an interest in the finer points of wrestling technique?  Very few.  Make it into a scripted morality play fueled by a simplistic dichotomy of "good versus evil" -- now you have an audience.  The play's the thing.

For example - 
A building has a security guard outside?  So what.  Boring and pedestrian.

Dress that picture up as "the new black panthers" with all kinds of suggestions on how the black man is coming to get you?  Now you have an audience.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 4, 2014)

Could be.

Indeed there may be liberal hosts who could make it interesting.

Wake me when there is one.


----------



## Pogo (May 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



That's assuming the implication that you think radio is a commodity to buy and sell things.  In that context, it _is_ using the wrong tools.  Simply put, facts don't sell.  *Emotion* sells.  That's why when Lush Rimjob's ratings are swan diving, he goes on the air for three days calling a college student "slut".  It's designed to kindle outrage, both for and against his words, and thereby hike his ratings.  And that has zero to do with whether those listeners agree or not.  Or are even interested in the issue.  People want to watch a truck jackknife.  They really don't care what the truck was hauling ---- unless of course it was toxic waste or flammable stuff which promises yet more drama.



SAYIT said:


> You seem to think that those who produce and broadcast Lib talk radio shows aren't bright enough to figure out a winning formula.



Once again, we beg the question of what we mean by "winning".  What exactly is the game that needs "winning"?  Again this sounds like the commodity fetish, where everything is a product to be bought and sold.  Do you believe that's all there is?




(and if it is, how do you explain noncommercial broadcasting?)



SAYIT said:


> I'll stick to my original theory ... that while many will vote for what the Dems promise to give them, most peeps just don't care to listen to or discuss the silliness that is the lib POV.



Again, as above, you're assuming that an audience tunes in or doesn't tune in based on *content*.  I've seen zero evidence that that's the case.  I'll say this over and over until it sinks in: ratings measure *attention* -- not assent.

And those traits exist independent of each other.  Think about it -- is it not possible, even necessary, to pay attention to a POV with which one disagrees?  If it is, how do we explain this message board?  I'm certainly not in this thread because I "agree" with the premise.  I have yet to even get a definition of it.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is one last time:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?


If you're SERIOUS about the ansewr, I'll give it to you.

For 1, the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers themselves...including most of the...actually, all of them. There are no radio stations owned by a LWer.

Secondly, political talk radio STARTED as RW radio. It was a response to their perceived persecution complex of a "librul meedya" and birthed a naturally in-bred environment where they were told what they wanted to hear, whether true, half-true or completely false, it made them feel good.

Thirdly, liberals are naturally multi-faceted consumers, so they get their news from multiple sources, least of all from the radio. The natural audience of a radio talk listener and an older, often rural individual, that slants to the right.

I could go into more, but those are some three major factors that should give a good reason why RW radio dominates.

A thoughtful person could easily figure that out IMO.


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



And where do you get the idea that some entire genre of radio "can't pay its bills"?  And how do you explain that that radio is still on the air right here right now, if it "can't pay its bills"?  Doesn't add up.  Still looking for a non-Sheen definition of "winning" too.  What's to win?


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...



That's real sweet but the OP was not about RW radio or Lib news sources but rather the utter failure of Lib talk radio. Try to at least touch on the subject matter and thanks for playing.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Really dude? You want a definition of what "is" is? Really? 
I don't believe you are as dim as your argument makes you seem so obviously you are just being obtuse.
You wobble back and forth between denying Lib talk radio's failure and proffering reasons for it.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


I just covered the entire subject.

I guess it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion.

That answers my first statement in my response.

Have a good one sir.

*tips hat and leaves*


----------



## Rozman (May 5, 2014)

Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Well, you did manage to dance around it but never quite addressed the subject at hand.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?


If you look into it, you'll soon discover that radio stations are a monopoly.

Go and check, come back and tell me if it's so.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?
> ...



Why don't *you* back up your claims with facts and while doing so please provide some evidence that the OWNERS of all these radio stations are serious RWers.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...





> *FACT:* The Telecommunications Act of 1996 lifted ownership limits for radio stations, leading to incredible consolidation of radio station ownership. One company alone, Clear Channel Inc., owns 850 radio stations across the country. Before the change, a company could not own more than 40 stations nationwide.  Several large stations owned by Clear Channel briefly banned the music of the Dixie Chicks because of their critical comments about then-President George W. Bush.  Stations owned by Infinity have also banned certain musicians based on their political views. - See more at: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause



Clear Channel owns MOST of the radio stations in the country.
Source: Facts On Media In America: Did You Know? - Common Cause

Clear channel is owned by Bain Capital
Source: Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bain Capital is owned by Bill Bain & (drum roll please) MITT ROMNEY!

Yeah...the most recent REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

Yes, it's nothing but a bunch of RWers that own practically ALL radio stations.

You THINK they want to hear Liberal Talk espoused on their airwaves whether it's popular or not?


----------



## Papageorgio (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Clear Channel carries several liberal talk shoes, the ratings suck, Tom Leykis had a good liberal show and ratings but he went to shock radio, more or less. KGO in San Francisco had lots of liberals and was successful up until 2005 or so and switch to all news because of decreased ratings. 

As far as the Republican owned BS, in TV, where Republicans own many stations, liberals have owned the programming and as long as it is popular. It's the bottom line. 


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Their ratings don't suck, they beat many other RW talkers that have been and continue to be on the air.

But you're married to that idea, so I imagine there's no penetrating that thick bubble you've amassed around your skull on that subject.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


OH, and why do you call it "Republican owned BS?"

I've just PROVEN that they ARE REpublican owned.

Plain and simple.

Here's a simple rule. When you own something, you get to CHOOSE what happens on it/with it. In the case of radio stations, the owners CHOOSE what they want on the air.

You're telling me that a Presidential Candidate will just allow opposition talking points to be spewed on HIS airwaves with him not doing anything about it?

If you believe that tripe, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows. 

Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then. 

The simple truth is ratings, ratings win, the rest walks. You get listeners, you get advertisers, you make money. That's how it works, pure and simple. 


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.
> 
> Ratings win, the rest is BS. Right wing radio has ran the air waves for over 20 plus years, Clear channel wasn't that big, back then.
> 
> ...


And I'm saying your partisanship has blinded you to the obvious.

Ratings don't matter when better rated shows are being discarded while lesser rated shows are still on the air.

How do you explain that?

Also, how do you explain where the same show is played on two different radio stations, at the same time in the same geography? That's radio...how do you explain that one?

Let me help you, it's what the owners get to do when they are PURPOSEFULLY get to push what THEY want on the air, ratings be damned.

Since the Fairness Doctrine was removed, it all went to pot, that's when Clear Channel bought up everything in sight and the airwaves changed, where they could monopolize and control what's on the air, regardless of the ratings.

These are facts sir.

Are they getting through to you?


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Again, you have yet to define "failure".  Inasmuch as it's still on the air at this moment, we can rule out "failure to exist".  What's left?  Failure to do what?  What is so difficult about this?


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I've got a local station right here that has been carrying the leftist fare (and once again, it's leftist, not liberal) since the AirAmerica days, and still is.  How do they do that if it "can't pay its bills"?

I can neither "deny" or "affirm" what you call _failure_ until you can define what that means.  I've asked like 35 times what your benchmark for success or failure is.  I've asked you what it is you expect of radio.  You don't seem to want to answer.

It's like if I say "the answer is 86.  Explain why".  What's the question?


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.
> ...



If I may interject -- ClearChannel's eating binge came about as a result of TelComm 96, not the Fairness Doctrine (Telecommunications Act of 1996) which obliterated cross ownership regulations and opened the floodgates to monopoly manipulating.  And yes, that did create a huge opening for Lush Rimjob.  That erosion (of diversity of voices on the airwaves) is a far bigger concern to us than Lush Rimjob or the Fairness Doctrine.  Because those regulations were put in place to keep from happening exactly what's _been_ happening - corporate consolidation and monopolization of the ether by fewer and fewer voices, to the point where a single entity was at one point running *twelve hundred* radio stations.  Not to mention other pies their fingers are in.  That is anathema to discourse.

IMHO.

And when mass media was making itself that great big ice cream cone, since it's already the entity that would be reporting on the story (i.e. reporting on its own conflicts of interest), they gave us a combined total -- all networks combined -- of _nineteen minutes_ on the story.

And you guys wonder why I keep telling you to look up at the freaking puppet strings...


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using an Android.


This is your belief, and no amount of facts, new information or anything will penetrate that thick skull of yours to convince it otherwise.

So you start off w/a belief, and back up into the justification of it, no matter what is presented to you.

The standard far RW fare.


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> No one listens to it, it is boring radio, that is why it flops, no one wants to sit and listen to how bad the world is and how we are all responsible for all the woes of the world that is going to implode in 10 years.



Somebody made that point a while back, and as I noted at the time, you just described what Lush Rimjob does, so how do you explain that?

Of course, this again depends on what we mean by "flop" or "failure".  And Limblob's knuckledragging demagoguery certainly meets at least an aesthetic definition of those terms.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



There's nearly 15,000 radio stations in the US and Clear Channel owns 850. I realize in your mind that is "MOST of the radio stations in the country" but that is only because you are an idiot. Have a nice night.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Are Liberals not allowed to buy radio stations?
> ...




I understand it surprises when our views begin to coincide...but here we are again!

While I disagree that radio stations are a monopoly they are, in many markets, uncomfortably close to that.

I actually liked the situation better when there were clear limits on total ownership and very tightly defined limits on ownership within a single market.  As it stands a handful of corporate owners each own hundreds (some may own thousands - I long ago stopped counting) and many in any single market.  The number dependent on size of the market and other factors that I won't even try to enumerate 'cause it's like a puzzle with some of the pieces gone.

But not, overall, a monopoly.  In any multi-station market it is not permitted that ALL the signals belong to one entity.    True that in some markets all the powerful signals are under one owner and what's left is low power, poor signal stations.  Not a situation I like but not one I can call "monopoly".  Only real potential for a monopoly is a single-station market where there is no allocation for a second signal.  Yes,there are still some but not many these days.

The two-edged sword that's out there is called "localism".  That's something that was lost when gigantic group ownerships sucked up hundreds of stations and started killing off local programming.  The pejorative in the industry is "bird fed" - centralized programming fed by satellite to multiple stations each of which has but a token skeleton staff and perhaps one small "studio" gathering dust.  That's something that needs adjustment but, so far, the only proposals have been from the left and equate to a potential total ban on networked long-form (read "talk" or "call-in") programming.  The clear intent is to silence voices of dissent.  Trouble is that's the unspoken but obvious goal of both left and right.

There's some interesting stuff going on with LPFM (low-power FM) and internet-only stations but a lot of big-group money is being spent to erect roadblocks.  Seems like music licensing organizations are doing their best to drive stakes through the hearts of that kind of localism.  Fertile field there to be somehow regulated but vast temptation to get cack-handed and use what should encourage diversity to instead stifle points of view.

As to the politics of ownership - big corporate owners have their eye on the stock (read the buck).  They'll do whatever they see as serving that goal.  Right now there's money to be made in right-wing talk.  I really do believe that if Korean language hymns suddenly started attracting listeners AND advertisers than you'd be overwhelmed with that within a year.  

No denying that some individuals owning radio stations are doing so to advance their personal agenda.  Biggest example, though, is not political - it's religious.  The biggest of which I'm aware is the K-LOVE group with a huge number of stations.  One other - the name escapes me now - is fundamentalist Christian but doesn't directly program religion.  It does tend to right-leaning programming in many markets but runs all-sports and all-business in others.  The objective there appears not to be preaching to the converted, rather to make money to spend on growing the faith.

It's interesting that churches not traditionally into broadcasting are getting their feet wet.  Not just in radio but also in TV.  Several Catholic radio stations have cropped up in recent years and if you have cable TV you know about EWTN.  Some EWTN programming is showing up on over-the-air TV and some of the audio is carried on radio though not necessarily on church-owned stations; More on individual stations whose owners are of the faith.

I believe we can agree that the picture is pretty bleak and for some of the same reasons.  Some.  But not all.  Trick is to fix it without turning the public airwaves into something like now exists in Venezuela where the few stations that haven't been confiscated/shut down are preaching the gospel according to the regime exclusively in the interest of survival.

Beware a government that wants that.  Right or left.  Beware.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



In fact, it may be that you just don't understand or simply refuse to accept my oft posted definition so here it is once again:
FLOP (failure): noun
The inability of commercial (private) radio programming to pay its bills.
Used in a sentence: What happened to my favorite Lib talk radio show?


----------



## HenryBHough (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Somebody made that point a while back, and as I noted at the time, you just described what Lush Rimjob does, so how do you explain that?
> 
> Of course, this again depends on what we mean by "flop" or "failure".  And Limblob's knuckledragging demagoguery certainly meets at least an aesthetic definition of those terms.




Please do try to get help with that sexual/anal fixation.  The credibility you should have from apparent experience is dwindling.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 5, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying your argument does not hold water. TV is also Republican dominated, it is still large liberal shows.
> ...



Sir, I believe you are wrong, very few times do high rated shows get pulled for no reason, a lot of the time it has to do with contract and other items.

Clear Channel owns 850 stations out of how many thousands. 

The only radio I listen to is Classic Radio, Laugh USA, or ESPN. Politics on radio is not entertaining anymore.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## MarcATL (May 5, 2014)

MaryL said:


> I just listened to Limbaugh's show on the Sterling issue about  racism and liberals. I don't like Rush, but I wondered from the onset about the whole Sterling affair if this wasn't just blacks/liberals over reaction.  Sterling  paid people (blacks)  millions of dollars to play a children's game.  Sterling never ever hurt anyone. I noticed how nobody offered to return the money he paid in their outrage. Liberal radio does just fine on NPR. They push agendas too, and I can live with that. But as for a balanced approach, not perceiving it anywhere  accept on the internet. Facts don't follow agendas or party lines.





HenryBHough said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...


Well, you have a good grasp on this issue. More detailed than me.

We're in agreement.


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Doesn't work. Once again, for the third (fourth?) time, I've got such a station right here paying its bills and doing fine.  Your premise is inoperative.
In order to pose the question of why something is so, you have to first establish that it, in fact, IS so.  This seems to be a mystery for you.


----------



## elektra (May 5, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



I would say Rush Limbaugh is very humble.


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Funny how you flip-flop between posting reasons (excuses) for Lib talk radio's utter failure and denying it is a failure. Nevertheless I'm willing to concede that a few exceptions to the rule exist if you have the integrity to admit that Lib talk radio is a flop.
In fact, I'll admit that a few exceptions to the rule exist even if you lack that integrity.


----------



## Pogo (May 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Exceptions to ..... _WHAT?_  What is it about this question you're afraid to answer?


----------



## SAYIT (May 5, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You posed no question that I haven't answered.


----------



## Indeependent (May 5, 2014)

NYC has three major Conservative Talk Radio stations, 710 (WOR), 770 (ABC) and 970.
With the exception of Rush (went from 770 to 710), Hannity (went from 770 to 710), Levin (770) and Savage (went from 710 to 770), the majority of the other hosts last no longer than 1 year.
Those that last longer than one year get shuffled to the midnight to 6AM shift because their ratings are in the cellar.

Many of these hosts start off as Independent and suddenly, usually within 2 weeks, become talking heads.
One reason is the call comes in from above reminding them of their short term contracts and doing what they're told.
The other reason is the vast majority of the single dimension callers.


----------



## elektra (May 5, 2014)

Liberal Radio has failed because all they do is insult and lie, its literally just a continuous political rant people see thru.

I did a quick search on, "liberal radio".

https://www.google.com/search?q=liberal+radio&oq=liberal+radio&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61l3j0l2.4551j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

The second search result is as follows



> Thom Hartmann is the #1 progressive radio talk show host in the US and a New York Times bestselling author, including 4 Project Censored awards, of 21 .



So, I follow the link, click on the "radio" tab, then the "transcripts" tab, the 3rd transcript is as follows, stating Reagan began a war against voters.



Transcript: Thom Hartmann: What the Reagan Revolution has brought us... - 27 June '13 | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show



> But this war against voters didnt begin on Tuesday or last week or last month or even last year. The war against voters started in 1980 when Ronald Reagan, or 1981, when Ronald Reagan took over the presidency. In fact it started in 1980 before he even stepped foot inside the White House. Reagans first speech during his campaign for the presidency took place in the Neshoba County Fair in Neshoba County Mississippi, Philadelphia Mississippi, which at that time was a white supremacist stronghold. Reagans campaign chose that event and that area for his first campaign speech to get racist votes. Why would you say there racist votes? Well Neshoba County was, this was where three civil rights activists were murdered in 1964. They made a movie about it. They were shot to death by racists who were enraged by the idea of African Americans having not only equal rights, but the right to vote, to vote. During his presidency Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 openly. In fact he said that the Voting Rights Act was humiliating to the South." - See more at: Transcript: Thom Hartmann: What the Reagan Revolution has brought us... - 27 June '13 | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show



So, we can go to wikipedia and confirm Thom Hartmann's lies against Reagan, against the Republicans. But is wiki the best source or is Reagan's speech. 

Thom Hartmann and Wiki (maybe Hartmann edits the wiki page?) argument is based simply on the history of the state where Reagan made his speech and two words, "states rights". Reagan was specifically stating states should control welfare and education, yet this is taken out of context to paint all conservatives as "racist". 

Transcript of Ronald Reagan's 1980 Neshoba County Fair speech - The Neshoba Democrat - Philadelphia, Mississippi



> Today, and I know from our own experience in California when we reformed welfare, I know that one of the great tragedies of welfare in America today, and I don't believe stereotype after what we did, of people in need who are there simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they're trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves.
> 
> I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].
> 
> I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there



here I show how Liberals need to cherry pick a conservatives speech, take the quote out of context, redefine the meaning of the words, all to change how Americans think about Americans. 

I see no bigger a danger to mankind when the most powerful political party in the world can simply make things up in order to make people hate their political opponents. 

Liberal Radio fails because it is mostly an ugly tirade, because its a continuous political rant of hate and lies.

Its takes more than just loyalty to a political party to make up such outrageous lies, its takes the worst kind of people history has ever seen.


----------



## Pogo (May 6, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



 I've asked you to pin down exactly what it is that makes a radio station (any one) "succeed" or "fail".  You don't seem to have an answer other than this mythological "station that can't pay its bills" without being able to point to any such example.

This is not "wobbling"; it's asking the same question over and over in different ways in hopes that one of them would penetrate.  I have to conclude then that your entire thread is based on a strawman, i.e. an assumption you cannot (or will not) demonstrate.  Perhaps you don't know of any.  Indeed if the genre was a "failure", citations like the one from Thom Hartmann just posted, would not even exist to cite.  Then again perhaps "flop" means the idea of ideas on the air that you don't agree with.  I dunno.  

Oh well.  Enjoy your cat and mouse game...


----------



## SAYIT (May 6, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> NYC has three major Conservative Talk Radio stations, 710 (WOR), 770 (ABC) and 970.
> With the exception of Rush (went from 770 to 710), Hannity (went from 770 to 710), Levin (770) and Savage (went from 710 to 770), the majority of the other hosts last no longer than 1 year.
> Those that last longer than one year get shuffled to the midnight to 6AM shift because their ratings are in the cellar.
> 
> ...



And that is your explanation for the subject of this thread ... Lib talk radio's abject failure? Got it.


----------



## SAYIT (May 6, 2014)

Pogo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



"Mythological" Lib talk radio programs that can't pay their bills? "Mythological?" Really dude? Yeah, I'd say this conversation has gone about as far as it can go. You have twice proffered your reasons why it so often fails yet always return to your "mythological" default position. Have a good time.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 6, 2014)

Air America was started with a Ponzi scheme that defrauded the elderly, poor and minority children

true story


----------



## Pogo (May 6, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...





_*I. Haven't. Claimed. That. It. "Fails".  YOU did.*_  This is your point, not mine, and therefore yours to define what the hell you mean.

On the contrary I've noted that it's still on the air and has been continuously, therefore disappearance cannot be what you mean by "failure".  Assuming the obvious definition doesn't work, yet you won't say what you DO mean.  

And yes, when you claim something exists (including a "failure" or "flop") but can offer not a single example thereof, that's mythological.  _What exactly is your premise?_


----------



## HenryBHough (May 6, 2014)

Liberal radio can easily be a success in a big market.  Out-and-out Communist front radio equally can be a success in a large enough market without requiring party support.

In a big enough urban area there are enough under-served liberals and out-and-out Communists in business, working or even sponging that they constitute a market so that a station designed to serve such a base can successfully sell advertising to clients who would actually benefit from it.  It just chafes their spavined asses that they have to do business like filthy capitalists in order to further their anti-capitalist causes.

The trick is to find programming that appeals of a left-leaning base that isn't of such poor quality or even entertainment value that even the most dedicated aren't alienated.

Not always easy.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 6, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Name the big liberals that had great ratings and got pulled because of their ratings. Air America got pulled, because of bankruptcy, Thom Hartmann stays on the air because he is an interesting liberal. Ed Schultz is a buffoon and has lost shows because of ratings. Rusty Humphries has lost his show in some markets because of his ratings. 

Funny how you attack personally when someone disagrees with you. More of the tolerant left, I take it.


----------



## Iceweasel (May 6, 2014)

I listened to a liberal show here and it had trouble getting callers. When one did the radio host would milk it for all it's worth. Lib talking shows fail because libs are either interested in insulting conservatives so call into their shows or they know all they need to from the headlines, accusations and comedy shows. Details don't matter.


----------



## srlip (May 6, 2014)

it's simple. libs are either poverty-stricken or tightwads that won't fund the talk shows.


----------



## Pogo (May 6, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



What the hell does a(n assumed) political philosophy have to do with somebody's personal posting style?


----------



## Pogo (May 6, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> I listened to a liberal show here and it had trouble getting callers. When one did the radio host would milk it for all it's worth. Lib talking shows fail *because libs are either interested in insulting conservatives* so call into their shows or they know all they need to from the headlines, accusations and comedy shows. Details don't matter.



Attack dog radio, copied verbatim from the Limblob playbook (which I don't think is a wise approach, but that's me).

By the same logic would you say Limblob "fails" as well, for the same reason?  I would.

Depending of course on what we mean by "fail"...


----------



## HenryBHough (May 6, 2014)

Bankruptcy is natures way of telling a performer to (find) (keep) a day job.
Air America is gone; may it rest in peace.  It's already quiet.


----------



## MarcATL (May 6, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> Name the big liberals that had great ratings and got pulled because of their ratings. Air America got pulled, because of bankruptcy, Thom Hartmann stays on the air because he is an interesting liberal. Ed Schultz is a buffoon and has lost shows because of ratings. Rusty Humphries has lost his show in some markets because of his ratings.
> 
> Funny how you attack personally when someone disagrees with you. More of the tolerant left, I take it.


1. Stephanie Miller
2. Randi Rhodes
3. Norman Goldmann

All have had their shows pulled for reasons OTHER than their ratings.

All three do way better than the MAJORITY of RW talkers on the radio...who are still on the radio.


----------



## Rozman (May 6, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Name the big liberals that had great ratings and got pulled because of their ratings. Air America got pulled, because of bankruptcy, Thom Hartmann stays on the air because he is an interesting liberal. Ed Schultz is a buffoon and has lost shows because of ratings. Rusty Humphries has lost his show in some markets because of his ratings.
> ...






> *All have had their shows pulled for reasons OTHER than their ratings.*



I guess you're saying they lost their shows because they are black?
That seems to be the Lib answer for everything....


----------



## srlip (May 6, 2014)

years ago, there was a (west indies origin, IIRC) black right wing radio host.  Ken something, maybe? the "black avenger" IIRC?


----------



## Esmeralda (May 7, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> I'm guessing it is because once Libs hear themselves and each other speak they are embarrassed by their silliness.
> Any other logical reasons?



NPR is probably the most listened to radio programing in the US.  And it is liberal.  It just doesn't create shock waves.  It is calm, intelligent, and covers a very wide variety of topics.  Something wham, bang, rude and abrasive conservative radio doesn't do. Those who make the most noise get the most attention--that is people are more aware of conservative radio because it makes so much noise, all of it loud and stupid.


----------



## Esmeralda (May 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal radio is a flop?  I take it then you believe that National Public Radio isn't liberal,
> ...



It doesn't have any advertising. Were it not for public funds, it wouldn't exit.  Being publicly funded means it doesn't need to cater to any corporations in putting out its material.


----------



## MarcATL (May 7, 2014)

Rozman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


WoW! You don't even have SENSE enough to Google them first.

They're all white.

*SMH*


----------



## Rozman (May 7, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I just assumed you were playing the race card....
That happens a lot around here.....


----------



## Iceweasel (May 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I listened to a liberal show here and it had trouble getting callers. When one did the radio host would milk it for all it's worth. Lib talking shows fail *because libs are either interested in insulting conservatives* so call into their shows or they know all they need to from the headlines, accusations and comedy shows. Details don't matter.
> ...


You used the words logic and reason, two terms apparently out of your grasp. Limbaugh is quite successful and in his 25th or so year. Success does not mean agreeing with you. Learn English.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 7, 2014)

look at liberal cities and states; violent and on the verge of bankruptcy

why shouldnt liberal radio be a failure too?


----------



## Iceweasel (May 7, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's certainly enough Libs in America to support liberal talk radio but it never seems to succeed. I'm not extolling the virtues of Con radio because it nuts but at least it's entertaining.
> ...


You contradicted yourself. On one hand the loud and abrasive get the most attention and on the other the calm, intelligent (which means agreeing with you, of course) is the most listened to. Which is it? 

I'm all for pulling public money from NPR since you admit it has a politically liberal bias.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 7, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And were it not for taxpayer dollars it would have folded up shop years ago.
> ...



Yes, so much like Radio Havana and Radio Moscow in being free from the corrupting influence of corporate dollars!  Neither of those is in any way influenced by any evil corporation.

Now whether the regimes might be considered.......


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Bankruptcy is natures way of telling a performer to (find) (keep) a day job.
> Air America is gone; may it rest in peace.  It's already quiet.



If that's the OP's question, then what he means is 'why is bad business management such a flop'.  Obviously the elements AA employed remained on the air under different managements (and did so without interruption).

Of course that's just a guess too, as the OP declines to define his premise...


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Radio Moscow doesn't exist anymore, o paragon of current events.  And when it did it was, like Radio Havana Cuba, a government-programmed mouthpiece.  Analagous to VOA, which I might add is very much alive and operating the biggest shortwave antenna farm in the world at the eastern end of this state, part of which is used to jam the signal of the aforementioned Havana. 

Of course Voice of America (and its propaganda satellites Radio Martí, TV Martí, RFE (Radio Free Europe), Radio Liberty (including Radio Farda, Radio Azadi and Radio Mashaal), MBN (Middle East Broadcasting Networks, including Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa) and Radio Free Asia, don't compare with public broadcasting, as they're neither supported nor programmed by their listeners ---- that's _*entirely*_ our tax dollars at work, to the tune of over $700 million, considerably more than what the Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants to over 365 broadcast stations _combined_.

Nice try but again, low hanging fruit.


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Oddly enough I've been asking the OP of this thread, _in English_, for a definition of what he means by "flop", for days.  Obviously the aesthetic definition is a non-starter, as you yourself pointed out in the first post above.  That is, attack-dog radio either "works" or "doesn't work".  You can't have it both ways depending on which dog house the attack dog sits in.  Because taking the position of "only my dog is right" would be partisan hackery.

But of course you knew that when you went down this path...


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...




Your tax dollars at work...

>> The Juba FM joins the network of VOA transmitters operated by the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors in Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; Abidjan, Côte d&#8217;Iviore; Bangui, Central African Republic; and the newly launched FM in Bamako, Mali. <<

And of course, that's just Africa and even within that continent, just the _local_ facilities...


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Not sure about Rhodes but Miller and Goldman are still on the air here.  Perhaps the poster meant 'pulled' from certain stations?


----------



## HenryBHough (May 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Radio Moscow doesn't exist anymore, o paragon of current events.  And when it did it was, like Radio Havana Cuba, a government-programmed mouthpiece.




I feel the pain of your loss!  Though talking points memos do continue to reach you unimpeded.  Did you have much trouble retuning your regenerative receiver to get Radio Havana?


----------



## Papageorgio (May 7, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Name the big liberals that had great ratings and got pulled because of their ratings. Air America got pulled, because of bankruptcy, Thom Hartmann stays on the air because he is an interesting liberal. Ed Schultz is a buffoon and has lost shows because of ratings. Rusty Humphries has lost his show in some markets because of his ratings.
> ...



Stephanie Miller is still on the air in many areas. Sirius/XM has her show.
Randi Rhodes creates problems for those that carry her broadcasts, she creates many problems for herself, she seems bitter and she takes things to far. 
Never heard do Norman Goldman. 

Who were they replaced by and what stations?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 7, 2014)

Stephie successful on satellite radio?

Good God, where are liberals finding the money to pay for subscriptions - has Obama created some new subsidy only the "inside" has been told of????


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Radio Moscow doesn't exist anymore, o paragon of current events. And when it did it was, like Radio Havana Cuba, a government-programmed mouthpiece. Analagous to VOA, which I might add is very much alive and operating the biggest shortwave antenna farm in the world at the eastern end of this state, part of which is used to jam the signal of the aforementioned Havana.
> ...



The GR-81 hasn't seen the light of day since the '60s, thanks, one has moved on to PLL and such niceties.  But Havana is pretty much inescapable at least in the East (even with our govern-mental Greenville tax dollars jamming it), and since most of the old broadcasting stalwarts have abandoned the HF bands in a nod to changing times, there's little else extant in the way of readily-audible material on those airwaves, save Havana and the ubiquitous bible thumpers, the only real difference between them being that the USG doesn't jam the bible thumpers.  Even though they're in direct violation of their own licenses by targeting domestic audiences.

Moscow was never difficult to hear in its day.  Indeed it was noted at the time that the USSR transmitters did a better job reaching across the pond than VOA did with two and three times the power, simply for more efficient radiation -- again, the good old Murkin stick-a-V8-on-a-motorcycle mentality.

And of course I logged it, along with its East European satellites that were just as easily monitored.  That's the whole point of DXing -- _*to see what's out there*_.  You may have preferred in your usual style to stick your head in the sand  but I've been known to endure a broadcast that's not even in a language I have any clue of understanding for hours, just to log that obscure elusive signal.  And hearing the USSR propaganda machine gave me a good ear for how propaganda works, which is actually the same reason I read your posts.  Fringe listening, you might call it in both cases.

No Virginia, the fact that I'll listen to a time signal station from South Africa doesn't in any way mean I'm doing it because I want to know what time it is.  But your predilection for dictating to other people what they "should" or "shouldn't" be listening to is -- shall we say confirming, if not revealing, since we already knew you're a loyal minion of the authoritarian jackboot mindset.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> No Virginia, the fact that I'll listen to a time signal station from South Africa doesn't in any way mean I'm doing it because I want to know what time it is.  But your predilection for dictating to other people what they "should" or "shouldn't" be listening to is -- shall we say confirming, if not revealing, since we already knew you're a loyal minion of the authoritarian jackboot mindset.



I will grant that time signals from South Africa may entertain a small mind better than almost anything else.

But what anyone listens to is their own business and I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that your reading comprehension issues prevented your discerning that.  

It is comforting to know, though, that Radio Havana still has at least one dedicated listener.  Good, too, that their signal is strong enough that you don't have to exclusively rely on Communism Second Hand from your New York Hate Channel.


----------



## Pogo (May 7, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The GR-81 hasn't seen the light of day since the '60s, thanks, one has moved on to PLL and such niceties.  But Havana is pretty much inescapable at least in the East (even with our govern-mental Greenville tax dollars jamming it), and since most of the old broadcasting stalwarts have abandoned the HF bands in a nod to changing times, there's little else extant in the way of readily-audible material on those airwaves, save Havana and the ubiquitous bible thumpers, the only real difference between them being that the USG doesn't jam the bible thumpers.  Even though they're in direct violation of their own licenses by targeting domestic audiences.
> ...



Yes I understand the technical vagaries of electromagnetic propagation are over your head -- literally.



HenryBHough said:


> But what anyone listens to is their own business and I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that your reading comprehension issues prevented your discerning that.



Not half as shocked as I that you thought you could slip that turd through the sausage grinder....



HenryBHough said:


> It is comforting to know, though, that Radio Havana still has at least one dedicated listener.  Good, too, that their signal is strong enough that you don't have to exclusively rely on Communism Second Hand from your New York Hate Channel.



Ah, you have somehow conflated me with a Limblob listener.  If I were, no I wouldn't even attempt to capture a MW daytime signal seven hundred miles over the horizon.  And speaking of reading comprehension, I see the distinction between noting that a signal exists on the air, and on the other hand being a "dedicated listener" to its programming, flies equally over your head like a bird dropping.

Good to know some things in life are a constant.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> .......I see the distinction between noting that a signal exists on the air, and on the other hand being a "dedicated listener" to its programming, flies equally over your head like a bird dropping.




An easy mistake to make.  When one observes a basement blogger singing hymns of praise to ultra-left propagandacasts it is difficult not to believe their bragging is empty.  

But then we are speaking of a liberal, here, and we all know that liberals lie.  I mean, when they can't just cheat or steal.


----------



## Pogo (May 8, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > .......I see the distinction between noting that a signal exists on the air, and on the other hand being a "dedicated listener" to its programming, flies equally over your head like a bird dropping.
> ...



Interesting.  I must have missed these "hymns of praise to ultra-left propagandacasts" among the simple clinical observance of what signals exist in the ether.

Oh wait, I just said that in the last post.

I guess for some these simple concepts take time to sink in.







Congratulations.  You're immortalized in a graph.


----------



## bedowin62 (May 8, 2014)

YAWN

 i see lots of the usual lib crybaby whining; and attempts to deflect with petty insults on Rush limbaugh

but no explanation why lib radio is a failure


----------



## Pogo (May 8, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> 
> i see lots of the usual lib crybaby whining; and attempts to deflect with petty insults on Rush limbaugh
> 
> but no explanation why lib radio is a failure



The OP never did explain what he meant by "flop", so that's not really possible.  He didn't even specify whether he meant 'leftist' radio.  Couldn't get an answer.

I think he abandoned thread.  Oh well.  We'll meet up in the next iteration of "Limblob is dead" or "Leftist radio is dead".  They'll probably pop back up at the same time.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 8, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> YAWN
> 
> i see lots of the usual lib crybaby whining; and attempts to deflect with petty insults on Rush limbaugh
> 
> but no explanation why lib radio is a failure


How many times have the acolytes had to clean up after Rush?  How many times has Rush said something bombastic and his sponsors run for cover?  How many more times do you think that drug addict can be salvaged?


----------

