Friday, December 5, 2008

Will Talk Radio Get the Wake Up Call?

Here's a good op-ed piece by conservative radio host Michael Medved. He does a good job stepping outside of himself and making what I think is a very fair assessment of the talk radio landscape.

Increasingly, interests of commercial talk radio in a fractured market diverge from the needs of a viable national movement. A radio show (locally or nationally) that draws just 5% of the available audience can achieve notable success in ratings and revenue, but a conservatism that connects with only a disgruntled, paranoid 5% of the public will wither and die.

This is why I think the Fairness Doctrine, while a good idea in theory, is ultimately a waste of time. Talk radio (either side) is little more than a positive feedback loop for the intellectually incurious, doing nothing to win converts, but only trying to hang on to their congregation. Liberals bitching about it are just spinning their wheels, thinking somehow you can inject any sort of real debate into a medium that offers "infotainment" at best. It's like having a discussion on the benefits of Title IX in sports during Monday Night RAW.

As stated in previous posts, I believe the real fairness doctrine of the 21st century is net neutrality. The idea of ANY information being censored or given priority by any entity in the public OR private sector is truly frightening.

13 comments:

  1. Medved - "conservative talk radio offered the inevitable destination for political junkies who cared deeply about the fate of the new administration."

    Jimmy - "Talk radio (either side) is little more than a positive feedback loop for the intellectually incurious, doing nothing to win converts, but only trying to hang on to their congregation. "

    Those are two different ways to look at the same thing.

    Talk Radio is no different than the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Daily Kos etc etc

    They are all incurious, inevitable, positive feedback loops, for people who care deeply about something.

    "It's like having a discussion on the benefits of Title IX in sports during Monday Night RAW." More accurately it would be like having a foreign policy debate with John Stewart.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The op-ed piece was written by a talk radio host and addressed talk radio, so that's what I focused on.

    Here's the thing about Jon Stewart, though: It's a comedy show, and they have absolutely no pretensions to the contrary.

    Michael Savage and Randi Rhodes will both tell you the fate of freedom itself rests on you adopting their point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It's a comedy show, and they have absolutely no pretensions to the contrary."

    You know that and I know Rush is opinionated.

    And there is absolutely no difference between people who get there "news" from Rush and Hannity and people who get their news from Stewart, Colber, Maher.

    The naive thing is when people point fingers at Talk Radio and say people are some how being manipulated into thinking that its unbiased. I've heard that from sooooo many liberals.

    There are equally many people who tune into equally opinionated shows, be it it Daily Show or SNL.

    And don't tell me SNL didn't impact this latest election.

    Yes, people know its comedy, but to assume that they are ambivalent to the content of the comedy is naive.

    In fact, comedy is a more subtle and insidious way of conveying opinion. At least Rush makes no bones about his opinion.

    It is true that the Daily Show and SNL make "absolutely no pretensions" about their comedic nature, but they also don't make any pretensions about their slant.

    I still don't see the difference.

    Especially since I find a lot of talk radio to be extremely funny. Ever listen to Glenn Beck's show? He used to have crazy funny skits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And there is absolutely no difference between people who get there "news" from Rush and Hannity and people who get their news from Stewart, Colber, Maher.

    Well, I didn't want to get into this, but independent studies have actually shown that viewers of the Daily Show are more informed than consumers of Fox, Rush, O'Reilly, etc. Link.

    The naive thing is when people point fingers at Talk Radio and say people are some how being manipulated into thinking that its unbiased. I've heard that from sooooo many liberals.

    I gotta call BS on this. Who are these "soooo many liberals" you talk to? Sooooo many conservatives I talk to want to pin the loss in this election on anyone and anything except their own black of a broader appeal. Michael Medved did a good job addressing that in the piece originally linked above

    It is true that the Daily Show and SNL make "absolutely no pretensions" about their comedic nature, but they also don't make any pretensions about their slant.

    The Daily Show truly rose to prominence during Bush II, so I know it feels like they have a purposeful slant, but tune in in a year or so. If they're not ripping the Obama Administration a new asshole over something, and in a very hilarious manner, I will eat my hat. Literally, I will eat my hat and post digital pictures of me doing so.

    And SNL has become so corporate, so bland and safe, I think you're giving them way too much credit for affecting anything. All they did what reflect the public perceptions that were already out there. Palin as ill-informed MILF; Biden as big-mouthed loose cannon. Also, I'm pretty sure they gave equal time to actual candidates from both sides to come on the show. Stupid fairness doctrine...

    ReplyDelete
  5. >> Who are these "soooo many liberals" you talk to?

    Koj and Matt.

    independent studies have actually shown that viewers of the Daily Show are more informed than consumers of Fox, Rush, O'Reilly,

    I didn't say they were less informed. I said both are outlets of information. I have heard many people (liberal ones) use comedy as a way to legitimize biased information. Saying that everyone knows Daily Show and SNL are comedy and therefor obviously not taken seriously is naive. It is comedy, but the views are serious and influential.

    Rush and Hannity are biased, but the views are serious and influential.

    My point is that I refuse to believe that one side is any more duped than the other.

    Sooooo many conservatives I talk to want to pin the loss in this election on anyone and anything except their own black of a broader appeal.

    I think I have made the opposite point in several posts on this blog. I have said from day one that Republicans lost this election because they lost their way. They abandoned their basic principles in a way that was uncoordinated and un-mavericky.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I didn't say they were less informed.

    No, you said there's no difference between a Hannity/Rush audience and a Daily Show audience. In fact, there is. The Hannity/Rush audience by and large knows less about current events and politics.

    I have heard many people (liberal ones) use comedy as a way to legitimize biased information.

    I know a lot more liberal people than you do, and I've never heard anyone "legitimize biased information" because it's comedy. Honestly, I don't even know what that means.

    Saying that everyone knows Daily Show and SNL are comedy and therefor obviously not taken seriously is naive.

    You're putting words in my mouth. "Not taken seriously"? I don't remember saying that. But if you really think that, merely by existing, the Daily Show excuses all the worst biased misinformation spewed by right-wing radio, well, then... I have no response to that.

    Again, in one year's time, the Daily Show will be ripping into Obama and right-wing radio will continue to stoke fear in the context of whatever the Manufactured Outrage Issue of the Day is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Here's the thing about Jon Stewart, though: It's a comedy show, and they have absolutely no pretensions to the contrary. "

    Comments like that, while true, are concealing the fact that comedy is political and to say that it is not biased is naive.

    Obviously there are differences between Hannity/Rush audiences and a Daily Show audiences... duh. Clearly my point was there are similarities and I see no difference between in why they tune in... They are all incurious, inevitable, positive feedback loops, for people who care deeply about something.

    Stop taking my points out of context.

    Saying that everyone knows Daily Show and SNL are comedy and therefor obviously not taken seriously is naive. ... Not directed at you personally, it was directed at people I've hear that from (Koj and Matt to be sure)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Here's the thing about Jon Stewart, though: It's a comedy show, and they have absolutely no pretensions to the contrary. "

    Comments like that, while true, are concealing the fact that comedy is political and to say that it is not biased is naive.


    I really don't understand what the fuck you're on about here... "Concealing the fact that comedy is political"...? Really? I disagree. Comedy can be very political, particularly political comedy. "To say that it is not biased is naive." OK, apart from the fact that you keep inferring I'm naive (I thought we needed to not be personal?), if you really don't see the inherent difference, then we need to stop going on about this and agree to disagree. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, but it sure sounds like you're ascribing SOME responsibility to the Daily Show for John McCain's loss.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why are you taking my comments personally? I don't think I referred to you at all. I said "sooo many liberals" Specifically Koj and Matt. You spoke for all the liberals you knew and attached yourself personally to the debate.

    I have personally heard many people ignore the impact of Daily Show/SNL, because its comedy, while crucifying Talk Radio as manipulative. My point, again is in that regard, they are the same.

    Why is that so hard to understand? Agree or disagree, but it a valid point. (and I thought a balanced one)

    ReplyDelete
  10. SNL's doing a pretty good job ripping apart NY Gov. Paterson right now, AND making fun of him for being blind. The liberal bias is sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh my god, I never said anything about a liberal bias on SNL. I said liberals gave SNL/Daily Show a pass by ignore the impact they have because its comedy. I'm fully aware that SNL/DailyShow will make fun of Obama and Democrats... my point, for the umpteenth time is: Talk Radio gets crucified for some how being either manipulative or too impactful (see Fairness Doc or several debates I've have with Koj and Matt), but political comedy gets a pass because, hey, we all know its comdey, so don't take it so seriously.

    You are trying to make me out to have some gripe against political comedy, I don't. I'm saying on many levels its infotainment, like talk radio. I was agreeing with your point about talk radio and applying it to other infotainment sources.

    ReplyDelete

  12. >> >> >> The naive thing is when people point fingers at Talk Radio and say people are some how being manipulated into thinking that its unbiased. I've heard that from sooooo many liberals.

    >> >> Who are these "soooo many liberals" you talk to?

    >> Koj and Matt.


    I've said no such thing, so your "soooo many liberals" are down to 1 liberal. You gotta stop pinning me with your liberal stereotypes. Just because I live in the Northwest doesn't mean I wear socks with sandals, eat flax seed, and revere Canada. When you see me wearing socks with sandals, then you can make fun of me. Not before then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ...equally opinionated shows, be it it Daily Show or SNL...It is true that the Daily Show and SNL make "absolutely no pretensions" about their comedic nature, but they also don't make any pretensions about their slant.
    ...
    Oh my god, I never said anything about a liberal bias on SNL.

    I don't know dude, I'm sure it's all making sense in your head, but whatever you're trying to say about SNL/Daily Show vis-a-vis Rush/Hannity, plus your straw man argument about "sooo many liberals" isn't really too clear, if not outright contradictory.

    ReplyDelete