Fri, 11/21/2008 - 6:24pm — lambert
Crudely summarizing, the idea is everybody listens to the radio while doing something else, so the host has to constantly stimulate the listener -- accidentally, I typed "reader" -- into paying attention. Which Conservative
shock jocks Limbaugh and Zeigler et al do to perfection. But in mastering the art of stimulation, Conservatives have lost the ability to persuade.
Speculating freely, it may be that Obama seems to "thoughtful" to some is that he's such a contrast to the noisy and galvanic convulsions of Conservatism. To those of us who don't listen to that crap, "thoughtful" may not ring so true because we haven't been numbed by the shock jocks.
An interesting article from an interesting site. Go read.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Pots and kettles
From the article: "There are a certain segment of conservatives who literally cannot believe that anybody would see the world differently than the way they do. They have not just forgotten how to persuade; they have forgotten about the necessity of persuasion."
I'm afraid that much of the left is now afflicted with this same disease.
this too--"Secrets of Talk Radio" --
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/current...
"... Conservative
talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.
Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.
A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush’s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don’t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves. ..."
I don't see the link to the
I don't see the link to the article. But I think the point of right wing talk radio is simply to hammer phrases, simple ideas, and right wing talking points into people's heads. There is no attempt to persuade. Mostly they are preaching to the choir. But they are also reinforcing whatever the line of the day or week is.
And you can find that much of Hillary criticism has been repeated on right wing radio for years. He is a draft dodger, womanizer and a crook. She is a kneecapper, a political thug.
As I have said before, I heard about Kerry's cowardice in war on right wing radio a considerable time before the Swift Boaters became known nationally. He only volunteered for Vietnam for his resume. That's the other thing they do, try things out to see if they get traction.