« DemoKKKrat Lynchings | Home | Economy: Mission Accomplished »
The Left Wing Conspiracy to Take Over Talk Radio
By Matt Margolis | October 29, 2003
Democrats, still misunderstanding the phenomena of popular right-wing talk radio, are pumping money into starting a national liberal talk show, to be hosted by Ed Schultz, a radio personality from North Dakota.
This is so sad.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington are raising money for the show, and Democrats have pledged about $1.8 million over two years to get it off the ground, Schultz said Monday. He said a half-dozen stations are looking at whether to carry it.
This is so pathetic.
Do liberals understand how Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other popular conservative radio talk show hosts got to where they are? They worked they way up from the bottom and built up a fan base.
Ed Schultz, the potential radio voice of the Democratic Party, said “The Democrats are getting the tar beat out of them constantly by Limbaugh and Hannity, and they feel they don’t have a platform,”
Hello! That’s because Democrats have consistently failed to win on the issues – they certainly can’t debate on them, and that is a result of the fact that they have no platform!
The Democrats obviously need to do a lot better than Ed Schultz. Perhaps they need to stop pointing fingers and starting offering policy.
I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
Liberals can bitch and whine about conservative talk radio all they want, but that doesn’t change the fact that television news media is extraordinary liberal, with CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, just to name a few. So what are they complaining about? Their problem isn’t that liberals don’t have a voice; their problem is that liberals are losing their audience because people are sick and tired of the bias they get on TV. Liberals are livid that conservatives have been able to harness talk radio successfully.
At least conservatives didn’t need rich lawyers and politicians to achieve success in talk radio. Ultimately, this is why liberal talk radio will never be as successful as conservative talk radio.
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
October 29th, 2003 at 1:24 am
Democrats Open Liberal Think Tank: Portrayed as vaccine to so-called plague of conservatism in U.S.
And to continue on what you said, I’ve never heard Hannity’s radio show; but I know that at least with Rush, many find his show to be entertaining as well.
October 29th, 2003 at 3:55 am
They already have a national liberal radio program. It’s called NPR…and it’s funded with tax dollars paid by you and me.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:01 am
Regarding Rush…while I am certainly a fellow conservative, I must say that I have gotten to the point where I just can’t stand him anymore. Yes, I know it’s as much about entertainment as anything else. But the huge difference between Limbaugh and Hannity is that with Rush, it’s all about him, not the message. Rush makes himself the focus. Rush will lead you to the truth, Rush will tell you everything you need to know, yada yada yada. Yes, he usually is right. But he’s still a pompous windbag.
You know what would make Rush’s show better? He should start having guests, especially liberal ones. Wouldn’t you like to see Rush go one on one with someone from the other side and just eat them up? Or have Ann Coulter on every now and then. But it will never happen because Rush, unlike Hannity, is too pompous to ever share the microphone with anyone.
October 29th, 2003 at 8:29 am
Robert,
Having spent four years in college radio, and one of those years having a political radio talk show, I can understand the lack of desire for constant guests. I had a semester of having a co-host, and it was hell. It’s a lot to do with creative control, amonst other things. It’s hard to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it, but having been behind a microphone before, I don’t blame Rush for not having regular guests.
October 29th, 2003 at 1:10 pm
Of course they have to raise money like that, they can’t rely on sponsors… no one is going to listen.
October 29th, 2003 at 1:15 pm
You might be right, Matt, but Hannity has guests and does it well, and it’s one reason why I prefer him over Rush. OK…not constant guests. But an occasional debate with a left winger would really liven up his show. Al Franken, Garafalo,Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, whoever. Rush could whip them with half his brain tied behind his back, (as Ann Coulter says). Just every now and then. I’m not talking about a co-host like Crossfire. I’m not talking about every show. Just every now and then.
October 29th, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Considering the popularity of his show, perhaps Rush doesn’t want to give his opposition more of an audience. Who knows. There could be a number of different reasons. What works for Rush doesn’t necesarily work for others. That makes right wing talk radio have variety.
October 29th, 2003 at 1:33 pm
The problem with the idea of Hannity having Al Franken, Jenneane Garafalo, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins on his show, is that they are not “experts” by any means. Ann Coulter is well researched, and many of hannity’s guest are the same. Why bring a bunch of liberal idiots on to the program if they have no basis for what they are saying except that it is their opinion? Ok, so if it is just their opinion, why should we listen to them?? What makes them so special?
October 29th, 2003 at 2:36 pm
Conservative talk shows are a reflection of the effectiveness of conservative think tanks that were created in the early 90’s. To say that Rush, Liddy et.al. have worked their way up from the bottom is a poor argument. Their popularity is based on knowledge of propoganda gained in the 1930’s and before. Identify a group that can be defined as a pariah on society, and then spew forth lies and hate to justify the perspective to a group that is itself oppressed and under attack.
Rush is a fountain of hypocracy, nothing but an addict and a liar. Liddy is a two-bit crook that resulted from an expensive private education in boarding schools. He shares little with the common man.
October 29th, 2003 at 3:04 pm
So Alpaca Man, basically what you’re saying is, because you don’t like conservative talk radio hosts, and disagree with they say, they couldn’t possibly have earned their celebrity and/or fortune.
Perhaps you didn’t say that verbatim, but certainly that’s what’s going on.
October 29th, 2003 at 3:08 pm
No, Rush worked his way up to popularity. He’d worked in Radio for a long time, and there’s a reason his show just had its 15th anniversary and gets over 20 million listeners daily.
He also does his homework, and a lot of show prep.
As for guests, Rush does take calls, and does take liberal callers first. His “open line friday” is probably the best day of his show.
But if you just want his talking points, just visit his website.
October 29th, 2003 at 3:36 pm
Matt- on a tip from a former student, I decided to check out your site. All I can say is that your “wisdom” is commensurate with the grade you received from me.
Below Average.
October 29th, 2003 at 3:45 pm
Well, obviously you weren’t one of my professors. Considering the fact that I was an honor student who graduated summa cum laude, it’s just a bit odd that I would have received a “below average” grade from you, when I never got a below average grade - and my transcript would prove that.
So I guess the real question is, who are you, and was it really so fulfilling to lie on my blog?
October 29th, 2003 at 4:01 pm
Right Matt- more like Summa Cum Guzzler
October 29th, 2003 at 4:10 pm
Readers of this thread should be made aware that the comments posted by “Matt’s Professor At Hartford” and “Cratpo” logged the same IP address, which was traced to Lewis & Clark College.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:18 pm
You need to find a new bogeyman, Clinton isn’t President anymore (too bad for America). Yeah, the GOP underwear sniffers finally cornered Clinton. Yep, he admitted to an extramarital affair. And the $70 million that was used to investigate Whitewater (a $35,000) land deal) was even more trivial. And the Clintons were exonerated for that.
Contrast that with a President who lies to justify a preemptive war, who was AWOL from the Texas National Guard, and who pleads ignorance to the outing in his own office of a CIA operative. Now what’s more damaging to the country: a President lying about a blow job, or the deaths of soldiers and Iraqi civilians in a war based on Bush lies?
BUSH I: WAR, RECESSION,DEFICITS
CLINTON: PEACE, PROSPERITY, SURPLUSES
BUSH II: WAR, RECESSION,DEFICITS
Bubba lied about sex; Bush the Lesser lies about everything else.
October 29th, 2003 at 4:24 pm
nice teeth–you look like a fucking piranna
October 29th, 2003 at 4:39 pm
Wictory Wednesday
October 29th, 2003 at 5:02 pm
The myth of a “liberal media bias” has been thoroughly debunked. Catch up, Matt. That old whine doesn’t play any more. Republicans control the air waves, radio waves, and are close to gobbling up all the newspapers. And somehow, George Bush’s incompetence is still getting through to the public.
October 29th, 2003 at 5:09 pm
This coming from a person who has a “Fair and Balanced Links Only” section on his website with “Liberal America” on the list.
HA!
October 29th, 2003 at 7:37 pm
Democrats can’t debate the issues?
Oh really?
My take on it is that Democrats consistantly win political debates, while Republicans just basically say, “we’re right and you’re wrong.” or “shut up”, or some other answer that doesn’t even touch on the actual subject of the debate.
A perfect example is liberal asskicker’s comments above, and then Matt Margolis’s comments in response.
Perfect example of a Democrat/Republican exchange on issues.
October 29th, 2003 at 7:51 pm
Tom P.,
It’s funny how you couldn’t even bring up an issue that Dems can debate…
If you’d only look at the 9 dwarfs when they debate, they spend more time and energy playing “Who Hates Bush The Most?” than offering their own policies as alternatives…
Considering I didn’t respond to “liberal asskicker”, (I was responding to Dissento) I fail to se what your point is. “Liberal Asskicker” used an e-mail address which essentially refers to me a fascist, so I’m not dignifying his stupidity with a response.
You’re going to have to do better than taking liberal debate tactics and labelling them as Republican.
October 29th, 2003 at 9:53 pm
First time I’ve visited this blog, and certainly the last. You don’t deserve the link from Atrios.
Right-wing radio has the same appeal Fox News has: Flag-waving, hyper-nationalistic, pissed-off bravado. It’s a natural reaction to fear.
October 29th, 2003 at 10:22 pm
Do liberals understand how Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other popular conservative radio talk show hosts got to where they are? They worked they way up from the bottom and built up a fan base.
I live in North Dakota and Mr. Schultz is extremely popular. He started in Fargo and has built an audience in 7 states.
Rush and Hannity started in local radio, like Schultz, and somebody picked those two up and spent a lot of capital to get their shows in syndication. I don’t see how this is all that different from what his happening with Ed Schultz.
before you make comments like: Hello! That’s because Democrats have consistently failed to win on the issues – they certainly can’t debate on them, and that is a result of the fact that they have no platform! listen to the mans ficken show it is very entertaining.
One more thing…Ed Schultz takes his calls cold on his show, he doesn’t want to know your name, where you’re from, or what you want to talk about. Because of this policy people take shots at him all the time, but he keeps to no-screening policy in place. His local conservative competitior Scott Hennen screens his calls and gets much lower ratings.
October 29th, 2003 at 11:00 pm
I was wondering where matt was getting this sudden popularity from
October 30th, 2003 at 3:30 pm
Who’s Ed Schultz?
October 30th, 2003 at 3:37 pm
Tom…regarding who wins at “debating the issues”…I’d say the GOP does pretty well. Bush certainly came out at least even against the allegedly brilliant debater Gore. And Cheney pretty much ate Lieberman for dinner.
Tom… you did make one outstanding point, however, with which I think even Matt would agree. Namely:
Tom: “A perfect example is liberal asskicker’s comments above”
Asskicker: “nice teeth–you look like a fucking piranna”
Yep, Tom….I’d say I have to agree with you.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:45 pm
Regarding my previous comments above, my preference for Hannity over Limbaugh is just a matter of personal preference. I fully agree that Rush’s style has worked very well for him and made him incredibly successful…and it’s probably not best to tamper with what works for him. I just don’t care for it…which doesn’t mean much.
You know what I find is truly hilarious and incredibly ironic? Remember all the left-wingers who, when ABC was considering Limbaugh for Monday Night Football, vowed never to watch again? So what did ABC do? They hired Dennis Miller instead…and the lefties cheered. Little did they know that Miller would turn out to be every bit as conservative on many issues, if not moreso, than Rush. And he even brought out the conservative side of Al Michaels on more than one occasion. I fantasize about Miller running for the Senate against Boxer. I’d pay a lot of money to watch that debate on pay per view!
October 30th, 2003 at 4:22 pm
Actually, the reason that liberal talk-radio would never fly is because liberal viewpoints are often complex and nuanced, and a show would require careful thought and attention on behalf of its listeners. Folks like Rush and Sean because they’re easy to listen to, and they say exactly what folks want to hear. c.f. Leo Strauss, and why Sean, Rush and Bill O’Reilly never mention his name.
October 30th, 2003 at 5:45 pm
Robert–you bring up the topic of Miller/Limbaugh on MNF. Maybe it’s just me, but when I watch football, I could really care less about politics. I just want football and good analysis/broadcasters. I didn’t see miller much on MNF, but apparently he didn’t do to well. How would limbaugh have faired? I don’t know; he does know his football, but like his gig on ESPN, he ran the risk of mixing politics into his commentary (which was a no-no).
Folks like Rush and Sean because they’re easy to listen to, and they say exactly what folks want to hear
Yes, and in part, that’s what makes ‘em so successful.
The liberals problem is exactly what Derek mentioned: ” liberal viewpoints are often complex and nuanced” If you’re listening to a radio show, be it at work on in a car, you’re not giving it that much thought (you’ve got other things to do as well). The fact that Rush, Hannity and others simplify the message is the way they’ve become successful.
I think advertising works the same way.
It’s all about keeping it simple.
October 30th, 2003 at 8:27 pm
Rush vs Hannity: Love them both. Glad they don’t compete against either.
As far as Rush having guests on his show:
Why fix something that isn’t broken?(success, that is) He’s #1.
October 31st, 2003 at 7:32 am
Jaws, I think you’re exactly right, and it shows the difference between right wingers and left wingers. Talk about putting Rush on MNF and left wingers threaten to boycott. Put a left winger on, and conservatives will turn down the sound and listen to the audio on the radio and still watch the game! No, Miller didn’t do so great, and I don’t think Rush would have, either, for the reasons we’ve already mentioned. Rush does best in a one-man show environment. but we’ll never know. I certainly would have loved to see him get his shot.
October 31st, 2003 at 7:34 am
I would be interested in a discussion of my first point. In my opinion, NPR is about as liberal as any network. Why should they continue to receive taxpayer funding?
October 31st, 2003 at 4:08 pm
Robert–maybe for the show “Car Talk”
I don’t know what other reasons…
Same question goes for PBS
October 31st, 2003 at 11:55 pm
ah, so that’s the reason for the Sudden spike in comments. The Dems are sophomores; wise fools. They think that they are somehow blessed with some sort of special intellect, when in reality, they are merely gullible and naive boobs who swoon at the power of the simplest sophistry
November 1st, 2003 at 4:09 am
Why are we not discussing the merits of Mr. Schultz. Matt here seems to think Schultz is some kind of hack. Schultz has said over and over again he, unlike O’Reily, isn’t going to be buying into markets. Station directors will have to pick up his show on their own, he will not do the old bit where they give big incentives to stations to take the show. He is getting $1.2 million in seed money as capital to make a national show on top of his highly profitable local show here in good-ole North Dakota.
November 1st, 2003 at 11:07 am
Drew, I’ve not made an comments regarding Mr. Schultz, so I don’t see where you get off saying that. My only point is that it is sad and pathetic that this left wing conspiracy to take over talk radio is being funded by the Democratic party. That’s a big incentive — if you ask me. I’m sure, however, that you’ll find some way to make little of this fact, but we’d expect that from you anyways.
November 1st, 2003 at 11:36 am
SCHULTZ!!!! “I see nothzing… I hear Nothzing!”
(sorry couldn’t resist. Never heard of Schultz before and probably never will.)
November 1st, 2003 at 11:56 am
Matt-
Drew, I’ve not made an comments regarding Mr. Schultz, so I don’t see where you get off saying that.
The Democrats obviously need to do a lot better than Ed Schultz.
You seem to think the man can’t do the job, and since you are on the east coast you probably have never heard the mans show. Eddie has been in broadcasting for well over 20 years and has been behind the microphone for 7 he has the talent and experiance.
the 1.8 million is just seed money. When Fox and others bought O’Reily markets from which he could launch his show I didn’t hear anybody outraged then.
This new radio show will have to make it on it’s own, we’ll see if it a sucess.
November 1st, 2003 at 12:04 pm
My comment has to do with the fact that the Democratic Party think they can win over America by pooling money together behind some talk show host. When liberals make claims like “Fox News is a propaganda machine for the Bush White House,” it would suggest to me that they’d have a major problem with a politically money pooling money behind a media franchise of sorts…
Nevertheless, you seem to be unable to differentiate between a political party funding liberal talk radio, and O’Reilly’s employer, the Fox News Channel, working increase his markets.
That’s the sign of a good employer. The Democratic Party trying to fund liberal talk radio is the sign of a displaced party who’s lost touch with the voters and is trying to make up for that in the wrong way.
November 1st, 2003 at 7:18 pm
I think the leadership of the Democratic party in and of itself is in trouble.
November 3rd, 2003 at 11:28 am
Matt you have got to be kidding, Conservative Sugar Daddies like Scaife, Murdoch and Rev. Moon fund a lot of the right wing media. Because they dont have the “official” backing doesnt mean they dont do they republican party bidding.
November 22nd, 2003 at 12:31 pm
Asshatology kudos goes to “7a” for the term “Conservative Sugar Daddies”. His comment has just the right amount of subtle paranoia. For this effort, you will soon receive a Noam Chomsky autographed tinfoil hat. Wear it with pride and keep up with your asshatology studies. Remember, credibility is expendable in the name of the liberal asshat cause. NOTE: Don’t ever mention Democrat Sugar Daddies like Soros.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
O’riley and Hannity certainly spend a lot of time tearing down Air America.
I’ve even heard O’Riley (AKA The King of Mean) call Al Franken “mean spritied”.
You guys crack me up!!
July 14th, 2006 at 11:21 am
We recommend you to visit excellent a perfect circle site. qY0ptan0x
July 14th, 2006 at 11:54 am
We recommend you to visit excellent academy awards site. qY0ptan0x
August 26th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
blondes fucking
cr00topcheg
August 26th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
pussy closeup galleries
cr00topcheg
August 26th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
monster cocks
Idinax33000i