Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (18586)	1/1/2003 7:15:04 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

That's the spin, which the left uses to justify their inability to be successful in the talk format. The real issue is it's a two way medium where ideas are challenged and given plenty of time to be explored. The format of having lots of time and plenty of feedback doesn't lend itself to liberal ideas standing up under scrutiny. What liberals, who have attempted the effort have found, is the talk radio audience is made up of thoughtful well-informed listeners. Much better informed then your typical television audience, and much better educated as well. The 7-second sound bite boob tube lends itself well to one-way communications and liberal ideas. For the first time in a long while (while I was running on the Elliptical today), I watched CNN's "Inside Politics" show. The biased reported of CNN has gotten more and more gross. No wonder viewers are turning to Fox Television. After they spent 15 minutes extolling the virtues of Edwards by two liberals, they had the new Leading Democrat House member on to talk about where they intended to go. Not one conservative or Republican in the entire hour watched it. I suppose CNN thinks politics only involves the minority party now. They should have called the show. "Democrat spin".

To: KonKilo who wrote (18586)	1/2/2003 1:19:33 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 93284

Here is another point to consider.... radioink.com TV Emphasizes Emotion; Radio Relies On Words “It wasn’t just his smarmy, condescending, pre-school-teacher tone that makes Al Gore so difficult for many Americans to endure during the last presidential campaign,” observes Salem Radio Networks talk show host Michael Medved in an exclusive commentary in the November 4 issue of Radio Ink. “It was his identification with all those self-righteous, establishment ideas force-fed to all us since our school days and that so often go unchallenged as some sort of revealed truth." As a visual medium, “television inevitably emphasizes emotion and so will always give liberalism an edge,” Medved notes. “If you’re showing pathetic video footage of homeless people trying to sleep at night in cardboard boxes or other makeshift shelters, it’s hard to trump those heart-wrenching images with hard-hitting discussion of the need to defend a city’s business vitality by getting tough on the derelicts. “Radio, on the other hand, relies on words rather than pictures, allowing for freer play of logical argument with less chance of emotional manipulation — providing a natural advantage for conservatives,” Medved continues. “When you combine that advantage with the clear audience preference for ideas and conversation that might be considered audacious, impolite and exciting, it’s much easier to understand why conservatives rule the radio.” Look for all of Medved’s commentary on “Why Conservatives Dominate Talk Radio” in the November 4 issue of Radio Ink.

To: KonKilo who wrote (18586)	1/2/2003 1:21:13 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 93284

Will a new left-wing TV network rescue the despondent Dems? By Michael Medved worldnetdaily.com Desperate Democrats have now come up with a magical solution to all their problems: suggesting the launch of an ambitious new television network to assure proper exposure for the liberal point of view. One week after GOP victories in the midterm elections, the inside-the-Beltway journal The Hill reported that Democratic leaders believe that they need to find a "counterweight to what they call the vast and well-funded infrastructure of conservative ideology" – in other words, that hoary, horrid bugbear of a vast right-wing conspiracy that's haunted liberal nightmares since Hillary evoked its fearsome power during the impeachment crisis. In order to balance such ferocious forces of reaction, the despondent Dems now "are calling for stronger liberal think tanks" and "even entertained the possibility of a liberal television network to offset Fox News." The best way to come to terms with the insanity behind this suggestion is to try to imagine what this bold new venture might look like. How might you program the liberal network to ensure its earnest ideological appeal? Perhaps you'd consider talk shows hosted by Phil Donahue, Larry King, George Stephanopolous, Bryant Gumbel, Katie Couric, Sam Donaldson, Geraldo Rivera, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Moyers or Barbara Walters and the other women of "The View." Or maybe you'd recruit Dan Rather (or Jennings, or Brokaw) as your news anchor. For entertainment, you might consider a prime-time drama like "The West Wing," or a light-hearted (but tolerance-teaching) comedy like "Will & Grace." Barbra Streisand could provide musical specials (oozing leftie nostalgia, of course) for the holiday season – and for Election Day. The network also might broadcast enlightened liberal movies by filmmaking titans like Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Robert Altman, Stephen Spielberg or Spike Lee. If future programmers for DEM-TV truly wish to let their imaginations soar, they might even fantasize about luring such luminaries as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher out of their temporary retirements. In other words, you could fill up the entire schedule of the new network with precisely the same sort of show that is already readily available, around the clock and across the dial. Only the looniest leftist could nourish the notion that today's broadcast or cable-TV networks shortchange or suppress liberal views. Fox News triumphed precisely because it provided a forum for opinions seldom aired on the established channels, allowing the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume to connect with an eager audience. The undeniable rightward tilt of Fox may undermine its claims of "fair and balanced" reporting, but the network does preserve the lively liberal perspective of personalities like Geraldo and Greta van Sustern. By contrast, its "mainstream" competitors present self-consciously right-wing viewpoints only within the context of their dueling wonk shows (Crossfire, Buchanan and Press), and never as part of their entertainment line-ups. When in its history did television ever offer a show as unabashedly conservative as "The West Wing" is unabashedly liberal? The day after the election, in fact, I wrote a commentary for USA TODAY suggesting that the precipitous ratings decline for "The West Wing" may have stemmed in part from its shrill, tiresome and predictable partisanship. In response to this observation, Michael Brecklin of Peoria wrote a letter to the editor declaring: "Pop-culture pundit Michael Meved is a hoot … One wonders what sociopolitical conclusions Medved draws from the ratings free fall of shows starring Drew Carey and Kelsey Grammer, two staunch Republicans …" In answer to that question, I'd suggest that Carey and Grammer draw far less attention to their GOP affiliation than Martin Sheen attracts for his tireless left-wing activism. Moreover, if "Frasier" and "Drew Carey" contain regular Republican messages, those signals remain so stubbornly subtle as to count as invisible. The talk of new networks and "stronger liberal think tanks" (as if Yale, Harvard, Stanford and other elite schools don't provide enough of an incubator for left-wing ideas) serves as an excuse for Democrats to avoid serious self-examination. Lamenting libs fret over the mechanics of communicating their message, rather than considering the shortcomings of the message itself. Rather than suggesting that they could turn their political fortunes around with a few more big media stars who share their point of view, they might recall the eternally trenchant analysis of Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves …"