[mojo2]

Why aren't there any conservative talk stations on the iTunes Radio line-up?

Anyone have an idea?

[- - e r i k - -]

Too conservative when it comes to technology?

*badda-tish*

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Too conservative when it comes to technology?

*badda-tish*

Who? The Apple iTunes channel masters?

Conservative talk radio hosts would never give away their shows for free!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Why aren't there any conservative talk stations on the iTunes Radio line-up?

Anyone have an idea?

Apple is a global company. PC rules. It's strictly business. Hypothetical: advertise with Limbaugh
or not. He's obviously a Mac fanboy but Apple would not touch him with a 10 ft pole. Even though iTunes is politically biased left, it's like mom in the kitchen. Do you want some cookies or just wait until your father gets home.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Conservative talk radio hosts would never give away their shows for free!

I thought of that. But I don't know that that is true. There are many conservative talkers or shows or stations I imagine who would agree to the extra exposure.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Orion27

Apple is a global company. PC rules. It's strictly business. Hypothetical: advertise with Limbaugh
or not. He's obviously a Mac fanboy but Apple would not touch him with a 10 ft pole. Even though iTunes is politically biased left, it's like mom in the kitchen. Do you want some cookies or just wait until your father gets home.

Do you realize how damning that would be against Apple and liberalism if it proved to be true?

[Mithras]

Are there any commercial stations on iTunes at all?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you realize how damning that would be against Apple and liberalism if it proved to be true?

It's obviously true. Rush has said it himself a few times. Apple couldn't pay for the free advertising he lends and he has said himself they woould not advertise on his show. And his market is high end, well educated and probably mostly PC ( personal computer ). I could just see Apple trying to market iTunes in France with Michael Savage availble for download. No, I promise, It's CNN and
BBC not EIB. Al Jazeera International is not far behind. Let's be objective here. Air America? Who makes a deal like that? Better yet, how do they get on the list anyway? Oh that's right, they're a charity case and Steve takes it off his taxes.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Conservative talk radio hosts would never give away their shows for free!

Last I checked, AM radio is free. I've never paid a single penny to listen to Rush or Hannity.

I don't know about Rush, but Hannity has (or had, last I looked) a free stream on his site.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Are there any commercial stations on iTunes at all?

It's hard to say. I know MOST of them are non-commercial. But I get the impression that some are for profit but maybe they aren't making much $. Like Air America.

Then the question would be are there any non-commercial conservative talk stations in America that also broadcast on Live 365?

[MindFad]

Because then you'd be able to listen to it, and who would you want to do that? [/kevin bait]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by MindFad

Because then you'd be able to listen to it, and who would you want to do that? [/kevin bait]

Because Rush, agree with him or not, is entertaining. Which is why he has a fairly significant audience of liberals...

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Because Rush, agree with him or not, is entertaining. Which is why he has a fairly significant audience of liberals...

Yeah, entertaining. Kinda like how you can not help but to slow down and look at a car accident.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Because Rush, agree with him or not, is entertaining. Which is why he has a fairly significant audience of liberals...

You're right; Rush has a huge liberal audience as well as his typical conservative listeners.

Was anyone listening to his show when Tiger came out? Rush was going berserk over the OS. He went on forever about Spotlight and Dashboard. I remember listening to his show that day, freaking out that he was actually a diehard Mac user. I didn' t know up until that point. He seemed almost giddy about the whole thing, babbling on about every little new feature. I'm sure he'll do the same about Leopard.

One memorable quote from that day was when he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, if you still are using Windows XP, then let's face it...you're living in the dark ages."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Yeah, entertaining. Kinda like how you can not help but to slow down and look at a car accident.

That felt like the 'obligatory slap' at conservatives.

There is nothing about him or his show or his commentary which suggests anything like a car wreck.

Give it more thought next time, eh?

Or, I should say, give it more FEEL.

If you actually thought you wouldn't have said it, methinks.

[ambush]

Wow your sig really screams FUD, mojo2.

[mojo2]

mojo2 Sig

"The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is...militant Islam's...ultimate goal...to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an. This aspiration is...far-fetched to many non-Muslims, it elicits more guffaws than apprehension...that used to be the same reaction in Europe...now it's...widely accepted that..."Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."
"Unrest, violence in France"

Originally Posted by ambush

Wow your sig really screams FUD, mojo2.

I was thinking of changing it to this:

The war on Israel is not about occupation. About 25 percent of Palestinians are Christian, yet if there are any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, I am unaware of them. Now why is that? Don't Muslim and leftist apologists incessantly tell us that the reason for Palestinian terror is "Israeli occupation and oppression"? Why, then, are there no Palestinian Christian terrorists? Are Christian Palestinians less occupied?

What do you think? Is that FUD, too?

Originally Posted by mojo2

That felt like the 'obligatory slap' at conservatives.

There is nothing about him or his show or his commentary which suggests anything like a car wreck.

Give it more thought next time, eh?

Or, I should say, give it more FEEL.

If you actually thought you wouldn't have said it, methinks.

I listened to Rush for about two years everyday back in the mid-90's. It was a "car wreck" because as much as I hated listening to it, I couldn't help myself. I termed myself a conservative at that point in my life and the guy was just too much of a nut job for my tastes. Hell, I listened to Dr. Laura longer than I did Rush and she didn't bug me at all.

I USED to be conservative leaning. I also USED to be liberal leaning. Now I know both sides are whacked in the head. That qualifies myself to make "obligatory slaps" at either side. I hate Limbaugh and Franken equally.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

I listened to Rush for about two years everyday back in the mid-90's. It was a "car wreck" because as much as I hated listening to it, I couldn't help myself. I termed myself a conservative at that point in my life and the guy was just too much of a nut job for my tastes. Hell, I listened to Dr. Laura longer than I did Rush and she didn't bug me at all.

I USED to be conservative leaning. I also USED to be liberal leaning. Now I know both sides are whacked in the head. That qualifies myself to make "obligatory slaps" at either side. I hate Limbaugh and Franken equally.

I think I respect & despise you more than any other liberal/conservative here!



You have done more to educate yourself than 90% of the liberals in this society.

Think of it. Most liberals NEVER even consider the conservative philosophy. Whereas, conservatives live in a liberal society and are bombarded by liberal media and points of view continually PLUS they learn about conservative philosophy.

That means they know more than most liberals.

Consider yourself among the elite.

And I'll just chalk up your hating both sides as a necessary cover to avoid getting the stink-eye from your liberal contemporaries.

Your secret's safe with me.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I was thinking of changing it to this:



What do you think? Is that FUD, too?

Yes, it's still FUD, but coupled with sophist logic

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MindFad

Because then you'd be able to listen to it, and who would you want to do that? [/kevin bait]

I don't listen to that crap.

Originally Posted by mojo2

I think I respect & despise you more than any other liberal/conservative here!



You have done more to educate yourself than 90% of the liberals in this society.

Think of it. Most liberals NEVER even consider the conservative philosophy. Whereas, conservatives live in a liberal society and are bombarded by liberal media and points of view continually PLUS they learn about conservative philosophy.

That means they know more than most liberals.

Consider yourself among the elite.

And I'll just chalk up your hating both sides as a necessary cover to avoid getting the stink-eye from your liberal contemporaries.

Your secret's safe with me.

Thanks, I think.

Nah, I don't need to have a cover on my political philosophies around my contemporaries, whether they are liberal or not. If anybody subscribes 100% to either side of American politics, they are nothing but sheep and therefore, a political debate isn't even worth it.

Biased media, liberal or conservative, can only remain popular if they "hate" the other side completely. I'm sure Rush's or Franken's shows would drop dramitcally in listenership if either said they agreed with some ideas from the other side.

But, back to the original question in the post, I believe Limbaugh is too controversial to be in iTunes. Whether it be from the diatribe or his constant, illegal drug abuse, I am not sure.

[chris v]

Every once in a while, a thread burbles up from beneath the floorboards and makes me happy that I've been banned from Pol/War for the last year.

"My favorite radio host is being hurted by the Librul Media!"

"NO YUO!"

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

But, back to the original question in the post, I believe Limbaugh is too controversial to be in iTunes. Whether it be from the diatribe or his constant, illegal drug abuse, I am not sure.

If they decided only to put artists on iTunes if they didn't go on diatribes or abuse illegal drugs, the selection would suck.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

I listened to Rush for about two years everyday back in the mid-90's. It was a "car wreck" because as much as I hated listening to it, I couldn't help myself. I termed myself a conservative at that point in my life and the guy was just too much of a nut job for my tastes. Hell, I listened to Dr. Laura longer than I did Rush and she didn't bug me at all.

I USED to be conservative leaning. I also USED to be liberal leaning. Now I know both sides are whacked in the head. That qualifies myself to make "obligatory slaps" at either side. I hate Limbaugh and Franken equally.

I also listened to Rush for many years as well to the point of being a really big Fanboy. I had bought all his books, Listened to his show religiously all the time. I even Signed up for Rush 24/7 for a time as well. I've found him too much of a Kool aid drinker and becoming too main stream. I've gotten more into listening to Michael Savage. I find him a lot better than Rush.

Plus people are forgetting that Rush's Podcasts can be downloaded from iTunes. You just need to sign up for his Rush 24/7 Service to download them from iTunes.

[Dakar]

Savage is a little... unbalanced.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Savage is a little... unbalanced.

How so?

[Dakar]

He comes off as a bit of a nut.

Perhaps it was when he mentioned that he took his son to the lion cages at the zoo and had him take roars to face so he would learn never to be intimidated.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Dakar

He comes off as a bit of a nut.

Perhaps it was when he mentioned that he took his son to the lion cages at the zoo and had him take roars to face so he would learn never to be intimidated.

I can think of several good reasons to be intimidated by lions.

[Jawbone54]

Savage is a bit crazy, which is partly why I like him. Plus, sometimes he just gets tired of talking about politics and talks about other things - his dog, old stories, food, and other nonsense. It's recfreshing every once in a while to hear a supposed political talk show host talk with his listeners for an hour about dog stories.

By the way, his son is the owner of the Rockstar energy drink company.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Dakar

He comes off as a bit of a nut.

Perhaps it was when he mentioned that he took his son to the lion cages at the zoo and had him take roars to face so he would learn never to be intimidated.

Get rid of the cage, THEN stare down the lion. Just like my dad showed me.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by scottiB

Get rid of the cage, THEN stare down the lion. Just like my dad showed me.

Sorry to hear about your loss.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Thanks, I think.

Nah, I don't need to have a cover on my political philosophies around my contemporaries, whether they are liberal or not. If anybody subscribes 100% to either side of American politics, they are nothing but sheep and therefore, a political debate isn't even worth it.

Not necessarily. Whether you know it or not this country has been at war for some time and there is much to be gained or lost by being totally subscribed IN PUBLIC to either philosophical position.

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Biased media, liberal or conservative, can only remain popular if they "hate" the other side completely. I'm sure Rush's or Franken's shows would drop dramitcally in listenership if either said they agreed with some ideas from the other side.

Particular shows may get their ratings from the same kind of tactics that the WWF uses. There is a great deal of fun to be had by all in lampooning the opposition. However, when you speak of the MEDIA there IS NO OTHER CONSERVATIVE MEDIA OTHER THAN FNC! And when you do a strict analysis of the coverage I think you'd find that FNC hews closer to unvarnished truth than the others.

But why would you get the impression that FNC was as biased as lets say, CNN?

Because you have grown accustomed to the CNN point of view.

As a child, if you could choose which hand would be your dominant hand but you lived in a left handed world and everything was geared to left handedness and all your friends and family were left handed then later when you tried using your right hand to write with it would seem unnatural.

Same thing with the bias you speak of. The FNC commentary might seem biased because they use different assumptions than you are used to. But the FNC NEWS is fair and balanced. You just don't feel comfortable with it maybe, and maybe that's because you've been so left for so long.

And speaking of which side has greater hatefulness, former Clinton advisor, Lanny Davis has this experience:

Lanny Davis meets the fascist left in Connecticut - Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:27 AM
Many fellow traveling liberals forget all too easily that Communism (aka "progressivism") and fascism are twins, that Communists and Nazis joined forces in the 1930s to break up the meetings of social democrats ("liberals") and destroy the Weimar Republic, that "purge" is a leftwing coinage and that politics known as McCarthyism -- reckless charges, smears, guilt by association -- is the very essence of left in dealing with its political opponents. Part of this amnesia is accomplished by projecting their own hatreds onto their opponents on the right. Thus it is rightwingers that are alleged to practice the politics of personal destruction -- a phrase and a tactic invented by the left. But the anti-Israel fascists have now descended on Connecticut to defeat a Jew and elect a wealthy scion of one of America's most famous Stalinist families who -- just to complete the picture, belonged until a few weeks ago to an anti-Semitic country club (imagine if his name had been say Tom DeLay). The result is that Clinton flak Lanny Davis has begun to wake up. This is a fracture in the Popular Front between patriotic liberals and anti-American, anti-Israel radicals. Hopefully, it will continue.

Liberal McCarthyism

By Lanny J. Davis
August 8, 2006 Page A10

WASHINGTON  My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

Tis kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing  in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's

fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years  with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage  I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:

• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an American who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement

of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

• "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

• "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005). 

And these are some of the nicer examples.

One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails  many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)  that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.

But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event  where he asked the candidate some critical questions  some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not  him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today he is fearful for his physical safety.

I do not blame Joe Lieberman's political difficulties on the liberal blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen. Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman's record as a progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be disputed despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with $4 million of his own money.

Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont  nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn't as yet.

Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard that it's not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side's versions of Ann Coulter do.

Mr. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton between 1996-98, is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America," forthcoming from Palgrave. This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Entry from David's Blog - http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/

Originally Posted by screamingFit

But, back to the original question in the post, I believe Limbaugh is too controversial to be in iTunes. Whether it be from the diatribe or his constant, illegal drug abuse, I am not sure.

He isn't the ONLY conservative commentator in America.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

If they decided only to put artists on iTunes if they didn't go on diatribes or abuse illegal drugs, the selection would suck.

I agree. But be careful Dave. Don't just assume that some of the people who posted in this thread before you have correctly framed the issue.

That is part of the bias that goes unnoticed by those who are used to such flaws in interpretation. However, this sort of bias stands out to me. Some folks just can't be trusted with basic facts without interjecting their emotion-based spin on them. They can't help it.

This thread isn't about any one talk show host. It isn't about any one network. I asked why there weren't ANY conservative stations.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

conservatives are insane thats why there not on iTunes

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

conservatives are insane thats why there not on iTunes

Real bright. Go away.

On another note, there are MANY conservative hosts to choose from. I'm a Neal Boortz fan...why can't he be on? Hannity, although disagreeable to you liberal types, is an upstanding guy and has 12,000,000+ listeners a week.

There DOES need to be some conservative stations. It's a glaringly obvious imbalance. We all know that Steve Jobs is liberal, as is much of the Apple community. But that doesn't mean there should be a such an obvious omission. Conservatives are getting the shaft.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

conservatives are insane thats why there not on iTunes

The problem with that statement is that someone who says that is either kidding and/or baiting me or they have no point of reference. Most libs have only experienced liberalism and maybe have never even thought about it.

Conservatives know the liberal philosophy AND the conservative philosophy.

So what you call insane is actually enlightenment but some libs call it insane because their own orientation is so alien to common sense conservative thought.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Real bright. Go away.

On another note, there are MANY conservative hosts to choose from. I'm a Neal Boortz fan...why can't he be on? Hannity, although disagreeable to you liberal types, is an upstanding guy and has 12,000,000+ listeners a week.

There DOES need to be some conservative stations. It's a glaringly obvious imbalance. We all know that Steve Jobs is liberal, as is much of the Apple community. But that doesn't mean there should be a such an obvious omission. Conservatives are getting the shaft.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by mojo2 

Why aren't there any conservative talk stations on the iTunes Radio line-up?


Anyone have an idea?

I miss you, mojo2!

[Spheric Harlot]

I don't.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I don't.

There's no accounting for taste.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Mary Palmer 

Try these stations to satisfy your real news and info. urges
KABC-AM
Real Talk 1160AM
WABC-AM
WJR-AM
WNTP News Talk 990
WNTP News Talk 990
WOKV
WRKO-AM

Thank you, Mary Palmer!

And welcome to MacNN!

[subego]

99% sure "she" is a spammer.

[knifecarrier2]

They're too dumb to figure out technology.

[BadKosh]

WMAL-AM is available in iToons radio selections. Its the nations capitals Talker. 6-9PM is Mark Levin. He's the best.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Dakar 

Savage is a little... unbalanced.

Michael Savage walked out and is no longer broadcasting his show!

A court decision last week in his favor meant he could walk away from his contract with Talk Radio Network to find a new network and bigger bucks.

After Rush, who is #1 and Hannity, who is #2, Dr. Savage is the #3 most listened to radio talk show host in America.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

6-9PM is Mark Levin. He's the best.

Why does it not surprise me you like Shouty McYell.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WMAL-AM is available in iToons radio selections. Its the nations capitals Talker. 6-9PM is Mark Levin. He's the best.

"The Great One!"

When he gets worked up about the subject he's discussing, his voice kinda reminds me of Jimmy Cagney or Edward G. Robinson playing a gangster, see?

[subego]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

"The Great One!"
When he gets worked up about the subject he's discussing, his voice kinda reminds me of Jimmy Cagney or Edward G. Robinson playing a gangster, see?

A gangster about to have an aneurism.