[finboy]

I saw a think-tank report today about how conservative talk radio dominates "progressive" talk radio something like 10 to 1. I just wasn't sure what they were referring to as conservative and "progressive". Is People's Radio (NPR) considered "progressive"? I'd figure they were obviously left of center -- at least they were when I used to listen all day way back when. All the folks I knew in NPR were lefties (crunchy granola types).

I guess I'm asking if "progressive" is the new "pro-choice" -- another way to steer opinions with framing.

[besson3c]

It doesn't matter.

We are too wrapped up in worrying about which news agency is left and which is right. This doesn't matter.

What does matter is *how* they deliver the news, and how substantive the information they pass on is. Whether you are Conservative or Democrat, you cannot get an objective take on a complex issue with a couple second soundbyte like you get on cable news. It is difficult to really put in the thought necessary to come to grips with many issues facing us today when these have to compete with Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears being pushed at us in our day-to-day lives.

As long as the news is substantive, it provides people with the opportunity to really think about the issue themselves and come to their own conclusions. Even if the news is bias, the chances are far greater that this person will arrive at a better informed opinion if their source is more substantive. When you don't think about stuff and just allow the media to spoon feed you crap, anything goes.

I haven't listened to much talk radio, but much of it has the reputation of being full of hot air and blather - completely crapping over complex issues with emotionally loaded diatribes that often have little to do with what the issues really are and what people are talking about. Support of troops is a great example of this.

I'll take NPR over this any day of the week, even if the person they have on is a complete right wing nut job.

[TheWOAT]

I haven't listened to much talk radio, but much of it has the reputation of being full of hot air and blather - completely crapping over complex issues with emotionally loaded diatribes that often have little to do with what the issues really are and what people are talking about. Support of troops is a great example of this.

Yeah, its all hot air. But I tend to find the conservative hot air more entertaining than the liberal hot air. I dont like to hear people whine and complain, and liberal radio hosts do it more than the likes of Limbaugh or Savage. I think being mean spirited and opinionated is what sells, and guys like Savage know this. Is it possible to have a mean, intimidating, opinionated, LIBERAL radio host? Oxymoron?

[besson3c]

Well, are they entertainers, or journalists?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Yeah, its all hot air. But I tend to find the conservative hot air more entertaining than the liberal hot air. I dont like to hear people whine and complain, and liberal radio hosts do it more than the likes of Limbaugh or Savage. I think being mean spirited and opinionated is what sells, and guys like Savage know this. Is it possible to have a mean, intimidating, opinionated, LIBERAL radio host? Oxymoron?

That's an interesting take. What Limbaugh and Savage do isn't whine and complain about the left?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll take NPR over this any day of the week, even if the person they have on is a complete right wing nut job.

I've always thought NPR was a little too smooth with the propaganda, while professing that they had no agenda. When they decide to only present stories about evil businesses and poor folks, evil Republicans, etc. then it goes from passive to active. Their decisions about what to cover sets the tone, and shows their agenda.

Anyhow, I love how the term "progressive" is popping up everywhere now (just google it) -- wow, just like the old days. Joe Stalin would be proud.

[Dork.]

I've said this before here: Conservatives tend to listen to the radio, and Liberals tend to watch TV and movies. And political programs follow their audience.

Saying that Conservative radio talk show hosts "dominate" Liberal radio talk show hosts is like saying that National League pitchers "dominate" American League pitchers because thy get more hits when they're at the plate over the course of the year.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I've always thought NPR was a little too smooth with the propaganda, while professing that they had no agenda. When they decide to only present stories about evil businesses and poor folks, evil Republicans, etc. then it goes from passive to active. Their decisions about what to cover sets the tone, and shows their agenda.

Anyhow, I love how the term "progressive" is popping up everywhere now (just google it) -- wow, just like the old days. Joe Stalin would be proud.

I don't buy it. NPR needs money from donors. Conservatives and Democrats have money. There is no room for an intended or transparent bias.

Besides, like I said, it still doesn't matter a whole lot, because they are one of few news outlets that is actually interested in providing meaty substance in their news. Whatever faults you may think they have, they are still one of the best news outlets we have, IMHO.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's an interesting take. What Limbaugh and Savage do isn't whine and complain about the left?

Well, both sides have similarities and its hard for me to describe the differences. Limbaugh and Savage type personalities dont exist (at least to my knowledge) on liberal radio. Those guys do complain and whine, but there is a stubborn, blowhard, condescending, know it all aspect that sells on the radio and conservative hosts do well at it. Its like they took a page out of the sports radio playbook. Do liberals even like sports? (just kidding)

[BRussell]

Does NPR have a liberal bias? How about some evidence. Here's one study.

Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances.

It seems to me that any source that isn't 100% hard-right conservative is considered to have a liberal bias by conservatives.

[peeb]

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Any source that presents the facts will consequently be viewed by the right as liberally biased.