To liberal talk radio, that is. Several thoughts:
1). I'd be interested to hear what the people planning to tune into it are hoping to get out of the new service.
2). I'm surprised that there isn't a more easily-findable website.
3). OK, to tell the truth I'm still perplexed about why they're busy reinventing the wheel - and their competitor's wheel, at that. They've already got a large pool of interested and motivated liberals/leftists/Democrats; it's called the blogosphere (well, one half of it, at least). For the kind of cash being spent on Air America Radio you could saturate the Internet... and I'd like to point out that it's a lot easier to fundraise online than it is over the radio. What obvious fact am I missing?
Mitch Berg, blogger and talk radio host puts their lineup in perspective:
Indeed. The new FrankenNet might appeal to angry, bitter leftists - and to be fair there is a segment of talk radio (Liddy and Savage) who appeal primarily to angry, bitter rightists – but it does not offer much else. I doubt that the hosts will honor the practice of their more successful conservative/libertarian counterparts who put callers who disagree with them (1) front on the caller list either. This seems to be more about trying to get around McCain-Feingold rather than trying to pave the way for other leftist and left-of-center radio hosts who don't need government subsidies to operate.
TW
(1) Lanpher was notorious on MPR and during her short-lived stint on KSTP for hanging up on callers who disagreed with her.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | March 29, 2004 at 11:31 PM
This Berg guy must haved created those Club for Growth howard dean ads. The same liberal elitism garbage as we here from the right. The president, a conservative republican, was born in New England, educated in New England, and fits the definition of elitist but somehow the liberals are the real elitists.
Posted by: andrew R | March 29, 2004 at 11:48 PM
Oh and I've called into one radio talk show in my life. The station happened to be KSTP and the host happened to be a big righty. Several callers patted the guy on the back while I waited on the phone, we had a civil conversation. I was not moved to the front of the line even when I clearly disagreed with the host.
Posted by: andrew R | March 29, 2004 at 11:50 PM
I doubt it's going to have an immediate profound effect. I just hope it's entertaining and informative. We shall see. On a related note, at least one of the shows is picking up liberal bloggers as regular commentators, which is a great way to get cheap, smart labor with a built-in audience, as long as they can get used to the format.
Posted by: carpeicthus | March 30, 2004 at 12:07 AM
To be totally honest, I'm not likely to tune in. I don't listen to the radio as it is; advertising, to me, provokes a visceral urge to chuck the radio or TV out the window, and I haven't found a music station yet that doesn't make me want to change the station within a song or two.
Add to that the fact that I'm not really interested in an echo chamber for my positions, and get all my news from the net, and it's not much use to me.
But there may well be a significant chunk of the left-leaning population out there that's fiending for something like this. Who knows? I guess we're all going to find out real soon.
Posted by: Catsy | March 30, 2004 at 04:23 AM
Q: "OK, to tell the truth I'm still perplexed about why they're busy reinventing the wheel...What obvious fact am I missing?"
A: Ah, Grasshopper: it is very, very difficult to read a blog while driving one's car... ;)
Posted by: JKC | March 30, 2004 at 08:12 AM
What obvious fact am I missing?
Multiple fronts in the culture war.
Posted by: Mithras | March 30, 2004 at 10:28 AM
Berger, via Thorley:
"On the other hand, comics almost inevitably talk down to people; they' usually ooze contempt for their audiences."
Uh. . yeah. Yet more evidence that The Right Has No Sense Of Humor (kidding, kidding). Insult comics are a niche, and a small one. Most comedy involves self-mockery, or other-mockery in partnership with the audience.
This is another case of starting with a conclusion (anything advocated by liberals involves elitism and snobbery) and working backwards to whatever 'evidence' you want to tie it to.
Posted by: sidereal | March 30, 2004 at 03:23 PM
They could have great impact on the small percentage of people who read blogs but let's be honest it is a small percentage.
Rush and Howard have what? Something like 14 million listeners a day? I'd be surprised if the blogs have a total of more than 2 million a day. (Maybe OW has the numbers on that though.)
My guess is that they're trying to make it entertaining and interesting and informative.
If it's not entertaining and interesting who's going to stick around for the informative. (Rush didn't come out of a think tank by the way.)
Brussel sprouts may be really good for you but I don't see them flying off the grocery store shelves.
Posted by: carsick | March 30, 2004 at 04:24 PM
By the way, posting Mitch Berg's view is a bit like:
a) asking Pepsi their thoughts on New Coke
b) asking Wolf Blitzer to comment on the O'Relly Factor
c) asking Wolf Blitzer to comment on the Democratic presidential nominee
d) all of the above
Posted by: carsick | March 30, 2004 at 04:36 PM