KTRH even more right leaning now ... Ed Schultz gone?

[Gary]

air america failed not becuase it was liberal becuase it was contrived and too combative. they didn't present a liberal point a view, they just attacked the right.

I really do try to stay informed from both sides, you know to make up my own mind, and although I lean right alot of the time I can't stand the Republican party. That being said, I find liberal media to be very combative which is a big turnoff. Especially when it seems to be nothing but bitching with very few solutions. The Iraq war (which Bush has blown big time) is a perfect example. The Liberals want to pull out, but have almost no solution for what to do with the country once were gone.

[FilioScotia]

I'm with you on that. Like I said, when I do listen it's either business radio 1320am or NPR or sometimes 90.1KPFT. I do not mind true conservatives. I have issues with the Rushs and the Millers, and the Medvids (or however you spell his name) that blame every issue on democrats and liberals and really approach 'hate speech' for anything that's not conservative.

As a bleeding heart conservative, I often wish there were more purely liberal alternatives to the conservative domination of talk radio. It's always good to know what people with different viewpoints are thinking and talking about, even if you don't agree with them. I believe it's intellectually unhealthy and dishonest to get news and opinions only from sources you agree with.

As for Limbaugh and Hannity, I think they are hurting the conservative cause more than they help it because they are both so extreme and unforgiving. They are the leaders of the force that is driving a wedge into our society, and dividing the country into uncompromising liberal and conservative camps.

Limbaugh brags that he doesn't believe in compromise and he excoriates those who think compromise is the art of making things possible in politics. He equates compromise with abandoning your principles. He wants the whole loaf or no loaf at all. He scorns politicians who get things done by "giving a little to get a little", and everybody goes home happy.

He also wants nothing to do with moderates -- conservatives or liberals. He says moderates are people who don't know what they believe.

[TheNiche]

As a bleeding heart conservative, I often wish there were more purely liberal alternatives to the conservative domination of talk radio. It's always good to know what people with different viewpoints are thinking and talking about, even if you don't agree with them. I believe it's intellectually unhealthy and dishonest to get news and opinions only from sources you agree with.

I agree, and from time to time, I used to turn on Ed Schultz, but he had difficulty forming a coherent or original argument and often just got lost in the bandwagon Bush-bashing. I'm interested in what both the left and right think and why they think it, but the 'why' part was so often lost in a sea of aggression on the left's attempts at talk radio. In contrast, although I haven't listened to Rush in what seems like ages, he seemed to at least be able to present a line of reasoning--not that it was always correct, but at least he could try to defend his point and not just attack the opposition.

Bottom line: people like interactive forms of entertainment; talk radio hosts that can provide a premise and conclusion by way of which thinking people can assess the validity of the argument will do better than talk show hosts that merely state their stances repetitiously and call other people names. Schultz was the latter, so he's gone now.

[west20th]

, you are not their demographic, the companies that pay the bills for radio spots aren't trying to sell YOU their product.

Demographics? So your saying right wing radio appeals to people that are likely customers for gold buying scams, get rich quick schemes, fix your bad credit scams, anti gay and anti interracial dating services and ED issues? Frankly the only advertisers that don't insult the listeners intelligence are the local ads.

[Gary]

Demographics? So your saying right wing radio appeals to people that are likely customers for gold buying scams, get rich quick schemes, fix your bad credit scams, anti gay and anti interracial dating services and ED issues? Frankly the only advertisers that don't insult the listeners intelligence are the local ads.

So your saying that conservatives are idiots?

[west20th]

So your saying that conservatives are idiots?

No. I'm saying the type of advertisers that buy time on conservative radio seem to think they are.

[editor]

Demographics? So your saying right wing radio appeals to people that are likely customers for gold buying scams, get rich quick schemes, fix your bad credit scams, anti gay and anti interracial dating services and ED issues? Frankly the only advertisers that don't insult the listeners intelligence are the local ads.

Don't forget Gold Bond Medicated power, Bose wave radios, and Citrical!

[west20th]

Don't forget Gold Bond Medicated power, Bose wave radios, and Citrical!

Hmmmm.....I like Bose stuff and I'm a flamin' lib. Something odd there. I wonder why advertisers think conservatives have itchy feet and are constipated?

[west20th]

Bottom line: people like interactive forms of entertainment; talk radio hosts that can provide a premise and conclusion by way of which thinking people can assess the validity of the argument will do better than talk show hosts that merely state their stances repetitiously and call other people names. Schultz was the latter, so he's gone now.

I disagree with your take on Ed Schultz. "talk show hosts that merely state their stances repetitiously and call other people names. " more accurately describe Rush, Micheal "Savage" Wiener, Mark "get off the air 'ya dope" Levine etc, etc. IMO. I think Ed Shultz is gone because he had a crap time slot, was always pre-empted by the Astros and never was able to build a following here. If I was cynical I'd think clear channel put him on and set him up to fail so they could say "see, we tried".

[TheNiche]

I disagree with your take on Ed Schultz. "talk show hosts that merely state their stances repetitiously and call other people names. " more accurately describe Rush, Micheal "Savage" Wiener, Mark "get off the air 'ya dope" Levine etc, etc. IMO. I think Ed Shultz is gone because he had a crap time slot, was always pre-empted by the Astros and never was able to build a following here. If I was cynical I'd think clear channel put him on and set him up to fail so they could say "see, we tried".

Levine and Schultz are about on par, I think. They each get crappy time slots because they suck. The only thing that keeps Savage going is that he's got personal charisma and a good radio voice. Trying to listen to any of these is just grueling for anybody that is actually tuned in to try and get a handle on the why question.

Whether you agree with him or not, Rush is the best game in town insofar as the premise-conclusion format of argumentation is concerned. ...and that's not to say that he doesn't waste a lot of time with less noble approaches. Like I said earlier, it's been a while since I tuned in.

[FilioScotia]

Bottom line: people like interactive forms of entertainment; talk radio hosts that can provide a premise and conclusion by way of which thinking people can assess the validity of the argument will do better than talk show hosts that merely state their stances repetitiously and call other people names.

As I said in an earlier post, I think it's intellectually unhealthy and dishonest to get your news and opinion only from sources you agree with.

And extending that thought, I believe a socially and politically "healthy" person is someone who is liberal on some things and conservative on others. Balanced.

People who are ALL conservative or ALL liberal scare me. They're idealogues who do nothing but pollute and poison the body politick.

[Toggle3]

... KTRH is solidly conservative, dare I say right-wing, talk now ... there is no middle, there is no left ... how is that in the middle?

It only seems 'right-wing' because all the other mainstream media has such an extreme liberal bias.

Give Dennis Prager a shot; he's on 950 AM from 11am-2pm, very thoughtful and not a bomb thrower. http://dennisprager.townhall.com/

Or maybe Michael Medved, you might like him. Very reasoned and reasonable. (although his support for amnesty was atrocious)

FYI: A lot of these new conservatives talk show hosts were actually Democrats once upon a time. Don't be so closed minded.

[Gary]

As I said in an earlier post, I think it's intellectually unhealthy and dishonest to get your news and opinion only from sources you agree with.

And extending that thought, I believe a socially and politically "healthy" person is someone who is liberal on some things and conservative on others. Balanced.

People who are ALL conservative or ALL liberal scare me. They're idealogues who do nothing but pollute and poison the body politick.

Well said.

[west20th]

It only seems 'right-wing' because all the other mainstream media has such an extreme liberal bias.

Give Dennis Prager a shot; he's on 950 AM from 11am-2pm, very thoughtful and not a bomb thrower. http://dennisprager.townhall.com/

Or maybe Michael Medved, you might like him. Very reasoned and reasonable. (although his support for amnesty was atrocious)

FYI: A lot of these new conservatives talk show hosts were actually Democrats once upon a time. Don't be so closed minded.

Yes, the above are less abraisive than say Rush but they all still have the same point of view. They all say the same things in slightly different ways. A different point of view on occasion would be nice. Some actual debate instead of the near constant preaching to the conservative choir would probably be too much to ask for.

[TheNiche]

Yes, the above are less abraisive than say Rush but they all still have the same point of view. They all say the same things in slightly different ways. A different point of view on occasion would be nice. Some actual debate instead of the near constant preaching to the conservative choir would probably be too much to ask for.

Unfortunately, two-sided debate doesn't really work too well when you mix politically-motivated voices with the mass media in anything less than a formal setting. It just turns into a shouting match.

I don't mind monologues (i.e. preaching). The important thing is that within the monologues is a reasonably intelligible path of reasoning that can be understood and internally debated by the listener. I could care less that a host is one-sided, doesn't provide counterpoints, or what have you. That's my job as a listener. It is the process of analysis and testing the host's views against my own that makes the talk radio format interactive, even if I'm never a caller.