An Interesting Time for Talk Radio

It became apparent to me the other day that the 2012 election represents an interesting dilemma for talk radio. I consider myself somewhat of a connoisseur of talk radio. While growing up in Toledo in the early 1970s, I would take my transistor radio to bed with me and listen to stations from as far away as Boston--stations that would come through clearly late at night. For the last 20 years, I have listened to Conservative talk radio for about 30 hours-per-week. While listening to Glenn Beck last week, I found myself... (read more)

becoming increasingly irritated as he ranted about how people who considered themselves Conservatives were throwing away all of the good of the Tea Party movement if they even considered voting for Newt Gingrich. It struck me that there is a fine line between a radio host supporting a certain candidate and deriding his/her listeners for not agreeing with his/her choice of a candidate.

I've heard this same disposition on WSPD. The morning and afternoon hosts have made it repeatedly clear that they support Ron Paul. That's fine. But I have found myself turning to another station lately when the hosts begin to ridicule listeners for their inability to see Ron Paul as a viable candidate or for disagreeing with Paul's positions on legalizing drugs and isolationism. (I've listened to more sports radio in the past 6 months than I ever intended to!)

I've decided that I am no longer going to allow myself to be belittled by radio hosts who are implying that I don't have the intellectual wherewithal to see things their way. When the discussion veers away from talking about the general tenets of Conservatism and the importance of stopping Obama to "You're a moron if you don't like my candidate--how clueless can you be," I'm going to open up a good book!

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

is that after listening to conservative talk radio for 30 hours-per-week over a 20-year period you're actually rational and of sound judgement enough to reach this conclusion..

I think many are coming to this conclusion. As the political rhetoric has increased so has the disenfranchisement of talk radio in general. Polls have reported a drastic decline in Tea Party activity across the country. I think they, talk radio, have overplayed the sensibilities of thinking Americans. Try Iheart radio for radio outside Toledo. I've found that there are many voices across the country that don't parrot corporate radio. Iheart is but one venue. http://www.live365.com/index.live

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Wolfman shilling for Clear Channel? How funny! Iheartradio is owned by Clear Channel and has most of their stations on the app. "... many voices across the country that don't parrot corporate radio..." Iheartradio IS corporate radio!

Actually I heard about Iheart on WSPD! Yes most of us know that Iheart is owned by ClearChannel as are a BIG percentage of ALL radio stations across the country. Iheart I believe is but just the newest venue and I did list another that will get you the diversity that Toledo Talk doesn't; this is a growing internet market and more are coming online.

Until WSPD offers a more diverse format, as many have called for, more and more listeners will be looking elsewhere. 1310 WDTW Detroit offers a more progressive national view and gives Michigan news. http://www.1310wdtw.com/main.html Before Iheart I use to listen to 1310 on the terrestrial radio but its reception was spotty. This venue allows one to surf the internet giving great national diversity.

Still this is not a perfect solution as to reporting the local news but WSPD is cutting back on reporting local news and its dogma wears on ones sensibilities so its just a matter of time before many of the local listeners look elsewhere.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Well Iheart just blows your corporate narrative. So what is your real problem with talk radio? Oh yeah you told us.

"WDTW Detroit offers a more progressive national view and gives Michigan news."

Maybe you and your views should stay above the line and let the Ohioans worry about Ohio issues.

MikeyA

I don't agree with the onesidedness of WDTW either. They have but one view, the left. As for Corporate narrative ClearChannel is overwhelmingly right wing. The few left wing stations are only in big cities that would never listen to Rushbo. As for your love of Ohio I've lived in the area for 50+ years. Last time I heard MikeyA was standing next to a cactus somewhere out west.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Yes the corporate narrative. That Clear Channel is systemically trying to reprogram our thoughts, you've only been pushing that union line your whole time on here.

Lived in the area? Or lived in Ohio?

For your information I am still an Ohio and Lucas County resident and voter, it is my home. I live in California because it's where the military sent me. For a while the military sent me to Michigan. I lived in Milan and worked in Ann/Ypsi. Yet never during that time did I go onto Michigan political websites and complain about Michigan initiatives/politicians/laws etc. In fact, I don't even do that here in California either.

So even with the detachment of a thousand miles, mountains, fields, rivers, and lakes I still am affected more, and have a bigger hand in the day to day on-goings of Ohio.

So why don't you take your letters/phone calls/opinions to freep.com and WDTW and quit spreading your union/leftest drivel here.

MikeyA

I'm not as left as you all portray me here on SB. In fact I'm quite conservative in my daily life. I've worked hard for what I have and resent anyone who doesn't give the little guy the equal opportunities I've had. I engage in the political process in many other forums besides SB. Hey watch out the man is trying to take your bennies away from the military.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Wolfman, I have no problem with a decrease in the military budget.

I am a part of a service that receives 4% of the DoD budget yet provides 20% of the Combat power. Our training is efficiency centric and a little belt tightening does do good.

The problem I have is the reduction in force strength.

With the President's new Strategic vision we will have to cut our total strength by 20%. This after we increased it to meet operational needs.

Many Dems and some GOPers fall into the trap of thinking this is adequate because enemies can be contained with air power. They view the use of drones as an essential way to combat enemy forces with little risk to our military's lives.

This is false. There are several instances where history shows us this is a failure. The battle of Britain; Bombing of N. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia; the Iraqi No Fly Zone, air Campaign of Serbia. All of these did not result in success because of a sole air campaign. Air does not achieve mission accomplishment without ground forces to sustain gains.

MikeyA

When did Glenn throw his support behind Gingrich? I would imagine that would have made big headlines and I haven't seen them. It is the job of the media to question all the candidates and their stances, had the media done it's job in 2008 Obama probably wouldn't see so much of his enthusiasm deflated so he too is a victim of the media as well as his own "success".

Likewise I think those who decide to vote because of what someone else says/believes is truly stupid. Every voter should take an honest look at every candidate.

As I've said on here before the only candidate on the GOP side I had issues that could prevent my vote was Romney. Now the last 4 debates he's done a good job explaining the issues I've had with him and now I could see myself supporting him but I refuse to make a choice as of yet.

I could vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama. I think he could win the presidency in a general election. However I don't believe he can win the nomination.

I believe this because of national poll tracking and the nomination calendar. The congressman has a ceiling of about 15% that he's never shown he could cross. Even if the GOP convention is brokered he has no chance. Again this is on polling data and demographics rather than the issues.

Now don't get me wrong. Isolation as a foreign policy is/has been a dismal failure that no one can show me historically works and I can show historically fails. The legalization of drugs that the Congressman has advocated can be proven wrong with data of drug crime. These are facts that prove the Congressman's stance as a nice large slice of imbecility.

Now I arrived at these conclusions by studying facts. I didn't need a professional conjecturer to arrive at these conclusions.

So I guess I would ask "Why do you?"

MikeyA

Glenn is definitely not a fan of the Newtster. At least that's what I've taken away from the few snippets I've heard in the past week or so.

Regarding Romney, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. To be honest, I never really liked or trusted him all that much to begin with and the recent debates only served to solidify that position. The whole production around him being the most electable candidate really turned out to be nothing more than a potemkin front.

As for Paul, while outperforming his results from 2008, he never really had a shot and I'm guessing if you were to get some of his campaign people off the record, they would say the same thing. There was a relatively informal poll done on his supporters regarding how they would vote if Dr. Paul wasn't the nominee, and roughly one-third said they would stay home, one-third said they would vote for Obama and the remaining one-third would vote for the GOP nominee. A nomination that definitely does not make. For him, it will be a question of whether he wants to have genuine, substantive influence come convention time or whether he wants to be toxic and disruptive.

Mikeya: I believe you may have misread my post. Glenn Beck's rant was that he believes that anyone who supports Gingrich is negating everything that Conservatives stand for--he does not support Newt. Also, my point is that as a listener--I understand and accept the premise that talk show hosts might support a particular candidate. My issue is this needs to be done without the "if you don't see things my way you're an idiot" attitude. Interestingly, when Beck returned from a commercial following his rant, he was quick to apologize. I'm sure someone reminded him that the very listeners he was just deriding are the ones upon which his new Internet ventures rely on for survival.

Rereading your post you are right I did misunderstand what you were saying.

I brought up similar discussions very recently with farmergal on Teddy Roosevelt. She believes he is a Repub you should hate because his entry into the race got Wilson elected.

Of note with all the Paulites out there, I am not discouraging him from running as a third party candidate. It would put Obama as a shoo-in for reelection, and the Congressman would not win, but it is his right to run if he so chooses. Additionally he and his son would possibly face a political backlash if he did, but that's a risk one runs.

I personally listen to more Liberal radio than conservative because I like to know what they're saying so I can examine my views and either change it if so inclined or defend it properly.

The Paulites however I find are mainly uneducated people who respond more to bumpersticker slogans than can actually defend their view. Not all though, there are some well-informed ones who really do believe in Paul's views. But especially the younger college kids who are supporting the Congressman I've found cannot verbalize the issues other than some cute phrases and their support is summed up by "Paul doesn't think like the others". A rather thin argument to elect someone for the rest of us.

MikeyA

1)Glenn Beck is a quief.
2) Rommney & Gingrich are both lier's , cheats and frauds. aka "chcken hawks".

MikeyA, you said:"Now don't get me wrong. Isolation as a foreign policy is/has been a dismal failure that no one can show me historically works and I can show historically fails"

Can you give some examples to back up this statement?

I can give you a few actually. WWI, WWII, Afghanistan post 1988. Do you need any more?

All were instances where the US chose (and in some cases fought) not to get involved and found itself pulled into war because of the deaths of not American forces but American civilians as well.

MikeyA

Mike, maybe you don't quite understand what ron paul is saying by the US not being
"The Worlds Policeman". You said it yourself, In WW1 & WW2 , we were "dragged" into those wars. The main cause in ww1, was german u-boats sinking our merchant ships.
In ww2, pearl harbor. Another country attacked us, war was declared by congress, then we proceded to kick their ass. Don't know what your referring to by Afghanistan.
What does China do? They sit back and dare someone to fuck with them. Their economy is booming and ours is falling apart. Scaremongers keep padding their bank accounts.

No LN I get it. When you have a non-interventionalist policy you WILL get "dragged" into wars. As long as the US is a superpower this will continue to happen. However when you get involved early on you can in some cases avert war, in others bring about a decisive outcome quickly. By doing this you avert huge losses of military and civilian lives.

An non-interventionalist policy has the adverse affect of reducing military strength and when we are "dragged" into wars we find ourselves ill manned and ill equipped as was seen in WWI, WWII, and 2003. The result is massive mobilization and huge reallocation of funds both public and private. In fact, had Midway gone differently in WWII, we would have been without basic defense of our West coast which had already been attacked. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/exhibits/ww2/threat/bombs.htm

In 1988 Russia pulled out of Afghanistan and a civil war broke out between the Communists, Imperialists, Federalists, and Islamists in that country. The Taliban rose to power because of the rise of the drug warlords who the Islamists would look the other way at their activities if they supported the Taliban with weapons, money, and safe movement of their product. The other three were pushed to the NE corner and still had internal fighting but the Islamists never really gained hold there. In 2003 we finally intervened and brought these groups together. This group we refer to as the Northern Alliance and was the basis for the current government.

The best defense against China IS to do business with them. If China started a war with the US we'd immediately nullify our debt meaning all the money we owe them we'd view as no longer owed. That would be a loss of billions in the Chinese bank. Then we'd end our job relationships. In one swoop we'd remove their financial capital and increase their unemployment. Good business partners don't make for good enemies. That is why every President supports Globalization as part of a national defense strategy.

MikeyA

Hi Mike, What you say above is no doubt true. Maybe I'm stupid and naive but I have a different outlook and would have to diagree with you. First as far as Afghanistan goes, I don't care about that country, its people or what goes on there. Thats the whole purpose of being an isolationist is so you don't get dragged into war. Our military is 10 times stronger than the rest of the worlds. If we reduced it by half we would still have more than enough to defend our coast and our country. As far as china goes, I wasn't talking about fighting them. What I was referring to is how they don't get involved in wars around the world. They are a super power. They just sit back and watch their economy grow and dare anyone to fuck with them.
I say will drill for oil here and open up all potential energy sources we have avaible in this country (which are many). Fuck the mid east, thier oil and all the bullshit and ass sucking we have been during over there for the last 40 years. Wars do nothing but make money for the wealthy. Just my two cents!

Well you may not care LN but noninterventionalists who want to vote for Congressman Paul ignore one plain fact

THE ENEMY ALWAYS GETS A VOTE. And it's a pretty important vote.

As far as China goes, the best way to combat them is to fight fire with fire. Heavy investment in India. India is surpassing them in population and has already surpassed them in growth. India competes with them for shipping and logistical lanes. India is also english speaking and a strong ally to the west.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.