Easy, talk radio relies on the following, which go hand in hand with reactive right-wing thought:
1. blowhard populist hosts that need to fill airtime in any way possible
2. black-and-white thinking
3. lack of attention span
4. strong desire for group belonging and groupthink, manifested by thousands of callers that call to say "I totally agree! Allow me to repeat what you just said over and over!"
5. love of the sound-bite and the echo chamber
6. righteous anger that clouds any reasonable reflection is easier to release in one cathartic verbal vomit
7. restricting callers to a few seconds, with the power to cut them off, means that the show will never stray from the host's particular message.
What's so hard to get?
Coin flip to determine which of the two regular trolls was too scared to use their usual moniker.
Posted at 2007-10-25 14:25:05 [PermaLink]"restricting callers to a few seconds, with the power to cut them off means that the show will never stray from the host's particular message."
As opposed to what, Pacifica Radio? Has poor anon been cut-off by the mean old right-wing radio man?
Hey, Anon... excellent point!
What's so hard to get is listeners! [...who actually agree with what you're saying.] That's why Airhead America had many hundreds of listeners where conservative offerings could gather only a few paltry millions.
What's also hard to understand is the fact that ideologies that fail to attract, er, fail. [That is, unless one can force them on a population.] That's what they do in Coobah, man. It's such an attractive lifestyle, too! [Isn't it sad how many Americans risk their lives daily in small boats to get to Cuba?]
I know, I know, "choice" does lead to people deciding which opinions and voices are in their own personal interest. Too bad the sheeple aren't "enlightened" enough to prefer Randy Rhodes. Tsk tsk.
"Coin flip to determine which of the two regular trolls was too scared to use their usual moniker."
Which is really pathetic, since their usual moniker assures their anonymity as well.
Anon,
"restricting callers to a few seconds, with the power to cut them off means that the show will never stray from the host's particular message."
Perhaps you and Dawg should get together and fight this one out while the rest of us just watch. He advocates what you dislike:
"Maybe shut off the mike? Show some chairing ability? "
I dunno. I think people like to tune into right-shock radio because it's dramatic but not too taxing, like WWF matches. Phoning in is plain silly: it's a spectator (well, auditor) sport. I used to listen to Joe Pyne all the time. It made me feel superior, which is nice, and it made me feel that way without guilt, which is nicer. But the drama also appealed--the litany of insult, half-baked politics, the dittoheads, the brave souls objecting and being cast almost immediately into the fire. Wow. I'm getting sticky with nostalgia.
Here in Ottawa, we have Lowell Green, another red-in-the-face blowhard. He's not nearly as entertaining. He just lacks--artistry.
But a left-wing version of this stuff? Come on. I've never heard it, granted, but I can't imagine there'd be anything like as much psychodrama in it--it's not as if phone-in shows are about ideas, after all, and we're boringly about ideas, and being earnest, and wringing our hands all the time. Where's the fun in that? I bet most of the Left kicks back and listens to right-shock radio, and even has a beer or three like the regulars.
Same general reason I prefer engaging with people on right-wing blogs. Not, Damian, that I am comparing your site to a phone-in show. This is a classy joint.
I see Eights is all confused again, comparing dealing with disruption to slamming the phone down on callers who have been invited to phone up in the first place. See? Right-wing blogs are not *all* about ideas. Come to think of it, Ran's comment here seems a tad on the earnest side, but I like that faux-indignant tone of his. So I'll keep listening, er, reading, and here, at least, no one slams the phone down in your ear. Yet, anyway.
Well, at first I wasn't entirely sure that DD wrote the first comment. I am now.
Posted at 2007-10-26 08:54:09 [PermaLink]Anon must be referring to the plethora of phone-in shows on the CBC Radio. Left wing group think at its finest. Mind you the CBC doesn't cut them off, I suspect their screeners usually prevent any deviants from the Mother Corp's way of thinking from even getting on the air.
Posted at 2007-10-26 08:56:54 [PermaLink]The CBC has phone-in shows? Oh, yeah...gardening advice, and Rex Murphy on Sundays. Yawn. No chairs thrown there.
I like the irony of anonymice whining about other anonymice being anonymice. Me, I'm not anonymous, I just have a self-imposed nickname. That's what I always publish under, too, unless I use that "John Baglow" sockpuppet of mine. :)
Like that Dr. Dawg fellow said.
Posted at 2007-10-26 11:18:02 [PermaLink]Try Ontario Today or Metro Morning which often has call-in segments.
Posted at 2007-10-26 13:18:30 [PermaLink]"I like the irony of anonymice whining about other anonymice being anonymice."
As someone who made a comment in this thread on this subject, I hope you're not referring to me, Dawg. My real name is easily discerned, for anyone interested.
Speaking of loony, left-wing talk radio, I see that Randi Rhodes, fresh back from being assaulted by the vast right-wing sidewalk outside a bar, has identified the culprit behind the California fires -- Blackwater. [External Link]
Posted at 2007-10-26 23:39:43 [PermaLink]Dr. Dawg,
"I see Eights is all confused again, comparing dealing with disruption to slamming the phone down on callers who have been invited to phone up in the first place."
I'm sorry for your confusion. I was comparing the dynamics of a "question and answer" session to a call in program where, in both cases, there is a limited amount of time and some give and take, requiring judicial decision making on when to cut off a guest.
Apparently, neither you nor Anon are capable of appreciating that restricting someone's time is a subjective measure. Instead, both of you resort to typical blind anger and accuse right wing hosts of "slamming down the phone" instead of letting incoherent ramblings such as yours go on indefinitely.
How you can tell a phone has been slammed down on a radio is beyond me as they usually just press a button. Your psychic powers astound me.
Mike:
No, I wasn't referring to you, unless you were posting as "anons are for pussies."
Dr Dawg: "Here in Ottawa, we have Lowell Green, another red-in-the-face blowhard. He's not nearly as entertaining. He just lacks--artistry."
Nice how you use "red-in-the face" to imply what you surely mean, "redneck". As to Lowell's not being entertaining, check the ratings. He also is funny, something serious progressives just can't do. He may often blow hard but then he lets selected leftist spokestypes (e.g. Rick the NDP candidate of distinctly limited acumen) tie their own knots.
As an example of why he's to the point: in the early 90s he read a couple of paragraphs from a school textbook for English and asked listeners to guess what the education level was. Most, including me, thought the passage was between grade 12 (one of our great Canadianisms, not "twelfth grade") and first year university.
In fact the passage was from grade four, Ontario, 1924. Decline and fall (there may be a post on this).
Then there are the rather large amounts of money that Lowell has helped raise for worthy--I don't think you'd dispute that--charitable purposes. I suppose on the other hand the CBC must remain the charity that we are compelled to support.
What think you of Steve Madely, also of CFRA? I'm sure even you find Michael Harris a bit, er, obsessive. Heart in the right place, brain...Sad actually.
Mark
Ottawa
Dr Dawg: On a broader issue, surely you would agree that during the ice storm of 1998 (private) CFRA was much more informative and helpful to the public than CBC's CBO?
Mark
Ottawa
Lowell Green's picture on the side of buses shows a red face, so enough leaping for it, Mark--you might fall.
Green may well be popular in certain quarters, but compared to Joe Pyne...well. Green is a common-or-garden vulgarian. Called a well-spoken woman I know at Carleton a "cunt," bleeped himself on-air. She'd dared to suggest that Reuven Bulka was homophobic (he thinks homosexuality is a disease to be cured by "reparative therapy"--yup, the label fits).
Steve Madely? Thought he'd have a go at me once, on air. Whoops, his mistake. After I finished bicycling him around the room, and I went off-air, he got all grumpy...Even Lowell is smart compared to poor Steve. I do remember that interview with some pleasure.
Ah...Joe Pybe. "I will not allow my program to be a soapbox for communism! I hate commies like snakes!" Those were the days.
Dr. Dawg,
"Ah...Joe Pybe. "I will not allow my program to be a soapbox for communism! I hate commies like snakes!" Those were the days."
You say this like it's a bad thing. I'm sure you wouldn't allow your blog to become a soapbox for racists, would you? Commies and racists both have a hate on for humanity.
Well, Joe meant stuff like fluoridating water.
And there's that categorical confusion thing setting in again--an open-line talk show isn't a personal blog. Is there a pill for this? Anyone?
Dr. Dawg,
"And there's that categorical confusion thing setting in again--an open-line talk show isn't a personal blog. Is there a pill for this? Anyone?"
What's this? You haven't been taking your meds again. Shame.
If you had, you'd be able to imagine the abstract connection highlighting the contextual similarities of a blog and an open line show. Both are open to fools showcasing their ignorance by demonstrating their inability to think beyond concrete categorizations. Kinda' like you.