H.O.R.N. or
 

Head on radio network, a mouthpiece for you liberals out there.

Oh and they are off to a rip roaring start /sarcasim

http://headonradionetwork.com/

Im sure this will as well as air america did.:rotfl:

Liberals don't need a damn radio station, for Christs sake. That's a "republican" racket. You know, Rush the junkie, O'Reilly, Sexual harasser extroidenaire and author of childrens books, Savage, The racist, homophobic, sexist, ...the very man that claimed Autism is a hoax.

Who would want to join that crowd? :lol: No, liberals don't need quite as much spoon feeding as some of the so called modern "conservatives".....And I, for one, am not in favor of a bunch of angry people on the radio bickering about such and such. The people mentioned above prove over and over that it's a waste of time and effort....

Putting the besmirchments aside how does one explain the success of conservative talk radio vs the miserable failures of the liberal attempts?

We'll see how little liberals care about conservative talk radio when they start curbing the right to free speech by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine".

I think it's due to the very nature of liberalism itself. Conservatives tend to want to discuss and refine their ideas. Liberals, on the other hand, avoid ideas in favor of ideologies. There's only so many ways of saying, "abortion good, war bad." :rock:

Not much content for radio hosts...

In all honesty, I don't consider myself either. I define my political stance as Pragmatic.

First, to deal with the nonsense....
This is all just silly, but just to point out, I'm a liberal who thinks abortion is bad. I just don't think it should be illegal. But lets not get off topic...

Long on disdain, short on common sense.

Now, Steamwake...First of all, besmirch, great word. To soil.

Also, your question is a very good one. One theory has the vast majority of large media conglomerates in radio leaning right. (see stats below). But, the problem with that theory is that even when there is a liberal media outlet (see: Air America) they don't draw the listeners that the righties do. I've often wondered if it's the Howard Stern effect. In his movie, his program director tells the station manager that %50 of his audience loves him and always want to hear what he says next. However, the other 50% that say they hate him, but continue to listen, and provide the same reasons. They want to hear what he says next.

The sway of elections in our country dispells any idea that the US is just so massivly conservative that there is no room for liberal radio. Basically, lots of theories, and no real answers. I don't mind though. I wouldn't sit around on my ass listening to lefty hate mongers. They would be no better than the scum broadcasting from the right....

Some good points, Enigma. But I have to disagree on some.I would agree that what I said was me being a little glib and silly. It is indeed a little more complex than that.

I personally believe the liberal talk radio fails because it's just too damned angry. Furthermore, while I believe that a significantly portion of the population is socially liberal, I believe they are also fiscally conservative. McCain tried takling Obama on the fiscal issue, but since when have Republicans been conservative with money? Obama, knowing that, was EXTREMELY fiscally moderate during the campaign.Concerning the Fairness Doctrine, I don't agree with this comment. "Common sense" requires a sense of history. People need to remember that there WAS a Fairness Doctrine. And, during that time, the only talk radio programming you could get was news and recipes.

I live in a fairly liberal city (Milwaukee). Yet, it's most popular talk radio stations are conservative. The most popular is Moderate-to-Conservative, but it has all the major local sports teams to boost its ratings. The second most popular is conservative hosts all day, one right after another, going from local to national and back again (it has that looney-toon Coast to Coast junk overnight, but hey...). Remember - this is a liberal city in a solidly-blue state.

Liberals have actually had shows on both of these stations. The shows were failures. Now imagine FORCING them to have liberal programming. These stations wouldn't be able to survive.

And the WORST part is yet to come: what if a station puts on Liberal programming, but people don't think it is liberal enough? What will be the benchmark?

Ideas can't be regulated. The Fairness Doctrine would simply eliminate them, I believe.This is where I disagree the most. I don't think we can read anything into the sway of our elections because it seems to be a back and forth, historical trend. Liberals that say Conservatism is dead would be wise to remember that, only 4 years ago, Conservatives were saying that Liberalism is dead.

Savage was pointing out that many of our kids are overmedicated and I agree. Because a normal hyperactive boy is just being a boy, they want to medicate them. When I raised my stepson, the teacher (4th grade) tried to tell me my kid had ADD and a bunch of other acromonious witchcraft terminology. He was just too damn lazy to do his homework, so I gave him a good dose old fashioned discipline and "poof" the ADD was cured and he today is doing fine as an electrical engineer. I can only imagine what Ritalin would have done to him. Savage is 100% right on the matter...

I thought the liberal 'mouthpiece' was the mainstream media. :hmm:

Heh, O'Reilly is a "sexual harasser extraodinaire" but Clinton was a "great president".

:roll:

I guess morality depends on who you agree with.

This is where I hope the whole concept will fail and finally die a richly deserved death. For it to work they'd have to first quantify what constitutes liberal and conservative speech and I think that's an impossiblity given the number of twists one can put on any issue.

But i'm told i tend to be overly optimistic at times. :dead:

A popular theory. Utter nonsense in reality. Had the media been a bunch of liberal hounds looking for blood, Bush could never have had a second term in my opinion....

Please copy and paste the part where I referred to Clinton as a "great President."

Oh, and cheating on your wife isn't sexual harassment. It's sex. However, leaving an unwitting woman sexually explicit phone calls, including a "vile and degrading monologue about sex", and then paying her millions of dollars to shut up, well that's sexual harassment.

Meh... how many times can you listen to "Bush Sucks, Cheny Sucks, Bush Sucks, Cheny Sucks, Its all Bush's fault and Cheny helped him.... etc etc etc"

Besides as already pointed out they have mainstream media and the "Public Broadcasting System" to convey there missive.

Please copy and paste the part where I said you said that.

I was pointing out a perpective argument.Have you heard of Paula Jones (sexual harassment), Kathleen Willey (sexual assault), or Juanita Broaddrick (rape)?

I think Slick Willy seems to have more skeletons in his closet than just cheating on his wife. Heh, looks like even more so than Bill O'Reilly.