I wrote:
> -but Rush himself was created, purchased, by big money guys.
> -but there are a whole bunch of other media outlets that push
> -Limbaugh-like right-wing opinions (including those of Bill O'Reilly).
> -They dominate AM talk radio. The corporations -- e.g., Clear Channel
> -- get their audience partly via monopolizing it (or, more correctly,
> -by sharing monopoly control).
Nathan, now:
> Partly-- partly Limbaugh's just really good at what he does and there is an
> audience for his schtick and those of related folks. I actually think
> talk radio ties into the conservatism of exurban voters who drive to work
> and are some of the main consumers of talk radio during drive time.
> That's not the sole explanation of why there seems to be less liberal demand
> for talk radio-- as you say it also taps into a mellow version of white
> rage -- but the reality is that while Air America for example has sustained
> okay ratings, it's not like a massive untapped liberal audience has rushed
> to it.
right.
The current mood in the US has a lot of bitterness and confusion that implies no easy solution. The Limbaugh conservatives offer demagoguery, while the vast majority of the liberals don't have much to offer at all (except a return to the good old days of the New Deal) either because offering non-neo-liberal reforms in the era of neo-liberalism is so difficult or because they're wimps. Put it this way, liberalism was easy in the later 1950s & early 1960s: as long as you pledged allegiance to the US side of the Cold War, you could propose welfare-state-type programs and still be pro-business. Now, there's most often a conflict between welfare-state programs and triumphalist business. Even when there isn't -- as with single-payer national health care -- the degree of organization and consciousness is low (disorganized, divided, disheartened). So the politicos go with what pays immediately.
I listened to Air America a bit, but found it quite repetitive. It was pretty good at expressing the grass-roots Democrat's antagonism toward the Bushmasters, but didn't seem to be saying anything positive. We know what AA is _against_, but what is it for?
me:
> -Now if the AFL or C2W were to buy Pacifica, they'd probably have to do
> -a lot of top-40 programming (though these days, it's top-30) and the
> -like. But they could at least put a pro-labor spin on the news, which
> -would help.
Nathan:
> It's a pretty massive investment to buy a media outlet, invest in an
> entertainment division, and the only positive outcome is a few minutes of
> pro-labor news commentatry. One reason Clear Channel invests in radio is
> that they don't have to make massive profits from their radio stations,
> since it reinforces their other profit-making divisions like concert venues.
they also automate the radio station, replacing live DJs with satellite feeds. That lowers costs.
> Media is a business and if it's not a profit-making enterprise, it's a
> horrendously costly place to try to have a role. And this is a weird time
> for labor to try to buy in, just as online video, podcasts et al are
> threatening the traditional structure of the mainstream media.
a real problem. Old Ayatollah Khomeini made it big partly via the distribution of cassette tapes. Maybe that's what the left -- and liberals and labor -- need to do, but with podcasts and web-films. But having some decent (nonestablishmentarian, prolabor) news that's freely available to the "masses" would help. (AA has pro-labor news.) Satellite radio is not the way to go, since it's expensive to the listener.
a few years ago, low-power FM stations were seen as the way to go by some on the left. Is it true that this medium has mostly benefited the fundamentalist Christians?
with organized labor and most liberal and leftist organizations stuck in ruts, what is to be done? -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles