I listen to a good bit of progressive/liberal talk radio. I'm relatively active when it comes to pointing out position flaws, doublespeak, deception, corporate thievery, and interviewer failure. Although I'm a listener, I generally don't call in to radio talk shows because there's so little time allotted to each caller. Callers are typically quite disadvantaged in terms of an ability to present complex arguments due to time constraints and because they're at the mercy of the host's attitude (and finger). Nonetheless, I've been fairly persistent with my opinion expression through countless emails to various "left wing" talk radio hosts.

I've been especially persistent in my efforts to convey to these radio folks my observations and thoughts concerning the serious and consequential failures of the American mainstream media. Disappointingly, I get virtually no response from these individuals; I seldom even receive a one line acknowledgement. This holds true even when my comments are precisely on point with a host's current segment topic. And my comments are always involving pertinent items that the show dialog has avoided or missed. I don't write in just to write in; I have to feel passionate about something which should have been stated, but wasn't.

One difference between myself and many others who make effort to interact with broadcast media people about broadcast media issues, is that I'm willing to point out things that are factually correct which no one else appears willing to mention. Frankly, I'm unsure how much of a negative factor my boldness in this regard may be with radio hosts -- I have my suspicions, however. Hence, I'm somewhat curious as to whether or not others on this board have had much success interacting with talk radio hosts on matters of corruption within the mainstream broadcast media.

Among the hosts who have never replied to me, not even once, are: Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, and Laura Flanders. There are more, but that should give you an idea of who I'm talking about. And please understand that this has been the case for a number of years, and that I'm fairly good at locating the real (monitored) email addresses for these folks. One suspicion that I have, and which I hate to think may be a factor, is that these self-proclaimed progressive/liberal talk show hosts fear taking part in a real revolt against the corporate broadcast media for its self-serving agenda and foul practices. Although some of these radio hosts have begun to aggressively acknowledge the seriousness of the media corruption problem, for some reason they won't direct their listenerships to target corporate media with their activism efforts. This leads me to wonder if it's as simple as radio hosts striving to "protect their turf", as it were. In other words, it could be that these purported advocates for democracy, fairness, and government reform are more concerned that a successful campaign to compel the corporate broadcast television "news" to begin actually reporting real news, would create less of a demand for the services that progressive/liberal talk radio now provides. If true, I find this deplorable. What do each of you think?

Jason

I have an idea !!!!!! Quit calling those assholes. They only want ratings and probably are employed by the CIA.

TuT

Have you thought of starting your own blog? Any chances that you could start your own radio show? Use the internet as much as possible.

Jesse, the owner of this site, started from scratch less than four years ago and now he has his own radio show.

I have had about the same results as you have--lots of silence. I am certainly not as good as you at pointing out minute details, I just give general responses to people on the air.

What I believe is that to get on the air, these people fought for a long time. To do that, one has to have a huge ego. They already think they know everything, how dare you imply they do not. They could be taking your contacts as insults although you do not mean them to be.

Just like George Bush, they want to hear, 'You are the greatest thing I have ever heard!" They don't want to hear, "Why have you not covered the FCC give away that just took place?"

Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, all are people. People are not perfect, and are easily bruised. You can hear in some of their voices that they wish to be admired. Heck, we all do. But if you are willing to go through everything it takes to get your own radio show, you really want to be admired!

I still send to the shows I enjoy listening to--hoping they will pick up a piece of information that will help our cause whether they are willing to recognize me or not. It is the information that is important.

Congratulations on keeping their feet to the fire. Our side needs that just as much as the other side does. And from your writing, you do a VERY good job!

Howdy Jason, I hadn't yet welcomed you to the site, so I thought I'd take the chance now.

I don't listen to talk radio any longer, though up until about 6 months ago I was an avid Air America listener.

I would have to say that, in general, people feel comfortable complaining about things, but rarely actually acting on them. I often do this myself, I will find myself bitching and bitching about some thing that I may actually have the power to change or at least slightly modify, and often I don't because in many ways I am a passive person. So my guess numero uno would be that a lot of these guys (and gals) have tons to say, tons to bitch about, but not much on the action front. In some ways I think there is a fear of losing what they have. Consider if RR actually did something to help spark a revolution, when all was said and done, she probably wouldn't be listened to as much and would lose sponsors, dollars, job...on down the line. As cynical as it sounds (and yes, I am uber cynical these days), unless something catastrophic (i.e. a gigantic storm hits DC and every politician and several media moguls are swept out to see en mass) nothing is going to change, no matter how hard we try. Our system in inherently corrupt. Even back in the good ole days that everyone is so quick to bring up talking about the founding fathers, we must consider that they too were very rich men who had become and probably were always in power. Money changes things on so many levels that we peons will never be able to truly comprehend. The Libs and progressives, conservatives...all of them...in charge are rich. So much of what they complain about doesn't even actually effect them and while they may claim to care about us little guys, I am not so sure I would concur. Money is what makes Washington go round. And as noble and wonderful as some of the "progressives" seem to be, I find few that actually meet or even nearly meet my expectations. (oh this has turned into a rant...sorry). Consider for one minute what YOU would do if you had the actual ability to be in a public office without being owned by the moneymen...its not the same as what those in power would do or are doing. Rich and poor (regular folk) are so different its almost like we are different species altogether. When Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes and that whole bunch suddenly becomes a regular person, lives in a regular house, has regular worries about bills, college tuition, car payments and the like is when they will probably start trying more to affect change and spend less time just trying to keep themselves popular and in the money.

Well, my main point may have escaped one or two initially, but I think it resonated with several of you at least. I was trying to ascertain whether liberal talk radio is a component of the system that allows the corporate MSM and their corrupt practices to thrive. I suspect that it is. And that's a shame because talk radio is one vehicle that could help spread a movement against media corruption for the better. Considering that talk radio networks are owned by corporate entities, I guess therein lies the problem.

Personally, I'm not looking to become a talk radio host. And I never call radio talk shows, as I've indicated. But I do listen to them and I do compare their messages, as well as that of their callers.

Jason

Hey Dori. You're correct. Their egos seem to be so large at times that it crowds their messages away -- at least for me. That's too bad. I prefer genuine people who are sincerely concerned about the well-being of everyone. Oh well. Such is life, unfortunately

Thanks for the reply.

Jason

Hi lefty. I can't disagree with anything you've stated. They really are arrogant, aren't they? Ha-ha, especially RR. If it weren't such a serious problem we're confronted with, it'd be humorous. Unfortunately, I think you're spot-on concerning the point that these individuals are in an entirely different life class from most of us. And it's true, most of them certainly seem to enjoy praise, as you've indicated (especially RR). You're certainly right as well that many of them tend to draw the line when it comes to real activism. And some of them -- TH comes to mind -- are very much into capitalizing on their name and platform above all else. TH pushes a ton of books which he's written and even charges subscription fees for access to many of his message board categories. I think the latter is verging on pathetic. Then there's ES. Before each program, that guy licks his finger and sticks it in the air to check for a breeze. One additional thing about RR that really irritates me is that she will give people the time of day, but only if they're celebrities, politicians, or well-known media people. She talks down to nearly everyone else, which really sucks.

Hey, thanks for the response and great to meet you, lefty

Jason

Hi lefty. Great post!

It is so hard for me to get radio on the left, when I do I listen just to hear someone at whom I don't wish to throw something. Yes, the constant interruption is annoying--just let the caller talk, for heaven's sake! But to actually be able to listen to the radio again is so refreshing even with all the annoyances I am still swimming in my new find.

I never get answers when I contact any of them. I contacted the radio station I listen to now and got no reply either.

Doormat for the right, doormat for the left.

I will continue to listen until the annoyance gets stronger than the desire to hear ideas and guests with which I can identify.

You started a great topic, jasonb!

Sure they are arrogant, and it sucks that they haven't responded to emails. However, I do hear a lot of talk against the corporate owned media on progressive radio. If nothing else, at least this will make people aware of what is going on with the self-censoring MSM.

dori,
If you have trouble getting Air America on the radio, you can get it on your computer. We get lousy reception from our local affiliate, WCPT, so we usually just stream it on the computer.

I think the attitude of the rightwing talk show hosts is so arrogant due to the loss of the Fairness Doctrine.

Speaking of the Fairness Doctrine, you'd be surprised how many progressive/liberal talk radio hosts are opposed to it. Ed Schultz, for example, rejects it. He often spouts off something to the effect "I don't need the Fairness Doctrine; just look what I've been able to do without such government restrictions." Even crediting his show's success, arrogant remarks such as this tend to miss the bigger picture. Irrespective of how successful Mr. Schultz has been as a syndicated broadcaster, he certainly can't do all that needs done with a unilateral effort -- far from it in fact. There are myriad broadcasters and networks who, if an equal time mandate were instituted, would account for far less collective disinformation.

Beyond the Fairness Doctrine element, there's the greater good of the Media Ownership Reform Act. It stands to accomplish more valuable things by limiting the number of broadcast stations a single entity can own. When we consider that the right-wing propaganda machine effectively simulcasts its indoctrination from a predominance of talk radio stations across the country on a daily basis, and we further consider that a few corporations own all of these radio stations, it's not hard to see that there needs to be ownership limitations.

Jason

Here's one FOR the Fairness Doctrine: [url=http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm]The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

[/url]

And then there's this viewpoint:




LINK

I don't know what to think about liberal talk show hosts. I quit listening to Air America when they got rid of Sam Sedar.

I do know in Ohio, I can surf the radio stations and I can get Conservative talk radio over and over and over again. They are in abundance. If you call in - they screen the calls - and if you dare oppose their viewpoint - you will not be put through. If you lie during the screening process and you do get through - the minute they realize you have something halfway intelligent to say - you will be hung-up on.

I can't get ANY liberal talk radio here. I have to use the internet - and I want to listen when I am in my car.

I do listen to Alan Colmes on Faux radio sometimes (on the internet). Allen is Faux News's TOKEN so they can call themselves "Fair and Balanced" - 98% Conservative and 2% liberal.

I used to be able to get Air America with my old computer, but can't now. Frustrating!!!!!

I do love to hear what the left has to say even when it isn't everything I want them to say. It is so much better than what sadie said, right wing over and over again. At least the left has on people from organizations I recognize who can get some real information out there.

This country has been up to it's eyeballs in rightwing propaganda for so many years it doesn't know how to think anymore. As I have said before, we are a nation of parrots.

Sadie, I think one of the satellite stations has Air America. Probably like for me though, it isn't affordable. AA seems to be mostly on low powered stations--anyone know why? They can't afford anything with more power? Or are all the high powered stations already owned by rightwingers?