It was with a mix of regret, interest and amusement that I read about how Progress Media is on the verge of taking to the airwaves with a liberal radio network meant to provide a left-wing alternative to the Rush Limbaugh/Savage Nation/etc. crowd.
Do we really need a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh? I know some people here think yes - we need the "angry liberal" to counteract the "angry conservative" voices that fill the airwaves with distortions and spin. Personally, my gut says no - that is stooping to their level. But I have to admit, taking the high road with Bill O'Reilly and his ilk sure doesn't seem like a real great solution either.
I actually have listened to snatches of conservative talk radio from time to time, and I have to say, it is absolutely brutal. If you've never heard Savage Nation, try getting through five minutes of it to hear what some people are listening to for hours on end. It will really open your eyes. It does make Fox News look "fair and balanced." At the same time, I can't say I would be thrilled to hear an equally nasty and distorted voice ranting opinions I happen to believe in. I certainly wouldn't listen to it on a regular basis.
Can such a station succeed? Would that be a good thing as a general principal? An effective tactic for the upcoming election?
I truly and honestly have started to feel like the absolute best source of objective news in the mass media is The Daily Show. They may have an agenda, but it is simply to mock everyone, so they rarely have to spin anything - the truth is just so mockable . . . .
| Biased Reporting | Radio | Rush Limbaugh | Daily Show |
Well, as a starting point, I've heard it said that liberals believe in using the media to help people develop thoughtful opinions on issues, so they tend to be more even-handed and present both sides. Conservatives, on the other hand, strive to gain beach heads in your brain by repeatedly presenting only their own point of view.
I don't have chapter and verse and URL to cite on this -- wish I did, particularly as I'm certain I'm caricaturing both positions.
Jim,
You are not the first to point out that The Daily Show is the best source for news. I often hear is cited as such in interviews with journalists, writers, and pundits.
It’s the conundrum of anybody in a conflict with an opponent who doesn’t exactly play by Marquess of Queensberry rules: Do you adjust to their rules and take the conflict into utter chaos* or do you hold to the rules and get your head bashed in? I honestly don’t know the answer.
Can anyone come up with analogous situations that show a way out of the paradox? I can only think of modern martial conflicts (e.g. the USSR in Afghanistan, the Vietnam conflict [both w/r/t the US and France], Sri Lankan civil war) in which the apparently dominant party ended up losing even after trying both legitimate and illegitimate means. Or, perhaps there’s the example of the South Pacific battles in World War II?
* Or, if the conflict doesn’t devolve into chaos, you risk the opponent judo-throwing you into being the unprincipled aggressor.
Hmmmm . . . is passive resistance a good model? For example, Gahndi's resistance to British occupation, without engaging in their tactics? Or maybe the people who stood up to Joe McCarthy and refused to play along by ratting out "comrades?" History has exonerated both approaches/results - though a lot of people suffered in the meantime.
I mean, in theory, since we are on the side of good and justice, our ideas should win in the long run. I tend to agree with Liz and have a more generous opinion of 'liberal' news/thought (though that may just be because of where I fall on the political spectrum). But how long a run are we in for?
Perhaps my biggest problem is that I lack confidence in my fellow humans that just because an idea is right it will always win out in the end (or in my lifetime, anyway). I suspect similar misanthropy is behind the "angry liberal" theory, which makes me emotionally sympathetic to the argument, though I'm not convinced it would be effective.
Just to pick up one of your points, Jim, I think the idea of the long run is one that has been lacking in the mainstream left for a little while. (This is a completely unsubstantiated opinion, and I’m sure, Colin, that you can authoritatively contradict me.) But my impression is that taking the long view will shed some light on the appropriate strategy.
And, in fact, many people will suffer in the meantime. That, I think has been a problem for the Left in recent times, the conflation of Suffering is bad with Nobody should ever suffer, starting right now. Taking the long view might allow us to pick our battles better. Maybe we shouldn't shoot our wad on the presidency and should instead focus on the governorships? Or even more local races — mayoralties of small cities in the West and South?
More pertinent to the original post, maybe the DNC encourages (strictly off the record, of course) some small market soak-the-rich talk radio shows and works on their bearing fruit in 2020?
Also pertinent to the original post is “Democracy Now!” which David Block cites with some regularity and is an unabashedly Left show. See Todd Dominey for an opinion that might not be so far from yours.
CounterSpin is another possible contender for good liberal radio.
Comment #6 :: link :: December 2, 2003 09:00 AMYou may be relieved to know, Jimpy, that these folks aren't out to create an "angry liberal" network. They're going to use a real weapon: humor (you know something about this). Looks like Al Franken (whose "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was a fine read) will host a show, at least for the first year, and Janeane Garafalo may also be joining. Moreover, the woman leading the content development: Lizz Winstead, original creator of the Daily Show.
Comment #7 :: link :: January 15, 2004 11:30 PM
