Talk Radio and Comedy TV

[Ted S]

I've long been curious as to exactly why conservative talk radio has been so successful while liberal talk radio struggles to stay alive.  I've also been curious as to why political comedy shows of the left like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Bill Maher's show on HBO have been so successful while the right has essentially nothing.

I have some ideas as to why this has happened but I can't seem to put my thoughts together in a coherent fashion.  What do you folks think?

[Ted S]

Since nobody seems to be in a great hurry to answer my question I'll take a swing at it myself.

In a nutshell, the reason talk radio is successful on the right and struggles on the left is because there is lots to talk about for conservatives and little to talk about for liberals. Simple huh? I'd better explain.

The reason conservatives have lots to talk about is because conservatism is based in reason, logic, and American tradition whereas liberalism is based almost entirely in emotion.  This makes conservatism deep subject matter.  Conversely, since liberalism doesn't stand up well to reason or logic, only raw emotion, discussions tend to be shallow and superficial.

Also, since the liberalism is based on emotion rather than reason, it appeals to the intellectually lazy and if you're the type of person who is uninterested in the world around you, you're not likely be be listening to radio programs discussing politics and culture.

Liberalism captures the hearts of the uninformed and it captures the minds of professors who spend their lives cloistered in universities professing Utopian dreams to the young and impressionable. But for us regular people who live our lives with our eyes open we can find plenty to talk about and listen to on the right side of the radio dial.

[RWE]

to expand on your point...the emotional aspect of the left often leaves them with nothing but name calling. if you look to the left my profile description "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-**** model " you may recall is how Keith Olberman referred to Mass Senate candidate  Scott Brown. None of which is remotely true(other than the posing ****) .

[Ted S]

Very true RWE.  One only has to look at MSNBC's prime time lineup and you see show after show all devoted to trashing Republicans rather than serious discussions of ideas. Ed Shultz is probably the worst offender although Lawrence O'Donnell isn't far behind.  Their shows are nothing but cherry-picking the trivial events of the day and presenting them in a way that makes Republicans look bad.  The shows are largely thought and substance free.  They are the political equivalent of professional wrestling for the mind. They feature a predetermined winner and lots of gymnastics but little in the way of true athletic ability.

[wbcoleman]

Since nobody seems to be in a great hurry to answer my question I'll take a swing at it myself.

In a nutshell, the reason talk radio is successful on the right and struggles on the left is because there is lots to talk about for conservatives and little to talk about for liberals. Simple huh? I'd better explain.

The reason conservatives have lots to talk about is because conservatism is based in reason, logic, and American tradition whereas liberalism is based almost entirely in emotion.  This makes conservatism deep subject matter.  Conversely, since liberalism doesn't stand up well to reason or logic, only raw emotion, discussions tend to be shallow and superficial.

Also, since the liberalism is based on emotion rather than reason, it appeals to the intellectually lazy and if you're the type of person who is uninterested in the world around you, you're not likely be be listening to radio programs discussing politics and culture.

Liberalism captures the hearts of the uninformed and it captures the minds of professors who spend their lives cloistered in universities professing Utopian dreams to the young and impressionable. But for us regular people who live our lives with our eyes open we can find plenty to talk about and listen to on the right side of the radio dial.

In all fairness, I find El Sean-bo [Hannity] to be pretty much 100% emotion.  El Rushbo, less so.

[Ted S]

In all fairness, I find El Sean-bo [Hannity] to be pretty much 100% emotion.  El Rushbo, less so.

That's completely fair. The right has a few fire-breathing loyalists like Hannity who just spew talking points and manufacture outrage at everything the other side does but I just don't see any people like Thomas Sowell or Arthur Brooks on the left.  I suppose the closest they've got is Thom Hartmann who is full of trivial facts anecdotes that make the right look bad.  Hartmann's style is to dive head-first into the rhubarb armed with a magnifying glass and then pop-out at the first sign of a brown spot and declare the entire garden rotten-to-the-core.

[wbcoleman]

In all fairness, I find El Sean-bo [Hannity] to be pretty much 100% emotion.  El Rushbo, less so.

That's completely fair. The right has a few fire-breathing loyalists like Hannity who just spew talking points and manufacture outrage at everything the other side does but I just don't see any people like Thomas Sowell or Arthur Brooks on the left.  I suppose the closest they've got is Thom Hartmann who is full of trivial facts anecdotes that make the right look bad.  Hartmann's style is to dive head-first into the rhubarb armed with a magnifying glass and then pop-out at the first sign of a brown spot and declare the entire garden rotten-to-the-core.

There is a gang of leftist commentators at The Washington Post, and most of them [ie. E.J. Dionne, Eugene "Pulitzer Prizewinning" Robinson, Greg Sargent] I find unreadable, but I have to admit that Ezra Klein is frequently worth reading.  I also [even] find Rachel Maddow to be periodically interesting.