Comments on: Why Do Women Dislike Talk Radio?

By: sw

sw — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:55:56 +0000

Meghan, most radios of the boombox persuasion today have remote controls. You don’t have to listen to the ads … although they can be weirdly fascinating, focusing as they do on the timeless traumas of humanity: baldness, obesity, getting and spending, and (thanks to computerized services) finding a mate. It’s the real world, like it or not.
I thoroughly detest NPR (Nat’l Palestinian Radio) and always have, even when I was a Democrat (pre-9/11). Their soporific, condescending pieces on those cute’n'quirky yokels who — imagine that! — live in places other than the coasts, could make me gag. The very sound of an NPR voice is unhealthy for most living things.
I like Hewitt – he should not be lumped in with the rest – he is something of an intellectual, and once in a while there is Shakespeare, classical music, serious history on his show. But these guys do have an irrepressible urge to be cheerleaders– and most of us get over that in junior high school.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:07:05 +0000

BarbD: You would probably have enjoyed David Brudnoy’s talk show, locally on WBZ-AM Boston. Brudnoy was a true intellectual, erudite, quiet and serious. He discussed literature and the theater as well as politics and world affairs. Another similar show I used to enjoy was The Connection, on NPR, when it was hosted by Christopher Lydon. After he was let go, the show went downhill and I stopped listening. But these shows tried to appeal to your mind, not to your adrenal glands. They weren’t intended to rile you up to go vote against Democrats. That’s what the usual group of right-wing talk radio shows is for.

By: Realist

Realist — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:02:44 +0000

shotpusherRN said: “Progressive Conservative is an oxymoron”. Wow. What a sad statement. It’s just this kind of inflexible, reactionary thinking that has gotten us where we are today. The term “Progressive” shouldn’t fall under the ownership of the left. It is a large number of independent voters (social progressive, fiscal conservatives) that went with Obama big time and will continue to do so in in the future unless some compromises are made. This is why I have supported Michael Steele from the beginning and will continue to so.

By: BarbD

BarbD — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:51:26 +0000

I’m a woman who listens to talk radio — on NPR. Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air. Whatever the hosts’ biases, these shows present a variety of views and (in the case of some of the shows), listener response. Discourse can be passionate without being insulting or rude, and I’m better able to listen to what’s being said (whether I agree with it or not). Bloviating just causes me to tune out — whatever the person’s political persuasion.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:24:54 +0000

dan crank: It’s not us who don’t want common ground. On abortion, we have made proposals on how to soften the GOP platform’s hard stance, without totally abandoning the traditional pro-life slant. We have suggested ways that homosexals could be given the same rights as married heteros, on issues like inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., but without full marriage rights. It’s the hard-core Religious Right that won’t compromise on anything, ever. Embryonic stem-cell research is a perfect example. Even if it’s limited just to those embryos that would have been discarded anyway from in-vitro fertilization attempts, the Religious Right still says no deal. The stem-cell issue is the place to have this out once and for all. If the Christian evangelical base of the GOP is seriously interested in “common ground,” let them start by softening their hard-right opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

By: Go Dog Go!

Go Dog Go! — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:05:40 +0000

The reason women will lead the revival as “progressive conservatives” is simple: Their best positioned to rebut the hardcore, right wing men of the party that put conservatism where it is. A rejection of the Rove/Delay win-at-all-costs Bush-era Republicanism is the purge necessary to rebuild a foundation. Progressive conservative women offer the ability to discuss issues with substance and civility (as they do on NPR) rather than the shout-downs and bombast currently en vogue. More importantly, women offer the perceptual distance and optimum positioning point to put forward kitchen table and health care-related solutions. Empirical data indicates this is the fertile territory of a conservative rebuild and the same white guys clamoring for tax cuts and obstructing past proposals have zero credibility there anymore. Besides, younger Americans are increasingly tired of men talking about an issue many see as pertaining to a woman’s body. It will be moderate women (NOT the Coulters) who will best be able to frame and communicate relevant positions on these issues with the American people.

By: johnnycat

johnnycat — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:01:05 +0000

sinz54: I also listened to William F. Buckley and I ordered some of his Firing Line shows from the Hoover Institution from which I subscribe to the Hoover Digest. I also read New Criterion, and everything from the ISI and City Journal. I find Heather MacDonald to be my favorite writer there-why doesn’t she have a talk show? But I also listen to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin-I don’t really like Hannity. I recognize that appearances of what the conservative has become can be deceiving, but as someone who has been in it for some time and who is highly educated (I’m not going to tell people how many degrees I have) I know that losing one election does not mean you lost the war. Conservatives were caught into defending a war where a lot of the left and the media tried to stop by throwing a lot (not all of it was I concede) misinformation. It was hard, after years of playing defense to go on the offensive for someone we did not really believe in. Conservatives who want to throw Rush and Levin under the bus, are allowing the left to define their movement and not analyzing the real problems that came up within conservatism because we had to play defense over the war. Just a reminder: Frum wrote the most pro-war book during the Bush Administration, which the left decried as the Neo-conservative proof of plans to invade Syria and Iran. If he doesn’t address the question I raised in this post, maybe he is the one trying to regain credibility with the left by attacking the right.

By: Dan Crank

Dan Crank — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:43:38 +0000

Most of you people seem to see your selves as intellectually superior to average people that listen to talk radio. Why is that? Just because you are criticized for having different views on abortion ory marriage than the average nonintellectual mind numb robots of talk radio. We are not the enemy. Come to common ground with us not the left.

By: bartlettb

bartlettb — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:21:06 +0000

It is not just women who have turned off talk radio in the last few years. I listened to Rush almost every day for close to 20 years. One reason I always liked his show is that he was a conservative first and a Republican second. Around 2006 I concluded that he had gotten turned around and was a Republican first and a conservative second. That’s when I stopped listening.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:06:20 +0000

johnnycat: For over 30 years, the conservative intellectual alternative on PBS was William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line.” The passing of William F. Buckley last year marked a watershed. William F. Buckley was the conservative who sold the idea that conservatism could be based on sound intellectual ideas. But now, conservatism is becoming less intellectual and more aimed at Joe the Plumber. Rush Limbaugh has far more fans than National Review.