digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Liberal Talk Radio More Accepting Than Conservatives Of Dissenting Views

thinkprogress.org — New survey shows that progressive radio hosts were more willing to take callers with dissenting views than were conservatives. Findings, in order of accessibility: 1): Shultz (took all calls), 2) Rhodes, 3) Miller, 4) Ingraham, 5) Limbaugh, and 6) Hannity (took no calls).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • espo111, on 10/12/2007, -84/+78lesson learned= liberals have open minds, conservative march in lock-step and close their mind to all other points of view.
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -39/+42Janeane Garafolo is so open-minded that she supports Scientology's efforts to "detoxify" ailing ground zero workers. In fact, she quit her radio job over this issue just to prove how open-minded she really is:

      "Garofalo came under fire [3] from her listeners for her comments on her April 28, 2006 show supporting Scientology-linked "New York Rescue Worker's Detoxification Program,[4] a questionable treatment for workers now suffering ailments from 9/11 clean-up efforts in New York City.

      "Garofalo announced that she would be leaving her co-host position on The Majority Report on the broadcast of Friday, July 14, 2006. Although several reasons for her departure were cited (including her outside acting responsibilities), the relationship between Garofalo and co-host Sam Seder had become increasingly strained, owed largely to Garofalo's promotion of a Scientology-linked treatment program for firefighters and rescue workers in New York City. Garofalo responded to Seder's opposition, suggesting that he wouldn't have a problem with the program if it were linked to Jews rather than Scientologists. Seder, who is Jewish, and his producer walked off the set in angry protest."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janeane_Garofalo
    • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -49/+28Re: this submission and the parent comment: What a load of horse *****.
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -43/+32Maybe because liberal radio has so few listeners that it goes bankrupt, and so few callers that the hosts have to take every one they get.
    • sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -12/+47Out of curiosity, what the hell does Janeane Garafolo have to do with anything?! Don't get me wrong, I found your comment humorous to say the least, but I don't understand the reasoning for performing a character attack on someone when the actual issue is the lack of dissenting views on conservative radio stations. It gets really old that when someone talks about conservatism in America we have to hear about Clinton, Micheal Moore, the Dixie Chicks, or some other conservative hate icon that has a really, really slim link to the subject at hand.
    • luccid, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23Right.... because a radio talk show hosts speak for all conservatives.
    • fishinjim, on 10/12/2007, -24/+17Perhaps this study shows that conservatives are more willing to LISTEN to opposing views.

      I'm just throwing this out there. Personally, I would like to see this country become more unified than the current state of conservative vs liberal battle lines.
    • flippinjeremy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+18"lesson learned= liberals have open minds, conservative march in lock-step and close their mind to all other points of view."

      How did you squeeze that idea from this article?

      Consider the following; maybe it's not a question of who lets more callers with dissenting views on-air. Maybe it's a statement that less liberals listen to conservative talk-radio to hear different points of view. How's that for an "open mind"? The idea that maybe more conservatives listen to liberal radio, than liberals listen to conservative radio is very interesting when reading a comment such as espo111's.

      Not facts, just my thoughts.
    • korbink, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19@Monolith2

      Very good point. I bet most people haven't even heard of the 3 'progressive' hosts mentioned. Yet, I guarantee everyone's heard of the 3 conservatives hosts. I'm pretty sure the phone lines are completely tied up at all times on Hannity's show. Shultz, Rhodes, and Miller's combined listeners probably aren't even half of what Hannity has, so of course they're going to be super excited every time they get a caller with any viewpoint, not just agreeable ones.
    • sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12@Monolith2

      So true. Most "liberals" rarely listen to radio. They are also usually more tech savvy than their conservative counterparts. The best way to reach them is probably through podcasts or something. But you can't fault the effort to try and compete with the conservative media empire.
    • NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Liberals just like you espo111?
    • Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -28/+23I can see with that comment that liberals only have an open mind when you agree with them. Liberals are such hypocrites!!!
    • gnomon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17@Teddystiltskins

      Replace "Liberals" with "Conservatives" and you still make a great point. Hell, go for the gold: replace it with "people." I'll agree with you on each account. (Partisan politics are stupid).
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -23/+29I'm sorry, but liberal democrats are not open minded. Open minded would be to let me save for my own retirement, and plan it how I want. Closed minded, is coercing me and my employer to participate in a government ponzi scheme called social security. Open minded would be to let me decide how I share my money with the poor, closed minded is using the coercive power of government to force me to participate in programs they plan out. Open minded would mean letting me get my foot in the door at a company, even if it meant accepting less than the minimum wage to get in - closed minded doesn't give me that option at all. Open minded, would mean being open minded to challenging beliefs - like maybe coercing taxpayers to fund public education destroys accountability and makes it so that it's not worth it - liberals would never consider that, hell they don't even consider school vouchers. Open minded would mean things like accepting peoples dissenting opinions about global warming - just try that with a Liberal and see how you get treated. Open minded, my ass. Most liberal democrats I know are the most closed minded self centered people I know.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Maybe because liberals are panzies and are too chicken to stand up to disenting views!

      I jest I jest... But by definition liberal means you are open to other ideas wheras conservative means you like to stay the same.

      But no one really knows what the modern day definitions really mean.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7While I may agree with the statement, thinkprogress.com is as creditable of a source as Michelle Malkin.
    • rokinroj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@argoff

      Wow! Do you listen to much talk radio? Reading your post was like reading a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show.
      Try this synopsis on for size...
      Conservative politics = a better world for conservatives.
      Liberal politics = a better world for everyone.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"lesson learned= liberals have open minds, conservative march in lock-step and close their mind to all other points of view."

      How about, liberal talk show host amazed anyone is listening, and therefore even more amazed someone called.

      Liberals are as narrow minded as conservatives.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4And who is surprised by this? This is another of the, "From the Dept. of the Incredibly Obvious"
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@rokinroj
      I don't listen to it, but how would you know unless you do? Pigeon holeing dissenters as generic talk show hosts is closed minded. Implying that government taking and allocating wealth will lead to a better world for all while people doing what they want with THEIR money will only benefit "the rich" is closed minded.
    • dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lesson learned...liberals are wrong more often than conservatives ;-)
    • SirCharge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a God-awful experiment and article. If you wanted to gather evidence on how many dissenting views a radio host takes, just listen to the radio show and tally how many were for and how many were against the talk show host's point of view. The method this website used proves nothing.

      I think its pretty well known at this point that not very many people listen to liberal talk radio. Of course its easier to get through to the host if no one else is calling.
    • evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Conservatives also have an order of magnitude more listeners than their liberal counterparts. They can and have to be more discriminating who gets on the air. Remember, for most of them its a business. And the better ones don't let inarticulate people on the air cause that just makes bad radio.
  • DeadDragon, on 10/12/2007, -64/+65yeah sure, nice source!! thinkprogress.org I'm sure thats an unbiased story!!
    Considering here the liberals here tend to negDigg any conservative comment, yeah real open mind there!!
    • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -39/+31Dead dragon: So are you saying that the findings of the researchers are false or are you just saying "I'm not going to believe that because I don't like the source"? If you have some way of disproving the claims of the article and the research it is based on, then fine, bring it to the table. But you saying "oh look at the source, it's stupid!" is kind of an ad hominien attack-- you're just attacking the source instead of the claims made by the source.

      I dugg your commentdown, by the way. : )
    • parseError, on 10/12/2007, -19/+60Please check the source. Checking for yourself will save you from speaking too early...

      http://www.research2000.us/2006/09/21/talk-show-radio-accessibility-follow-up-survey-results/

      and from www.Research2000.us:

      The Company

      RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 300 news media organizations.

      Our Polls can be seen on CNN’S “Inside Politics” and are also mentioned frequently in the National Journal’s “Political Hotline”, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, and The Wall Street Journal. Visit our In the News Page to see some online examples of this.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39Normally I would say that Hannity and Limbaugh are more popular and have more people calling in, and that makes it difficult to get on the air, period. But then I read that Hannity's crew tells callers to call the "liberal line"? WTF??
    • geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25@DeadDragon: Dugg down for brainless ad hominem argument (look it up). Have a great day!
    • goostoff, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9I know that Hannity has a line specifically for callers that insist on insulting him and make no or little argument. Why should a host accept "all calls" when they include people who do not advance an argument or don't provide multiple facets to the issue but only insist on calling people Nazis, hate mongers, racists, etc because they don't agree with the other's thoughts or beliefs.

      To be honest, I wouldn't listen to any talk show that consisted solely of nut job after nut job calling to insult the host because of a difference of opinion. I welcome differing points of view that add substance to the program.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@DeadDragon
      "Considering here the liberals here tend to negDigg any conservative comment, yeah real open mind there!!"

      The difference is that the liberals here will read a comment before making digging it down. If you seek proof, look at the amount of people who quote you, even if your article is dugg down into oblivion.
  • shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -19/+36DeadDragon, PLEASE read (Republican) John Dean's book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'.

  • lostmyleggins, on 10/12/2007, -21/+18So the successful shows have more control of the product they distribute to their customers.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Rush has always said, "The job of the caller is to make *me* look good."

      Rush has won broadcaster of the year awards for a reason. His show is number one for a reason.

      Like him or hate him he is the definition of success in the Talk Radio market.

      When you host a call-in radio show you do not want callers that detract from the show. If you let any caller in the show will lose audience numbers.
  • dankoleary, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Ed Shultz is awesome. He's not partisan so much as he is just a good american that cares about where our country is headed. If he is on in your market, I'd recommend you listen to him for an afternoon. Any guy that loves football, fishing, and hunting is ok with me.
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -31/+28This is true. After listening to Pill Popper Rush, Failed Academic Savage, Drop out Hannity, and Coke Head Imus, I have learned the following:

    The only "liberals" they have are the ones they can embarass. No debate. Just yelling.;
    • porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Not to mention, Michael Savage also makes racist comments toward African-Americans.
    • goostoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25As a convservative, Savage is way too nutty for me. I have heard him raise good arguments before, but honestly, 90% of the consanants and vowels that flow from his mouth are weaved together with an insane fiber.
    • Patented, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11Namecalling and branding people for their past? How understanding of you! You must be a conservative too!
    • lobotomy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You got that right! http://limbaugh.com/?q=Drug%20Addictions
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20"My partisans are better than your partisans!"
    "Ya, but mine can beat yours up"
    "Touche"
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Above post mocks the situation perfectly. If you're listening to partisan radio, we should probably start addressing that problem first.
  • trenchcoat, on 10/12/2007, -28/+42That's because liberal talk shows need all the listeners they can get.
    • RyanChappell, on 10/12/2007, -27/+24No one listens to liberal talk shows, unless they are on TV like Oprah.
    • axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18i do
    • dainbramage559, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I do as well. It beats the pants off the local conservative talking heads.
    • trenchcoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't listen to either. I do my own thinking.
  • jbenson2, on 10/12/2007, -29/+38Due to miniscule audience, the liberal talk show hosts don't have any choice.
    To avoid "dead air", they have to take calls from anyone.
    • Diabolickungfu, on 10/12/2007, -34/+24Conservative talk shows are alot like the Jerry Springer show. People only tune in to listen to idiots ranting ineffectually. Nobody with a lick of common sense actually takes them seriously.
    • flippinjeremy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Good point. That could be true or not, either way...

      This story is lame in itself anyways... Every talk-show host is just stroking his or her agenda. Don't get me started on Network news...

      The problem is that people rely on Talk Shows or Networks TV to get their news. And its usually from a source that favors their views. PEOPLE RESEARCH MORE THAN ONE SIDE OF A TOPIC, don't eat what libs/conservs want to feed you.
    • dainbramage559, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6"Conservative talk shows are alot like the Jerry Springer show. People only tune in to listen to idiots ranting ineffectually. Nobody with a lick of common sense actually takes them seriously."

      Interestingly enough, my local Air America station has Jerry Springer's radio talk show on every weekday. Fortunately, the show is inciteful and entertaining.
  • alastria, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Studies show that my awesomeness has increased the past year by 100%.
  • pmr12002, on 10/12/2007, -24/+35This story is patently false. I have heard Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh take calls from Liberals quite often. The only this this story merits is being marked as inaccurate.
    • uncleFester, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22further, rush takes liberal calls AHEAD of anyone else; you move to the front of his line. if you LISTEN to him even semi-frequently, you know this.

      .. his problem is the line's so busy almost nobody can get through.

      -r (not in 100% agreement with ANYBODY)
      (though I do usually enjoy his take on things)
  • krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21So, how does this relate to AirAmerica's bankruptcy? Tolerant or not, no one is listening, and they're broke.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -23/+20Yeah yeah. Liberals keep their grass cut, their panties washed, and have the most well behaved kids.
    So says thinkprogress.org.

    Grain of salt taken.

    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5But its fact no matter who says it...[/sarcasm]
  • Edge00, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18These findings are hard for me to believe for three reasons:
    1. I would say that at least 10% of the phone calls Hannity puts on the air disagree with him, so from my experience that zero out 15 calls doesn't seem like a large enough sample

    2. The shear number of people call make it hard for anyone to get on. Besides people with liberal viewpoints are less likely to listen to Hannity or Rush, thus they are less likely to call. I have heard people who say they have been calling for 5+ years and this is their first time getting on the show.

    3. Call screeners are there for a reason. How do we know what reason those "test" callers where screened out. They are unlikely to put someone on if they are using vulgar language or if they don't make any relative points. For example if some one calls and is cursing or is just repeating the same old "I hate Bush", they probably won't get on.

  • econofast, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14I'm surprised the thinkProgress trolls haven't realized that they could link to the story that TP refers to, and better obfuscate their propaganda. That said, pretty much all political radio hosts should be laughed at.
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -16/+19This study is flawed. I've recently started listening to 750 here in Atlanta (they have Hannity on daily, I prefer Bortz) and I can say with 100% accuracy that they take plent of liberal calls. What's more important is that they actually let the caller speak, finish their sentences, and make their (however ill-formed) opinion be heard. I've had the displeasure of catching liberal talkshows from time to time, and they only accept conservative calls so that they can cut them off mid-sentence, make some sort of remark about bible-thumping and incest, then go on ranting about their own opinion, not letting the caller express theirs.

    Additionally, I would imagine liberal talk show hosts have to accept whatever calls they can get since nobody is listening to their shows in the first place.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7If you're trying to talk to a chimp, you're going to have a horrible show.
  • Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7We need to take call load into account. For instance, the liberal talk shows might have a lower call load making them less picky about who they will accept. The more people you have calling in, the greater the chance that any idividual caller will be denied access to the line. However, the ratio of people who actually appear on the show with supporting verses those with opposing viewpoints might still be the same. Also, I don't really know how they calculated the margin of error for this "study." It seems like a sample size of only 15 from each show might leave us with a huge margin of error which negates any apparent differences.
  • tacroy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14I think that this "study" is rather silly. Firstly it doesn't take into effect the single most important deciding factor on whether your call is taken: call volume. I've not heard of most of the host mentioned, however I HAVE heard of rush Limbaugh (who hasn't) and would suspect that his audience would be quite a bit larger than the others. If they made 15 calls to a host that only had 100 calls a show then they have a 15% chance to be on air regardless of opinion. Now if they make 15 calls to a show that has 10,000 calls a show......well its significantly less regardless of opinion.

    This survey when looked at mathematically does not say "conservative hosts are close minded" it only says "shows with larger audiences are less likely to accept your call".

    I do NOT know the exact audiences of each host, so if someone could show that all of the hosts mentioned have a similar amount of callers per show THEN this survey might mean something. (And that may be the case) But to jump to "They are close minded" shows the bias and blind devotion of the survey takers.
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Yeah, call volume is definitely an issue for Rush, since he's gone deaf from pain-killer abuse.
    • korbink, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12@dkm201

      Wow, that's the most brilliant thing I've heard all day.
    • ryanlive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@dkm201
      If you can't beat them blast them! LOL...
    • LloydDobbler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Glad someone brought this up.

      If a 'nonpartisan' organization was attempting to make a 'semi-scientific' study of something, they would understand the need to have a control sample.

      It's a cornerstone of the scientific method, whether it's Biology, Psychology, Chemistry, or...you name it. If you don't know what the result would be like without a particular condition, how can you say that condition causes the reaction in the first place?

      Correlation does not equal causation. Research 2000 apparently does not equal nonpartisan, if they're stacking the odds like this to show a particular sensationalist result.
    • korbink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@LloydDobbler

      I don't understand how you get dugg down. How could anybody possibly disagree with what you're saying. Republican or Democrat, what you said makes perfect sense and to disagree only shows who the sheep are.
  • dainbramage559, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is true for my local liberal talk radio (Progressive Talk 680 Memphis). They invite conservatives and others to call in and debate. Now, its not to say they arent exactly always fair, though, as they will usually put someone on who is perhaps on the far right instead of more of a moderate conservative.
    Most of the radio hosts on my station are fair in letting their opponents get their point across, but there are some which I cannot stand to listen to (*cough* Leon Grey) who begins to turn a person's words around on them before they can even finish their first sentence. Then he cuts their mike off if they become agitated because he is so unfair.
  • Dus10, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6This is about the most ridiculous post ever. First of all, look at the URL. Secondly, just from experience (and backed by finances of liberal talk shows and their ratings), liberal talk shows don't have large audiences relative to conservative talk shows; if they turned down conservative callers, they would just have to fill it is dead air.

    Second of all (I can only say this for Hannity, Boortz, and Savage), they take plenty of calls from liberals. Many times there are wackos, but they have honest discussions about the issues. And yes, Hannity does have a "Hate Hannity" line, but he doesn't market that as the line to call in and talk to him if you are a liberal... it is clearly stated that you can call and leave a "hate" message on that line, and that you will not be on the air (live, at least, because he often plays a few minutes worth of the calls throughout the show).

    I will give a nod to what uttles has said, as well.

    So, before you go and make any sort of blanket statement about the open-mindedness of conservatives, consider how open-minded that would be.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7do you actually think a conservative site would talk about this study?
    • luccid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"So, before you go and make any sort of blanket statement about the open-mindedness of conservatives, consider how open-minded that would be. "

      Great comment.

  • riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9why would u want to call in? they have their talking points handed to them by Rove in the morning. .they go through them.. disagreement is not accepted.. and they'll make sure to keep repeating themself over and over again no matter what argument is presented..

    Liberal radio should learn something and start acting the same.. it's a successful model cuz people are idiots anyway.. they'd believe ANYTHING as long as it's repeated out loud a lot of times..
  • BlackVV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1One would imagine, given the title, that's it is somewhat of a misnomer... Liberals being, well, liberal after all...
  • loljews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4talk radio is for pawns. except sports talk radio, at least it's funny.
  • vizerei, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Remember before you vote this as "inaccurate" is is merely a study on who answers dissenting phone calls. And this section is called Political OPINION. While you might think someone posting here has a wrong opinion, remember that yours stinks just as much.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8When the opinion is not formed from facts, the opinion is inaccurate.

      If I poll everyone here at work on whether fire trucks should be painted green, the overwhelming opinion may be yes. If I then use that information to state "Americans Are More Accepting of Green Fire Trucks", then my opinion is going to be inaccurate, because I'm presenting the color preferences of a dozen rednecks in various states of drunkeness as the preferences of the entire nation.

      Use that poll on a website run by an organizatin that advocates the use of green paint, and you've got inaccurate propaganda.

      Sooooo.....I'm digging the article down as innaccurate.
  • brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Limbaugh takes a handful of liberal callers, some educated, others not so much. It's fun to count the seconds until they resort to name-calling. Rush clearly enjoys it.
    • GezusK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Like Hannity does on Hannity & Colmes. If its someone he agrees with, they're allowed to talk. If its someone he disagrees with, he'll:

      A. Constantly interrupt them to repeat his stance
      B. If they're making valid points, he'll try to change the subject
      C. When all else fails, he starts with personal attacks

      Colmes does none of those things. I don't know if he's the more intelligent of the two or not, but his calm, considerate presence makes him look that way.
  • Spectrum7331, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0It reminds me of some other type of minority crying out for attention.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTZUgtOGHCM
  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6LOL, look they've even dugg down this article as inaccurate, if that isn't proof!!
  • LeonThePro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They obviously never listened to Bernie Ward.
  • Barnstormer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I just did a little survey of the non-technical articles that are getting flagged. And in every case it's a "liberal" point of view that's being objected to.

    The tag should read "[Reported by a clique of NeoCon Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate]"
  • timdaniels, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Here's the difference:
    Conservative talk radio deals in the realm of ideas.
    Liberal talk radio deals in the realm of insults.
    It's hard to find liberals with a good idea, but everyone has their share of insults.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I have an idea, lets vote in a Democrat and start fixing everything Bush did wrong.
  • Harmutt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Stephanie Miller has a policy of putting the right-wingers to the front of the line...she knows the resulting hilarity will be worth it.

    http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0912_dan.mp3
  • HIPAA_Notic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Other than Ed Schultz, all of the radio talk show hosts are loud, obnoxious, and do not really listen to callers with differing opinions. Rhodes is like a female Limbaugh who tends to be more intellectually honest but resorts to brow beating, yelling, name calling, and hanging up on people who do not share her opinions. She is bright, but she is as cocky and conceited as Limbaugh.

    If you want good and usually balanced political commentary and diverse call in opinions watch cspan or listen to NPR.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2RadiantBeing (meant to reply way up there but must have misclicked the reply button)
    how the heck is what you said related.
    How is quiting your job over something you believe in closed minded?
    Did she refuse to allow counter views on her show?
    She wasnt even the one that walked off the set.
    I admit she is pretty far left.. and he upset fans of the show with the scienctology crap..
    BUT THIS IN NO WAY SHOWS HER INTOLLERANCE TO OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS, if anything it shows her bosses and listeners were intollerant.. and not Garofalo.. I am quite sure you can find some intollerant liberals but your arguement is meaningless in this situation.
    Sticking up for your own beliefs does NOT equate to intollerance.
  • TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Radio?
    There are people who actually still use these things?
    We're talking about the AM band right?
    So it's evolved from music and selling jesus to the masses, to selling political opinion. The only thing useful for radio is to push propaganda to the poor, the weather forecast, and as a white noise generator (that is a scientific term and not a derogatory stance towards a race of people). Though on second thought it does bring a whole new meaning to the audible spectrum.

    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"fear is you only God on the radio"
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How about a talk show where it's not "liberal" or "conservative", but rather talks about more liberty and getting government to stop doing all the stupid wasteful things it does.

    Dissenting views are welcome!
    http://www.freetalklive.com
  • seacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What piffle. A 'survey' consisting of a sample size of 15 is less than invalid; it's disinformation, which is what the left is reduced to now that everyone knows what they really stand for. Keep up the good work though, it's very entertaining.
    • HIPAA_Notic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, a sample of 15 is not necessarily invalid if it is representitave of the population that is was drawn from.

      That being said, it is questionable whether or not the sample is representative. It didn't appear to be a random sample.
    • seacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I stand corrected. A truly random sample of 15 might be valid if the population from which it's drawn is exceedingly small. Like the Air America audience. Thanks for the help.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does Air America get 15 callers in a day?
  • strebormj, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Neoliberal propaganda.
  • leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think that the more liberal talk radio hosts will take whatever callers they can get, because their listenership is a lot lower than the conservative talk shows.

    That's might not be a bad thing, mind you, considering that liberals in general are moving away from mainstream media and now using blogs more to spread their viewpoints.
  • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Guys like Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt regularly have dissenting views. Hewitt takes fewer calls, but he has liberal guests on weekly. Prager offered to swap audiences with Randi Rhodes (the liberal Michael Savage) when she claimed he and "his ilk" were all closed minded.
  • MaloderousRex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6that's because the dissenting views on lilberal radio are closer to correct than the alternative.



    ... Zing!
  • devzer0, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This is absolutely accurate.

    Further, the liberal shows won't say things like "pull the bone out of your nose and call me back," as Rush Limbaugh once yelled to an African-American caller.
    • seacon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Wow, that's quite an assertion. I assume you have evidence of this, like an audio clip?

      The problem is, even if you do have evidence, how do you know the caller was African-American? Were you the caller? Even if the caller claimed to be black (which I assume is what you mean by the term), you really don't know, do you? I hope you weren't making an assumption based on the person's speech or first name. Dangerous ground, that.
  • FJBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Ask Joe Lieberman how open-minded liberals are about opposing viewpoints.

    Liberals accusing the conservatives of marching in lockstep? Pot, kettle on line 1.
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Leiberman wasn't canned by the liberals. He was taken down by progressives, more of a realist subset of liberals. Their real test comes in November to see if they can really rid the senate of Leiberman.

      Really though the ability to choose a candidate has nothing to do with being open minded. The entire object of selecting a candidate is to be close minded and select a candidate that will represent your views. While being able to accept new arguments and change your own views based on new input is great for an individual, for a candidate it's seen as flip-flopping and generally a campaign killer.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Leiberman wasn't canned by the liberals. He was taken down by progressives, more of a realist subset of liberals. Their real test comes in November to see if they can really rid the senate of Leiberman."

      So, a subset is not part of the whole?
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, but the subset is not the whole. There've been a lot of blog posts about the differences, and honestly I lack the eloquence to convey it well. I'd say the differences are in the area's of government control and that progressives are closer to economic conservatives than your average liberal.

      In the Lieberman case, the average Democrat/liberal would be fine keeping Lieberman in office. Which is why he still had union supporters and similar. Progressive Dems on the other hand, couldn't stand Lieberman following Bush like a sycophant. Progressives are also not anti-war as the average liberal. There's a lot of military vets among them for one thing. It's a guess but I'd say most of them would fully support a full court press in Afghanistan against the various warlords and Taliban as well as Al Qiada. Where as all of them are against being in Iraq or staying a minute longer than we have to.
  • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate"

    May be, but isn't.
    • timla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I am getting so damm tired of people marking things as "inaccurate"

      This story reported the results of a small study, and drew some obvious conclusions based on the results. How can you say the story in "inaccurate" did they lie about the numbers, did the number not support the conclusions?

      If someone had done their own controlled study that had a differing opinion, then maybe they could begin to refute the conclusion based on their findings, but the story is in no way "inaccurate"

      the only stories that should be marked as inaccurate are stories that report facts that are wrong, like the release date of the PS3 will be on Oct 1st, 2006. (I do not even know fi there is a release date for the PS3, it is an example) this is a fact that can be demonstrated as WRONG or FALSE and is therefore inaccurate.

      And No, having heard Hanity take an opposing phone call at sometime in the past does not invalidate the conclusions of the story. If the story's said "Hanity NEVER takes phone calls from the opposition" then it would, but that is not what it said.

      Just because you do not agree does not mean the other side is wrong.
  • sweetnjguy29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I gave up on talk radio about 2 years ago. I got bored of the shouting matches, poorly researched facts, and complete idiocy. This goes for both liberal and conservative talk shows, and NPR (although NPR talk shows do tend to explore an issue/topic much more thoroughly and balanced than normal commercial talk shows, they tend to be idiotic too)
  • hardkoretom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1right, conservatives are not the leaders in talk radio. That is why John and Ken on KFI in los angeles have one of the top talk shows in the country.
  • MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I only have my personal experience to go by. I've been listening to a few of these guys recently as I drive to and from work. I've heard liberals, moderates, and conservatives call in. I don't like polarizing labels, but for this discussion they are necessary. The one thing I've noticed is that a lot of the callers that identify themselves as conservatives also express their dissatisfaction with President Bush. Even though the broadcasters usually identify themselves as liberal or progressive, they seem, to me, to be more open to listening to other viewpoints. I haven't listened to Rush in over to years, so I can't really talk about the current state of his show or any of the other conservative broadcasters.
  • MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I listen to Ed Shultz and Bill Press and have yet to be shocked by their uber liberal views. I share views with both ends of the spectrum. I've had conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative. That makes me happy because I prefer to think for my self and not be lumped in with one group or another.
  • Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Talk radio is little more then a place for emotional appeals to peoples baser instincts. I've listened to Rush, AA and others and they are all a waste of time. Talk radio does not inform nor provide a forum for discussion, just rants and name calling. All in all, talk radio does more harm then good.

    Ignore them all, let them die, replace them with something of value.
  • mlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, so why are conservative talk shows so popular, and liberal talk shows fold over and over on this country?
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why do people rubber neck at car wrecks? Why is Jerry Springer still on the air? Why is wrestling still on the air?

      People are fascinated by the bizarre and inane, often with a bit of violence thrown in.
    • seafoodmama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck may be complete morons but if you look at them they have always worked in broadcasting. They are talented on the radio and know how to speak and entertain. Given that you disagree with them their opinions are not easy to listen but the show is. I can't listen to AA because it is just bad radio.
  • scolainsola, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2#1 - Liberal radio will never work. Not enough listeners, not enough financial support and usually the message is very negative.

    #2 - If this article was written by anyone other than a liberal website, I may give it a little credence. Thinkprogress? Give me a BREAK! How do we even know these stats are accurate??

    #3 - If they are accurate, who really gives a damn?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.