Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 10-18-2006, 02:35 AM

The problem I always suspected with air america was threefold:

1) [Snowy alluded to this] "liberal" in so far as the definition implies are interested in diversity of opinion. Conservatives, by definition, are interested in encapsulation of ideas. While single persons might differ from these broader defintions, they are both definitionally and anecdotally true in my experience. I find more people on my "side" within this matrix as willing to at least be entertained by the other side, and even to listen to it on occasion. and this far more than I find the broad category identifying all over the place but mostly as "independent" as willing to listen to "those liberals." but at least the "conservatives" are entertaining (point 3 coming up)

That is, while I personally know people from all stripes of political affiliation willing to listen to one another and discuss ideas, they in no way comprise what I would consider the base. Since we have no firm definition of a cohesive liberal, I have to hinge my description on the classical usage of the term. And the only reason I feel more comfortable with stuffing "conservatives" into a descriptive category as a cohesive unit is due to the fact that they themselves constructed that category. It was, after all, their intention to set up a cohesive unit that would engage with "the enemy" of the cohesive liberal category (which may or may not exist as cohesively as is argued) which leads me to point 2)

2) [and roachboy alluded to this] that the right-wing radio personas were constructed around a reactive paradigm. And this reactionary politics feel empowering and increasingly so when the group represented feels disempowered. but when the "liberals" felt disempowered, they fantasized that they could muster a counter-counter-argument that was appealing to their own group...

3) however, the basic problem with this is that the conservative positions as evinced in the major media, are highly hyperbolic, outright disinformative, and generally entertaining rather than informative.

we can see the opposite of this in the likes of linktv (which I suspect "conservatives" of at least the academic kind and information seeking kind) and Charlie Rose watching, and New York Times/ LA Times reading or numerous international reportings/BBC products are informative without the ludicrous infotainment of staged "debates"/shoutfests, bloviating, pontificating, and etc. that the right employs in their programming but is so damn interesting to watch in the car wreck/survivor/BigBrother-esqe programming era we all operate within.

While those informative programs continue to plug away, I doubt they will gain market share on any magnitude since the slice they aim for is limited--from both liberals and conservatives. Information seeking peoples in our society seem to be a smaller share of the population than ready-to-consume types. and when these other types find themselves ready to consume, they want it to be sensational, tantilizing, and generally the opposite of their shadow cubicle lives they find themselves locked-into during the 9-5 before primetime entertainment they can't wait to sit in front of.

But if I were to say anything in a nutshell, it's quite late/early at this point, it's that I never thought the market would be realized because the format was wrong--not necessarily the material. The same as the rightwing talk infotainment. I do not find the notion of ideas problematic so much as I grow tiresome of he faux-presentation of ideas. And so air america fantasized that if they could only get enough people to listen to them, by reproducing a format that is popular in average society, then the ideas would be heard. whereas, the entire program of commerce has been to meld populism with commerce (and this apparent contradiction has been managed oh so well so far and been realied by the likes of limbaugh who is more skilled in hegemony than I think so many people who might consider themselves democratic party adherents) and being as this is a mere means to an ends to garner more revenue, no moral flex must be accomplished. whereas for a liberal to listen to the same blather from their own side, constitutes a compromise of Liberal values--to sully information with entertainment of the vlugar kind.

I haven't met a well-reasoned conservative repeating Coulterism or Oreillyisms. I haven't met a well-reasoned leftists who would repeat Frankenisms. But I have met a whole slew of people in the middle who fantasize the the hannity, oreillys, and coulter are in line with those in power--when in fact I think the old school conservatives find them as repugnant as the old school liberals find vulgar liberalism on air america antithetical to what occurs on BBC or linktv.

10-18-2006, 02:35 AM	#47 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The problem I always suspected with air america was threefold: 1) [Snowy alluded to this] "liberal" in so far as the definition implies are interested in diversity of opinion. Conservatives, by definition, are interested in encapsulation of ideas. While single persons might differ from these broader defintions, they are both definitionally and anecdotally true in my experience. I find more people on my "side" within this matrix as willing to at least be entertained by the other side, and even to listen to it on occasion. and this far more than I find the broad category identifying all over the place but mostly as "independent" as willing to listen to "those liberals." but at least the "conservatives" are entertaining (point 3 coming up) That is, while I personally know people from all stripes of political affiliation willing to listen to one another and discuss ideas, they in no way comprise what I would consider the base. Since we have no firm definition of a cohesive liberal, I have to hinge my description on the classical usage of the term. And the only reason I feel more comfortable with stuffing "conservatives" into a descriptive category as a cohesive unit is due to the fact that they themselves constructed that category. It was, after all, their intention to set up a cohesive unit that would engage with "the enemy" of the cohesive liberal category (which may or may not exist as cohesively as is argued) which leads me to point 2) 2) [and roachboy alluded to this] that the right-wing radio personas were constructed around a reactive paradigm. And this reactionary politics feel empowering and increasingly so when the group represented feels disempowered. but when the "liberals" felt disempowered, they fantasized that they could muster a counter-counter-argument that was appealing to their own group... 3) however, the basic problem with this is that the conservative positions as evinced in the major media, are highly hyperbolic, outright disinformative, and generally entertaining rather than informative. we can see the opposite of this in the likes of linktv (which I suspect "conservatives" of at least the academic kind and information seeking kind) and Charlie Rose watching, and New York Times/ LA Times reading or numerous international reportings/BBC products are informative without the ludicrous infotainment of staged "debates"/shoutfests, bloviating, pontificating, and etc. that the right employs in their programming but is so damn interesting to watch in the car wreck/survivor/BigBrother-esqe programming era we all operate within. While those informative programs continue to plug away, I doubt they will gain market share on any magnitude since the slice they aim for is limited--from both liberals and conservatives. Information seeking peoples in our society seem to be a smaller share of the population than ready-to-consume types. and when these other types find themselves ready to consume, they want it to be sensational, tantilizing, and generally the opposite of their shadow cubicle lives they find themselves locked-into during the 9-5 before primetime entertainment they can't wait to sit in front of. But if I were to say anything in a nutshell, it's quite late/early at this point, it's that I never thought the market would be realized because the format was wrong--not necessarily the material. The same as the rightwing talk infotainment. I do not find the notion of ideas problematic so much as I grow tiresome of he faux-presentation of ideas. And so air america fantasized that if they could only get enough people to listen to them, by reproducing a format that is popular in average society, then the ideas would be heard. whereas, the entire program of commerce has been to meld populism with commerce (and this apparent contradiction has been managed oh so well so far and been realied by the likes of limbaugh who is more skilled in hegemony than I think so many people who might consider themselves democratic party adherents) and being as this is a mere means to an ends to garner more revenue, no moral flex must be accomplished. whereas for a liberal to listen to the same blather from their own side, constitutes a compromise of Liberal values--to sully information with entertainment of the vlugar kind. I haven't met a well-reasoned conservative repeating Coulterism or Oreillyisms. I haven't met a well-reasoned leftists who would repeat Frankenisms. But I have met a whole slew of people in the middle who fantasize the the hannity, oreillys, and coulter are in line with those in power--when in fact I think the old school conservatives find them as repugnant as the old school liberals find vulgar liberalism on air america antithetical to what occurs on BBC or linktv. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 10-18-2006 at 02:38 AM..