Editor’s Pick
MARCH 28, 2011 5:15PM
My shameful secret conservative talk-radio addiction.
I am a sushi-eating, Prius-driving, gay-marriage-supporting, Oregon, liberal. My parents were union school teachers, and no one in my family has voted for a Republican in decades. I live in a county that votes eighty percent Democratic and I like it that way. I have a dirty little secret though. I like conservative talk radio.
I am fifty-nine years old. I discovered conservative talk radio over four decades ago when I was a high school student in Las Vegas, Nevada. I started listening under the covers at night with a transistor radio held to my ear. Today, a lot of college and a couple of careers later, I use two presets on my car radio. One is NPR. The other is my local right wing talk station. When NPR starts a beg for money, I switch to the wingnuts. When the wingnuts start hawking gold coins or herbal impotence cures, I switch back to NPR. In the forty years I have been listening, conservative talk radio hasn't changed or gotten better, and for forty years I have been unable to kick the habit.
Part of it has to be that I like the call-in format. Like many of my ilk, I put Click and Clack of Car Talk at the pinnacle of radio call-in shows. No one touches the brothers. Just below that is Ira Flaytow's, Science Friday, and then maybe Neal Conan's Talk of the Nation. But once those three are out of the way, I turn to the sea of undifferentiated conservative talk radio. I don't do Imus. I eschew Howard Stern. Neither sports talk nor religious broadcasting ever pollutes the sanctum that is my car. When NPR fails, it is conservative talk for me.
I can't figure the attraction. I am not secretly sympathetic to the message, and listening to conservative talk doesn't seem to have affected my political beliefs. I am as left-leaning as I was under those covers in high school. I don't for a moment think call-in radio improves my mind by presenting spirited political debate; today's conservative talkers have fewer actual callers and less dissent than those of years past. I do not see anything admirable in the question-and-answer tactic that the hosts use to beat down dissenting views. Yet, when I can't listen to Science Friday or Talk of the Nation, I go straight to the wingnuts.
When it comes to conservative talk, I am not a picky listener. I find the nearest right wing talk station on the dial and listen to whoever is on. In the last few years, I have listened to Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewit, Micheal Medved, Glen Beck and our local talker here in the northwest, Lars Larson. When, one day, my regular morning talker was replaced with Latin music--because of a change of format at the station--I found the next nearest conservative talk station and listened to whoever was behind the mike. I conclude that my attraction is to the form and not to a given personality.
When people ask why I listen I sometimes say that I am spying on the enemy so I will know better how to oppose them. I have also considered that I like deconstructing the arguments--engaging in an internal political debate with the radio. Maybe I simply like seeing the never-ending parade of folly that is mankind. It could be any of those things or a combination of all of them.
I have never seen the Glen Beck show on television, but I listen to him on the radio. (Like many people, the only place I listen to radio at all is in my car. My daily drive time is about half an hour.) When he is not going on about himself or people who have besmirched him--which is a lot of the time--I like Glen Beck. His mixing of morning-zoo hi-jinks with conspiracy-laden apocalyptic politics tickles me. He reminds me of Jonathan Winters.
I have noticed one thing about conservative talkers. Glen Beck and our local man, Lars Larson, have been in the radio business since they were young men. Neither is educated in anything other than broadcasting. Their lack of formal education often shows, but their entertainment skills and their ability to respond spontaneously to almost any situation make up for it. Like Oprah, the successful right wing talkers seem to have been born for entertainment. I don't listen to radio in my car to educate myself; I listen to ease the drudgery of driving. Perhaps I don't care what is being said as long as it is on a subject I know something about, and it is presented in an interesting manner.
I wonder if Air America didn't fail because it depended too much on policy wonks and true believers. The right wing talkers understand that there is a time tested call-in format made up of on-air talent, inflammatory politics, and careful call screening. The successful stations don't mess with it. They put their best talent behind the microphone, follow the format, and sell special edition gold coins like there is no tomorrow.
If I am right about this, my addiction doesn't really have all that much to do with politics. I like politics, of course, but mostly I like hearing people talk. If I can't have the humorous humanity of Click and Clack, or the calm insight of Neal Conan, I go for people who are indignant, outraged, xenophobic and controlled by invisible forces. There is a never-ending supply of these folks on conservative talk radio, and even though their politics are not my own, I can't get over wanting to hear what they have to say.
I am fifty-nine years old. I discovered conservative talk radio over four decades ago when I was a high school student in Las Vegas, Nevada. I started listening under the covers at night with a transistor radio held to my ear. Today, a lot of college and a couple of careers later, I use two presets on my car radio. One is NPR. The other is my local right wing talk station. When NPR starts a beg for money, I switch to the wingnuts. When the wingnuts start hawking gold coins or herbal impotence cures, I switch back to NPR. In the forty years I have been listening, conservative talk radio hasn't changed or gotten better, and for forty years I have been unable to kick the habit.
Part of it has to be that I like the call-in format. Like many of my ilk, I put Click and Clack of Car Talk at the pinnacle of radio call-in shows. No one touches the brothers. Just below that is Ira Flaytow's, Science Friday, and then maybe Neal Conan's Talk of the Nation. But once those three are out of the way, I turn to the sea of undifferentiated conservative talk radio. I don't do Imus. I eschew Howard Stern. Neither sports talk nor religious broadcasting ever pollutes the sanctum that is my car. When NPR fails, it is conservative talk for me.
I can't figure the attraction. I am not secretly sympathetic to the message, and listening to conservative talk doesn't seem to have affected my political beliefs. I am as left-leaning as I was under those covers in high school. I don't for a moment think call-in radio improves my mind by presenting spirited political debate; today's conservative talkers have fewer actual callers and less dissent than those of years past. I do not see anything admirable in the question-and-answer tactic that the hosts use to beat down dissenting views. Yet, when I can't listen to Science Friday or Talk of the Nation, I go straight to the wingnuts.
When it comes to conservative talk, I am not a picky listener. I find the nearest right wing talk station on the dial and listen to whoever is on. In the last few years, I have listened to Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewit, Micheal Medved, Glen Beck and our local talker here in the northwest, Lars Larson. When, one day, my regular morning talker was replaced with Latin music--because of a change of format at the station--I found the next nearest conservative talk station and listened to whoever was behind the mike. I conclude that my attraction is to the form and not to a given personality.
When people ask why I listen I sometimes say that I am spying on the enemy so I will know better how to oppose them. I have also considered that I like deconstructing the arguments--engaging in an internal political debate with the radio. Maybe I simply like seeing the never-ending parade of folly that is mankind. It could be any of those things or a combination of all of them.
I have never seen the Glen Beck show on television, but I listen to him on the radio. (Like many people, the only place I listen to radio at all is in my car. My daily drive time is about half an hour.) When he is not going on about himself or people who have besmirched him--which is a lot of the time--I like Glen Beck. His mixing of morning-zoo hi-jinks with conspiracy-laden apocalyptic politics tickles me. He reminds me of Jonathan Winters.
I have noticed one thing about conservative talkers. Glen Beck and our local man, Lars Larson, have been in the radio business since they were young men. Neither is educated in anything other than broadcasting. Their lack of formal education often shows, but their entertainment skills and their ability to respond spontaneously to almost any situation make up for it. Like Oprah, the successful right wing talkers seem to have been born for entertainment. I don't listen to radio in my car to educate myself; I listen to ease the drudgery of driving. Perhaps I don't care what is being said as long as it is on a subject I know something about, and it is presented in an interesting manner.
I wonder if Air America didn't fail because it depended too much on policy wonks and true believers. The right wing talkers understand that there is a time tested call-in format made up of on-air talent, inflammatory politics, and careful call screening. The successful stations don't mess with it. They put their best talent behind the microphone, follow the format, and sell special edition gold coins like there is no tomorrow.
If I am right about this, my addiction doesn't really have all that much to do with politics. I like politics, of course, but mostly I like hearing people talk. If I can't have the humorous humanity of Click and Clack, or the calm insight of Neal Conan, I go for people who are indignant, outraged, xenophobic and controlled by invisible forces. There is a never-ending supply of these folks on conservative talk radio, and even though their politics are not my own, I can't get over wanting to hear what they have to say.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
When coupled with the resentment that most right wingers harbor about liberals, "They're so educated. They're richer than I am. They're smarter than I am. They're more powerful than I am. Who do they think they are? They're not better than me!" Beck & Co. find a willing audience of knuckle draggers to hang on to their every word.
As I've said before. Vote Republican. It's better than thinking.
I think it's like watching a bad wreck but you have to admit, there's something alluring about it. No Rush Limbaugh?
great post, rated
I listen to right-wing talk radio, but not that often... I can only go far with the constant pablum that passes for facts that I end up with a rapid heartbeat... so for my own health I usually turn it off... There's a few out there that are okay... but mostly it's just reactionary crap.
Ruff: I would really recommend Thom Hartmann... There's an educated guy that's not afraid to present the other side for a debate... He know his history backwards and forwards... For entertainment purposes, Randi Rhodes also knows her stuff and is pretty funny... she'll also take calls from conservatives... Alan Colmes (who I didn't used to like) is pretty good because he's on so many conservative stations that he's not preaching to the choir.
I am cured.
I recently (in the past 10 months) started a “job” as a graveyard shift security officer at a small community college. As I live in a rabidly conservative environment, the college campus actually provides one of my few links to the sanity of the world beyond Conservative Ville.
Be that as it may, the fact is that the majority of my coworkers on the security team are conservative or extreme conservative. As a result of the shift I work, I spend the greatest part of 10 hours a night in the security vehicle. I started listening to the car radio presets that my coworkers had programmed into the car radio one night, and have consistently returned to that practice ever since. Some of what I’ve heard I’ve used as motivation for a few of my more recent posts on OS.
You write, “I like deconstructing the arguments--engaging in an internal political debate with the radio. Maybe I simply like seeing the never-ending parade of folly that is mankind. It could be any of those things or a combination of all of them.”
I find that “deconstructing the arguments” is no longer interesting because their arguments are ALL based primarily on straw man/red herring logical fallacies, and their conclusions are ALMOST all non sequiturs. The only conclusions that are not non sequiturs are those based solely on logical fallacies. Generally, their argument begins by presenting the opponent’s statement, following up quickly with a misrepresentative or totally inaccurate re-statement of what was presented, and this misrepresentation establishes the foundation of what is argued against from that point on in the “discussion”.
I can only occasionally enjoy the “parade of folly that is mankind” represented by these individuals, both the hosts and those listeners calling in. In the beginning it was easier to tolerate the ignorance exhibited, but as time as passed, I find it more and more difficult to maintain interest in something that I see as not sad and depressing, but also threatening. But, perhaps somewhat like you, I also tune in at least briefly every night, if for no other reason than to confirm that they are still there, lurking in their darkness of ignorance.
But I have found most recently that I experience an actual physiologically ill effect from listening to too much of that, so I switch to something more intelligent, creative, etc. I also confess a mild fear that too much of their idiocy might truly have a detrimental effect on my brain’s neuropathways.
You also write, “Perhaps I don't care what is being said as long as it is on a subject I know something about, and it is presented in an interesting manner.
I think that as I have listened to more and more of this crap, I have found it less and less interesting, so I have found easier and easier to simply switch away. Are you genuine in saying that you find their presentation “interesting”? I guess if one qualifies “interesting” I could see that. But I have found the easily predictable nature of the “arguments” presented to be rather uninteresting and actually even boring, aside from learning the RNC is promoting that week.
RATED
____________
Speaking of talk radio, a strange thing happened in Oregon recently. FM station KUFO, the only hard rock station in the Portland area, changed formats. It is now KXL-FM, and is in the same conservative talk radio format as its companion station, KXL-AM. You have to wonder when a place such as Portland cannot support even one hard rock station, with talk radio replacing it. All I can think is that there must be an insatiable appetite for the stuff.
I can't listen to very much talk radio. All the stations are basically the same thing, and all the hosts are basically the same person -- a right-winger ranting about something, trying to get listeners pissed off about some topic. Even the topics are basically the same -- evil and stupid liberals doing evil and stupid things, and every bad thing in the world is either caused or enabled by liberals.
If you can listen to that, more power to you. I can't imagine anything more tedious.
Thanks to all for the outpouring of sympathy for my unfortunate condition. I think sometimes that I live my life by finding a behavior that makes me miserable and then doing it over and over again.
I would say more, but Talk of the Nation is about to start.
Orrin
▂ ▃ http://www.goodshopping100.com/ ▂ ▃
very good web,believe you will love it.
exquisite watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.We have good reputation, fashion products,
favourable price.
■■■FREE SHIPPING,accept paypal
▂ ▃ http://www.goodshopping100.com/ ▂ ▃