Air America Crashes Burns Franken prematurely ejectulates...

Did someone really write off Conservative radio as not a serious source for news while promoting Jon Stewart for same? I only heard Franken once (when a hurricane knocked out power, so my choices were limited) and he sounded every bit a hyper-partisan fool as Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to news, I prefer news, thank you.

As regards "news" and Jon Stewart... of course, what Stewart does is satiric commentary on contemporary political issues and people. Now, if it is your contention that Monty Python or Mark Twain or Will Rogers or Mencken have nothing valuable to teach you/us about political matters, then ok, but I'd urge against such self-deprivation.

Liberal and conservatives do not want information presented the same way. Conservatives seems to love a father figure telling them how to think, telling them the stories of the world and interpreting the events for them. The tone is overall negative and bullying. "We're right, they're wrong PERIOD"- isn't is all safe and secure that way. Don't like the results?- just deny them (global warming, civil war in Iraq, poverty in America etc). When things go bad, just remember God loves us best, Jesus is coming soon. Al Franken made the mistake of thinking he could talk like this to the liberal audience and I know I was turned off, the tone of AA was too much like conservative radio.

Actually, I don't think he made this mistake. At least not in the beginning. In its early days, Air America had a lot of interesting guests, and its hosts were not fake authority. The tone was more or less conversational. It was afterwards that its shows gradually morphed into a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

To this outside observer, it looks as if they moved to the now-failed "out-Rush Rush" concept because "radio by grown-ups for grown-ups" worked even worse. That's actually the most depressing part. It greatly dampens my optimism that if they had to NPR and PBS could stand on their own feet financially.

Actually, I don't think he made this mistake. At least not in the beginning. In its early days, Air America had a lot of interesting guests, and its hosts were not fake authority. The tone was more or less conversational. It was afterwards that its shows gradually morphed into a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

To this outside observer, it looks as if they moved to the now-failed "out-Rush Rush" concept because "radio by grown-ups for grown-ups" worked even worse. That's actually the most depressing part. It greatly dampens my optimism that if they had to NPR and PBS could stand on their own feet financially.

Actually, I don't think he made this mistake. At least not in the beginning. In its early days, Air America had a lot of interesting guests, and its hosts were not fake authority. The tone was more or less conversational. It was afterwards that its shows gradually morphed into a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

To this outside observer, it looks as if they moved to the now-failed "out-Rush Rush" concept because "radio by grown-ups for grown-ups" worked even worse. That's actually the most depressing part. It greatly dampens my optimism that if they had to NPR and PBS could stand on their own feet financially.

Then how do you explain Franken's failure to attract & hold a sufficently large audience?

blatham wrote:

As regards "news" and Jon Stewart... of course, what Stewart does is satiric commentary on contemporary political issues and people. Now, if it is your contention that Monty Python or Mark Twain or Will Rogers or Mencken have nothing valuable to teach you/us about political matters, then ok, but I'd urge against such self-deprivation.

I'm no regular listener of any commentator - those cited above or Limbaugh. However, I have heard enough to know that the description above could be applied to Rush Limbaugh just as accurately as it was to those cited above. The only difference is in the particular prejudices brought to the question by the commentators on this thread.

I find the sweeping generalizations about the supposed different tastes and discretion of Liberals and Conservatives quite laughably absurd, and, in several cases, unworthy of their A2K authors.

Thomas wrote:

Actually, I don't think he made this mistake. At least not in the beginning. In its early days, Air America had a lot of interesting guests, and its hosts were not fake authority. The tone was more or less conversational. It was afterwards that its shows gradually morphed into a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

To this outside observer, it looks as if they moved to the now-failed "out-Rush Rush" concept because "radio by grown-ups for grown-ups" worked even worse. That's actually the most depressing part. It greatly dampens my optimism that if they had to NPR and PBS could stand on their own feet financially.

Then how do you explain Franken's failure to attract & hold a sufficently large audience? Perhaps the "mirror image" into which he morphed wasn't as attractive as the ones (Limbaugh, O'reilly) you suggest he was copying.

I am always skeptical of claims that companies that fail did so because of their customers, or that writers, musicians, entertainers or even political spokesmen & commentators (even satirists) failed because their audience wasn't worthy of their talents.

The fact is that Franken exuded a certain bitter and vindictive quality that is less present in the material of his more successful competitors. I believe it was the degree to which he took himself so seriously, while often bitterly mocking the views of his opponents that led to his failure.

This IS funny.

I like to read back to some of our comments way back when and see how progostications pan out.

Air America was hailed as the most wonderful thing since bread--and Franken was poised by a few of our notable liberals as an up and coming star of liberal radio to ride the crest of a great liberal surge.....

It doesn't matter --the date of my entry---Just the facts.

The hysterical one-sided comments were a trip, though. You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, crazy people!

How do you explain James Joyce's failure to hold the popularity levels of the World Federation of Wrestling in the American psyche?

How do you explain James Joyce's failure to hold the popularity levels of the World Federation of Wrestling in the American psyche? Popularity, say the growing popularity of extremist Islam, tells you exactly what about the value of popularity as a measure of anything at all except popularity?

Yep. Failed.

What kind of uninformed idiot equates Air America with Progressive Talk Radio? What kind of ill-informed idiot doesn't/didn't know about Al Franken's intent to run for Senate?

Well, I know many more people who are familiar with Joyce than are fans of wrestling shows on TV. It wouldn't surprise me if the same applied to you.

At the same time it must be noted that there are fads and "popularity" issues among the pursuits of the so-called intelligentsia as well. J.P. Sartre was once considered as the epitome of contemporary wisdom and right understanding. Now he is easily recognized as a neurotic, misguided (and rather vindictive) manipulator of the public fashion in "new ideas".

I don't think that watchers of TV "wrestling" shows really believe they are indulging in a substitute for thoughtful or intellectual activity. Coarse, overdrawn entertainments have a certain public appeal today as they did in Rome two millenia ago.

I am more skeptical of elitism than I am of public vulgarity.