Unlike most Republicans, most Democrats have a mind of their own. They are not sheep who need the constant reinforcement of views they already hold (reference Fox News Republicans). That's why Democratic talk radio has never been a big success.
I am not saying that MSNBC is anything close to "talk radio." I'm just saying that, in my opinion, most Democrats do not care anywhere near as much about the media as do Republicans.
There's definitely a psychological study to be made there George. I've observed this for a long time: Lash Rimblob has created huge followings (and so have his imitators) through the device of attack-dog polarizing and ad hominem. That sells. When AirAmerica came on trying to do the same thing from the left, it fell flat. Audiences weren't interested. Or if they tried to be interested they came out of it feeling dirty.
On the other hand nobody on the Right can come up with anything like a Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert. Again, they don't even seem to even understand it, let alone find a way to mimic it. Doesn't work.
It's two different personal psychologies speaking two different languages. It's a question perhaps for a neurologist.
Plenty of lefties worship at the altar of Stewart; and they never challenge his assertions, which are often wrong or not on point. Colbert is not as left as you purport either. Frankly, many of his jokes are based upon more sympathetic right positions.
And maybe Air America failed b/c they were full of it.
Pretty much perfect illustration of what I'm saying right here --
"Plenty of lefties worship at the altar of Stewart"
Nobody does that; this is part of the self-delusion your ilk tells themselves as a rationalization. Stewart (and Colbert) are comedians and neither they nor their audience pretends differently. As such they don't deal in "assertions". They deal in the art of viewing events in different angles. The events themselves -- already exist.
This sort of fallacy seems to come from the worldview that's always looking for conflict, and expecting it, and when it's not found, generating it. To use a Stewart phrase, "that's the soup you swim in".
I think we're on to something here. Actually this is the same syndrome I get from partisan hacks calling me "Obama worshiper" even though I've never posted anything about him; it's not for a commission but rather the
omission that I have failed to jump on the Bash-wagon. To the crowd that sees the world in terms of white/black good/evil eternal struggle, that's the only thing it can mean, so it becomes the default.
It's also part of the Limblovian "Eliminationist" mentality that decrees not only polarization into a good/evil dichotomy but that once identified the "evil" cannot be reasoned or discoursed with, rather it must be eliminated from existence altogether. Seems to be an all-or-nothing valuation. As such it allows no room either for nuance or alternates you hadn't thought of. In other words a kind of absolutism.
Colbert is not as left as you purport either. Frankly, many of his jokes are based upon more sympathetic right positions.
Again, as I said that side doesn't understand satire. What Colbert does, full time, is satire to the extreme. I think to this day there are those on the Right who still don't get what he's really saying.
And maybe Air America failed b/c they were full of it
--- doesn't follow; Lust Rimjob's been full of it since he began and he draws listeners. As do Hannity and the rest of his imitators. What else do they have in common? Attack style. So if you have A and B using the same element, and it works for A and doesn't work for B, the difference is in the audience. It's what A wants; it's not what B wants. You're not going to sell country music to an audience that wants classical.
That's what it's down to -- what the different audiences want. Because that's the variable.
After all what Limblob sells really isn't ideology -- the ideology was around long before him. What he sells that is his own invention is a
style. The objective being, to use his description, "to make you mad". That's what we're talking about here. One audience likes being made mad; the other doesn't.
And remember when we were all laughing at MSNBC when their average share of nightly viewers were around 300,000 while Fox was always over 2 Million? You have to wonder what it costs to air a 30 second ad by this point. Then again, who would want to advertise on MSNBC when no one with any real intelligence is watching. Maybe it's because they have the most bigoted/imbecilic/doltish band of democrats working the evening shift spewing lies about conservatives. And to think they haven't fired Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz by now. MSNBC: Night Of The Living Turkeys.
you are funny.
