I do, however, want to state again, that I find the almost celebratory reactions by Americans on twitter to be odd. Not to be an old fart, but the fear of the unknown is just too much right now. While I’m all in favor of people being able to democratically choose their own future, I’m also cognizant that a lot of these people might choose to go with leadership that will make life very difficult for the United States. Like I said before, free societies mean societies that are free to hate us. We really don’t know what is going to happen, and that should be unsettling for everyone. For all we know, these repressive regimes might be replaced with even more repressive regimes with the veneer of Democracy. I just don’t know what is going to happen.That’s John Cole, echoing Larison’s commentary on the matter. This is all true, and yet…does it really hurt to hope for an improvement in the Middle East? Understand, I want the government to assume the absolute worst is going to happen and plan for that. Always best to plan for the worst. But the other side of that coin is to hope for the best. Is that really objectionable? I prefer cautious optimism myself. Sure, worse people could take over. But things could also get better. Why not acknowledge the first while hoping for the second.
That’s not all—a look at radio ratings shows that hyper-partisan talk has been declining or flat-lining between ‘09 and ‘10, despite the intensity of the election year. There’s a demand for something different—smart, un-predictable, non-partisan news is gaining market share because it stands out from the pack. And leading industry analysts say there is a market for more independent voices. [...]
A look at radio’s PPM ratings for the largest talk radio market in the nation bears this out. An apples-to-apples comparison of ratings between November ’09 and November ’10 in the New York area shows that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings on WABC declined from 5.4 to 5.0—despite the crescendo of a GOP election year landslide. Likewise, year-end to year-end comparisons of the crucial 24 to 55 demographic show that Rush declined from 3.7 to 2.6—while his packaged follow-up acts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin narrowly declined and flat-lined, respectively. And Hannity was dropped from his Philadelphia radio station along with Beck last month after being dropped from his syndicator in Salt Lake City (!) last year before finding a new home in the area. [...]
“I will tell you that a very senior talk radio executive, somebody with responsibility for a large number of talk radio stations, expressed to me just this week his concern that talk radio as we know it could be largely gone in five years and the reason for that is, just plain and simple, the aging demographics of the format.”
And about a month ago, we learned that the public trusts Fox News far less than they used to. The long-term prognosis for Fox/Rush/Drudge is simply not all that good, as anyone with a calculator who can subtract the typical age of these viewers/listeners from actuarial estimates can tell.
This is why I’ve never bought into the notion that the left needs a Fox News equivalent. I see Fox News as sort of the national extension of local news: mostly old people watch it, and it largely stokes their fears about the world and how it’s changing, and standards are not all that good. Fox News is quite a bit less boring than your typical local newscast, but today’s Hannity broadcast is really just a more sophisticated version of your local news broadcast doing a breathless segment about “What is emo? And what does it mean for your children?!” It’s exploitation and fear-stoking disguised as information and analysis in both cases. In the short term, the right’s media colossus has invariably helped them regain power. But in the long-term? Building a movement around a group that simply isn’t going to hang around much longer doesn’t make any sense, except to a network trying to sell ad time for the next quarter. Better to try to draw in younger supporters who will vote for you for decades, I say, but evidently Republicans have conceded that group entirely to the Democrats. I think they’ll regret it.
To be fair, some conservatives recognize this. But most won’t hear of it.
- It’s a wide-open field that Jeb could win
- Jeb will still be a Bush in 2016, so if it matters now it’ll matter then. (Actually, if Obama is successful, it could doom the Bush name as much as FDR torpedoed Hoover’s, a stronger point that Lowry doesn’t make.)
- He’d probably be taken seriously on his own merits (by the Beltway media, at least)
- He could unite the party
- Waiting is almost always a mistake
- By 2016, Jeb will have been out of office for too long (nobody will care)
- In 2016, Jeb will be overshadowed–the Republican Party has been wired for Bushes for ages, and Jeb Bush would likely rise to the top of a field with the likes Christie and Rubio, the former of whom would be a second-tier contender in most years and the latter of whom seems way overhyped to me.
- The George W. Bush rehabilitation has begun (people still hate Bush, but he’s gone and people don’t think about him as much–this is not the same as people feeling more warmly about him or thinking he did a better job).
Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, is scheduled to give a major speech Friday night at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, Calif., in honor of what would have been the 40th president’s 100th birthday. It’s possible that Ms. Palin could use the opportunity to deliver a broadly conceived foreign policy speech that uses the turmoil in Egypt to advance an understanding of her national security beliefs that goes beyond her use of Twitter messages and Facebook posts…Sure, I get it that NYT writers are told to occasionally write puff pieces on Palin to fight off that mean ol’ “lamestream” media attack. But “a broadly conceived foreign policy speech that uses the turmoil in Egypt to advance an understanding of her national security beliefs“?? Seriously? Point to one instance of her making foreign policy statements that didn’t sound like the result of solving a word jumble and I’ll give you a lollipop. h/t DougJ
I generally avoid the NYT’s op-ed section, but Gail Collins’s acidic farewell to Joe Lieberman ain’t bad, except for this line: “The reason we have political parties is that the best way to get things done is by working together.”
I don’t think that’s why we have them. It’s not like the time before we had political parties, people said, “Hey, we’re not working together to get things done. Why not form political parties?” The reason we have them is because Americans disagree about a lot of things, and parties provide vehicles to channel that and to pursue different sides of those disagreements. They also have an added benefit of keeping corruption at least somewhat in check, since if one party gets too corrupt, it gives other parties an opening to attack them. Obviously, there can be something of a vicious circle when the party heightens the original disagreements for the sake of scoring political points (see: Republican Party, 2009-Present), but there’s a good reason we have them, and it’s not to facilitate working together.
PPP included PBS in the survey for the first time, and found the network easily surpassed its corporate rivals when it comes to public trust. The rest of the polled outlets — NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News — were relatively close with one another when it came to viewers’ perceptions of reliability. But the shifts over the last year were interesting. NBC, CBS, and ABC each saw their trust levels increase over this point in 2010, by similar margins. CNN’s numbers were effectively the same. Fox News, meanwhile, saw the biggest shift. A year ago, 49% of respondents said they trust the Republican network, while 37% did not. This year, both numbers took a turn for the worse — 42% now trust Fox News, while a 46% plurality does not.The conclusion: “Democrats trust everything but Fox. Republicans don’t trust anything but Fox.” Know hope.
- Personality crisis: Balloon Juice
- Give ‘em the boot, you know I’m a radical: Balloon Juice
- It’s not fair to deny me of the cross I bear that you gave to me: Balloon Juice
- Page 18 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums: "LGBT RIGHTS"
- Page 4: The Most Powerful Man In The Free World
Wine Labels2012 Election Abortion Barack Obama Bullshit Bush Christianity Congress Conservatives Corruption Debt Ceiling Democrats Economy Fail Foreign Policy Fox News Gay Marriage Hatred Health Care Ignorance Insanity Law LGBT Issues Libertarianism Lies Media Mitt Romney Music Policy Polls Quotes Racism Rebuttals Recession Republicans Right Wing Sarah Palin Scandal Stupidity Teabaggers Torture Truth Video War Crimes War on Drugs War on Terror
- I Saw Jobs (3)
- Metavirus: yipes to that being the best scene. it’s so sappy and overwrought. it reminded me several times of an awful scene in an...
- Lev: Funny you should say that, since that’s one of the best scenes in the movie. It features an actor who knows what he’s...
- Metavirus: wow. i hadn’t heard much about the movie — thank you for warning me off. if it’s anything like that clip...
- Achilles Heels (1)
- So, Tell Me Again How You Planned On Repealing Obamacare? (2)
- They Take In Progressives And Turn Them Into Technocratic Centrists (2)
- AWOL (4)
- I Saw Jobs (3)
- 40% Of Louisiana Sex Offenders Branded As Such for Consensual Sodomy
- Smarmy D-Bag Terry McAuliffe Loses VA Primary
- Obama's Cairo Speech: "A New Beginning" - Video and Reactions
- Poster of the Day: The World Is Supposed to End, Anyway
- Primate Discovery of Higher Causality Created Religious Belief
- In Play for 2012: Tennessee?
- In Two Years Under Obama, Clean Energy Investment On Public Land Quadruples
- Fox News Has a First Amendment Right to Lie – Updated
- Oregon Ducks Win First Rose Bowl Since 1917
- Massive Illogic
- Quote of the Day: Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged
- Oh, Come ON! You Stereotypical Gays.
- Ralph Nader Is Still Politically Stupid
- Still Looking For The Next Hitler
- Exploring How Identical Twins Can Have Different Sexual…
- TownHall’s List Of Racist Liberal Quotes As Pathetic…
- Primate Discovery of Higher Causality Created Religious…
- April 2014 (15)
- March 2014 (21)
- February 2014 (33)
- January 2014 (31)
- December 2013 (25)
- November 2013 (32)
- October 2013 (57)
- September 2013 (32)
- August 2013 (57)
- July 2013 (56)
- June 2013 (44)
- May 2013 (42)
- April 2013 (41)
- March 2013 (66)
- February 2013 (42)
- January 2013 (74)
- December 2012 (67)
- November 2012 (44)
- October 2012 (51)
- September 2012 (35)
- August 2012 (50)
- July 2012 (36)
- June 2012 (35)
- May 2012 (51)
- April 2012 (42)
- March 2012 (64)
- February 2012 (85)
- January 2012 (79)
- December 2011 (68)
- November 2011 (76)
- October 2011 (67)
- September 2011 (55)
- August 2011 (53)
- July 2011 (44)
- June 2011 (71)
- May 2011 (103)
- April 2011 (107)
- March 2011 (120)
- February 2011 (124)
- January 2011 (82)
- December 2010 (97)
- November 2010 (92)
- October 2010 (93)
- September 2010 (80)
- August 2010 (44)
- July 2010 (63)
- June 2010 (33)
- May 2010 (60)
- April 2010 (34)
- March 2010 (50)
- February 2010 (66)
- January 2010 (67)
- December 2009 (72)
- November 2009 (78)
- October 2009 (91)
- September 2009 (75)
- August 2009 (105)
- July 2009 (81)
- June 2009 (178)
- May 2009 (152)
- April 2009 (147)
- March 2009 (86)
- February 2009 (52)
- January 2009 (118)
- December 2008 (18)