April 3, 2004
NO BODY GOES THERE ANYMORE...IT'S TOO CROWDED:
All Talk (Jason Zengerle, 04.01.04, New Republic)
It probably doesn't bode well for a purportedly enjoyable radio show when its most entertaining segment is one featuring Al Gore. But that was the case on the maiden voyage of "The O'Franken Factor," the much ballyhooed liberal talk radio show, hosted by Al Franken, which, along with the much ballyhooed liberal talk radio network Air America, debuted on Wednesday. About two-and-a-half hours into the three-hour show Franken was talking with his in-studio guest Michael Moore when the former vice president called in to congratulate Franken on his new radio career. Franken, seizing the opportunity of having Moore and Gore on the show at the same time, quickly turned the conversation to the filmmaker's support of Ralph Nader in 2000. "Is there something you'd like to say to the vice president?" Franken asked Moore, clearly inviting him to apologize to Gore. But Moore declined, first telling Gore how sorry he was, not about backing Nader, but about the Supreme Court's decision--and then launching into a long, convoluted tale about how Nader had promised not to campaign in swing states and once Nader broke that promise Moore himself went to Florida and urged Floridians to vote for Gore even though Moore told them he still planned to vote for Nader in New York. When Franken pointed out that this wasn't much of an apology, Moore asked Gore, "How do you feel about what I'm saying?" Gore replied with exasperation, "What are you saying?"And that was probably the highlight of the show. [...]
Then there are Franken's politics. Just like talk radio favors extreme personalities, it also favors extreme politics. And while Franken is certainly angry at the Republican Party, his anger is a pretty measured, responsible anger--which prevents him from going as far as many of his listeners would obviously like him to.
Mr. Zengerle sets up an interesting dichotomy here: Mr. Franken's show will fail because his politics are too moderate; so Rush Limbaugh obviously succeeds because his are so extreme. Can anyone explain why the unpopular views should be called moderate and the popular ones extreme and not vice versa? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 3, 2004 7:03 AM
The talkers on the channel are on safe ground within their own constituancy when it comes to arguments over domestic issues, like social spending or unemployment, and even to some extent on the war in Iraq. "Bush lied" and variations of that will keep those people happy, even if the statement isn't true.
What's going to be interesting is what happens when something out of that realm happens, such as the attacks on the port in Israel and the IDF's subsequent killing of Yassin, where the response of "Bush lied" just isn't going to cut it. Suppose something like that happens again, only this time the Israelis take out Arafat -- what's the editoiral stance from the Air America hosts, and more importantly, how do their callers respond?
Hating Ariel Sharon is easy for the left (he really ought to be made an honorary Republican just for all the invective he's absorbed over the past 20 years), but do hosts like Franken really want to end up on the side of defending Arafat and condeming Sharon and the Israeli government for the next round of violence? Or if Franken doesn't do that, what is the reaction of his listeners, some of who -- judging by the various A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstrations around the country -- are perfectly happy to see teen suicide bombers blow up groups of Israeli citizens.
Rush Limbaugh had a similar rift with many of his listeners back in 1992, when he failed to support first Pat Buchanan and then Ross Perot in the presidental race against Bush 41. If the liberal talk network survives long enough, sooner or later their hosts are going to face the question of going completely off the deep end in supporting a clearly immoral stance, just because you hate the people on the side of morality, or stand on that side and risk antagonizing whatever lister base you have.
Posted by: John at April 3, 2004 10:13 AM
Limbaugh does something to many liberal minds, causing strange lapses of logic and common sense. I once met someone who was convinced that it was all a put-on: Rush couldn't *actually* believe all that conservative stuff, he just pretended to to make money. Left unexplained were the problems of how he knew, 15 or so years ago, that such a schtick would work, and of how to convincingly ad-lib a complete ideology live on the radio for 15 hours a week.
Posted by: PapayaSF at April 3, 2004 1:10 PM"Franken['s]... is a pretty measured, responsible anger"
Jeez, what does a irresponsible angry Leftist look like? Give us an example. Or is that a null set in Mr.Zengerle's worldview?
> Can anyone explain why the unpopular views
> should be called moderate and the popular ones
> extreme and not vice versa?
We're All Extremists Now.