Tapsearch Com EditorConservative talk radio and the 2006 election
December 18th 2006 18:00
My friend Jim Antle has an interesting article about conservative talk radio that's gotten some people talking.
His thesis is that because commentators are toeing the GOP line, they're less influential than they were in 1994:
"Here's the key difference: In 1994, talk radio and its allies elsewhere in the conservative media gave the GOP a useful window into popular discontent. Hosts pilloried the 1993 Clinton tax increase, mocked midnight basketball, railed against Hillarycare and tapped into frustrations with the unreformed welfare system. They were quick to understand the potent symbolism of events like the House banking scandal. The mainstream media was often left playing catch-up to upstarts on the AM dial.
"Twelve years later, these commentators seemed to be stifling public discontent as often as they were tapping into it. They frequently castigated the liberal media for its 'negativity' and refusal to report good news coming out of Iraq. While antiwar sentiment grew into a mainstream – and perhaps majority – position, many conservative commentators continued to treat doubters as a far-left fringe. Yet the polls clearly show that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan aren't the only critics of the war."
I agree; fans of talk radio have pointed out to me that commentators are most fun when the other guy is in power. It's especially problematic when their guy is in power and things aren't looking so hot. In 1994, a pro-GOP message stood for "discontent;" now, not so much.
I think a more independent talk radio could have had more influence on the election, but I'm not sure in which direction. When prominent conservatives criticize the GOP, sometimes they spur a course correction -- the article mentions Harriet Miers, a great example -- but other times, they just bring down their own party.
His thesis is that because commentators are toeing the GOP line, they're less influential than they were in 1994:
"Here's the key difference: In 1994, talk radio and its allies elsewhere in the conservative media gave the GOP a useful window into popular discontent. Hosts pilloried the 1993 Clinton tax increase, mocked midnight basketball, railed against Hillarycare and tapped into frustrations with the unreformed welfare system. They were quick to understand the potent symbolism of events like the House banking scandal. The mainstream media was often left playing catch-up to upstarts on the AM dial.
"Twelve years later, these commentators seemed to be stifling public discontent as often as they were tapping into it. They frequently castigated the liberal media for its 'negativity' and refusal to report good news coming out of Iraq. While antiwar sentiment grew into a mainstream – and perhaps majority – position, many conservative commentators continued to treat doubters as a far-left fringe. Yet the polls clearly show that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan aren't the only critics of the war."
I agree; fans of talk radio have pointed out to me that commentators are most fun when the other guy is in power. It's especially problematic when their guy is in power and things aren't looking so hot. In 1994, a pro-GOP message stood for "discontent;" now, not so much.
I think a more independent talk radio could have had more influence on the election, but I'm not sure in which direction. When prominent conservatives criticize the GOP, sometimes they spur a course correction -- the article mentions Harriet Miers, a great example -- but other times, they just bring down their own party.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
