http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-air-america23-2010jan23,0,1604003.story





Umm, okay. Isn't that like me praising Arnold Swarchenegger for challenging obesity? Take a look around. Pretty much only conservatives can work on talk radio. And you know why? It's not that there's an agenda to stop truth, as so many Air America hosts would have you believe. It's because people don't want to hear drivel and attacks all day. They want more substance. Listen to Mike Malloy and then listen to Michael Medved. Seriously, do it. You'll be amazed by the difference.

So long to an abortion of a network.

It was indeed a horrible network. I'll never forget Randi Rhoades treating her callers like infants--she was just a nasty person. Mostly what they complained about were others--they never really had anything positive to say about anything.

One of the reasons why liberal talk radio doesn't work so well is because you can't be anti-corporate and continue to get support from corporations.

But overall, the reason why it failed is that it was lame to begin with, there really was no substance, as you said.

What's even better was the "Fairness Doctrine" that EVERY host on that network was plugging. Lol! "We can't succeed in a free market - let's FORCE ourselves on them!"

And hey, here's a great example of Air America content:



Now let's look at this, a direct calling out (albeit much more adult-like) from a right wing show vs. left wing. All facts, and only facts from Medved (even instant when the tool liberal caller calls in, brilliant!) all emotionally controlled as well. Until we see an Air America host ever react like that, they'll be fodder in a much more professionally populated field.

Forget about political views for a moment. What do intelligent, grown up people want more of for entertainment and ideas of opinions? The hatred and emotion or the thinking and discussion of ideas? Reasonable wins again.

Well, to be fair, Medved is a rarity as far as talk radio hosts...

Oh I agree with that. I mean, really, Malloy is a rarity for the left. He's like the Left's Coulter, but FAR worse. I was just trying to make the point of differences. As far as my case goes though, it's not just Malloy. You've got Franken, Garofalo, Malloy, Rhoades, etc., all just horrible representation with tons of bad examples. I don't know that one could make the same comparison in reverse. Even if we assume Rush or Beck in place of Malloy, it doesn't jive. They're grounded more, I believe, the hate just isn't there like with him.

Medved is by FAR my favorite, because of how he carries himself. Everyone should argue politics the way he does. He manages to pull off the rarity of having the strong conviction - but not allowing emotion or personal agenda to cloud his stance and appearance. It's great!