It seems that this is the week for Billings Blog and Montana Headlines to write about the other's posts.
Today, Mr. Crisp reports on the new ad from the governor touting their "bipartisan ticket." He correctly notes that the governor "has been working this line for four years, and Republicans still haven't found a way to react except by sounding pissy about it."
Fair enough -- hard to argue with either contention. But then Crisp goes on to say this:
But voters' desire for bipartisan consensus is real, and the GOP ignores it at its peril.
Point well taken. But proper responses to this statement include some pointed questions, first among which is this: On exactly what did the governor "work across party lines" (as the ad claims) in the last couple of legislative sessions? Montana Headlines was following it pretty closely, and if there were any significant bipartisan compromise solutions, they must have been done in the dead of night without the press watching.
Far from being engaged in bipartisanship, the governor has basically gotten everything he has wanted, and prevented any meaningful Republican legislation from passing.
Crisp is right that the Republican approach to the Lt. Gov. has been ineffective. There has been little creativity in dealing with the situation, but rather a bit too much public bitterness at the perceived betrayal. Showing anger or spite in public is a sign of weakness.
What creativity there has been has been too little -- or rather too much (wasn't the first suggestion an "invitation" to have Bohlinger endure 90 minutes of public grilling at the Republican Winter Kickoff?) -- or too late (such as inviting Bohlinger to debate Steve Daines at the Republican convention.)
Trying to play the "John Bohlinger isn't a real Republican" card was doomed to failure from the start in a state that doesn't even have voter registration by party and where about a third of voters (a significant majority of whom vote mostly Republican) consider themselves to be independent. It has played into the governor's hands by keeping the Republicans busy trying to chase a rabbit they really don't want to catch with a dog that won't hunt.
What Republicans have failed to do is to demonstrate what real compromise in Montana could have looked like over the last 4 years -- and then compare that vision to what actually did happen.
If there is a single thing that John Bohlinger has done that has had the effect of bringing Republican ideas into the current administration, its has been well hidden. If there is a single example of Bohlinger's presence in the administration affecting policy in a way that middle of the road Montana Republicans would recognize as reflecting their party's ideals, can we hear about it? And if there is a single example where the presence of the Lt. Gov. helped forge any sort of improved relations between Republicans and Democrats, it has escaped notice.
Bohlinger has not been a force for bipartisanship -- he has been a tool of a peculiar sort of triangulation, and a pretty useful one at that. The strategy has worked, and as with most triangulation, the goal is not bipartisanship -- it is the neutralization of the opposition in order to promote the triangulator. There is a difference.
It isn't easy to fight triangulation, but if Crisp is right that Montanans are hungry for "bipartisan consensus," then at least part of the answer for Republicans would have to lie in demonstrating that there is nothing bipartisan about the current administration -- and in articulating specific policies on which Republicans sought compromise from the governor, only to be rejected. It may even involve quietly reminding Democratic legislators that they received offers for discussion and compromise from Republican legislators -- but only marching orders from the governor's mansion.
Showing posts with label Billings Outpost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Billings Outpost. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
McCain's YouTube dominance
Montana Headlines was recently taken gently to task over at Billings Blog for having acquired a taste for some of the more recent McCain ads mocking Obama's greatness and celebrity.
While Montana Headlines very often disagrees with David Crisp's opinions, they are always worthy of consideration and response.
To be sure, these recent McCain ads aren't on the artistic level of a Fassbinder trilogy, but then, they aren't supposed to be. Nor are they intended to be wonkish pieces with voices droning on about serious policy proposals.
John McCain is running against an opponent who has been basking in an aura that a very astute Obama campaign has assiduously worked to create. A big part of this has been the way that this aura is passed virally to susceptible hosts, as it were.
The job of a good political campaign faced with battling an opponent who floats in the clouds is to turn on a very strong fan an point it at said nebulous construction. And that is what the recent spate of McCain ads were intended to do. Hillary Clinton tried to pierce the Obama bubble, but unsuccessfully -- mainly because it was impossible for the Clintons to deal with such an upstart with a sense of humor. And it does take a sense of humor to deflate hubris of the Obama magnitude.
These niche videos were never to be broadcast on television to a broad audience -- they were intended to go viral, and that is exactly what they have done.
Mr. Crisp says that the McCain videos aren't particularly funny and are an "acquired taste," but it is apparently a taste increasingly shared by many:
Writing in the Washington Times, Stephan Dinan notes that McCain has solidly taken the lead in the YouTube wars.
Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week.
Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.
That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing.
Do we political types want to sit around and debate the finer points of policy? Absolutely. Has McCain sunk to a low level, as Mr. Crisp contends? Perhaps. But it is in the soothingly warm sunken jacuzzi of nebulous feel-good imagery that Sen. Obama has been basking during this campaign -- casually putting away a field of quite distinguished Democratic contenders, most of whom were superior to him in political and governmental experience.
Since then, he has been just patiently waiting, it seems, for the boring routine of having the people vote to annoint him President.
Willie Sutton famously answered the question of why he robbed banks with a simple answer: "because that's where the money is."
And in any war -- real or metaphorical -- at some point you have to chase down the opposition where it is living and destroy it. That's all that McCain is doing with ads like "Celebrity" and "The One."
The world of the internet video is not the only front in this campaign, but it is an essential one in 2008, one where until now Sen. Obama has had the field largely to himself, reaping huge benefits in the process. As a result, we now face the improbable situation of putting a man who only 4 years ago was an undistinguished Illinois state senator (and who has done little during 4 years in the U.S. Senate but run for President) into the most powerful elected position on the planet.
Oh yes, not only is it allowable for John McCain to enter this particular fray -- it is his duty.
While Montana Headlines very often disagrees with David Crisp's opinions, they are always worthy of consideration and response.
To be sure, these recent McCain ads aren't on the artistic level of a Fassbinder trilogy, but then, they aren't supposed to be. Nor are they intended to be wonkish pieces with voices droning on about serious policy proposals.
John McCain is running against an opponent who has been basking in an aura that a very astute Obama campaign has assiduously worked to create. A big part of this has been the way that this aura is passed virally to susceptible hosts, as it were.
The job of a good political campaign faced with battling an opponent who floats in the clouds is to turn on a very strong fan an point it at said nebulous construction. And that is what the recent spate of McCain ads were intended to do. Hillary Clinton tried to pierce the Obama bubble, but unsuccessfully -- mainly because it was impossible for the Clintons to deal with such an upstart with a sense of humor. And it does take a sense of humor to deflate hubris of the Obama magnitude.
These niche videos were never to be broadcast on television to a broad audience -- they were intended to go viral, and that is exactly what they have done.
Mr. Crisp says that the McCain videos aren't particularly funny and are an "acquired taste," but it is apparently a taste increasingly shared by many:
Writing in the Washington Times, Stephan Dinan notes that McCain has solidly taken the lead in the YouTube wars.
Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week.
Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.
That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing.
Do we political types want to sit around and debate the finer points of policy? Absolutely. Has McCain sunk to a low level, as Mr. Crisp contends? Perhaps. But it is in the soothingly warm sunken jacuzzi of nebulous feel-good imagery that Sen. Obama has been basking during this campaign -- casually putting away a field of quite distinguished Democratic contenders, most of whom were superior to him in political and governmental experience.
Since then, he has been just patiently waiting, it seems, for the boring routine of having the people vote to annoint him President.
Willie Sutton famously answered the question of why he robbed banks with a simple answer: "because that's where the money is."
And in any war -- real or metaphorical -- at some point you have to chase down the opposition where it is living and destroy it. That's all that McCain is doing with ads like "Celebrity" and "The One."
The world of the internet video is not the only front in this campaign, but it is an essential one in 2008, one where until now Sen. Obama has had the field largely to himself, reaping huge benefits in the process. As a result, we now face the improbable situation of putting a man who only 4 years ago was an undistinguished Illinois state senator (and who has done little during 4 years in the U.S. Senate but run for President) into the most powerful elected position on the planet.
Oh yes, not only is it allowable for John McCain to enter this particular fray -- it is his duty.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Tussing, Molnar and the PSC race, Part II
When Montana Headlines decided to feature the entry of Billings Mayor Ron Tussing into the PSC District 2 race, it was without any inkling of the vitriol that the post would arouse from passionate haters of PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar. Read the comments for entertainment -- and, taken with a grain of salt, perhaps a little enlightenment.
We had no idea what a fan club Molnar had developed over the years. We're still rooting for the other guy in the Democratic primary -- but we have to admit that the PSC race would hardly be a sleepy one with Molnar and Tussing (and their supporters and detractors) facing off.
David Crisp over at Billings Blog puts it quite nicely:
If Tussing survives the primary, that could set up a highly entertaining race in the general election between Tussing and Brad Molnar: two straight-spoken, smart guys with acid senses of humor and probably plenty to disagree about.
This is the sort of race that makes politics a spectator sport. Bring on the lions.
Montana Headlines is hardly unaware of Molnar's sometimes pugnacious approach to political discourse (although Gazette readers are likely unaware of the life that he brings to PSC meetings, given the generally soporific reportage of the meetings.) Still, unless a more qualified Republican enters the race to challenge Molnar, we suspect we will remain unapologetic in our support for Molnar -- especially if the choice on the other side of the ballot is someone whose temperament is hardly more phlegmatic, and whose knowledge of the issues involved is doubtless inferior.
Agree with Molnar on his policy positions or not, even his detractors have to admit that he has a passion for the details of utilities and how the PSC's work affects the average person. Somehow we have trouble seeing Ron Tussing sharing this particular passion, but we are prepared to be proven wrong in that suspicion.
Does Tussing have a passion for political campaigning and for being in the news? Yes. But it takes more than that to be a good PSC Commissioner.
Tussing should have to convince the voting public that he will be a better commissioner than Molnar. He will have to do better than to drag out the same old canards about deregulation in the 1990's. That dog won't hunt, any more than Republicans can hope to succeed these days in elections just by labeling their opponents as pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-liberals for the 15th consecutive election.
And Molnar-bashers might have some hope in negatively highlighting Molnar's colorful personality if he runs against a conventional politician or against an apparently solid citizen like electrician Tom Curry (Tussings primary opponent.)
But he is running against Mayor Ron Tussing, an amateur musician who penned these delightful and statemanlike lyrics (preserved for posterity in the transcripts of the $1.3 million lawsuit we mentioned in our last post) about the Billings City Manager back when he held the august title of Chief of Police for Billings:
Take this job and shove it, you freaking little creep.
I think you're totally clueless and your bullshit is too deep.
We'll see your "cell-phone-gate" scandal, and raise you every time. Note to Molnar-bashers: start campaigning for Curry, soon, if you want to go down that road.
Some legitimate points were raised in the comments section of our last post: does Molnar miss more PSC meetings than other commissioners? We'd like to know that, and so, we suspect, would voters. Perhaps the Gazette reporting will enlighten us on that.
A commenter claims that Molnar has been convicted of assault and battery (see our response to that in our previous post) -- is this true, and did it happen while he was commissioner, and if it happened before he was commissioner, why wasn't it brought out in the press coverage of the last PSC race if it is relevant to his holding the position? We certainly had no trouble finding press coverage of Tussing shoving someone who annoyed him -- so Molnar detractors should have no problem bringing forth supporting documentation, especially if, as the commenter claims, Molnar was convicted.
Would Brad Molnar's lawsuit against the PSC over deregulation have helped ratepayers had it been successful? (No commenter asked this particular question -- we're asking it because it bears a direct relation to whether that lawsuit was, as claimed by a commenter, frivolous.) This bears exploration in the campaign.
And so forth. A PSC commissioner probably affects the day-to-day life of the average Montanan more than do many state-wide office holders. Who serves on the commission is important, and the issues that PSC commissioners face are ones that we should be at least as conversant with as we are about what the Secretary of State or AG does.
Let's hope that this will be an enlightening PSC campaign. Part of our disappointment at Tussing's entry into the race was that a race between Molnar and Democrat Tom Curry could have centered on policy differences rather than on explosive personalities. But that's a citizen's perspective. From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match.
But who knows, maybe the race will draw the kind of attention that paradoxically gets people to talking about PSC issues? Let's hope so.
We had no idea what a fan club Molnar had developed over the years. We're still rooting for the other guy in the Democratic primary -- but we have to admit that the PSC race would hardly be a sleepy one with Molnar and Tussing (and their supporters and detractors) facing off.
David Crisp over at Billings Blog puts it quite nicely:
If Tussing survives the primary, that could set up a highly entertaining race in the general election between Tussing and Brad Molnar: two straight-spoken, smart guys with acid senses of humor and probably plenty to disagree about.
This is the sort of race that makes politics a spectator sport. Bring on the lions.
Montana Headlines is hardly unaware of Molnar's sometimes pugnacious approach to political discourse (although Gazette readers are likely unaware of the life that he brings to PSC meetings, given the generally soporific reportage of the meetings.) Still, unless a more qualified Republican enters the race to challenge Molnar, we suspect we will remain unapologetic in our support for Molnar -- especially if the choice on the other side of the ballot is someone whose temperament is hardly more phlegmatic, and whose knowledge of the issues involved is doubtless inferior.
Agree with Molnar on his policy positions or not, even his detractors have to admit that he has a passion for the details of utilities and how the PSC's work affects the average person. Somehow we have trouble seeing Ron Tussing sharing this particular passion, but we are prepared to be proven wrong in that suspicion.
Does Tussing have a passion for political campaigning and for being in the news? Yes. But it takes more than that to be a good PSC Commissioner.
Tussing should have to convince the voting public that he will be a better commissioner than Molnar. He will have to do better than to drag out the same old canards about deregulation in the 1990's. That dog won't hunt, any more than Republicans can hope to succeed these days in elections just by labeling their opponents as pinko-commie-gun-grabbing-liberals for the 15th consecutive election.
And Molnar-bashers might have some hope in negatively highlighting Molnar's colorful personality if he runs against a conventional politician or against an apparently solid citizen like electrician Tom Curry (Tussings primary opponent.)
But he is running against Mayor Ron Tussing, an amateur musician who penned these delightful and statemanlike lyrics (preserved for posterity in the transcripts of the $1.3 million lawsuit we mentioned in our last post) about the Billings City Manager back when he held the august title of Chief of Police for Billings:
Take this job and shove it, you freaking little creep.
I think you're totally clueless and your bullshit is too deep.
We'll see your "cell-phone-gate" scandal, and raise you every time. Note to Molnar-bashers: start campaigning for Curry, soon, if you want to go down that road.
Some legitimate points were raised in the comments section of our last post: does Molnar miss more PSC meetings than other commissioners? We'd like to know that, and so, we suspect, would voters. Perhaps the Gazette reporting will enlighten us on that.
A commenter claims that Molnar has been convicted of assault and battery (see our response to that in our previous post) -- is this true, and did it happen while he was commissioner, and if it happened before he was commissioner, why wasn't it brought out in the press coverage of the last PSC race if it is relevant to his holding the position? We certainly had no trouble finding press coverage of Tussing shoving someone who annoyed him -- so Molnar detractors should have no problem bringing forth supporting documentation, especially if, as the commenter claims, Molnar was convicted.
Would Brad Molnar's lawsuit against the PSC over deregulation have helped ratepayers had it been successful? (No commenter asked this particular question -- we're asking it because it bears a direct relation to whether that lawsuit was, as claimed by a commenter, frivolous.) This bears exploration in the campaign.
And so forth. A PSC commissioner probably affects the day-to-day life of the average Montanan more than do many state-wide office holders. Who serves on the commission is important, and the issues that PSC commissioners face are ones that we should be at least as conversant with as we are about what the Secretary of State or AG does.
Let's hope that this will be an enlightening PSC campaign. Part of our disappointment at Tussing's entry into the race was that a race between Molnar and Democrat Tom Curry could have centered on policy differences rather than on explosive personalities. But that's a citizen's perspective. From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match.
But who knows, maybe the race will draw the kind of attention that paradoxically gets people to talking about PSC issues? Let's hope so.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Billings Gazette and its improperly reported campaign contributions
Montana Headlines would really be remiss were we to ignore the good job that David Crisp and the Billings Outpost have done in highlighting (with appropriate levels of caution) the sticky situation that the Billings Gazette has gotten into due to its involvement in "Celebrate Billings." This organization campaigned for mill levy increases in Billings.
The Gazette made in-kind contributions of essentially free (there was some "creative accounting," it seems, so it is taking time to tease out the details) advertising to the group. It should be made clear that the Gazette doesn't appear to have tried to hide anything. The contributions seem to have been reported, but what is at issue is whether the proper reporting and filing procedures were followed.
The Outpost pieces are all worth reading.
One of the interesting things is that there seems to have been foot-dragging on the part of the Billings Gazette.
The Gazette was informed in mid-October by the Commissioner of Political Practices that it was required to file as an "incidental political committee," but it isn't clear from the reporting that it ever did so. As we recall, once a candidate or political entity has been told to file something regarding campaign finances, there is usually a very short (often 5 day) window in which to comply.
Instead, the next item in the time-line appears to be a letter from the Gazette dated late November, written to the commissioner of political practices.
It would seem that the right thing to do would be for the Gazette to file immediately as they were told they should do -- and then try to straighten it out after the fact if they felt that the Commissioner was wrong in his decision and instructions to them.
Is this what happened? It isn't completely clear, unless we missed something in the published reports.
We would agree with Crisp:
Naturally, I was skeptical about the whole Celebrate Billings project from the git-go. Daily newspapers exert considerable influence just from their natural role. To try to leverage additional influence using nonprofit partners stretches my understanding of what a newspaper's place in the community ought to be.
Indeed. We hope to hear more on this as information comes to light, and one hopes that the Gazette will keep its politicking to the editorial page in the future.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...
Billings Gazette does good job in covering Pat Davison: Back in the infancy of Montana Headlines last December, when the Pat Davison "Ponzi scheme" scandal was breaking, we wrote that "at this point, Davison's name is widely known for one reason, and one reason only -- his defrauding of investors and his pleading guilty on federal charges."
It was important that we make this point, since prior to this major personal financial scandal, Davison was perhaps most widely known in Billings as having run unsuccessfully for governor.
We pointed out on more than one occasion that the Gazette had a penchant for identifying Davison as a Republican candidate for governor, giving the impression to the uninitiated that he was the GOP's nominee, when in fact Davison lost the primary badly, carrying only two counties statewide and carrying his home county (Yellowstone) only by a thin plurality.
In today's big Sunday front page article about Davison, the Gazette mentions him as a gubernatorial candidate early in the article, but doesn't identify him at that point as a Republican -- and deep in the article when it mentions that run, it correctly states that "Davison... lost soundly in the Republican primary." The article puts the political connections in their proper perspective.
The Davison story is a big one, with the amount of money defrauded from his investors now approaching $12 million, according to the Gazette article. While one feels bad for his family and friends that an article like this rehashes a painful history, there is no question that in Billings it deserves big coverage.
As pointed out here on this site before, it is a "cautionary tale" at many levels -- personal, business, social, and political.
In particular, it should be a reminder to big financial backers of Republican candidates in Montana (and Davison had a number of them in his failed bid) that those candidates need a careful vetting. Think of the huge damage that would have been done had Davison won the nomination, let alone the governorship itself -- and then had this scandal break. The Montana GOP just doesn't have any room for those kinds of PR disasters.
Montana lobbyists span the political spectrum: Chuck Johnson's article reporting what was spent on lobbying the 2007 legislature is revealing. More precisely, it reports what the lobbyists themselves report, which, as the article notes, is probably a significant underestimate.
Not surprisingly, the top spender was PPL Montana -- and also not surprisingly, the teacher's unions were close behind.
It is true that lobbyists are "trying to influence legislators," in the words of the article. Well, of course they are.
But in fairness, in a 90 day session, legislators have to be desperate for information that they need to make decisions and write bills.
Term limits have only exacerbated those problems. Lobbyists play a valuable role in helping legislators know how legislation will affect different groups of Montanans -- who is going to know better how a law will affect Montana ranchers, for instance, than the Montana Stockgrower's Association? (They weren't mentioned in the article -- we just use them as an example.)
There is still something a bit bothersome about having public employees lobby the government that employs them, but that isn't likely to change anytime soon in Montana -- in fact, as we add more and more people to the government payroll, such lobbying will only intensify.
One does wonder, though: when the governor is speaking to groups of teachers and public employees, does he rail on them for spending money on lobbyists?
Great new Montana business website: Anyone who hasn't checked out Jeff Mangan's major initiative -- a Montana business website -- needs to hasten on over to mtbusiness.com .
Maybe Denny Rehberg just likes being a Congressman: In his "Horse Sense" column, Chuck Johnson makes a good case that this is why Rehberg has passed up shots at open governor seats and is passing up the opportunity to challenge Max Baucus for a U.S. Senate seat.
We would guess that Rehberg will be poised to challenge Sen. Tester in 2012. But that is a long time from now -- and while Rehberg would be Baucus's most formidable challenger right now (and would have a decent shot at unseating him,) it is by no means certain that Rehberg will have the shiniest star when the Tester challenge comes along. Five years is a long time, and Rehberg's fortunes could wane, while exciting, new GOP political figures will almost certainly arise between now and then.
We have the feeling that Johnson is right -- he'll take on Tester in 2012 if he is the logical candidate, and would have in 2006. But he's not someone who is sitting around pining for a U.S. Senate seat, and won't be crushed if someone else gets the nod. It wouldn't at all be a bad thing for Montana or the Montana GOP for Rehberg to grow old and gray (and hold a lot of seniority) in our solo U.S. House seat.
City Lights: You ask a stupid question...: We now know what Ed Kemmick was doing between 4:30 and 4:45 on Friday -- thinking up questions to ask himself about Billings, pretending that they are questions real visitors to Billings might ask.
Does he have a great job or what?
Montana Headlines was a bit disappointed in a couple of the rhetorical questions posed at the end of the piece (inviting reader answers.)
For instance, his hypothetical visitor asks: "Is it hard to run in cowboy boots?"
As any Montana politician worth his salt will tell you on an election year, it's nearly impossible to run without them in these parts.
Talk Radio and the Fairness Doctrine: David Crisp over at the Billings Outpost has an interesting article on the subject, and he concludes that talk radio is indeed profoundly unfair. It's true: imagine the pain of being someone who wants to listen to a liberal radio talk-show in Billings -- especially if one considers NPR talk-shows to be too balanced and fair to be liberal.
But neither does Crisp advocate reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which only ever had the effect of keeping all political opinion off the air.
The whole opinion piece is worth reading, but he makes one particularly intriguing comment: "Conservatives appear to be somewhat more interested in listening to talk radio, and liberals appear to be somewhat more open to listening to conservative hosts than conservatives are to liberal hosts."
Well, that may be true, and it may be that this is enough for market forces to tip things to a 100% conservative talk-radio format, as he maintains. But the explanation is much simpler, and Crisp alludes to it in passing, even if only mostly to discount it.
The bottom line is that when talk radio started to flourish, conservatives had for decades felt inundated by an uninterrupted supply of liberal slant -- the major networks, public radio and TV (except for Firing Line -- our one television show,) the major wire services, nearly all of the major newspapers in the country, and the public schools and college campuses where we (and later, our kids) were educated.
Most of the content was intended to be fair and neutral, and most of that succeeded in having some sort of neutrality. But where there was a slant, it was liberal. Think of it this way: if the mainstream media is 95% neutral and 5% liberal, then the net effect over time is one of a liberal slant, even if it succeeds an incredible 95% of the time in being neutral.
That doesn't mean that the entire mainstream media and educational institutions slant everything in a liberal direction, it just means that there was and is a sort of ideological Brezhnev doctrine at work -- things drift only in one direction, and that is leftward.
Talk radio was suddenly a place where conservatives were able at last to find opinions that were similar to their own, and it should be of no surprise that conservatives flocked to it. Talk radio didn't create that audience -- it found it.
After all, the men around whose boot-clad feet a young Montana Headlines played while they drank coffee, discussed the weather, speculated about agricultural prices, and cussed the government knew good and well, long before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, that what they read in the papers and heard on television was filled with liberal bias and general lies.
Furthermore, given the perception that talk radio needed to balance out all of the above, it shouldn't be surprising that the style of conservative talk radio would be to push back, hard, against what it perceived as a monolithic and powerful liberal establishment.
The accuracy of the perceptions on which conservative talk radio thrived can, of course, be debated. But that they existed, and still exist today, is the operative force at work.
Speaking of fairness: Forget talk radio. What Montana Headlines is really concerned about is whether Kree Kirkman is going to make sure that his utopian green-friendly medieval fortress/village "Oberkleinberg" is fair and balanced, with a population that is 50% Republican and 50% Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)