Rachel Maddow: Obama won't help talk radio on the left

[proud2BlibKansan]

You'd think the prospect of Barack Obama moving into the White House would have progressive talk radio hosts salivating at a new boomlet in interest in what they have to say. The idea is floating out there, but Air America host and MSNBC favorite Rachel Maddow was quick to knock it down with her pea shooter. I interviewed her earlier today for an upcoming story about the coverage of the just-ended primary season.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/06/rachel-maddow-o.html

[gateley]

1. ...bookmarking. nt

[NightWatcher]

2. I think she was a big Hillary supporter. her support was thinly veiled

[Lex]

4. LOL.

That's what you took away from her comments on that clip?

[NightWatcher]

7. I think that left wing radio could/shoulld be rallying for Obama. She has poo poo-ed Obama

several times. Before it was tempered (or disguised by) "watch out for Hilllary she's a tricky one" arguments, but now she calls him a centrist. Even if he is not an ideal candidate for Rachel I would expect her to show a little more enthusiasm. I think that he will help left wing radio and left wing radio will help him get the word out. I will be curious to see how she treats him and what she thinks about Hillary staying in the limelight.

[Lex]

9. You don't think Obama is a centrist?

Both he and Hillary are centrists.

Dennis Kucinich, for example, is more of a liberal.

[NightWatcher]

10. he isnt as liberal as some, but the argument was about helping left talk radio

I think that the left wing will be energized about the election and will give left wing talkers very high ratings as we move towards the election

[Mass]

6. I guess you never listened to her.

[Lex]

3. She makes some good points in that clip.

I can't say I disagree with her.

"Rightwing" nutbucket radio is defined by spittle-flinging propaganda--and logic and reason be damned.

I don't see "leftwing" radio as being driven by the same thing necessarily, although certainly there are some exceptions. I don't think if Obama were more or less liberal he'd have much impact on talk radio anyway.

[Mass]

5. Just stating the obvious. RW government help LW radios, LW govts help RW radios.

[nashville_brook]

11. i heard something different in her words -- that Gingrich was an unapologetic radical...

and that's what's red-meat for rightwing talk radio -- the unapologetic radcial-ness of his stance on issues.

Obama is a fence-mender and a centrist, which doesn't provide much red-meat for talk radio on the left of the dial. i hear her saying that he'd be "better" for talk radio (as opposed to better for the country) if he were a unapologetic leftwing radical.

I think there's a third way, actually. I think there might be something to be very excited about in fence-mending and getting shit done. sigh. i hope that happens.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Ideally, in a FAIR media atmosphere, LW Radio would be flourishing

But of course, it's not.

With the media stanglehold that only 5 corporations have, there are not enough advertiser dollars to keep progressive radio going.

No advertisers, no investment.

Mike Malloy has told the story a thousand times.

[Peace Patriot]

12. It's interesting what's happened in South America, where rightwing corporations

have a death grip on TV/radio and control a lot of the newsprint as well. The voters have learned to ignore them. They just keep voting for leftists--in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and now further north in Nicaragua, and Guatemala (and very likely, El Salvador next year; then Peru, and possibly Mexico). The more venomous the corporate/fascist propaganda, the more leftists get elected.

So I don't think it's an easy issue to analyze--whether in particular (say, whether an Obama candidacy will boost or retard left-wing radio), or as to overall trends and where things may be going, as to news and media. I'm thinking that the Corporate Rulers may do what they've always done, here (though it doesn't appear to be happening in South America), which is to try to coopt leftist movements, and bloodsuck off the energy of the People. I've seen them do it in the environmental movement, so that you can't tell what's "green" any more. They did it to rock music (really killed its soul). They'd sure like to do it to the Internet. They can take any trend or cultural development, and turn it to the profit of a few super-rich fascist bastards. And they are very into how to CONTROL the people of the U.S.--the most potentially progressive force in the world--while SEEMING to be...oh, pro-freedom, pro-democracy. They're into rule by illusions and delusions, here. So, they could put up a pretty good illusion of 'objective' journalism and 'balanced' coverage, without it meaning a damn thing, as to real change.

There is also a movement here to curtail corporate media monopolies (which, in South America, to my knowledge, has only been evident in Venezuela, where a frothing-at-the-mouth, fascist TV station, that had actively supported a violent rightwing military coup, was thrown off the air). These are our PUBLIC airwaves, after all. We have a RIGHT to regulate them in the public interest, and to demand balanced coverage of political issues and candidates, and a lot more time for open, wide-spectrum public debate.

If this movement to curtail corporate news monopolies, and to re-open our airwaves to a wide spectrum of opinion, succeeds, we won't have as much need for "leftist" radio (or TV). Public debate really shouldn't be contingent upon private funding anyway. It's too important. They should ALL be REQUIRED to provide a wide spectrum of opinion, and more time for public issues. These monstrous corporations that are running things are very skilled at getting around the rules, limiting debate, buying politicians and creating faux news. So it's going to be tough fight, to re-open our public airwaves.

In the meantime, leftist radio could provide an excellent public service by, first all all, EXPOSING McBush, and getting Obama elected in a landslide (needed because of the corporate-controlled "trade secret" code in the voting systems), and then CRITICIZING Obama--CONSTRUCTIVELY--so that he fulfills the promise that his supporters see in him, for real change. I see some danger areas already in foreign policy. The left should continue to present alternative views, and push for enlightened change. Why would it not? Obama is not the be-all and end-all of restoring our democracy. We have a lot of work to do, and ousting the fascist Bushites is only the beginning. We have to make sure that a fascist coup can never happen here again.