If you who oppose this thesis can swallow this one pill, you may qualify for eventual recovery. Rush Limbaugh's genius is not the reason for his success. His conservatism is. If an equally gifted liberal were to come on the air, he would fail. Limbaugh's genius is a reinforcer, an expander and an enhancer; not a cause. And "ditto" the fate of a "Hannity" as handy with the language on the left as Sean is on the right.Barry Farber discusses how talk radio allowed the American people to finally get an opportunity to offer their feedback to the source of information. And when this finally happened, the feedback was Conservative. Barry offers the suggestion that as brilliant as talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are, they would not have been successful had their message been liberal. This might explain why Liberals hate the Conservative talk radio shows. It hurt Progressivism when Americans with Conservative values found out that they weren't alone!
You liberals decrying the success of conservative talk radio and trying feverishly to emulate it deserve one feeble compliment. You do remind me of all those untiring agenda-crats who, by consent, ignored a perfect fit and kept trying tirelessly to mash the glass slipper onto Cinderella's sister's foot.
Talk radio gave conservatism wings
By Barry Farber
January 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
In medieval Europe, people thought trees gave birth to birds. There's a medieval notion in modern America that talk radio is the former choir boy who dropped out, took up alcohol and drugs, went mad, tortured turtles and plotted more and wilder ways to defame and destroy our beautiful America.
Newspapers shook their heads sadly at the trajectory of their fallen siblings in talk radio and remained "normal," meaning liberal. So did almost all magazines, books, movies, plays and television; except, of course, those awful shows that tried to mimic talk radio. Is there possibly another explanation why talk radio looms as the Peck's Bad Boy of American media while virtually all other media remain "OK," again, meaning liberal? I suggest there is, and I further suggest the left will continue to peck at it even though its truth is impeccable.
Newspapers are written by a staff hired by the owners. The editorial policy is set by those who inhabit what we used to call the "Bubble Room." Sure, there are letters to the editor, half-a-dozen a day or more; all selected and edited by the editors. Magazines are similar. As more and more conservative books succeed, the ramparts are eroding; but if you wish to see President Obama limited to a single term, don't propose that voting next time be limited to those who work for major American publishing houses. The message of a book is unchallenged within its covers. After the author concludes, there's no chapter consisting of "Letters to the author" disputing his views.
It's a technical insult to you readers to spend more than one word extending this reasoning to movies. The word "Hollywood" is sufficient, and there are no additional scenes tacked on to the end of the film presenting "Letters to the director" with alternate points of view. After a play, on opening night only, you may hear the cry "Author!" ring out, but that's an appeal for applause, not a cross-examination of the playwright's politics.
TV dramas, game shows, reality shows, comedy shows and network news don't give us a chance to criticize their facts, attitude or ideology. The rare exception when a plain-old-viewer's contrary opinion is offered, it's done with a flourish appropriate to the Bastille being stormed and democracy restored to the nation.
The only medium that lets the general public into the act – like Andrew Jackson let the riff-raff into the White House – is talk radio. And the rest is simple. Editors, producers, directors, authors, playwrights and media-owners are often talented and praiseworthy people. But move them off-stage, please, for this one snapshot. WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ADMITTED TO TAKE PART, THE RESULT WILL BE CONSERVATIVE!
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com