On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:36:51 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

My point was, as it is now, that making an assertion that is so easily
undermined can destroy a point someone is trying to make.


I was discussing a couple of guys in the radio and tv media, and you bring
up two examples from the print media.

You did not make that clear. Although you mentioned Rush Limbaugh, he is in
print as well as being on the air.

Why are there no outrageously popular
liberal pundits on radio or TV?

That's a harder question to answer, and I don't think there's any simple answer.
I suppose one approach could be to explore why movies and television are
arguably more popular than books; movies and TV are essentially passive
entertainment, while printed literature requires participation--mental and
physical--from the audience. One could make a sustainable case that talk radio
operates on much the same principle; in the case of Rush Limbaugh, for example,
he was saying at one point in his radio career, "We read all the news and tell
you what to think about it, so you don't have to."

Personally, I heard that statement first with some amusement--then with dismay,
as I realized that many people (possibly most) listening to his program were
doing so uncritically, agreeing with whatever he might have to say. His
disclaimer notwithstanding ("I am just an entertainer"), I believe he wields
considerable clout in his ability to shape much of public opinion.

And the fact that a performer is able to find a wide audience for his or her
message is not a validation of the message. Californians today are voting to
determine whether to keep a lawfully elected (although unpopular) Governor or to
replace him with an action movie star.

What I find interesting in this unprecedented event is that, because of
Schwartzenegger's name recognition and star power, he quickly became the
frontrunner. He has no experience in public service, has steadfastly refused to
debate without having the questions supplied to him in advance, and has
demonstrated that he has no *specific* policy plans.

Do these things mean that he's a "good" candidate for the post of Governor? It
certainly means he is an *electable* candidate--but I believe he is viable only
because, in this abbreviated campaign, the public has only Arnold's "star power"
to go on; they have not had an opportunity to examine his views and plans over a
more normal campaign. But Arnold is in the position he is precisely because he
is one of the biggest stars on the planet--not because of any native ability,
education or training.

Joe Parsons