Ahhh..those right-wing bulk buys again.

There may be something to that. The Walton Foundation could use their marketing
front (WalMart) to order enough books by conservative authors to make any title
an instant "million seller".

I don't shop WalMart, but based on corporate and Walton Foundation philosophy
I'd be surprised to see Al Franken's book there. Anybody know it they sell it?

On 07 Oct 2003 15:01:14 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Ahhh..those right-wing bulk buys again.

There may be something to that. The Walton Foundation could use their marketing
front (WalMart) to order enough books by conservative authors to make any title
an instant "million seller".

I don't shop WalMart, but based on corporate and Walton Foundation philosophy
I'd be surprised to see Al Franken's book there. Anybody know it they sell it?

They sell it on their website. I'd expect it could be found at their physical
locations, as well.

Joe Parsons

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:17:56 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:35:43 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

For what it's worth, I find more people who self-identify as "liberal"
reading
conservative commentators and authors than I do "conservatives" reading
liberal
texts. In general, those who tend to read the likes of Rush Limbaugh
(and
recently, his tag-along kid brother, David), O'Reilly, Coulter and the
like,
seem to restrict their reading and listening to those who will reinforce
and
confirm the beliefs they already hold.

But a few posts before, Joe says :

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left" by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is
#2 on the New York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number
1 last week, and has been on the list for 6 weeks.


So, the conservatives are reading these or the liberals are speed
readers?

I don't pretend to know specifically *who* is reading any of these books,
although I did report what my own observation has been.

But I don't know that a book needs to have both "liberals" and
"conservatives"
buying it in order to reach the NYT Bestseller list or to achieve a high
ranking
with Amazon. I mentioned those statistics only to provide a
counterexample for
a statement: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:44:23 GMT, "NOYB"
wrote:

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them
right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

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

They sell it on their website. I'd expect it could be found at their
physical
locations, as well.

Joe Parsons

Good for them.
One of the dangers with a few big box merchandisers controlling the marketplace
is that commercial censorship can be easily implemented.

I still remember when WalMart refused to carry a Sheryl Crowe CD because she
had included a song with a one-line reference to buying a gun at WalMart. That
was silly.

I was discussing a couple of guys in the radio and tv media, and you bring
up two examples from the print media. Why are there no outrageously popular
liberal pundits on radio or TV?

Many of your conservative pundits are "outrageously popular" because they
appeal to the base instincts of their audience. You would say, "they are
espousing conservative ideals, and those ideals are popular." I would say,
"They are pandering to sentiments against racial minorities, sexual
non-conformists, drug abusers, and, most of all, those spawned-by-Satan
liberals. People tune in to have their secret guilty prejudices validated."

I hope we would both agree that hate speech directed against racial minorities,
sexual non-conformists, drug abusers, and liberals does *not* truly epitomize a
true conservative philosophy.

If we can, then we're simply back down to the original question, "What *are*
these guys doing on the air?" I listen for 10-20 minutes most days, and have
reached the conclusion outlined above. As a liberal, I think it's OK and maybe
even healthy for you to disagree.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Ahhh..those right-wing bulk buys again.

There may be something to that. The Walton Foundation could use their
marketing
front (WalMart) to order enough books by conservative authors to make any
title
an instant "million seller".

I don't shop WalMart, but based on corporate and Walton Foundation
philosophy
I'd be surprised to see Al Franken's book there. Anybody know it they sell
it?


I wouldn't think you'd be conspiracy theory type of guy, Gould. I guess you
buy into the whole "vast right-wing conspiracy" thing too?

I wouldn't think you'd be conspiracy theory type of guy, Gould.

Fact: Recording artists have had their work removed from WalMart stores because
lyrics could have been interpreted to be disdainful of WalMart. Example: Sheryl
Crowe.

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

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't think you'd be conspiracy theory type of guy, Gould.

Fact: Recording artists have had their work removed from WalMart stores
because
lyrics could have been interpreted to be disdainful of WalMart. Example:
Sheryl
Crowe

Why should Wal-Mart provide the medium by which a singer can spread
derogatory comments about Wal-Mart? If someone wanted to hold up a sign
saying "Gould is...(gay, a pedophile, etc)", would you offer them your front
lawn to carry it around on?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

I hope we would both agree that hate speech directed against racial
minorities,
sexual non-conformists, drug abusers, and liberals does *not* truly
epitomize a
true conservative philosophy.


I'd agree with you...except for the part about liberals.