Share

Progressives Lack a Limbaugh-Like Voice

by: George Lakoff  |  The San Francisco Chronicle

Rush Limbaugh.

Do Progressives need their own Rush Limbaugh? (Photo: AP)

    You turn the AM on and there's Rush, or Savage, or another of the army of right-wing radio talk show hosts. You may not be listening hard, just working, driving, doing busywork or the laundry. Yet if you listen day after day, year after year, your brain will begin to change.

    Words, even those heard casually and listened to incidentally, activate frames - structures of ideas that are physically realized in the brain. The more the words are heard, the more the frames are activated in the brain, and stronger their synapses get - until the frames are there permanently.

    All this is normal. It is how words work. And the right-wing message machine has found a way to take advantage of it - activating, as it were, a conservative system of thought.

    The problem is, those thoughts on the radio are hate city. Savage rails against what he calls "the weakening of the military" by "affirmative action," "illegal immigrants," and "Marxist politicians." What proves it? The submarine accident in the Gulf of Hormuz.

    Tune in to Rush. On the one hand he's pitching "rugged individualism," "liberty," and the absolute free market against Obama's call to unity and a sense of national responsibility.

    Then he's hammering the AIG bailout and its bonuses, not mentioning that it was the conservative destruction of reasonable regulation that lay behind our economic disaster.

    One diatribe after another, the crucial facts left out or lied about, day after day, city after city. It has an effect.

    Where are the progressives? Largely absent. Or talking issue by issue, not about general themes. We have some icons: Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert. But they only talk to us. They are not omnipresent.

    Can President Obama overcome all this? He is by far the best communicator in politics today. But what we get of him are sound bites, an occasional major address, and a five-minute talk Saturdays on You Tube. Meanwhile, the reporting in the media is about positions on issues, not about general principles that get repeated.

    The president does, indeed, think and talk using general principles: empathy (caring about others), responsibility for both oneself and others, and the ethic of excellence - working to make yourself, your community, the nation and the world better. He sees these as the basis of American democracy: Empathy is why we have principles like freedom and fairness, not just for ourselves but for everybody.

    In the absence of nationwide media cover, the president has to go barnstorming. His former campaign organization has chosen to reactivate its ground game to try to get ordinary people to go door-to-door, speaking in their own words from their own experiences, to gain support for his policies. The idea is for ordinary people to say what they sincerely believe to their neighbors.

    Can this strategy counter the right's message machine on the national level? We shall see.

    In California, the absence of articulate Democratic leaders with media presence has been particularly disastrous.

    Republican policies led to a $42 billion shortfall this year alone, and GOP lawmakers held up a state budget for nine months. Yet they did not get blamed for it.

    Why? The right-wing message machine is alive and well throughout California. Republicans get media cover. Democrats don't get their message out.

    Ideas matter. The words that express them matter. Communication matters. The Democrats don't need and shouldn't want their own Rush and Savage. But they could sure use an Obama in this state.

    -------

    George Lakoff is the author of "The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant!" He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The president is not a true

The president is not a true progressive. A real progressive would not have appointed the likes of Geithner, Summers, or Enamuel into power. The left wing movement does need more presence, but it will have to look elsewhere. Politicians on the Democratic party have proven themselves to be untrustworthy for doing this.

I've been wondering what is

I've been wondering what is happening with the FCC. Who, I think, can and should diffuse or change the ownership behind the media that the average American sees and hears every day. Rules were changed so that only a few corporations now own so much. It makes it hard for voices other than conservatives to be heard on CBS, NBC, ABC, and even MSNBC, and CNN because of the ownership of those corporations. And because of so few owners operating news media like it's just another dollar to be made, our news, our press has become news-o-tainment-out-to-make-a buck not news to inform and keep politicians and business honest for the people. Ownership of our news is a monopoly over the truth. They stifle voices other than what "they see" as being the main voice (conservative), in order to make a profit. They do not report on many issues, so they can get their money's worth out of each show. News programs should be there for the people as "Our Press", watching over the government and business, giving us citizens another point of view, not being in bed, even embedded with them. People in other countries understand that news in the US does not give all the facts. It's like they've been watching the very beginning of a tyrannical state. Without a decent press, without the FCC making sure all voices are heard so that the issues are investigated, we as a public will not know the facts, and we will be swayed by hammered out distorted fact and hate speech by extreme right-wingers, with nothing else on the airwaves to give us another point to consider. Where is the FCC in all this? Will it continue the right wing bent with it's monopolies, it's media ownership? If so, we will not have learned enough of the hard lessons, and there will be more.

Progressives are taught the

Progressives are taught the intelligence of being self-sufficient and able to THINK-4-OURSELF--NOT NEEDING A MASTER, because at times we may disagree, may make mistakes, have new ideas/directions, facts & situations change,& not be LIMITED to a handful of reactionary mt ideas.A master/leader really runs counter to intelligent development of the individual=progressives have MANY leaders, including themselves.

The axis of drivel like

The axis of drivel like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter appeal to Americans baser instincts of Nationalism, ethnic purity, group think, and free market greed and ambition. They have long ago given up the ideas of unity, logic, and doing the right thing. The left has fewer iconic heros because they are free thinkers and independents who rarely follow any organized group thinking. I think it is a blessing for us that we don't get trapped on a one way road. While we have less cohesiveness than the far right, it turns out that they are stuck in a rut with no logical way out. Logic is very important here. The progressives have it and the right doesn't.

There may be other

There may be other characteristics of progressives that make creating or tuning into a unified message machine improbable. First, progressives I know seem to like to get their information from varied sources: listening to or watching numerous programs, reading a variety of publications and books , all of which better allows them to read between the lines, or hear the lies in a message. Second, Mr. Lakoff's own theories about the differences in the natures of progressives and conservatives suggest that progressives don't gravitate to one authoritative voice repeating a message over and over. It grates, even if it is shouting ideas we agree with. AirAmerica's Randi Rhodes, for example, espoused much of what I emotionally agree with, but was unbearable to listen to, partly because she really wasn't all that informative. The last problem with a unified progressive message is, well, progressives. Because they don't want someone telling them what to do, they can barely agree on what TO do--or even who is a progressive (see the comment next to this). And they are so easily embarrassed, quick to declare someone not credible to speak for THEIR interests. Dennis Kucinich often says exactly what needs to be said, and he says it with passion and clarity. But, he has been painted as too strange to be credible, and progressives dismiss him. Noam Chomsky says it, but he's too intellectual to be credible. Just like the people who participated in the campaign, the mass of diverse voices is strong and has not gone away. Spreading progressive ideas from the ground up, neighbor to neighbor is powerful and cannot be taken away when the show goes off the air or the newspaper goes under. And maybe it's just the most comfortable form of spreading the message for progressives.

Folks, Wait a minute. You

Folks, Wait a minute. You would actually want a Progressive talk show host with the "mentality" of Rush Limbaugh? Get serious. The guy is a clown who rouses up a large group of people who cannot think for themselves. Look at the "Grown-Up" Republican politicians who keep proving that point. That, in itself, is the problem. Hopefully, once the education throughout this country improves, we should see even fewer republicans (and Limbaugh listeners), as they would finally see through the crap he spews at his republican listener. It's a wonder what brains of your own can do for you!

First off, Limbaugh is not a

First off, Limbaugh is not a communicator so much as he is a propagandist in the ilk of Goebbels. He does very well at propagandizing those who's own prejudices allow them to agree with what he spews out. Hate. Vitriol. Lies. Call it like it is. Secondly, there exist within the ranks of left wing talk show hosts a great many who are just as good as Limbaugh. I would place Rachael Maddow, Peter B. Collins, Big Eddy Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Bill Press, at the top of that list. Thirdly, you left out the most important reason the left has no 'voice'. Limbaugh is broadcast on over 600 radio stations. He is on 600 radio stations not because he's 'good'. Not because he brings in ratings. Not because his show is any better than anyone else. He is on 600 radio stations because its now possible for owners of radio stations to purchase all the media outlets in any given city, as many as they want. Limbaugh is there boy, and the owners of media will put there boy where they want to. Our boy gets put in the back of the bus. Until the monopoly of station ownership is broken up, and limits of ownership are returned to where they once were, diversity in media will evade the airwaves. And the likes of Limbaugh and his ravenous horde will spew forth from those that have, to those of us who have not as much. Fourthly, rather than beat on a President that does the best with what he has, write a column about the true reasons the left media is lacking a head. Or do you suffer from a velvet hammering yourself?

What Limbaugh appeals to is

What Limbaugh appeals to is the result of corporate power, viz. the resentment which grows in powerless people who have been sold a fantasy of being privileged just to be American. Lakoff is jittery here in a self-convicted way, i.e. his expertise is language and he has to believe in its power or else what is he doing with his life? Mass media does work powerfully well but not so well on people who are living their lives creatively rather than resentfully. Didn't Nietzsche lay all this out a century or more ago? People who knuckle under to authoritarian rule must both 1] affirm the validity of that authority or else admit that they're impotent and cowardly [which hurts so bad people will kill not to feel it] and 2] nevertheless live in resentment of authority. Sartre called it "living in bad faith." What the "right wing message machine" does is to say that the authority is "government" when in fact it is corporations. It isn't government that rations health care; it's health insurance companies. But people have been misled to believe that they can do nothing against corporations but since the government is "democratic" they can go against it. People will stand still while credit card companies drive up their interest rates then take the resentment they feel from their impotence and go to a school board meeting and scream at the school board for not teaching Intelligent Design, which is a part of religious authority. It's all jumbled up. We need clarity, not another professor who thinks we ought to use language to addict people to liberal or progressive ideas.

First, "Yet if you listen

First, "Yet if you listen day after day, year after year, your brain will begin to change." Now imagine watching 4-6 hours of TV per day, 365 days/year, from virtually the day you're brought home from the hospital... any wonder why we've become a society of passive, obese, greedy materialists? Second, one major point GL totally missed - progressives, liberals, etc simply do not listen to talk radio. We prefer music and comedy, unlike our "right" counterparts who contribute nothing cultural - no painting, no music, no movies, no comedy, no great fiction, etc - and, hence, are left with only anger, jealousy and resentment...

Yes we do. Ed Schulz does a

Yes we do. Ed Schulz does a very decent, though not perfect, job of this. He just doesn't sound like Rush because Schulz is not crazy and has not drunk tons of gallons of the koolade, or oxycontin, like Limbaugh. Al Franken did a great job when he was on the radio, now we are all hoping he will soon get to do a great job in the senate (and add a little levity there, doesn't that in fact ease our souls under conflict or any time?) What about Rachel Maddow? And best of all, we have Jon Stewart, personally responsible for genuinely educating an entire generation of Americans - to the good, way good. Colbert helps too, though not quite the educator in between the lines. Smart, funny, brilliant, handsome, I'll give him those anyday. No progressive is going to sound like Rush Limbaugh, and if one were that rabid, we would have to axe the guy or gal from the radio. We just don't think in black and white that way.

And now we have

And now we have Twitter. Anything worth saying can not be said in 140 characters. But many conservative slogans fit into Twitter's parameters. "Love it or leave it" "Liberals Hate America" "Red, White and Blue: Our Colors Never Run" Twitter equals Bumper Stickers for the Digital Age.

Gee, I could have told you

Gee, I could have told you that years ago...

Progressives do have a

Progressives do have a similar "voice". From a strickly sonic perspective, there is Ed Shultz. The first time I heard him on the radio, I swore I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, that is, until about the third sentence. I think this is why he initially became the number 1 progressive voice on his own and on Air America. Others, like myself thought they were hearing Rush, and to their amazement, there WAS a strong voice on the progressive side. As many know, he now has his own show on MSNBC next to Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann. Though perhaps more of a moderate than the aforementioned, he is none the less a champion for progressive principles. I saw him live here in Portland, OR last fall at a Town Hall event and he does know how to "rally the troops". If there is a problem with "the choir" to whom he preaches, it is because the choir has a strong understanding of the music on it's own and does not blindly follow the conductor in the same way Neo-cons do. We, as members of this choir need to learn that our diverse voices, although capable of rich harmony, need to stay together, on message with all of our best conductors. Despite the plethora of right-wing talk shows on the airwaves, the Neo-con agenda is now crumbling under it's own weight. With time, patients, and aggressive progressive leadership, the market forces will shift the other way. NBC - MSNBC understood this trend and apparently even Rupert Murdock has privately noted and will embraced this trend. We should caution ourselves, however. We cannot have, nor shall we want a swing too far the other way. These ideologies have been with civilization since the ancient times, when will we learn that the middle of the road is the only way to stay on the road. I think we are all tired of ending up in the ditch! -Mark in Portland

PS Jon Stewart is indeed

PS Jon Stewart is indeed ubiquitous. Whose minds do you want to change, George. I would rather focus on waking up progressives; too many vote but don't get active, though this sure got better during the last election. Keep writing your books. Your book almost single handedly changed our Dem organization in my Oregon county, because we ourselves have a lot to learn about putting aside our own agendas and getting on the same page, letting values guide our message. We took what you taught us very, very seriously and did whole workshops on it. As new people come in, we have to teach it again, as people don't get it at first, and when and if they don't, they can tear apart a solid org. Rush is not our greatest problem; we are always our greatest problem (isn't that usually the truth?) I hear you, but I think there are plenty of other ways to work around his kind of influence. Other ways to reach and change brains. Not least of all, having our sons and daughters, and even ourselves, regain hope and respect by watching how Obama is leading. He is amazing, regardless of whatever particular mistakes or disagreements people, including progressives, may have with him. He is brilliant and subtle, yet ethical and heartfelt. All of this shows daily.

Besides, it is fixing this

Besides, it is fixing this forlorn, inherited mess that will heal us and change minds. I think we are running as fast as we can. But it takes everyone. Just get involved people. Go down to your local Dem office and ask what you can do. If they are crazy there, and some are, then get in there and straighten it out. Bring in your sane friends. The possibilities are endless; I have seen the results: local, local, local. Get progressives to stop their infighting and just work to get good people elected. Then policy can be debated. Only then.

Anyone, anyone, should think

Anyone, anyone, should think for themselves, gather information and make decisions. WHY George, do we need someone to tell us what to do? I grew tired of your theories a while ago with the "framing" junk. Think on your own. THAT is why progressives don't a a "Rush" voice. We don't need it.

The FCC and the station

The FCC and the station owners decide who gets on the air. It does not seem to matter if a show gets #1 ratings in a city, they will pull it off the air if it is too liberal.

Two words: Jon Stewart.

Two words: Jon Stewart. Stephen Colbert won't do because those who are half-listening might take his persona seriously. We need a Daily Show world service on radio.

Lakoff may be right but if

Lakoff may be right but if the left ever sounds like Limbaugh it will be time for me to vote conservative or flee to Australia. what a real left would need is some actual intelligent discussion, because whatever you think, Obama and his advisors are not holding a "nationa discussion on..." they, like all other administrations, are listening to themselves and a few chosen "non partisan experts."

This isn't about "getting

This isn't about "getting our own Rush Limbaugh." It's about the way our brains passively take in what we hear and incorporate it. Eventually what we take in becomes a facsimile of "truth." Operant word here: PASSIVELY. The area of concern here is not about preaching to the choir; it's the incorporation of received ideas by the people who decide our elections: the ones in the middle who haven't independently formulated their own thoughts AND who aren't really actively trying to - they're busy "just working, driving, doing busywork or the laundry." These are not people who are debating the finer points of public policy or political decision-making, either on the left OR the right. Grandma K (below) is right -- those who own the public media, in particular those media capable of disseminating opinion for passive reception (not those that involve active selection - like Truthout, Salon, even reading a newspaper - remember those?) - those owners are the people who get to choose what is received, over and over, by the Undecideds during their morning commute or in their laundry rooms. In my opinion, the gutting of the FCC was one of the more insidious products of BushCo's grip on lawmaking; there's effectively only one voice now, and that's the voice of the wealthy who own the media and who benefit most from the tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy policymaking that has resulted.

What we need is a way to

What we need is a way to learn to speak the truth -- to differentiate truth from falsehood...and how to engage one another about mending our ways, naming our needs, asking the right questions that will help us all ti find the means to serve our variegated communities and allow them some measure of vitality. The idea of winning, by any means possible, is what has lead to nearly all of the messes we are now in. To ape the methods of propagandists is to me a horrible idea. Worse for the liberals to do because they would not relish the lying quite as much. Some place of nagging conscience would temper their passion. It is the passion that is selling. Well, let us speak passionately and with love...and with the temperance that the respect of love brings in our discourses and in finding our ways out of this mess.

It might be useful to study

It might be useful to study the propaganda techniques of Dr Goebbels closely. It's obvious that the Wall St- Washington cabal's propaganda isn't nearly as effective as that created and used by Goebbels. R.P.

What a horrible thought...to

What a horrible thought...to answer propaganda with propaganda! distortions of the truth with distortions of another calibre. we need to learn to Tell the truth...to be able to differentiate truth from falsehood...to speak from our hearts and get beyond needing to win...whatever...a country, an argument, an election...no, we need beyond all of that. Ignore the liars; why are you so caught in their game? Find ways to speak and envision a future that makes sense for each individual in every community according to its sensibility, history and needs. And, yes, give the media back to the people...that representatives of the corporate world are controlling the media airwaves and framing the story is very scary. but the answer is NOT what you are suggesting!

"The Democrats don't need

"The Democrats don't need and shouldn't want their own Rush and Savage." Lakoff is correct; the Democrats and liberals don't need to lie, distort and spread hatred and division like Limbaugh and Weiner. However, they do need a national radio show that is on as many stations, as many hours a day, with equally strong and confident voices. Why don't we have a progressive equivalent of Limbaugh? Well, it's because most of the station owners---who are using licenses to operate on the public airwaves---like the rhetoric and politics of Limbaugh and Wiener. And these station owners don't like liberals. That's why we used to have a Fairness Doctrine: not to censor any opinions, but to make sure that station owners didn't censor any opinions. Left to their own devices, station owners will feature right-wing talk 24/7 and shut progressive voices out of the debate. The FCC should mandate that all station owners provide an equal amount of airtime to contrasting opinions. For every hour of right-wing talk, they should be required to provide an hour of progressive talk. Don't let the conservatives claim that this is "censoring"their opinions on radio. That's nonsense. What we're talking about is keeping a balance of opinion---50 - 50---on any stations operating through publicly granted licenses.

Hypnotic right wing

Hypnotic right wing propaganda could never work in reverse for progressives. I don't know of any true left thinker who after hearing about an issue doesn't say, oh okay, I'll go and do some research on it myself. Someone mentioned Randi Rhodes, she came to mind for me too only I love Randi and even though she is passionate, she researches a subject before espousing on it so that it is a fact and not just opinion. But she will tell us, here is where I got my information, look it up yourself, DON'T JUST BELIEVE ME. Randi Rhodes is coming back on the air on May 11th, and I couldn't be happier. A Rush Limpbaugh SHE IS NOT and thank you for that.

All this self pity and

All this self pity and complaining about Limbaugh and the like is amusing. We don't need a leftish version of Limbaugh, what we need is to get him and the Fox newsboys and blondes off the air. The way to do this is find out who is sponsoring this nonsense and threaten them with boycotts. This is a tactic the right has used for years to powerful effect. This is also a perfectly respectable approach to take that allows each individual to empower themselves by refusing to patronize the people who sponsor hate and lies. This is the one thing that can shut up Rush, get him off the air.

The conservative mind bent

The conservative mind bent is just that..a bent mind that has lost all ability to feel empathy for their fellow human beings. We all have a few like that in our own family tree .

I think America is catching

I think America is catching on to the "Conservative" lingo. I believe most of them are denying it. When I was first of voting age, I just thought that the message of the "Silent Majority" was so cool. I bought into the rhetoric of the right - was also brought up Republican. But as the years went on and I watched the Watergate hearing, I became an Independent with Republican leanings. Then Reagan canceled the Endowment for the Arts and I watched the Ollie North hearings, I became a Democratic leaning independent. Then in '88 we had a family crisis. I felt I needed the help of my Congressmen. My Republican Senator snubbed me and my Democratic Congressman helped me substantially. I became a registered Democrat. After GW's first term, I worked on the Kerry campaign and now I am involved in our county Democratic politics. Voters no longer believe the conservative ideology is the end all, be all. It has failed us and we realize it. It took some people longer than others to come to this conclusion. That doesn't mean that we can give up for a moment. We still have the upper hand on the Internet and more people become acquainted with the realities of conservatism and they will, I don't see it rearing it's ugly head for a while. Due diligence, people.

It is not in "our" sense of

It is not in "our" sense of the world to need demagogues. We have to reject and condemn them, at every turn. Let it be the mark of "progressives"to favor rational discourse, appeal to reason and support leaders devoted to those virtues at every turn instead.

Ideas matter. Progressive

Ideas matter. Progressive ideas have been successfully marginalized by corporate-owned media since the FCC got rid of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. If they get heard at all by the majority of Americans, often there's 7 conservatives to 1 progressive so the progressive gets a minimum amount of airtime to make his/her points. A number of big corporations started boycotting networks that carried AirAmerica, not advertising there. Every cause that matters to progressives, including the environment, healthcare, green energy, peace, fair trade, living wages, labor relations and civil rights, depends on our ability to persuade our fellow citizens of the value of our ideas. If we get a vastly unequal seat at the media table, the vast majority of Americans are going to believe our ideas are kooky, not sound ones that our nation needs to hear.

The issue is to ensure that

The issue is to ensure that progressive ideas get heard too. In a vacuum where they are rarely heard, and where Rush and his soul-mates regularly distort our ideas so they seem foolish, ill-advised or even crazy, the majority of Americans are not getting the opportunity to hear our perspectives, learn that we are not America's enemy but deeply love our country and its best values, and that maybe, just maybe, our ideas are best. I believe that on a level playing field, where the marketplace of ideas gives a fair hearing, our ideas would win. That's undoubtedly why the right had to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Their ideas don't hold up all that well in a free and open discussion. After more than twenty years of right wing views dominating the airwaves, many Americans' paradigms have become locked. No one reasonable progressive can persuade them. But over time, if they hear other points of view frequently, little by little I think we would be restored to the progressive nation we have historically been.

The ultra-right-wing ranters

The ultra-right-wing ranters are all Pavlovian slogan slingers, and those who listen to them and repeat those slogans are obviously simplistic non-thinkers, just knee-jerk leapers. Unfortunately they vote -- as "instructed." With the downslide of newspapers, not all of which are enlighteners, the ranters will gain audience share. One of the situations that must be reversed is the string of actions that loosened the controls on media ownership, which got Rupert Murdoch into the catbird seat, owning multiple TV stations and print papers (I can't call them newspapers -- not even the WSJ any more). I doubt that any agency could force him to sell, even if the law got re-enacted for future moguls. We're just gonna have to outthink the flea-brains that fee on the Fox Fogheads, and hope that the airtime of Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz (I don't quite trust Matthews) gets spread around. At least Maddow is on AirAmerica -- it would be good if AA could expand to include one or more of the others.

I don't think Lakoff is

I don't think Lakoff is calling for a loud, boisterous lefty version of Rush dispensing alternative propaganda and hate speech, but a bold, engaging, passionate and ubiquitous voice that tells the truth and puts the issues into a larger framework easily understood by laymen. There is nothing wrong with presenting facts and informed opinions in the form of wisecracks, catchphrases and other quotable sound bites- if you do it right. Jon Stewart does it right, and so does Bill Maher. I believe in addition that we can train and empower millions of "amateur" progressives to take on Rush, O'Reilly and their odious ilk in everyday life; arming them with facts, jokes and solid arguments to fight right-wing lies and distortions at every opportunity.

Rush Limbaugh isn't the

Rush Limbaugh isn't the answer. He's not even the question! Why do the right wing extremists get so much play and more thoughtful left or liberal so little airtime? 1) It is not in the best interests of the power elite to have an informed public. They prefer that we stay focused on a Rush Limbaugh or the latest movie star scandal. They don't want us thinking about pollution, about people dying for corporate ends, about real solutions to the health care crisis, about sustainable energy that doesn't rely on oil or nuclear. (Yes, I know - how can they call oil/synthetic fuels or nuclear sustainable!? They prefer to lift our wallets while we are distracted by whatever the latest strip-tease is out there. 2) There are still a lot of people out there who think that the only way they can look good is if someone else looks worse; the only way they can be strong if someone else is made weak. Rush & company provide them with a way escape their sense that they are being used. They ARE being used! - by the right. Their wallets are not only being lifted - they are like the boys in Candyland in the Pinocchio story - they are being turned into donkeys with a diet of candy and illusions. The real question is how can we get some regulation back into the FCC? Another approach that sometimes works: Call the advertisers and threaten to boycott their products if they support drivel and hate. If enough people do this, they will run scared. Also, call the station and tell them you are surprised that they are disregarding their duty to the public by carrying such nonsense - and that you are also calling the advertisers. Call the stations and comment on the quality of the news coverage too. If a number of people commit to doing things like this once a day or once a week or once a month, THERE WILL BE CHANGE. In the end IT IS UP TO US!

The problem is, as someone

The problem is, as someone else said, the huge national audiences Limbaugh gets as a result of the ownership rules change (FCC). I once suggested to you, George, that you yourself have a syndicated show, maybe just 5 minutes a day, like Paul Harvey, where you deconstruct the latest right wing meme. If you won't do it, someone, perhaps someone with wit, can do this much needed job and, if entertaining enough, may get more exposure.

The problem is not that

The problem is not that progressive talkers are not a driving force; they are not getting their message out. For example, my area is mostly democratic, but if you listen to the local talk radio stations, you would never know it. The local stations are one hundred percent right-wing talkers, local TV stations are republican controlled and the supposedly liberal newspaper is a bastion of corporate propaganda with bits of corporate welfare and greed occasionally exposed. The democrat controlled FCC is MIA when it comes to regulating these nationally owned media outlets. The monopoly of right-wing talkers spewing out propaganda 24/7 serves as reinforcement for extremist ideology, which feeds on hate and violence. Thereby, making it much more dangerous for minorities and anyone else that does not fit their stereotype. Exposing the right-wing as the idiots they are instead of a republican political force would have happened years ago if it were not for media propaganda from FOX News and the right wing talkers controlling our publicly owned airwaves.

Why is there no big push to

Why is there no big push to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine?" This would keep corporations & big money from usurping the airwaves.

"Every contract, combination

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal" (Sherman Antitrust act: 1890). Gee.. it would be nice if America was as zealous about the bill of rights and protecting freedom of speech from monopolization as it is about "free trade." Guess W and the Republican Fascist Party changed all that.

That's because most

That's because most progressives have an inner voice of conscience that guides them, not a misguided one from AM radio.........

Limbaugh and his

Limbaugh and his Excrement..... whoops..."Excellence" in Broadcasting does have way too much power to influence our fellow countrymen/women. People tell me that things are shifting, but I can't say that I know a single conservative who isn't still spouting what they've been fed. My conservative friends are neither stupid, nor insensitive. But their sources of "news" are letting them down. I agree that ownership of media outlets needs to be limited, but trying for anything like equal time is folly. We can see from the Sunday morning tv talk shows that one moderate progressive is seen as balanced out by three ratwingers. In the meantime, I've taken to responding to all the forwarded email diatribes I receive with the most concise, diplomatic thinking that my wattage allows me. I send it to everyone on the list that received the email whose address I recognize. I don't kid myself that my thoughts will convert anyone, or in many cases even be read..... but I think that if everyone did this, and in a DIPLOMATIC way, ( I reserve my smartass terms like ratwinger for the times I'm talking to people I know are liberals) we might make some inroads. I know that it took me years to gradually move away from my adolescent thinking. And much of that was because someone I liked and respected said something which made me think.

Haven't any of you heard Ed

Haven't any of you heard Ed Schultz? There are times when I think for a moment I'm on the wrong station. He's on MSNBCTV now too, besides an afternoon program for 3 hrs. Randy's coming back. Rachel Keith Ed,Randy and Edwards thom Hartmann and Bill Moyers should be able to hold the progressive fort until there is a law mandating fairness. And BTW isn't it enough that he RL is all over the place without your putting him all over the place too? Name recognition is a key component in the election he will be wanting to win. Why help him or at least just talk about him if you must but KEEP HIS FACE OUT OF MINE or I swear I'll unsubscribe. Let's be pro active for once and IGNORE him.

Now that Ed Schultz is on

Now that Ed Schultz is on MSNBC I think more people will become aware of him and that we do have many progressive 'personalities. Randi Rhodes will be returning soon. Thom Hartmann is a very intelligent talk show host. Rachel Maddow moved from AirAmerica to MSNBC with her hilarious sidekick Kent Jones. Stephanie Miller is the best thing that ever happened to morning radio. Mike Malloy kicks ass and isn't afraid to show righteous anger. Many of them have outperformed the Limbaughs and the Savages when given the chance to be heard but it's rather difficult when the only "choice" most Americans have is conservative talk radio or more conservative talk radio. When that swill is being pounded into your brains 24/7 it makes it difficult to come to an intelligent, well-informed opinion but then I rather imagine that's exactly what the great corporate powers that be want. You can't have a healthy democracy with a poorly educated, poorly informed public. What better way to foster the herd mentality.

George Lakoff has written

George Lakoff has written many excellent critiques. This piece is not one of them. He seems to conflate multiple issues, including (and especially) media choice and political organizing. Limbaugh and the rest of the hate-and-fear gamg get airplay only because people listen. No listeners, no advertisers, no airplay. They are distributing a popular product. I wish hatred and fear did not sell so well in America today. But they do. "You are what you eat." You listen to enough of that stuff and you become habitually hating and fearful. A steady diet of venomous drivel must feel good or somehow satisfy the needs of many people β€” by definition, or it wouldn't sell. Ditto, substance abuse. Ditto, hours a day of gratuitous, desensitizing violence and incivility on TV. ("Incivility." The concept seems almost quaint by today's mainsream media standards, doesn't it?) Regardless: people buy it all. Otherwise β€” again, by definition β€” there would be no economic basis to sustain these products. I can be as outraged as any progressive, bemoaning a society in which hate-and-fear mongering (and drugs, and violence, and incivility) are so readily embraced by so many people. Perhaps we need some deep thinking about what makes them all so seductively sustainable β€” and what can be done to shift the balance, to woo a fair number of these customers away from what they are consuming. Perhaps Obama's grassroots door-to-door approach is as good as any. Perhaps it will require a multi-pronged effort over a generation's time: changing the conversation, getting folks to look seriously at what media they choose to consume. I don't have the answers. But I do think the right questions (read: the most productive questions) need to be asked. Bemoaning Rush & Co. is a distraction. What can we do to make hatred and fear less seductive, less welcome a product, than they are today? Let's start there, Dr. Lakoff.

There are several great

There are several great progressive voices to answer Limbaugh although they are not heard because of the corporate stronghold on the media and the suspension of the fairness doctrine in broadcasting.Try Mike Malloy,Sam Seder,Thom Hartman to mention a few.What truly sets them apart from Rush and company is they research their material and it is based on facts.

The problem is bigger than

The problem is bigger than Limbaugh.. Its the 800lb gorilla in the room which no one will ever ever dare talk about: ordinary Americans don't have a media of their own. The media outlets we call "American" including 'liberal' TV, movies, press, and whatever gets on the airwaves is owned and controlled by agents of a foreign nation, who use it extremely effectively to control the population at large; to the last 30 second commercial spot that is allowed to run. Political parties don't matter, left or right doesn't matter, the message is consistent; large government controlling more and more of the affairs of our daily life depriving us of our freedoms every single day. If a popular 'liberal' voice emerges, the message wouldn't be different than the one being delivered by Limbaugh, only the words used would be different.

A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IN MEDIA

A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IN MEDIA used to exist in this country, where it was required by media to give equal time to opposing political views. The Fairness Doctrine was done away with by Reagan....... Limbaugh could not do what he does the way he does it if such a Doctrine, a better Regulatory Doctrine, existed today..... If you look at the Country since the ending of the Fairness Doctrine in 198 alongside the fact that ever since, Congresses and Presidents have busily Deregulated Media Ownership Rules to a degree to where an almost total lack of regulations has now allowed for such a severe concentration of Media ownership in all forms by singular entities that as a Nation, WE went from a Country with several hundred separate, diverse entities just a few decades ago down to where now, almost all media in America is owned and operated by just a few gigantic Corporations--- Why is anyone surprised that OUR SO CALLED FREE PRESS (Broadcast, Cable, Print, Publishing) has become little more than a unified field of self serving Corporate Media Enterprises in America..? Why is anyone surprised that the UNITED STATS OF AMERICA now has 24/7, Non-Debated, Ranting Propaganda Media Machines with actual Big Mouth Stars of National Self Destruction busily Dividing Americans into Two Opposing Political-Social-Cultural Camps, they work hard at pitting against each other while laughing all the way to the bank... ???.... And don't expect any changes... Presidents and Congresses are afraid of Media Moguls... If you were a Congressman or Senator or President, thoughts of a Mogul under your bed is what would give you the creeps... Even as it gives the Citizens of the United States of America Terminal Hatreds and Intolerances....... FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT.... The Right to Own ALL the Media so that only the Speech of the Corporate-owned few can be heard is only a Right that lasts as long as WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW IT TO LAST...

It's pretty funny hearing

It's pretty funny hearing liberals gripe about the dreaded conservative message machine. Liberals largely control the major media, plus the education system which is pretty much a liberal indoctrination camp, especially at colleges and universities. But that is not enough for liberals, seemingly annoyed that they do not yet control every communication. If you think liberals are above Rush Limbaugh's style, you haven't been listening very closely to Bill Maher. But perhaps liberals' superior attitude is a good thing. Pride goes before a fall.

Keith Olbermann, but he is

Keith Olbermann, but he is hidden on MSNBC, and his silly spots take up too much time. When he is good, he is very, very good and Murrow-like. We need more of him.

Support Mike Malloy! If

Support Mike Malloy! If liberals want someone to act as the "Progressive Rush Limbaugh" Mike Malloy is your man. He is on the air every week night from 9 10 midnight e.s.t.

'''It's pretty funny

'''It's pretty funny hearing'''' Mon, 04/27/2009 - 05:02 β€” Anonymous.............. To Anonymous 05:02----- You say that Media in America is largely controlled by Liberals... I have to ask you... Are you talking about Limbaugh?... 2-3,000 Rightwing Radio Stations..? 24/7 Fox News...?... WestWood One..?... The Washington Times..? the New York Post..?... Forbes..?... The Sinclair Group...?... The Wall Street Journal...? News Corp..?...Just to name a few... So---- Which Largely Liberal Controlled Media are you talking about...?

Another great intelligent

Another great intelligent AND entertaining progressive voice is Cenk Uygur, whom runs a progressive web show on The Young Turks.

Lakoff is correct about

Lakoff is correct about California. One wonders if the lack of energy on the Dem side is due to the poor choice of Sacramento as capitol, or if it's a combo of picky lefties and frenzied righties. I live here and have never figured out why the Sacto Dems are so out of touch and blase. They never send $ or energy to the Dems down here. And a lot of libs are too cool and stylin' to be Dems. Still, a bit of a mystery why we gave Reagan and Nixon to the world and have had so many neanderthal Governors. The Sacto crowd is lazy, that's the feeling I get, but maybe the demographic supports the results. Nationally, who owns the stations? And what are their politics? That's the first question. Secondly, whatever happened to Air America which, popular in San Diego, was pulled a couple of years ago for yet another 24-hr sports show that has nowhere near the number of listeners? Many of the postings here are correct, in my opinion: folks like Murdoch systematically bought up the airwaves that reach the audience, people are easily manipulated into anger and fear (but also want good feelings like those Obama generates), and there is a big push-back vs Hate radio but it's taking some time, for the former is by now quite entrenched. Hate Inc. has some energy right now because there's an enemy in the White House, but I think that will prove temporary if rational folks keep a better message going.

I reject the suggestion that

I reject the suggestion that Limbaugh's reasoning wears people down over time. This is only if there is no counterbalance. Limbaugh and Hannity survive only because their listeners do not vet their arguments in open debate. They censor the news by not allowing articulate dissent on their programs.

Ok everyone start supporting

Ok everyone start supporting progressive talk radio if you are unhappy with the reich-wing death grip of the radio waves.Here in San Francisco its on 960 Am radio dial,GREEN 960.hear intelligent programs like Thom Hartman,and Ring of Fire with Mike Pampantonio & Bobby Kennedy Jr. Ed Shultz IS the lefts answer to Rush Lintball. Mike Malloy the antidote to Mike Savage. TUNE IN YOUR LOCAL PROGRESSIVE STATION

California is a lot like

California is a lot like Iraq, it's really 3 separate states rolled into one. There's South California which stretches from the border to the Orange County line. Then there's South Central California which includes LA and SF. Then there's North California which inlcudes Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley all the way to the border. That's the real problem, since South and North share the neanderthal republicans and South Central gets all the liberals. Even though the liberals are by far the largest population bloc, the big money (agriculture, defense, finance and government) supports the conservatives.

To Anonymous 14:09: You

To Anonymous 14:09: You asked, "You say that Media in America is largely controlled by Liberals... I have to ask you... Are you talking about Limbaugh?... 2-3,000 Rightwing Radio Stations..? 24/7 Fox News...?... WestWood One..?... The Washington Times..? the New York Post..?... Forbes..?... The Sinclair Group...?... The Wall Street Journal...? News Corp..?...." Bravo, you have listed pretty much all the media that does not have a liberal bias, so the part with the liberal bias would be most everything else. Numerous studies have shown that journalists are much more likely to favor liberal candidates and describe themselves as liberal or as Democrats. Polling indicates people are 3x as likely to perceive the media has a liberal bias as to perceive a conservative bias. However, some liberals are not satisfied with anything less than 100%. For everyone who thinks the Fairness Doctrine should be brought back: Why not bring it to academia as well? Why not mandate a conservative professor for every liberal one? And for every fringe radical like Ayers, there should be a neo-nazi professor. I do not personally want neo-nazi professors, but I do not think it is any better having radical leftists on campus. Better to be rid of them both. If we're going to have "fairness" in talk radio, let's have it on campus, too!

Maybe we ought to ask the

Maybe we ought to ask the Obama administration to bail out the newspapers. Seriously. Money for balanced news, because if newspapers cease to exist there will be no balanced news sources left.

No, we don't want nor do we

No, we don't want nor do we need a "Progressive Limbaugh"- that would be an oxymoron-- he and his friends succeed by fomenting irrational anger, Goebells style, supported by anonymous hate mongers on call in shows, which appeal to our "primitive brain." . Liberals generally prefer solid, thoughtful,factual objective news programs like the Lehrer hour on PBS-- that's why most educated folks-- journalists, professors, etc. are Democrats. The solution is not a ranting, screaming Progressive hate monger, it is to help educate folks to get their news from rational people instead of the wild-eyed apprentices of our local NSDAP. If a liberal Limbaugh would appear, I'd turn him off as fast as I would a Savage, Colter, Hannity, or any other hate-filled propagandist.

Blame the corporate

Blame the corporate controlled media. There are plenty of progressive voices, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Jim Hightower come immediately to mind, but in the USA people like these are lucky to stay out of jail much less appear on Fox News or in any of Rupert Murdoch's media properties. A progressive like Bill Maher is restricted to HBO while the right wing Rush Limbaugh is paid millions as a ranter without portfolio and shill for the Republican Party. A good part of the loss of readership by the corporate newspapers is their pandering to the right wing neo-cons which has forced people to seek the real news on the internet.

Progressives have for years

Progressives have for years had a clear voice in the form of Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. I am amazed that no one else has mentioned her.

Mark Twain is generally

Mark Twain is generally quoted as having said "A lie goes half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on"

The problem with California

The problem with California is its referendum process whereby any well-funded (i.e. corporate or religious sect like the Mormons) can put a measure on the ballot and then spend millions to convince voters that there yes vote on some measure is for the public interest. It put the present governor into office, and the press carefully censored all the news about his frequent sexual harassment of women in the weeks leading up to the election that was done after a corporate financed recall campaign against Gray Davis. Without campaign finance reform corporate money will continue as it has historically to dominate California politics. The miracle is that anything of value is done by the government workers who have to deal with the interference of lobbyists and the governor in trying to do their jobs.

There's Ed Shultz and Thom

There's Ed Shultz and Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Randi Rhodes is soon back on the air, and Mike Malloy for AM talk radio junkies.. KRXA AM in Monterey, Ca. is a great station. A shout out to Pacifica Radio FM stations and Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. We need to bring back the fairness in media doctrine. Finally, Keith Olbermann has been a star on MSNBC. Regarding having a pit bull on the left, I am volunteering myself for that job on the radio, and I'll come cheap. give me $60K a year! I will go after Hannity, Limbaugh, Bill-O the Clown, and all right wing Fascists with a venom that they never heard yet!

The problem is that both

The problem is that both sides are completely detached from reality. So called Liberals continue to propagate the festival of lies from the 911 commission, the utterly destructive "War on Drugs" and massive military expenditures, wars of aggression and conquest and hundreds of military outposts protecting 'our resources' in whatever country they happen to be located.

Limbaugh, Saage and Hannity

Limbaugh, Saage and Hannity etc. Have an airspace because they are not truth tellers but, entertainers that who prefer to incite people rather than promote critical thought. The media outlets that give them air time promote the agenda they espouse only because it makes money. Real conservative thinkers like Bill Buckley were a treat o listen to because they believed in thier position and had thoughtful arguments to make. Progressives and liberals, while not always right, usually have a more thoughtful and gracious approach to debate unlike th bores like Hannity and Bill O'riley etc. They just shout down the opposition with lies. Unfortunately if the liberals have a Limbaugh Fox news style mouthpiece it would not enlighhten the debate just debase it

The posters that take issue

The posters that take issue with the articles main thesis are correct. The progressive left does not need lying, bombastic demagogues to speak for them. What we need is what we've had: intelligent, thoughtful comment and wit. Over time, this will win over the right-wing hate machine.