Media Musings: Liberal radio voice doomed to fail
Some wealthy Chicago Democrats want to build a liberal radio network to counter the ultra-conservative radio and cable TV commentators.
Sounds like a reasonable and measured response, at first, because the theory of free discourse is a marketplace of ideas. And, if some ideas don’t get aired, then the democracy is left to fewer choices. But it is very doubtful the effort will work, even if Al Franken leads the list of potential liberal voices.
Some points should be made rather quickly. The major TV networks are moderate, both because of their history of government regulation and fear of making powerful political enemies. They have long known it’s better to engage all of the sides and let the people decide what they want to support. The liberal label the radical right has tried to place on them for so many years just doesn’t stick anymore.
Then there is the narrowness of the idea. Led by Rush Limbaugh, the most well-known talk and shout voices of the political right are but part of an much larger group of radio voices. It should not be overlooked there are many ultra-conservative radio and TV preachers who pound much the same message as Rush every day under the cloak of religion.
In our area, both Steve Gill and Phil Valentine are part of the same corps of commentators who can rally their angry white audiences to almost any cause and they aren’t the voices of moderate Republicans or Democrats. They do serve the purpose of venting anger, frustration, even fear, and that’s an important function long recognized by students of First Amendment theory. It’s certainly better to vent on radio than riot.
The reason they were so effective in stopping the income tax efforts in the last General Assembly wasn’t their daily attacks on the proposal but the cowardice of the legislature. To credit them with stopping that effort is giving them far too much recognition.
But there’s no doubt a liberal counterpoint to the national commentators of the conservative right is probably doomed to a quick death.
What is important to realize, and to give them credit for, is that ultra-conservative commentators have mastered the art of a seamless narrative.
They live in a world of fixed stars and absolutes that give them a high ground from which to pound liberal counter-points. Said simply, it’s almost impossible to open a serious debate with absolutists by saying such self-defeating lines as “This matter is very complex …” or “The history of the Middle East indicates that no solution has ever worked …” or “The Palestinians have a very solid case in their long struggle with Israel, for example …”
Shadings and nuances and subtleties are destroyed under the verbal artillery of “God gave that land to the Jews and it’s in the Bible.”
Ambiguity and paradox-especially in a time of war footing-fall under the hammers of simple black and white answers. The verbal hammer that’s impossible to overcome is what I call the “P-Card”, which is used when it appears an argument is either turning or being lost. “What kind of a person are you? Don’t you love America?Don’t you care about our boys in the military? If you don’t love America, then leave it and go live with the French.”
Right wing radio offers those “solutions” every day, now with attacks on our dearest allies and friends in Europe. There’s no concern for the unraveling of NATO, of the UN Security Council (an old right enemy), of European friendships decades old.
Upon their high ground of a belief that God made us the chosen people to dominate the world, no liberal thunderbolt will succeed.
Intellectual liberalism is no match for Fortress Ultra-Rightism.
(Ed Kimbrell is a professor in MTSU’s School of Journalism.)