Lefty "Yawnahue" gets the Ax!

A brief excerpt from the article...

<FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=1><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><B>NEW YORK </B></FONT></FONT></FONT>- <FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=1><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><I>MSNBC fired Phil Donahue on Tuesday, abruptly ending the veteran talk show host's return to television after six months of poor ratings. ......
...The political talk show format has yet to prove — and may never — that it can support a liberal voice, said Andrew Tyndall, head of ADT Research, a television news consulting firm. </I></FONT></FONT></FONT>

Another ignorant left wing talk show "wannabee" bites the dust. Does anyone have a take on just why these characters can't seem to pull an audience? I have my own opinion of course. I think that the liberal dogma spouted on these shows doesn't stand up to scrutiny and crumbles under it's own falseness. The liberal host is left with no alternative than to silence a guest with an opossing view rather than play out the conversation! I mean nobody want's to be 'lectured' about their beliefs when the speaker repeatedly doesn't have a shread of acceptable evidence to support his/her view.

Obviously that's just my opinion.. Which is right 99% of the time of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that the conservative dogma spouted on these shows doesn't stand up to scrutiny and crumbles under it's own falseness. The conservative host is left with no alternative than to silence a guest with an opossing view rather than play out the conversation.

Both sides are guilty of the same methods, and all who watch are ditto-heads.

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So when given a choice most people choose Jerry Springer? Who was it who said

Some old wise dude I bet.

Enough bread and circuses and politics becomes irelevent.
Name a topical Right wing show with an audience one tenth of Dhama and Greg.

Gotta Go
Ali Mcbeals just starting....
Dee Cee

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it's a pity. I just watched some of his interview with Peter Jennings, and there was more detail in that conversation concerning pertinent Iraqi and Arab attitudes approaching the American Occupation than I have seen on major media in a long time. I think the media, and the viewers too, are more into glitz and world-events-as-entertainment than in conveying meaningful and factual information. Not only would it be refreshing to have less than far-right interviews, but a slower pace. The stacatto questioning style now in vogue only dances along the surface. MacNeal-Lehrer Cspan, and BBC are my only TV stops now.

 

To his credit, Donahue began the genre. It was revolutionary tv in its day. But as in all things, times change and the revolutionary becomes pedestrian and then passe.

 

Don't shoot the messenger goof! I'm only pointing out the facts! Why do conservative hosted shows flourish? Even if I agree to your response that both engage in the same conduct why do the conservative hosted shows flourish and the liberal hosted shows get ignored? Parroting my words isn't going to bring back the Yawnmiester! Anyway fish, I gotta ask.. what's with the pot leaf thing? Are you like 12 years old or something! Come on man! "peace" hahahaha

DeeCee makes the frightening point that more people watch that Springer and Oprah crap than what I'm referring to.. Then again, maybe that's why liberal talk shows wither and die, their audience would rather be watching Jerry Springer? hmmmmm

 

It wasn't my intent to shoot the messenger. I was merely pointing out my belief that the axe swings both ways. Intelligent people across the entire political spectrum are unsuited for television.

Television rewards the shallow, smug, small-minded shouters who so densely populate its blasted wastelands. Intelligent people don't speak in soundbites; they speak in whole paragraphs and use words extending to four, five, and even six syllables. Intelligent people know history and have analytical ability that they use to solve problems. Intelligent people know that few problems are simple and therefore many solutions are complex, even ambiguous. The world is not black-and-white.

Does this sound like something television, or the majority of the attention deficit disordered American people, could handle?

We at SciForums have flocked to the Internet because here we can have reasonable, extended conversations by posting our analyses on threads such as this one. On television, the people talk AT you, but you rarely get to talk TO them. Fat people, old people, bald people, anyone who's not gorgeous or vapid or both, have little chance of appearing on the television, at least in America - and old ugly fat bald people have most of the best ideas, for they've had to develop their minds rather than working on a 'six pack' abdomen or a wavy head of hair that takes two hours to comb.

No, forget about ever getting anything intelligent out of the television. The radio has some possibilities, but it's print - electronic, newspapers and magazines - where the only true hope for communicating complete ideas lie.

Which only proves that neither camp is experiencing true intellectual stimulation as a result of their viewing choices.

:m: Peace.

 

Very good reply.. not that you need me to tell you that. (The first one wasn't by the way.. or lets just say it was too cursery to be understood as you wished). To disagree with most of what you said would be splitting hairs on my part.

Oh yeah, heh, you even stepped over my cannabis jab.. very good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with your assessment of the media here, Goofy. But how much do you think any media other than television is "losing" the battle to disseminate information? One of my concerns is that the level of literacy and numeracy I see displayed by young people is steadily dropping. Not that they can't read or write... but that they can't do so as well as they should. Books are "boring" compared to computer games, or TV.

How long will it be before media other than TV or the internet become antiquated?

 

i think the oreilly show is the best on tv. the no spin zone and then hanaty and colmes.

 

Here's my take on why a liberal like donahue couldn't have a succesful show: The environment in this country, especially post 9-11 will not tolerate radical views that go against those in power or could be interperted as anti-american.

On the other hand, people like controversy, controversy gets ratings, therefore shows featuring right-wing lunatics are ideal as they fit both requirements.
O'Reilly can say something like "arabs should all be put in camps" and not get into any trouble whereas Donahue had to be very mild, if he had come out and said " The Bush administration is the real terrorist organization" he'd have been fired immediately. Look what happend to Maher

 

The Donahue Show hadn't been attracting as many viewers as Connie Chung or Bill O'Reilly, which is probably to Mr. Donahue's credit. But otherwise he was doing surprisingly well. According to The New York Times:

If asked, network executives would heatedly deny that the cancellation had anything to do with the fact that NBC and MSNBC are owned by General Electric, which will make hundreds of millions of dollars from Desert Storm: The Sequel.

:m: Peace.

 

You hit the nail on the head here. All who watch such shows are ditto-heads. The reason that the left leaning talk shows fail is becasue there are fewer ditto-head sheep on the left. Conservative shows flourish becasue conservatives are, by and large, sheeple who follow the pack and need someone on TV telling them they are on the right side. Liberals do not need that. We know we are on the correct side.

 

It always amazes me at how the TV news media will break away from from their standard programming and proceed to follow a live, "high speed chase". And people will watch.

I think there is an anology between the "high speed chase" scenario and the mentality of the of those who watch the talk shows. People want to see something that gives them an emotional adrenalin buzz, followed by a resolution of the situation.

At the current time Donahue could only give facts and informative opinions, with nothing to attract an emotional involvement from enough people to be competitive.

The conservatives on the other hand currently have, ready made, emotional topics to discuss. "Saddam this", "Osama that", "we need to bomb someone," " if we bomb Iraq our problems will be resolved". This type of dialog has only been successful since 911.

The time will come when the Middle East events will no longer trigger a strong enough response from viewers and the pendelum will swing back to the fact that our economy is in a crisis.

 

I have 800 channels on my satellite TV and all I watch is re-runs of seinfeld and Simpsons. If I sit and watch anything else (especially any of the news networks) I get so frustrated I want to shoot my TV set.

 

I guess the conjecture is fun.. say what you want.. lol.. sounds like sour grapes to me. Instead of offering any "real" reasons for the rapid demise of liberal talk shows you apparently get upset and start name calling? Liberals are so shallow. This is a fun quote, alleged to be leaked from the powerful offices of Yawnahues parent company no less! <grin>

<FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=2><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><I>Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."</I></FONT></FONT></FONT>

Like I said, it's about ratings.... Libs are either too busy watching Springer or they dont have the intelligence to engage in reasonable debate. On the one hand I hear lofty comments from the fish... "a place to meet and discuss..etc..." but when it comes down to actual discussion it's "dittohead" this and sheep that.

Your left wing party is dead my friend.. lol As soon as the libertarians can become a force this countries ideals will be carried by two freedom loving organizations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If it weren't for the propaganda about the Iraq situation the economy would be the "main attraction" on the talk shows.
It appears that we Americans have developed a very short attention span.

When we have to start paying for all of the tripe, including the dumb ass tax cuts for the wealthy, thrust upon us by the conservatives. Americans will once again wake up and ask "what the hell happened"? "There are no jobs, the schools are underfunded and failing, state and local governments are falling apart, the nation is heavily in debt. Who the hell did this?

The terrorists got exactly what they wanted out of 911, to hurt us economically. And in quest of political power the right wing elements of our country have played into their hands.

 

No! BUSH got everything he wanted out of 911. Bush and America is stretching its muscles playing the “terrorism” card. It really is a valuable wild card which did not exist pre 911.

 

Our card is about to be "declined". The "terrorists" will be jubilant, that they were able to frighten us over a financial cliff.

 

It does feel good to finally get a tax break.... Then again that's why I and the majority of Americans voted Republican last election.. suhweeeeet! House, Senate & Presidency.. I guess a few lamers are going to have to get off their duff and work for a change.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!