>>and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Big Brother couldn't have said it any better.

A little nostalgia . . .

Back in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s, Boston talk host Jerry Williams (who basically created the call-in format) was considered a liberal. He was pro-civil rights, anti-Vietnam, anti-Nixon, and immensely popular. For part of that time he was on WBZ, whose clear channel signal covered about the eastern 1/3 of the US.

Then, in the mid-80s, Jerry picked up the baton of the local tax revolt movement, and he turned anti-government, almost conservative. This was at the same time that conservatives began to dominate talk radio. He continued to be successful, although I think age and time did ultimately catch up to him (he passed away a couple of years ago).

Why did Williams succeed as a liberal in the early part of his career and as a kind of conservative in later years?

I don't have any idea, but I do believe that he was a very smart radio guy, and he must have been able to read the wind and get out ahead of it. Too bad he's not around to answer the question . . .

I’ll acknowledge I don’t know the detail of the “The ‘Fairness Doctrine”, but is she actually saying that a law which regulates that one side of an issue get presented as much as the other side – that this should apply to politically based talk radio?

In other words, entertainment should be ‘fair and balanced’? This is the response when talk radio appears to have persuaded people in the social and political arena!!!

What next? Does every theater that shows a Michael Moore movie also have to show a movie representing ‘the other side’? Does NPR have an obligation to be fair and balanced on issues? Do newspaper editorial sections also have that obligation?

This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Admittedly, this isn’t the first time that legislation has been suggested as a solution to a anecdotal problem. But the fact that the ‘problem’ is the ‘persuasiveness’ of talk radio and that this country is a market-based capitalism puts this suggestion in the hypocrisy hall of fame for me.

In this case, Ms. Feinstein has no interest in applying fairness. Her agenda is to eliminate the persuasive dissent of those who oppose her views.

Ah yes, for many office holders, "extremist views" are those that do not agree with mine, and "irrational arguments" are ones that I can't defeat.

And a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument against a liberal . . .

"know why liberals do better at comedy..."
It's easier to fling poo, than have a silver tongue...

Colonel is correct...

Liberals do poorly at talk radio because their arguments tend to be in the form of sound-bites, such as "the Bush tax cuts only favor the rich". But if you had to defend this position for one hour, with people calling in, you couldn't back up your sound bite.

In shorter terms, the liberal message does not stand up to close inspection, that is why they can't make talk radio work.