Talk Radio Envy

UPDATE: Tim Cuprisin has posted his reaction to this blog entry. Yes, a professional took time to note, as he puts it, an "amateur blogger."

Although I'm just an "amateur blogger," he actually links to my amateur blog. He even refers to my blog as "this one."

How exciting! It's not often an amateur like me gets recognized by someone as important as Cuprisin. (He's a professional, you know.)

As an aside, I think it's worth noting that when it comes to blogs, distinctions such as "amateur" and "professional" are irrelevant. It's about subscribers and where you show up on Google and other search engines. Someday, Cuprisin and the Old Media will catch on.

Anyway, Cuprisin mocks my post, citing that it's his job to report on TV and radio.

Really? I had no idea.

Give me a break. Of course he's supposed to comment on radio. That's what he's paid to do. (Can you believe that?)

Obviously, my post does not deal with the fact that he writes about talk radio. It deals with the clearly adversarial approach he takes when commenting on, as he puts it, "SQUAWK RADIO."

I ask in my original post: Why are they at war with it?

I'm not asking why Cuprisin and those of his ilk make comments about talk radio.

I question why they're so threatened by, as Cuprisin puts it, "SQUAWK RADIO."

I conclude that they feel the need to do battle because they have Talk Radio Envy.

That's a nuance I would expect a professional to understand.

____________________


I think I know why local and national columnists, pundits, and bloggers are positively obsessed with conservative talk radio.

Tim Cuprisin of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel once again takes on Milwaukee's talkers.

(Note to libs: That's "talkers," not "squawkers.")

As entertaining as this talk radio stuff may or may not be, does any of it really matter to conservative voters when they get into the voting booth?

This campaign began with general talk radio disdain for McCain, starting with Rush Limbaugh and going on down through the ranks.

Belling continues to follow the Limbaugh line, while Sykes, always more of a Republican Party line guy than Belling, appears to be grudgingly going along with his party's choice.

What does any of this talk radio stuff have to do with the results of the primaries?

Edison Media Research conducted exit polls in last week's Virginia and Maryland Republican primaries and came up with some interesting data.

In case you forgot, McCain won both states.

But in Virginia, Huckabee was the decisive winner among "frequent" talk radio listeners, according to Edison's exit polls. In Maryland, "Huckabee did very poorly with frequent listeners to talk radio, with 28% of that group choosing him, and 49% choosing McCain," reports Tom Webster, Edison's vice president for strategy and marketing.

"In the end, whether or not conservative talk show hosts are able to attract persons with similar attitudes, or are actually able to persuade listeners to adopt similar attitudes, the result is the same," he writes.

"The actual vote did not correlate with those attitudes as strongly as it did with the differences in beliefs between the two electorates, and this - not talk radio - dictated Huckabee's fortunes in both states."

Why do critics have this unhealthy obsession with talk radio? Why are they at war with it?

I think it's important to understand.

We're all familiar with the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Talk Radio Envy is being exhibited by many as well.

The sufferers obsessively desire a microphone and a radio program and a large audience.

Alas, they don't control a microphone for fifteen hours a week. They lack the power that it represents. They struggle with the fact that they don't have what the Talkers have and never will.

Poor tortured souls.