Okay, so like many people who vehemently oppose BushCo, we've been listening to Air America radio. We wanted to get a feel for what left-wing talk radio sounds like in a world where right-wing talk radio is so prevalent, and we didn't want to say "yea" or "nay" until we got a good dose. We've now been listening to them — whenever we're in the car, or occasionally via the streaming audio online — pretty steadily for several months, and the verdict is in:

Feh.

Let's qualify that. The mainstream media has been a breeding ground for vociferous bombastic blowhards from the right for years, now. Sure, there are plenty of liberal media personalities, but they were practically silent compared to the conservatives. So Air America filled a long-empty niche...and became the vociferous bombastic blowhards on the left.

Maybe that's what's needed — maybe the only way to get through to the "undecideds" is to be just as belligerent and flying-off-the-handle outspoken as the right-wing talking heads. As centrists — properly despising the alleged "ideologies" of both the right and the left — we're severely put off by this approach. But after some discussion, we came to an agreement that perhaps — just perhaps — the only way to get through to the teeming masses in the flyover states is to yell just as loudly as the right-wingers, hoping to drown them out with an opposite message. Who knows, maybe the intersecting sound waves will cancel each other out (no physics majors, please — we're aware that's not how it works).

To be fair, Air America seems to clearly state that it is their intention to be a voice of the left, and not a voice of reason and common sense in general. So they are fulfilling their stated goal, but that doesn't mean that we have to like it. We understand that bias is a part of all news sources, including our own website, but while we tend to be biased toward science, reason, logic, and civil liberties, Air America is biased toward a political party. For our dollar, we'd prefer a radio station that promotes rational thought about world issues rather than one which just spits out the ideology of what is for now the "more correct" party. Of course, we freely admit that there's a lot more to rant about with the right than there is with the left, so some imbalance is to be expected, but Air America in general tilts too far left for our tastes.

Will we continue to listen? Sure, why not. For one thing, we enjoy Bush bashing at a very visceral level, and we figure we'd better enjoy it before it is deemed illegal. Also, it's a decent source of news, and they tend to cover stories that may be largely ignored by the mainstream media. We suppose we're just hoping for too much: while the right furiously spins the facts clockwise, and the left feverishly spins them widdershins, we're stuck in the middle, watching the maddeningly dancing hands of the clock, wishing they would stand still for just one damn second so we can tell what time it really is.

We haven't heard every show on Air America yet, and some we've only heard briefly, but most of the ones we've heard aren't very encouraging. Al Franken, whom we always liked well enough as a comedian, can't seem to get away from his comedic roots — from what we've heard on his show, Katherine Lanpher seems to be present mostly to cut Al off when he's gone too far with some tangential shtick or Rush Limbaugh impression. Hey, we like to laugh, but it's frustrating when you're trying to find out what's going on and Franken is just stammering out a Jesse Helms impersonation. Mike Malloy, with whom we share many political and ethical viewpoints, is unfortunately a total prick. Hey, Mike, if you're going to invite opposing viewpoints (by having a call-in show), don't cut off the ones you don't like; at least, not until they get abusive (poor "Vito" didn't even get a chance to politely say why he thinks Mike is hypocritical). We have no problem with treating an asshole like an asshole, but at least wait long enough for a caller to make it clear that he is an asshole before slamming down the phone. The Majority Report is just plain pointless — Janeane Garofalo is the epitome of every loud ultra-liberal causehead you've ever met on a college campus, and Sam Seder is so vanilla we're afraid Tom Hanks will end up chugging him just for a buzz (bonus points for naming that reference). But when it comes down to sheer asinine bravado, one show deserves special mention: Randi Rhodes. Holy goat-loving fuck, this woman turns the blending of ignorance and arrogance into an absolute art form. If she weren't so fucking high on herself, then her blatant lack of knowledge and veracity wouldn't be so irritating; but as it is, she's the worst thing we've heard on Air America.

Like we said, we haven't heard every show yet, but of the shows we have heard, there are two that we consider worthwhile, for different reasons. Morning Sedition — particularly co-host Marc Maron — does a good job of poking at the loony left almost as much as they poke at the radical right. In general, Marc seems to lean on edgy comedy when analyzing the news, and edgy comedy doesn't work very well unless it's honest. As a result, we find that this show tends to walk a less ideological line than most of the others.

Then there's Jerry Springer — yes, that Jerry Springer — who is the closest thing to what we're craving on the entire station. Hey, we were surprised, too, but he's soft-spoken, reasonable and inoffensive, and he still manages to get both his opinions and his valid points across.

While we may not agree with every position he takes, he does tend to reason through them rather than just cranking out the accepted left-wing rhetoric, and we can appreciate that. Springer, most famous in America for playing host to dysfunctional white trash families and brawling fat transvestites, may be just what the doctor ordered: the flyover states could very likely listen to him, and he can lay out the political landscape for them in chiaroscuro without challenging their worldviews too harshly. The format of his show is also one that seems to cater to his target audience. Jerry runs his program in short segments, bookended by commercial breaks. In a given segment, he lays out one aspect of an issue very clearly, then goes into the break telling his listeners exactly what his next segment will bring. The next segment then recaps the previous one, and moves on to the next point. This approach is repeated until an issue is completed, and it has the benefit of presenting what might be a complex issue in bite-sized portions. In effect, Jerry walks his audience through the issues and manages to make them sound reasonably straightforward. More to the point, he manages to make his views (which we generally agree with) seem reasonable and straightforward as well. While the format may be a little tedious for us at times, we think it's right on the money for the audience he's aiming for.

Jerry's been a part of both the political process and the mainstream media, and does a pretty good job of pooling his knowledge of both to get his message heard without threatening anyone's sensibilities. Hey, this is the guy who figured out that mainstream television can include transgendered alcoholic midgets hitting each other with chairs — if he can figure out how to be more palatable to the straights and suits, why can't the other Air America jockeys figure it out?

As a general observation, another thing we'd point out is that many of Air America's radio personalities seem to consistently walk right up to the edge of a really good point...only to leave us hanging and move on without ever really nailing it. An off the cuff example, from just this evening on Randi Rhodes' show (addressed from memory, so the details may be off, but the general sentiment is accurate): Randi discussed some politician's take on the "progress" of rebuilding Iraq, and lamented that we won't have built a self-sufficient standing Iraqi army for at least the next two years. Hey, Randi — two years? That's just peanuts compared to the fact that the United States will probably maintain an ominous and ubiquitous presence in Iraq for at least the next fifty years. Look at Korea, for fuck's sake.

That one's just a minor example, but the point is, these jockeys keep treading water and poking the silt with a stick, when we'd like them to dive in head first and come up with some pearls.

We'll mention one other thing that, though somewhat tangential, really bothers us: the commercials. We know that Air America is out to make money, and we can imagine that a left-wing AM radio station may not be the Holy Grail of advertising that Fortune 500 companies are looking for, but we have to believe that they can do better than the crap they seem to attract. Specifically, they run commercials for various forms of quackery that piss us off to no end. If we have to hear once more about how Wendi Friesen can hypnotise us into rich, successful, sex fiends, or how Total Health Vitamins can cure every ailment from obesity to high blood pressure to sexual dysfunction, we're going to explode. To us, this just drives home the fact that common sense and reason simply aren't the goals of Air America.

All said and done: yes, we are disappointed with Air America. As with so many things in life, it's a great idea, but a not-so-great execution of that idea. Is it better than not having some left-wing talk radio while being bombarded with right-wing morons? Sure. It's better than nothing.

But only slightly.

May I humbly suggest Ed Shultz. Check out his stream on the web if he isn't broadcast in your area.

My local Air America Affiliate has the good sense to play Ed Shultz in like the 3pm EST block instead of Ms. Rhodes, and I think he is more to your liking. Straight up, reasonable liberal centrist talk, without the obnoxiousness and failed comedic attempts.

I fail to see how the claims made by Wendi Friesen and Total Health Vitamins are any less reasonable than claims made in most advertisements. Is BP really committed to and leading the way in developing alternative energy technology? Will switching to Geiko, which will take just 15 minutes, really save me 15 percent on my car insurance?

I learn as much about medicine and health from a Total Health commercial as I learn about the relative merits of one car model compared to another, or to the same model's previous incarnation, from a car commerical, which is nothing.

Nice Family Ties reference...'sit down and have a glass of maraschino cherry juice with your favourite uncle.'

I don't know what 'moderate' means anymore. It sort of means 'some from the left who's theoretically electable' or else 'someone from the right who doesn't actively advocate stoning of the heretical.' With discourse so skewed to the right in this country (and it is...admit it, in a two man race, Pat Buchanan would trounce Nader, and they're both equally batshit looney) what I would consider moderates on the left are now raving wooly communists. Bill Clinton is not a leftist. Kerry ain't very liberal.

Now that I live in the UK, I belong to the Lib Dems, who advocate personal freedom and societal responsibility. Fierce advocates of privacy, but with a 50% tax rate for income over £100,000. Are they on the left? Centrist? Libertarian-esque?

Like I said, I don't know anymore. Maybe if we confound the left-right distinction enough, it will become even more meaningless than it is now.

J. Gale,

We understand your point, and we have no love for most commercials (see our earlier Rant on this topic), but there is an important difference to us. If you buy car insurance from Geico, your car will actually be insured. If you buy gasoline from BP, your car will run.

However, the parents of an autistic child can buy truckloads of every "supplement" listed on Total Health's page on treating autism, and their kid will still be autistic.

We're drawing a distinction here between exaggerating to sell a functional product (which bothers us) and outright lying to sell a placebo as a cure for serious illnesses (which enrages us).

Thanks, dave! Although Ed isn't available locally for us, we'll tune in online and check him out. It sounds like your local affiliate realized the same thing we did about Randi Rhodes, and decided to drop this guy into her slot. Without even hearing him, we'll call that a good thing — it would be hard to do worse than Randi Rhodes. Thanks again for the tip!

We know exactly what you mean, Ed. A friend of ours remarked a few months back that she thought she was becoming much more liberal — but after a bit of discussion, she came to realize that she's still moderate, but that "moderate" looks like "frothing-at-the-mouth liberal" in comparison to the folks who pass for conservatives these days.

You also get the bonus points for catching the Family Ties reference! Bonus points can be cashed in for pleasant compliments at any time. It's really more of a prestige thing....

I think one problem is that really no one thinks of their position as extreme...very few people would call themselves anything but 'moderate', as they equate moderate with sensible. So you can only gauge where your opinions fit in regard to the mainstream, which is a foolish exercise in many ways.

Very true, Ed. And even if people admit that they have extreme views, they would likely argue that their extreme view is the way that "everyone should be."

For our part, if compared to the mainstream point of view (whatever that really is), our belief in the utmost importance of science, reason, logic, and civil liberties would likely be seen as extreme. To us, that's not a bad thing. The same is likely true of fanatic Christians who believe that everyone should love Jesus as much as they do. Of course, we like to think that our extremism is "better" since our views also advocate protecting everyone else — not from ridicule, of course, but certainly from suspension of their personal freedoms.

It is the tendency to believe in something because someone tells you to, and without doing your own homework, that bothers us. We may well come to the same conclusion as a rabid Democrat on any given issue; but while we will have a logical reason for our conclusion, they may only be able to point to the donkey pin on their lapel.

I think it's a tad unrealistic to expect centrist, balanced, rational, fact-based content from commercial media of any type.

The misconception is that they are (or should be) informing people, when in reality they are selling people.

In commercial radio, advertising pays the bills from the coffers of what are somewhat euphemistically called "sponsors".

Whose interests predominate -the advertisers' or the listening public?

What percentage of listeners truly seek objective facts vs. validation of existing beliefs?

I'm afraid calm, reasoned, fact-based, reality-based content is available by turning our radios and TVs off, not on.

Yeah, we know it's unrealistic...but we can dream, can't we? Of course, if Futurama has it right, our dreams may soon have corporate sponsorship too, and we won't even be able to escape the corporate sponsorship when we sleep.

We agree, though. We don't watch much television ourselves precisely because it doesn't deliver the content we want to receive. But hey, we have to get the news from somewhere.

Oh, right — that's what the internet is for.