Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity lack real power, Times columnist says
The last presidential campaign — specifically the GOP primaries — should have shown how little power media “talk jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity” really have, columnist David Brooks writes in today’s New York Times.
Brooks writes that the talk show hosts’ favored candidates — Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney — stumbled. From Brooks’ commentary:
…The talk jocks can’t even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries. They can’t even deliver South Carolina!
So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.
Brooks concludes his commentary:
…So the myth returns. Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.
They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.
The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.
Politico reports: Limbaugh brushed off the Times columnist’s criticism by asking “how many Americans know who David Brooks is?”
Politico’s article quotes Limbaugh: “The funny thing is that the GOP is not concerned with talk radio,” Limbaugh said. “I’m going to ignore it on air. If Brooks guests on Letterman sometime, I’ll mention him.”
Beck discussed Brooks’ column on his show today.
Brooks himself is a talk jock of sorts as a commentator on “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer.” He’s been writing an op-ed column for the New York Times since September 2003.
His commentary is clearly his opinion. But what are your thoughts? Do his “talk jocks” possess real power?
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
I would venture a guess that any of the three “talk jocks” he mentioned has a much larger audience than Brooks has.
And if they are so inconsequential, why is Brooks wasting his time writing about them?
The problem is, it’s not just Brooks. You’ve lost Kathleen Parker, too. Consider these shots across the bow.
–One dimensional thinking is not a way to understand the complicated election process. There are way too many variables that decide who gets elected President to put any real power in any one hand.
“The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P.”
–The “decline of the G.O.P.” What a crock. We are talking about one election cycle here, nothing else. How anyone can even make this ridiculous claim is beyond comprehension. Limbaugh has been around for 20 years, O’Reilly for at least 10 years. How this quazi-liberal bucket-head can think he is a conservative commentator is as ridiculous as his claims.
“Do his “talk jocks” possess real power?”
–Considering the amount of time libs spend attacking them, I would say , obviously. If you want to know about someone’s character, first look at their friends, then look at their enemies. Judging by their enemies, and the time they spend lamenting what they say, one can conclude they are all-powerful wizards behind the curtain. It says more about libs than it does about Beck and Co.
Pssssst… Hey, Steve. Obama had a 25-minute meeting with his Afghanistan commander.
Think that might be more newsworthy than something from David Brooks??
I do.
“And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.”
if only our blind leaders UNDERSTOOD THIS SMOKE SCREEN. THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST THOSE MISERABLE LOSERS WHO DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION, AND WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK AGAINST OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS AT VERY TURN. They desire to believe Obama is monster so this is what they have convinced them selves to believe.
One thing in here is really true: the unwillingness of anyone in the GOP to challenge these guys is a serious problem. You can look at it two ways. One is, they truly lack power, so the leadership ignores them and their more outrageous statements. Or, the leadership is afraid of them, and gives them much more power than they deserve.
Come on now Sedona, you don’t expect the PD to actually cover real news, especially for discussion? I tried to discuss Obama losing our Olympics due to Chicago corruption yesterday and the Letterman scandal (can you imagine if Glenn Beck had done this? The libs would then call it sexual harrassment in the workplace and call for him to be fired by Fox - and they say he is also an “entertainer” yet the libs are mum because he supports Obama - what a double standard). Here is a great site to get good info:
http://www.rezkorama.com/
Yet TOTD had McDonalds hambergers for discussion. What a joke of a newspaper and what a joke of an on-line discussion site.
hs - could you please inform me as to what these guys need to be challenged about? I am confused as to what the problem is. I have no problem with anything they say - yes, I said anything. They have the right to say anything they want just as stupid Keith Olbermann does and none of you challenge anything those morons at MSNBC say every day that are lies.
Go Mo,
–Sexual harassment only works against conservatives because they have the audacity to promote the “better nature” of humanity. Whether through religion or other devices, conservatives try to promote the best that is within us. Since no man is perfect and we all fall short of the mark, it leaves room for liberals to scream, “hypocrisy.”
–Liberals, however, have no bedrock principle other than the devolution of our society into a “utopian ideal” of perpetual rainbows and sunshine. You understand the oxymoron, as one can’t have both perpetual rainbows AND sunshine. Conservative reality is no stop to the twisted beliefs that emanate from the left however, and they will grab every opportunity to exploit conservatives weaknesses, and hide from liberal excesses.
–Just be glad you are on the side of reality, and keep up the good fight.
dr-debunk,
“Whether through religion or other devices, conservatives try to promote the best that is within us.”
Give us some examples of this, your best. You are living in a fantasy and if this is your best it shows that you will never have the ability to accomplish anything good.
Ok, let me put it this way:
The Republican POLITICAL leadership, I think, acknowledges the truth that national elections are determined by the 20-30% of voters in the middle. As one of those voters (I’ve ALWAYS split my ticket), I can say that the bloviators on both sides turn me off. In my humble opinion, if the Republicans actually want to win in a big way in the future, they have to find a way to put the crazies back where they belong. Rush, Hannity, Beck, and the rest pander to the crazies…who will vote Republican no matter what (or who) they put on the ballot.
If the Republicans ever want MY vote in the future, they need to stop shouting “no” to everything, and they need to start saying things that actually sound like they have the good of the country in mind, not just being reactionary against everything.
How many times in the last year has a major Republican opened his or her mouth, been lambasted by Rush or the rest, and took it back the next day? I maintain that they are all scared of challenging them. I said it back in the early 90’s, that the Republicans were going to be better at seizing power than they were at governing….and the collapse of the Contract for America and everything since proves my point.