i listened to air america the other day. they didn't mention uzbekistan, but i won't hold that against them.
seriously, i was fairly disappointed. no, that isn't the right word. it was pretty much what i expected, or rather, feared, it would be.
when i first heard that liberals were going to try to have a talk radio alternative to counter rush limbaugh, the idea did initially appeal to me. i guess as a lawyer, i am inclined to buy into the adversarial model for political discourse. the adversarial model assumes that the best way to get at the truth is to have zealous advocates for each side of the debate. thus, if i represent someone in a court case, i am expected to make the best case possible by underplaying the facts that hurt my position and overstating those that help my position. my adversary does the same for his or her client and the idea is that a judge who hears both sides can weigh the arguments against one another and come to some reasonable facsimile of the right answer. airwaves domiinated by talk radio is like a courtroom where only one one lawyer is allowed to speak. instead of weighing the arguments, the judge hears only one side and, in the end, can only be expected to decide one way.
so with that in mind, i can see why air america would have an appeal. the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservatives--who are zealous advocates for their side--without a liberal voice to challenge them. talk radio has become a sort of alternate universe where all the facts seem to support the republican party line. embarrassing exceptions are simply not mentioned, unless the right has a handy argument ready to shoot such facts down. i understand the impulse of liberals to throw their own spin into the ether, to not let the right go unchallenged any longer.
but there's a problem with extending the adversarial model to the radio. i doubt that any rush limbaugh listeners will tune into air america, just as air america listeners are unlikely to listen to rush. rather than creating a liberal advocate to enter the conservative echo chamber to perhaps show conservatives the error of their ways, air america is instead a rival echo chamber. going back to the judicial analogy, liberal talk radio is not like allowing a second lawyer to speak in the courtroom. instead, its like setting up a new parallel court system where conservative lawyers don't get to speak. i can't see how that will help the situation in the long run at all. instead, it can only lead to further polarization in this country and even fewer opportunities to honestly debate the problems that face this country.
at times i feel like the political blogisphere is exactly like talk radio. i don't link to any of the major conservative blogs and i feel bad about it. unfortunately linking is seen as a vote to endorse that blog. on occasion i have come close to setting up a conservative link section, but then i read someone like instapundit acting as if his impressive list of links somehow means that this proves he is right (hence the he who is not to be named bit over at atrios) and i don't want to link to them anymore. despite my lack of links, i have been trying to cruise the other side now and then. it's like a parallel universe over there and we're not really talking to them. nor are they talking to us.
blogging at least, has one advantage over talk radio that undermines its echo chamber effect: the existence of links, trackbacks and comments. i notice when a blog links to me. that, at least, has the potential of creating a dialogue here in a way that i don't think air america can.
okay, i've convinced myself. i probably will set up a conservative link section soon. anyone have any suggestions for who i should link to?
