"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:17:56 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:35:43 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

For what it's worth, I find more people who self-identify as "liberal"
reading
conservative commentators and authors than I do "conservatives" reading
liberal
texts. In general, those who tend to read the likes of Rush Limbaugh
(and
recently, his tag-along kid brother, David), O'Reilly, Coulter and the
like,
seem to restrict their reading and listening to those who will reinforce
and
confirm the beliefs they already hold.

But a few posts before, Joe says :

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left" by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is
#2 on the New York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number
1 last week, and has been on the list for 6 weeks.


So, the conservatives are reading these or the liberals are speed
readers?

I don't pretend to know specifically *who* is reading any of these books,
although I did report what my own observation has been.

But I don't know that a book needs to have both "liberals" and
"conservatives"
buying it in order to reach the NYT Bestseller list or to achieve a high
ranking
with Amazon. I mentioned those statistics only to provide a
counterexample for
a statement: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:44:23 GMT, "NOYB"
wrote:

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them
right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

My point was, as it is now, that making an assertion that is so easily
undermined can destroy a point someone is trying to make.


I was discussing a couple of guys in the radio and tv media, and you bring
up two examples from the print media. Why are there no outrageously popular
liberal pundits on radio or TV?