by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Liberals of all types—political, journalistic, entertainment, academic and garden variety—are having a hard time these days.

They are complaining about not having any meaningful liberal radio talk show hosts with huge audiences to counter the likes of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh.

For some time now they have been gnashing their teeth over the fact that millions of people listen to and participate in conservative radio forums. They are also distraught over their failed attempts to underwrite successfully some liberal radio personalities that will enable them to tell people how the world, the nation and their private lives should be according to the liberal catechism. For example, former New York Gov. and liberal lion Mario Cuomo’s talk show was a flop from the git-go.

Each of their attempts to promote a particular personality has failed. Now they are talking about raising the money to launch their own radio network. And they want to people it with the same kind of sophomoric liberal thinkers that few people really want to listen to. Not knowing much about the laws of supply and demand, liberals think they can buy their way into the consciousness of the American public, with jokesters like Bill Maher and Al Franken, without providing any substance. In fact, it appears that the liberals want hosts who will make fun of anyone who doesn’t agree with the liberal viewpoint; that’s the way liberals escape facts in most debates—by ridiculing opponents.

In short, they believe that having dined, sipped and paid for the lions of the major magazine and newspaper media, book publishers, the TV networks, the entertainment industry, and academia for so many years and dictating what the general public is to think, they can control even radio.

Unfortunately, things don’t work that way. First, radio—particularly AM radio—rescued itself from financial disaster with “talk radio” and “all news” programming when the public sought more to listen to than the same Top-40 music over and over. (The people who wanted more avant-garde music switched to FM stations.)

By providing news and commentary that was different than the pasteurized liberalism fed by the general media, such radio programming became a leading player in the world of “alternative media.” Such media is called alternative for the very reason that it is not only different from the mainstream establishment media, but that it is interactive. It gives people information that is often censored or ignored by the big media editors and news directors, and it provides fresh new perspectives that evoke responses. The people who listen to talk radio want to be informed, want to know that there is still a debate on many issues and events—contrary to the way the liberal establishment media presents issues as though a public debate was held years ago and everyone decided the liberals were right. Most importantly, they want to be able to express their own views—or at least listen to other views expressed by average people just like them.

Shows like CNN’s “Talk Back Live” are supposed to provide the same kind of information venue, but it usually fails. And the reason it fails is that the topics usually chosen are not important enough to engage concerned citizens, or have been presented in such a way as to make alternative views unwelcome.

C-SPAN tries by offering program segments that encourage call-ins on phone lines reserved for Right, Left and Center, or Democrat, Republican or Independent.

But none of these cable networks garners the audience numbers nationally that tune in a Rush Limbaugh on radio. And bear in mind that while the liberals like to hold up Limbaugh as an example, there are many other “conservative” or “populist” talk show hosts that also pull in huge audiences.

These people have been changing political discourse and impacting elections because they are not cut from the elitist liberal mold; they treat the public much more fairly than they have been treated by the establishment media for so many years.

What liberals, even those in the TV and movie industries, have discovered is that the public wants more substance than it has been getting for years, and while it may watch movies and television starring people with opposing political views, they can also make other choices: like not watching.

That’s what seems to be bothering the producers of the “West Wing,” a previously successful TV show starring some people who have been out-front in the liberal camp. Martin Sheen’s espousal of gun control and the liberal position on many national issues might not bother as many people as his current opposition to President Bush on the issue of disarming Saddam Hussein.

Sheen and others among the movie and TV celebrities have lined up so solidly against the President on an important national security issue, that the public is taking notice. And the “West Wing” gang is worried that the public is not listening to their warped wisdom and appears to be turning off the show.

Sheen and company are not supplying what the public wants. Liberalism for the sake of Hollywood chic may be dying, if not dead.

The liberals are indeed in dire straights. If things get any worse, people who are supposed to be grateful for the liberal handouts may start spitting on their benefactors’ Gucci loafers.

Should we feel sorry for these unhappy and misunderstood liberals? Not on your life. They controlled things for so many years that they gave liberalism a bad name.