hate speech vs. political speech
 

Last week Tom Daschle was all over the news talking about conservative news media and how unfair and potentially dangerous they are. His major point was that talk radio and Fox News bring out negative emotions in people and that threats increase for elected officials because of them.

I'm a conservative and I don't think he has a leg to stand on. Does anyone support Dashle's view? With or without citing examples, can you explain why you believe he's correct or why he's not?

Speaking as a liberal, I think he's being a fucking whiny baby. Daschle irritates me...he's too much of a weenie.

For the most part, television and print lean liberal with some notable exceptions (The Washington Times, Fox News Channel). I don't watch Fox News for the most part, but they're free to lean whichever way they wish. (I personally prefer MSNBC, as it seems to be the most balanced of the 3 cable news networks. Every now and then, conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Curtis Sliwa say things that I actually agree with.)

I don't think that the conservative media (and this includes folks like Rush and Bill O'Reilly) are particularly dangerous. From what I've seen though, conservative media seems to spur more "crazies." But I blame that on the individual, not the media.

Speaking as the Local Expert on "Crazy" ...
 

The severely mentally ill folks I deal with tend to be more from the liberal end of the political spectrum, actually ...

I'm not referring to the affiliation of the crazies...just the effect that conservative media seems to have on them.

Recently , that seems to be true. It must be the "subliminal messages" they send. :)

I agree with you on the MSNBC choice. A month or so back, I was watching an interview/debate between Chuck Schumer and Wayne LaPierre. This was a sniper inspired gun control debate. I think it was CNN, but I'm not sure. It was so blatantly biased , I just stopped watching. The host let Schumer have so much more time it might as well have been called the "Chuck Schumer show".

I don't own and rarely watch TV. I do see that MSNBC has a good selection of video clips I can watch on the puter. They are much more balanced than CNN in my opinion and they have more video clips. The shows seem to give equal time for debates and interviews, at least a lot more than many others.

Re: Speaking as the Local Expert on "Crazy" ...
 

That's only because of the demographic. Go to an Arkansas <a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/statehospital.wav?BCmdv59AIIsxnCEj"> State hosptial</a> and I think that would change.

Slang, "crazies" may be a poor word choice on my part. Let's try "easily gullible and upset." :)

I've always been a fan of MSNBC, but even moreso since the summer. My particular fave is Curtis & Kuby, although I'm not sure if they're even on anymore. Nevertheless, WABC-AM in New York is streaming some of their programming live again...and they're on from 5-10am. I'll definitely be tuning in Monday.

"easily gullible and upset and well armed"



<center>:rattat:</center>

Not the liberal types though...remember, most of them don't like guns.

He's right, nearly all talk radio is conservative. The only exception is Neal Boortz. Whether that's bad or not is really just a matter of opinion.

I don't deny that for a minute. I have talk radio playing in the background most of the day. Some of the shows are more conservative than others.

I think that Mitch Albom and Jim Bohannon are more middle of the road. Both of these guys are neutral on abortion and in favor of more gun control.

Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative in my opinion. He draws an audience from both political poles. He believes in more environmental protections, kicks Bush's ass on his not controlling the borders, regularly chews Ashcroft a new one, but at the same time thrashes Jesse Jackson. I love his radio show, but he's not really conservative on many traditional issues. Fox News is considered right, but I dont think Bill is, he's middle. I respect his opinion.

Boortz has a radio show but I never hear it. His audience must be pretty small relatively speaking.


If there was a liberal show on, I'd go out of my way to listen to it. There just doesn't seem to be one on radio.

Oh, that's easy to explain!

Those crazy freedom fighters can't get to newspapers very easily when they're out in the middle of East Bumfuck. And you pretty much need electricity to run a TV (the battery-powered ones can drain quickly).

But a couple of AA's in a small AM radio will last you for a while...they'll only need to make a trip into town once a week.

Hope that clears things up for everyone! ;)

<IMG src ="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys/9.gif">

Do you know the "secret handshake" too?

There's a lot of truth to that but let me add:

Old cars didn't have FM for the longest time, and since we only drive cars worth about $500, they're old and from the pre FM era.

We're too busy working to watch a lot of TV! (myself excluded) We need to work extra hours to buy a vehicle that doesn't have plants growing out of the back seat, or have a PTO (power take off for hydraulic and mechanical connections , such as a manure spreader would require)

Slang, you forgot the Confederate flag bumper sticker and the 8-track player with staples such as Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Allman Brothers Band. For the younger folks, the tape deck with classics such as Ratt and Winger.

actually....now that you bring it up, I have spent much more time

<LI>piss drunk</LI>
<LI>riding in a 4 x 4</LI>
<LI>with little if any exhaust system</LI>
<LI>traveling way too fast</L1>
<LI>down curvey Pa backroads</LI>
<LI>with rifles clunking me in the head from the rack</LI>
<LI>between the hours of midnight and 4am</LI>
<LI>spot lighting deer</LI>

while listening to<a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/ccr[1].wav?BC2Vw59ACy.V8TZp"> this classic tune.</a>

But, that was back in the "bad ol'days". They say, ya gotta get it out of your system. I'm glad it's out.

So basically what you're saying is that you still do those things, but you're not piss drunk anymore? ;)

<IMG src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys/7.gif"> You aren't watching me right now...are you?

heh heh heh ...

Hi guys,
In my opinion, Tom Dashcle's mind works like this:

Conservative talk radio = Record high Republican turn out in 2002, therefore, Conservative talk radio = enemy...
If Dashcle was truthfully threatened in any way, he would call the police.
If Dashcle was trying to discredit the enemy, he
would call a press conference.

I've seen more instances of Conservative talk radio
spurring the Liberal crazies into action(ie: Dashcle as case in point) because they get upset,
but won't stop listening. In France, it was the other way around with their Liberal media spurring a fascist to action. I believe it spurs the opposition.

Bill O'Reilly is down the middle, because on some issues he aggravates Liberals and on some issues he aggravates Conservatives. He goes with his own researched opinion.
I watch Fox, MSNBC, and BBC.

Wait a minute...some of this looks eerily similar...

<LI>piss drunk</LI>
<LI>riding in pick up trucks and rusted-out hot rods</LI>
<LI>with little if any exhaust system</LI>
<LI>traveling way too fast</LI>
<LI>down curvy MO and IL backroads</LI>
<LI>between the hours of midnight and 4am</LI>
<LI>almost hitting deer</LI>

Scary. :)

I agree, Daschle is whining. This is America, dammit. Fight speech with speech.

I find most political talk shows obnoxious. I generally disagree with the hosts, especially the most conservative ones, but that's not why I find the shows obnoxious. What bugs me is usually the callers, who often display a shocking amount of ignorance. I can't stand to listen to that.

But I mostly listen when I'm in the car, and I really can't stand any kind of serious discussion during my commute. I need to be entertained. It's a shame that doesn't seem to be a value that's prized on radio these days. I used to like the Kent Voss show on WWDB in Philadelphia, before they changed format. He was my all-time favorite: no serious issues, but with some intelligence and wit. Now I'm usually reduced to Don & Mike for my drive home when I don't have a CD along I feel like listening to. I've actually been tempted by XM satellite radio, but I don't know if their stuff is any better.

Out of all of those things listed, the only things I still do is stay up late. Ok, and occasionally shine the spotlight in the neighbor's window....from the roof.

The rest of all that I dont miss at all

Many are just looking to be controversial, yes. The "local" UNsydicated shows are the worst. There are only a few that I stop everything and listen to , most of the time I may catch something that they say as funny. About half that I hear parts of are just background.
That's a good point. If the host doesn't have a big enough listenership, the calls suck. If the host has an ego the size of Texas they suk too. Many will not engage is real debate on the air, it's risky.
I was there in '89 and listened to WWDB a lot. Irv Homer was on the air then and was my favorite. There were some lesser known shows too but except for the weekends I enjoyed it very much. The signal was FM too, very rare, great reception.
The programming probably isn't any better. The reception has to be, or no one would subscribe.

From what I've heard, it's not too bad...it's gotta beat Don & Mike. My brother has XM, but he doesn't listen to talk radio.

The only personality I know that is on XM is Joe Madison, who is also on WOL-AM in Washington...he's kinda like Tavis Smiley on NPR.

I wonder what news channel Uncle Ted used to watch, you know, before he left orbit. He didn't use guns but was a definite left wing whacko that used bombs.

I'll bet he was a Dan Rather fan. :)

He even kinda looks<a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=ted+k.jpg&.src=bc&.view=l&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=bc%26.view=l"> like Dan.</a>

<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112702/content/blank.guest.html">Take a look at this.</a> I listen to Rush and I have for years. He's an arrogant bastard, but I think correct again on this issue.

And , Daschle did hold a press conference and all but accused talk radio of encouraging threats to him and his family. He also carefully worded a few <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71429,00.html">statements to imply</a> that talk radio was as evil as al Qeada.

"We see it in foreign countries and we think, 'Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?'" he said. "Well, it's that same shrill rhetoric, it's that same shrill power that motivates."

I think this comparison is a stretch. Our talk radio motivated us to get the hell out there and vote.

"Islamic religious fundamentalism", motivated it's members to fly planes into buildings.

Daschle's not happy with the loss of the Senate, I understand that. This is exactly the type of rhetoric that helped him to lose it in the first place.

Maybe the Democrats will be honest enough with themselves to make changes that will help them.

I think that has a good degree of truth. I got really involved in politics after Clinton was elected the first time.

I think Daschle was right and wrong at the same time. Here's my novel on the topic, sorry.

To really understand Rush's show, you have to be an outsider. The show claims it's speaking to the masses, but it isn't. It's speaking to a very well-understood, reliable audience of 15 million people who basically agree with Rush and enjoy hearing evangelism.

In that group are a very small set of whack jobs. Just like there is a similar set of whack jobs in the equivalent group of lefties.

Rush's show involves a lot of demonizing the opposition.
Evangelize and demonize for a long enough time, to the whack jobs, and a small percentage will eventually flip out and try to change things on their own. Call it probability, call it chaos theory, whatever.

I've seen it; we had a dude in the PA LP who was clearly unstable, and it surprised nobody when eventually one morning he woke up, armed himself, shot up a utility truck and drove it towards DC with the intent to kill Clinton (until a moment of sanity came back into his head, and he surrendered, naked, to the cops).

So yes, Rush's ranting does produce more death threats for Daschle. (I wager you ten packets of weaponized anthrax.)

But here's where Daschle went wrong: he has no room to talk. "Evil" evangelism is just as likely to be found on the left. The Bush administration isn't delaying implementation of a questionable clean water regulation, it's poisoning people with auto-immune problems. It isn't trying to solve the Social Security system's eventual bankruptcy, it's stealing the life savings of grandmothers.

Both sides need to make strong arguments like that, partly because they need to invent stronger differences between the parties when the differences are smaller than you'd think. In marketing, that's called "product differentiation". If you think there IS a very big difference between the parties, you have successfully been convinced by the marketing. (Around here we measure results by results, not by one side's description of them.)

But they also both need to do that because it's vitally important that the hard edges of the parties are highly motivated. If you think the opposition is "delaying policy implementation" -- well, so what. But if they're "poisoning people" -- OMG, we must take volunteer positions with the campaign, to save gramma from the evil mean men!

Leftist evangelism can produce the same kind of results, too. It's helpful to remember that (theoretically rightist) Tim McVeigh shared prison space with the (theoretically leftist) Unabomber.

So when one side is complaining about it, I say that's hypocracy. If Daschle wanted to elevate the debate, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead he played the usual politics just like all his predecessors.

Slang, Irv Homer is still on...WBCB-AM 1490 I believe...you can listen to it over the 'net.

Rush seems to be softening up a bit...maybe it's because the Republicans have 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW again. Or...

*conspiracy theory* Rush has been going deaf apparently for several years. Folks got pissed off b/c they think he may not have been listening to them all these years. He lost fans, and so had to reach out to the mods.

Tob, wasn't that his family's house (which housed DPS) that they razed in constructing the new business building at Southeast?

UT, I dig what you're saying. However, I don't know if you can hold the talk radio hosts culpable for the actions of nut jobs (that is, if there were some sort of concrete connection between someone listening to Rush, and then going after Dick Gephardt, for example). To me, that would be like holding KMFDM and Marilyn Manson partially responsible for Columbine.

Yeah, not responsible, not responsible at all. But a minor catalyst -- I just wouldn't be surprised.

I hadn't heard that, although a lot of those campus buildings used to be homes. I know a good number of his family still lived in town.

The crime lab I worked in was an old house with some cosmetic Radio-Shack type security systems.. contact tape on the windows and shit like that.

Depending on the day, there were sometimes pounds and pounds of weed stacked up in that place virtually unguarded. If only people knew!...

Wait...where was the Crime Lab at? Was it in the same place as the Department of Public Safety (which moved from the Limbaugh House to Dearmont in mid '95)?

I don't know if the Limbaugh House actually WAS owned by the Limbaugh family at one time, but I can't imagine anything else. I would imagine that all the Limbaughs down there are related.

There are plenty of talk shows - to promote opinions . There is a serious shortage of factual shows. Philly has KYW - all news. Even that is too simplistic - and yet probably more fact that most who call into talk radio know. Most towns have no such all news stations. News comes from the Christian evangelical broadcasters who are on a campaign to remove PBS radios from the countryside.

The scary part is that talk radio is problaby source of all news for many people. We read the same story in two newspapers. First the Daily News. When the same story was read in the Philly Inquirer, then a complete 180 degree different interpretation was obtained. Extremists will blame the 'liberal' Inky. Reality was that both papers reported same facts. But the Inky also reported more details. Therein lies talk radio. "I don't need no stinkin' details. I know everything I need to know from talk radio." Even tabloids provide more 'facts' than talk radio.

Extremists will always have problem with responsible news services. Superior news services will provide too many facts. Too many facts means that one cannot expolate to their conclusions - how extremists 'prove' their positions. A full news service always leaves one with questions about the original position. In the black and white world of extremists, to many facts is heresy.

Why so many Christian evangelical news broadcasts? They must report the 'correct' news. And so we have this Christian opinion that is acceptable to American religious extremists - a man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law. These are the same people who can provide honest news? Christian news stations are on a campaign to replace PBS stations throughout the countryside. To Evangelical Christians, PBS is also pinko, communist, corrupt leftist liberal propaganda.

If one spends time listening to talk radio, then one must have a serious deficiency of intelligence. No hunger for the whole story is what causes low intelligence. Most callers are so poorly informed, so one sided, so transparent, that talk radio is an irritation. I just hope most people are not that poorly informed. But then many still advocate Biblical stories over the facts of Darwinism. Easy to do when details are conveniently ignored.

When George Jr first talked of attacking Iraq, there was widespread support. As reality of facts finally leaking down even to the talk radio crowd, then his majority is diminishing. But it takes time to get the full story through the hype of political rhetoric and extremist talk shows.

And don't need them, either. News is one of the most expensive formats. The only time people under age 50 listen to radio news is when they are automobile-bound. If a city's rush hour lasts less than an hour, not enough people will listen to make it worthwhile.

And in about 10 years, not even those people will make it worthwhile. Wireless is going to kill old-fashioned broadcast. Mourn your news radio now and get it over with.

There isn't a force on earth, or off for that matter, that can take away a high-level broadcasting license right now.

That's nonsense. PBS is not corrupt.

One wonders whether the 15 countries that unanimously passed the UN resolution listen to talk radio. Or the congressional majority.

You're late to the story anyway. Public support waned to a low point and has increased since.

The point of talk radio is not to communicate news, but opinion, and while I agree that it doesn't support a broad set of views that creates a healthy marketplace of ideas, well... I see it like fast food. If you make it your only diet, you'll be unhealthy. But there's nothing wrong with a little indulgence once in a while and most would say that a little fun food makes for a more enjoyable life.

But here's your biggest problem tw. To say that the viewpoints of talk radio listeners are automatically invalid, is to commit EXACTLY the same kind of intellectual sin that you're accusing of those listeners.

Ironic, innit?

So, let me get this straight, so that there is absolutely no confusion here. You personally are saying that if one spends time listening to talk radio, they have a serious deficiency of intelligence?

Well, the man said "no hunger for the whole story is what causes low intelligence"...although I would think that that notion reverses cause and effect. :-)

I disagree with tw, i find it hilarious. It's often on here the same time as the Goons, I have great trouble distinguishing between the two.

Reasoning could go both ways. Conclusion would be a function of what one calls intelligence. A great intellect that cannot be used because of no knowledge - is that still great intelligence? Some would say yes. I don't agree. An intellect without fundamental knowledge is like a computer without software. Knowledge, especially of many perspectives, is essential to intelligence. But then it is a trivial point.

Fundamental to the original supposition is that those who don't seek out more knowledge and new perspectives only leave themselves less intelligent, or less competent, or as kbarger said, "a shocking amount of ignorance".

Correct. Talk radio is not to communicate news. However too many people use talk radio as their only source of news. To requote my post: As kbarger notes: And yet this is the only news source for too many people. I never said those talk show caller's viewpoints were invalid. Instead, I agreed with kbarger: I mistakenly assumed what is happening to many PBS stations is common knowledge. Christian Evangelicals "are on a campaign to remove PBS radios from the countryside." The legal process is quite simple. Religious broadcasters require a more powerful station to revoke PBS station repeater licenses. Worse still, PBS station cannot get those licenses back. In the countryside (not to be confused with urban areas), PBS is slowly being replaced by Christian Evangelical broadcasters. Have you noticed how many new Evangelical TV stations have started broadcasting in the Philly region? I count 4 - 3 more than two years ago. In radio, this expansion comes at the expense of PBS stations which Christian Evangelicals despise since PBS discusses topics like family planning and Darwinism.

Many now tune into the 700 Club (or whatever it is called) as their only source of news. It is their right. But it is also their responsiblity to learn of others so different - the only way to promote and understand tolerance. Religious broadcasters so often don't promote tolerance. As kbarger notes, talk show callers "often display a shocking amount of ignorance." Same applies to Christian Evangelicals who even advocate a new Arab-Israeli war because that will lead to the second coming of Christ.

I find this widespread ignorance of the world more than just Leno comedy. I recently asked some high school graduates if they knew about Enron (as a result of a bad joke that no one seems to understand). Not one had ever heard of Enron even after being provided a summary. Yet a few knew that Darwinism was an outright lie.

Not to mention what your definition of "is" is.
Erm...you drifted pretty quickly there within a single sentence from talking about "knowlege" to talking about "intelligence".

Don't you agree there is a difference between intelligence and knowlege? I certainly have known people I considered very unintelligent who seemed to *know* a lot...they just didn't put their elements of their knowlege in what seemed to me to be intelligent ways.

I also know people who strike me as quite intelligent that don't seem to know an awful lot about subject matter that I consider inmportant...(I suspect they have quite a bit of knowlege about subjects I know little about). They did wonderful things with the knowlege they did have; our differences over "what knowlege is important" may be be a result of differing life experience, or different values.

While I beleive that intelligent people tend to seek out knowlege, I also think intelligent people can fairly differ on what knowlege is worth pursuing.

You have failed to answer my question tw, though I am not surprised.

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I'll chime in regardless.

First, tw, Undertoad's right. You can't instantly dismiss anyone who listens to talk radio as ignorant. You can, however, dismiss anyone who gets all their information from only one source as irresponsible.

On the other hand, though, I think Daschle is, to an extent, right, although he may have gone a bit far in claiming that threats on his life were Rush's fault. The conservative whining about the liberal media is a lie, propagated by their own manipulation of the media. It may have been liberal at one time, but, taken as a whole, I believe it would be really difficult to show it as such today. You can't even really claim the NY Times shows this - anyone remember their utter hatred of Gore?

See, here's how modern media works. Journalists are pressed for deadlines, so when they see something mentioned somewhere, they have a tendency to present it as fact (over-generalization, I know) without doing any real fact-checking. This 'fact,' then, gets picked up by national media, and spread throughout our system. It becomes institutionalized regardless of its plausibility. Occasionally, it gets debunked, but more often anyone doing the debunking becomes a voice in the wilderness. This is what you're talking about, slang, with your 'smoking gun' (even though you claim to hate that term). Conservatives (and, I think, to a lesser extent, liberals), whose think tanks are well-funded, prominent, and seemingly omnipresent, realize this. So they release a few press statements about an issue - let's say...the so-called 'death tax'. They come up with a few talking points about the issue, release it to the public, and get interviews from the release. In this manner, they are able to raise awareness on the issue. They speak in vague and pejorative terms, and those terms get transferred into the media. Suddenly, the average American thinks they're going to be affected by a tax that only, and just barely, hits the top 2% of the population. And so the facts don't become conventional wisdom, the vague half-truths and lies propagated by some think tank and capitalized on by the media do. The media is there to sell - I think, in most cases, it doesn't care about one side or the other. Some exceptions, most notably Fox News, have an obvious bias.

I think this is all a backlash from the 60s and 70s. Conservatives learned the feminist deconstructive techniques and started to apply them to their own theories. Liberals, on the other hand, went kind of dormant. They figured that things were trending their way, and they didn't have to bother to worry about trying to set the national agenda, not counting on the conservatives' sudden ability to do so. Daschle's comments were an attempt to point this out, and he is pretty justified in doing so. Democrats can't set the agenda right now because conservatives have the monopoly on controlling the media (that's taking it a bit far - it's not quite a monopoly, but it is a disproportionate amount of strength). If the 'conservative media' gets echoed enough, that will become the conventional wisdom.

Besides, I don't blame Daschle. Ever listen to Rush lay into him? I personally think the guy's a fat, deaf buffoon, but a lot of people don't agree with me, and think he's the complete opposite (well, eyes and his own admission would confirm that he's overweight and is losing his hearing). So when he goes into an extended metaphor comparing Daschle to the devil, people listen, and start to accept it as fact. Daschle has the right to respond to that, but to make the connection between the threats and the commentary leads us down a dangerous path into free speech territory. Democrats should come up with a different way of trying to gain some foothold on the national agenda.

Have you even watched the show? The moment someone brings up a rational point, he silences them. Bill O'Reilly is a huge fraud. He lies about his populist beginnings, claims he's an environmentalist without seeming to know the definition of the word (why else would he ignore this administration's trampling of environmental laws?) and generally touts a toned-down version of the Republican mantra. No, he's not down the middle. He's a friendly face for right-leaning individuals who distrust the Republican party.

Then read closer. Surprise Surprise! What is intelligence as you posted it? Your question was being answered. What is intelligence as I posted AND what is intelligence as you posted? Why did that discussion persist? Should you know?

The question I asked was incredibly simple and straight-forward--one that could have been answered with a "yes," "no," or "fuck yourself!"...and maybe a bit more explanation if you wished. I've wasted enough of my time reading your irresponsible (IMO) posts the past few days.

Wow...possibly the shortest, as well as the least coherant tw post in many a day.
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2002/db021025.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2002/db021026.gif

How can anyone listen to chains of outright lies and gross misconceptions from people who are trying to be serious - and be entertained? If it was fictional comedy, then yes. But to listen, hours on end, as if the entire world never read a newspaper becomes insulting to the listener. Especially when those hours advocate that you not trust any mainline news sources or basic known science.

Let's get literal here. I did not use the word 'ignorant' because it is also a word used to insult. There was no intent on insulting those misguided souls who spend too much free time on talk radio. Listening to the propaganda from Milosevick or Saddam on Nightline is interesting in that they do know what reality is in their world. At least their misstatements and outright lies tell much about the man's intentions. But to listen to hours of low intelligence - smart or dumb people that are short on facts and still have strong opinions anyway - is not even entertainment. It is a complete waste of useful time, and rather insulting to the point of irritation. A serious grasp of reality makes those low brow talk shows an irritation - not even good entertainment.

In short, benchmark for peple with low intelligence (intelligence not being measured by IQ or equivalent) is listening to so much talk radio. A person with a serious grasp of the world just could not keep listening - if for no other reason - he is too busy trying to learn what is really happening in the world. At least Oprah provides more honest political content than so much talk radio.

UT says I find their opinions 'invalid' - different from 'ignorant' or 'lacking intelligence'. Their opinions are just fine for themselves. However without basis in reality or supporting fact, those opinions are, as I posted:
'Irritation' - not 'invalid' - was posted.

Most talk shows, be it a right wing propagandist or even a Barbra Walter's interview, is just too irrelevent to even be entertaining. Much worse is the talk radio that insults by promoting lies. A discussion of who killed Kennedy is still honest speculation. But a UN plan to conquer the US - are they oblivious to reality?

There is fiction based upon principles of reality - ie Star Trek - that make the entertainment worthwhile. Then there is fiction s so rediculous with the intent of being funny - Gilligan's Island. But much talk radio is neither. It is Jerry Springer except that, at least, Jerry Springer is partially fictionalized with intent only to be entertaining. Talk radio expects you even to vote based upon its intentionally distorted facts and half truths. That is an irritation when the listener does have a grasp on reality.

Say the same things to enough people and they will believe it as biblical - regardless of reality. These are principles in advertising, such as with Listerene. Convince people that Listerene kills germs, then those same people will deny any science fact that contradicts the well imbedded conclusion. Convince them of something before reality can be presented. Listerene kills germs - a half truth. But many of those germs are necessary to human health AND the number of germs mostly recovers in 10 minutes - reality. However the masses have been convinced that Listerene is effective and will insist that the taste of Listerene proves it works - junk science. That taste proves nothing. But they have been convinced before facts existed. They can no longer dispute what they had been told. The power of getting advertising into the public domain before factual reality gets there.

Geritol did the same thing generations earlier. Get people to believe a concept, then no factual reality will change their minds.

Remember those Kuwaiti babies ripped from incubators by Iraqi troops? Many still believe that story. Again facts be damned because they were convinced before truth was known.

In politics, research the issue before presenting it as fact. Focus groups were an early example. The right half of the Republican party has well established conservative think tanks and other functions to hone and present their viewpoint. Educational seminars for their agenda are nationwide. Nothing equivalent exists on the left. But even worse is a lack of the centrists - from either party - to analyze and hone a response.

This election was a classic example. We have a President who said arsenic in the drinking water is acceptable. That openly encouraged war with China over a silly spy plane. That protects anti-innovative industries such as accounting, steel, and some energy producers. That outrightly promotes tarrifs and restrictions on world trade - see the collapse Doha trade talks and Mexico's Pres Fox dispair with the George Jr administration. That undermined a productive steel processing industry and their customers to protect a self serving, anti-innovation steel producton industry. That is protecting both the accounting industry and many big corporate campaign contributors by stifling investigations - which is why NY State is being more successful in reform that the feds.

These and many more issues could have been so destructive to Republicans in this last month's elections IF Democrats, et al had refined, honed, targeted, and defined the issue. The Democratic party (basically all other parties) instead sat on its ass - said little, presented no case, defined no agenda, and got beat bad.

How many would really understand the number of times Harvey Pitts outrightly has stifled corporate fraud investigations in the SEC. That should have been expressed by every Democrat running for relection. The party had no agenda on an issue that left Republicans very vunerable. There was little reporting, for example, of how often Pitts quashed recommendations and outrightly refused to spend money on staff. News services can only report what is presented for reporting. No one bothered to point out how badly the current SEC commissioner was prosecuting. Therefore little appears in the press to inform the public. Blame the Democrats for being in disarray.

In short, I find the Democratic party is woefully lead - is totally devoid of an agenda - has serious leadership problems. Just another reason why so much press is presented from the perspective of right wing sources. It leaves the press in a difficult position - a coherent response only from one side. And no one to take on a buffon such as Rush. It leaves promoters of hate (ie Rush) with so much freedom - no one to point out those half truth and lies.

<P>I've seen the posts submitted the past few days and haven't had the time to respond.</P>
<P>The quality of the dialog has improved and I thank all of you. The points presented are easier to follow becuase of the use of links and quotes. The actual language is more specific also. This is much better.</P>
<P>I had to jump in to answer/comment on a couple of points. There are many things I'd like to address but I dont have time right now.</P>
<P>When I get the chance I'll try to comment on more of these great comments, but for now, I'll just talk to these.</P>
<P>The radio is on at my home almost all the time. I don't own and rarely watch TV. Years ago , I did watch TV to excess. For me, and those in my family, TV had become a "plugged in drug". Like so many people in this society, I was caught up in the trap of watching TV hour after hour no matter what was on, or even if I liked what was on. During during those years I had become fat and lethargic. Finally I killed my TV and started listening to radio. There are so many productive things you can do while listening to radio. How many productive things can you do while reading or watching TV? Can I rake the leaves while watching a small TV on my wrist? Can I take my daily walk while trying to read? I can't, but I can listen to a walkman and do many other things. I listen to the radio, especially talk radio, because I can do so many other things while listening. Including looking up things on the internet that the show is talking about. When you have the chance to look up references on the fly as the show is on the air, it allows the listener to guage the show. Is it bullshit, just entertainment? Or is this host, and his "expert" guest telling me something I can trust and use.</P><br>

<P>Seeing this was very surprising. I love a good conspiracy, and even make fun of myself because of this. Let me assure you though, from the examination of facts and science, Oswald killed Kennedy. He did it alone and all the evidence proves it conclusively. Given the facts from the Warren Comission and it's report, not from a movie for entertainment, will prove that to anyone willing to review the case.</P>

<P>As for the UN conspiracy, Kofi Annan's thugs keep crashing my hard drive everytime I collect references to make the case. :) </P>

<P>Keep up the great posts, I'll be jumping in again as I can.</P>

I may disagree with you sometimes, but you can be pretty damn funny. :)

tw, I agree with you about the Democratic leadership, and I think the Listerine example is completely accurate. But they're not completely responsible. I think that, generally, journalistic integrity is not at the level it should be. Reporters should not be taking everything they hear from a government official at face value, but instead do some fact checking to ensure the comments' reliability. Now, it seems, once a comment gets picked up once, it's accepted as fact. It's unfortunate that investigative journalism became stigmatized due to the sensationalistic nature of the worst of it. And that is the fault of journalists. I have a background in journalism, and this phenomenon, although not new, pains me.

I still can't agree with you about the broad generalization about talk radio. I think most people associate it with entertainment, and you can criticize those who don't. People who rely on talking head tv shows for their news are just as irresponsible.

YOu think it's the fault of jouranlists? Journos or the training they receive? Personally i think much of the blame lies with the companies that employ them, its often not profitable to send people into the field for a few months when they may come back with nothing, thus it doesn't get done much.

Ok, maybe blaming journalists was a bit irresponsible. It's not just their fault; it comes from editors who make impossible deadlines because they are under pressure from owners who want more money. It's always been like this, but the proliferation of media sources multiplies the effect.

However, it is the responsibility of established journalists, who are not struggling to put food on the table, to ensure integrity in their work and in that of their peers. I think the best example of this is the charicaturization of both candidates in 2000.

Good old Gush & Bore ?

Kinda few and far between. I think some journos are part of the problem, but they are far, far form alone.

It was why I also posted the example of Iraqis removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators. A story reported without supporting evidence or proof. A story now known to be ficton. But a story that the press all but had to report even though they could not confirm it. Just the testimony alone was news - regardless of whether it was fact or fiction. Any reporter for this story was damned no matter what he did - report it or not report it.

I encountered some commentary on Daschle's statements that began this whole thread
 

Of course, it may well be considered suspect, given that it is the opinion of a conservative writer and I encountered it on a conserative commentary website ... but I think there are some valid points raised.

Media Bias about Media Bias

The final paragraph of the article was particularly interesting, IMHO:

"Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh knows that what he is saying is his own opinion. But people who listen to the news on ABC, CBS, or NBC may imagine that they are getting the facts, not just those facts which fit the ideology of the media, with the media's spin."

Mr. Sowell is right ... we know that Rush (and I really enjoy listening to Rush) is expressing his opinion for three hours a day. What we don't know, truly, is how much opinion spins the news on the major networks, nor do we truly know how much of the news is corporate press release, packaged as news ...

Re: I encountered some commentary on Daschle's statements that began this whole thread
 

Rush's conclusions are his own opinions. He must justify his opinions with facts. However that means Rush is also providing facts. Is he? Is he misrepresenting facts, then letting others confuse what is fact with what is opinion? Exactly what Rush does. He intentionally distorts the difference between fact and opinion so that the naive will believe outright distortions as facts - to promote extremist positions in the Republican party.

Rush may say that Iraq will attack the US. Then he states opinions as to how we should respond to a potential Iraqi attack. Those conclusions are his opinions. Therefore, he has successfully promoted the lie as fact - that "Iraq will attack the US". Iraq never has, has not, and avoids all attacks on the US. An attack on the US would be in direct opposition to Saddam's strategic objectives. However because Rush never bothered to justify that "Iraq will attack the US", then that statement is broadcast by Rush as fact - to the naive.

To those who need facts to support their preconceived notions, this Rush 'fact' is what they need. And yet no one anywhere at anytime can find proof that Saddam intends to attack the US, nor can they even state a good reason why Saddam SHOULD attack the US. No problem. Rush has lied. And maybe will instead claim it was only his opinion. IF it was his opinion, then he had to provide supporting facts for that opinion. Rush provided no supporting facts because he represented "Iraq will attack the US" as a fact - a forgone conclusion.

Where did Sowell address any of this. At least mainstream journalists must conform to a criteria for honesty - that demands anything protraryed as fact to be confirmed. That criteria is what made Walter Conkite such a great source of facts. Walter held his reporters feet to the fire - as any good anchor does - to get the most honest facts possible.

Rush has no need to meet any such criteria. When caught in outright lies, the naive say he was only expressing an opinion. He was not. He was representing in the above example that "Iraq will attack the US" as fact even though no one can prove that statement AND even though such actions are in direct contradiction to Saddam's strategic objective.

Listening to Rush 3 hours a day should be good comedy - entertainment to laugh at a buffon. Equally good 'news' shows were "That was the Week that Was", "Laugh-In", and Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update". What Rush says is about as valid as comments from a clown in a traveling circus. The man's opinions distort the borders between realms of reality and the Outer Limits.

Re: Re: I encountered some commentary on Daschle's statements that began this whole thread
 

You can laugh all you want. <a href="http://www.ctdata.com/articles/2000/12/15/1112229.shtml">I laugh all the way to the bank</a> to the tune of 30 million a year