hate speech vs. political speech

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
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?

Wow...possibly the shortest, as well as the least coherant tw post in many a day.

[tw]

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

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.

previously posted by tw
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.

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:

Most callers are so poorly informed, so one sided, so transparent, that talk radio is an irritation.

'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.

[tw]

Originally posted by hermit22
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. If the 'conservative media' gets echoed enough, that will become the conventional wisdom.

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.

[slang]

<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>

"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."
"But to listen, hours on end, as if the entire world never read a newspaper becomes insulting to the listener."

<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>

"A discussion of who killed Kennedy is still honest speculation."

<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>

[hermit22]

Originally posted by slang

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

[jaguar]

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.

[hermit22]

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.

[jaguar]

Good old Gush & Bore ?

However, it is the responsibility of established journalists, who are not struggling to put food on the table,

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

[tw]

Originally posted by hermit22
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.

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.

[wolf]

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 ...

[tw]

Originally posted by wolf
"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."

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.

[Rush Limballs]

Originally posted by tw
Listening to Rush 3 hours a day should be good comedy - entertainment to laugh at a buffon.

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