Not at all. I have nothing against honest people, irrespective to ideology. What I don't like are liars who misinform and misrepresent material fact to bolster their argument. It's weak and lazy. Conservative media and the mainstream media are NOT equidistant from the truth. I suggest you pay more attention to the news as it's fact checked. Fox "news" and much of what's heard on conservative talkradio is a disgrace. I'm not implying progressive talkradio isn't guilty of this, but their numbers are so small that it's hardly relevant.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not at all. I have nothing against honest people, irrespective to ideology. What I don't like are liars who misinform and misrepresent material fact to bolster their argument. It's weak and lazy. Conservative media and the mainstream media are NOT equidistant from the truth. I suggest you pay more attention to the news as it's fact checked. Fox "news" and much of what's heard on conservative talkradio is a disgrace. I'm not implying progressive talkradio isn't guilty of this, but their numbers are so small that it's hardly relevant.
One, I did not say he was a good journalist, or especially skilled at it. Two, I did not say he was currently working as a journalist. In point of fact, I said, "That doesn't mean that every word that he utters is journalism." You have described his current gig very accurately. That only proves that he isn't currently employed as an unbiased reporter.
Sean Hannity is not, has never been and likely never will be, a journalist. He's a dishonest ideologue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Last edited:
Not at all. I have nothing against honest people, irrespective to ideology. What I don't like are liars who misinform and misrepresent material fact to bolster their argument. It's weak and lazy. Conservative media and the mainstream media are NOT equidistant from the truth. I suggest you pay more attention to the news as it's fact checked. Fox "news" and much of what's heard on conservative talkradio is a disgrace. I'm not implying progressive talkradio isn't guilty of this, but their numbers are so small that it's hardly relevant.
Again, you're not getting the point. Opinion media is just that. Opinion. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's "dishonest". And your constant attacks on conservative talk radio belie your claims of any fairness you claim to represent.
Again, you're not getting the point. Opinion media is just that. Opinion. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's "dishonest". And your constant attacks on conservative talk radio belie your claims of any fairness you claim to represent.
I'm not talking about disagreeing with OPINION. Why can't you get that through your head? I'm talking about demonstrably WRONG information that is disseminated by radio ideologues to scare people into agreeing with their side of an argument.
It's dishonest and lazy. And sadly, too many listeners think these guys ARE journalists and believe their lies. If you don't see that as a problem, then you have integrity issues.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Sean Hannity is not, has never been and likely never will be, a journalist. He's a dishonest ideologue. Nothing more, nothing less.
I will not disagree that Sean Hannity is a boring blowhard, and almost impossible to listen to even though I usually agree with him. I find his on-air personna to be abrasive and irritating. There are more than a few times that I am embarrassed that he is regarded as a self-anointed spokesman for political positions that I agree with. However, none of the negative qualities that you or I mentioned are proof that he doesn't have the rhetorical skills that are part of the journalists toolbox. I stand by what I said earlier. Being a "journalist" means possessing a certain skill set. One can use that skillset to engage in unbiased reporting, or you can use that same skill set to peddle products or persuade people to agree to a certain point of view.
That fact that Hannity uses his skills the way that he does is not proof that he lacks the skills.
Being a "journalist" means possessing a certain skill set. One can use that skillset to engage in unbiased reporting, or you can use that same skill set to peddle products or persuade people to agree to a certain point of view.
I strongly disagree with your view of "being".
You can have a degree and skills in architecture, but if you are not designing and overseeing the construction of useful structures, you are not being an architect.
You can have a degree and skills in law, but if you are not performing the practice of law you are not being a lawyer.
You can have a degree in speech and possess a beautiful, articulate voice, but if you are not functioning within the studios of a radio station, you are not being a radio announcer.
Some of us participating in this conversation, and some of observing this conversation, are of the opinion that Mr. Hannity may possess the skills and the brain-power that would allow him to be a journalist if he chose to, but he chooses not to!
Education aside, training aside, experience aside, one of the qualities of being a journalist is the ability to evaluate the facts that your education, training and experience make it possible for you to gather, and to then take those facts and arrange them into a narrative that is understandable, that has integrity and makes it possible for the readers/listeners to comprehend reality.
Mr. Hannity seems to demonstrate his ability to gather facts and turn them into preconceived opinions. That does not qualify as "being a journalist" thus we don't know if he actually has the ability to be a journalist. Training and ability alone does not make one a journalist. A track record of delivering the goods is the only way we have of determining who is actually being a journalist.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I strongly disagree with your view of "being".
You can have a degree and skills in architecture, but if you are not designing and overseeing the construction of useful structures, you are not being an architect.
You can have a degree and skills in law, but if you are not performing the practice of law you are not being a lawyer.
Then it comes down to whether or not being a journalist is a profession, like doctor or lawyer, or if it is a trade, like being a carpenter or plumber, or merely a job, like being a radio announcer. I contend that being a journalist is a trade, not a profession, but it isn't merely a job. If you know how to cut boards to size and fasten them together into useful things, you are a carpenter. During those times when you are not working at carpentry, you're still a carpenter. Not all things are so comparable to each other that they can be used as interchangeable examples. A lawyer is a lawyer so long as he is a member of the Bar, even if he isn't practicing. An architect is an architect even if he isn't designing buildings. But, you are correct that a radio announcer isn't a radio announcer if he isn't announcing at a radio station. That's because lawyer and architect are professions, journalist and carpenter are trades, while radio announcer is simply a job.
I stand by my assertion that using the skills of a journalist for things other than unbiased reporting of news doesn't mean one doesn't possess the skill set, and that is is the possession of the skill that makes one a journalist.
Also, to address what someone mentioned earlier about "Edward R. Murrow rolling over in his grave", Murrow did not first gain fame for "objective, unbiased journalism". His reports of the Blitz from London were masterpieces of propaganda. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Murrow's reporting from London was a major factor in the American public accepting Roosevelt's strategy of defeating Germany first, then Japan.
That is not a condemnation of Murrow. America needed someone who could present emotional reports that presented the brave English civilians as brave, noble allies standing up to the evil Nazis. Unlike Hannity, who I agree with but cannot listen to, Murrow would have been someone I would have agreed with and enjoyed listening to. At a time when America needed strong, anti-Nazi propaganda, Edward R. Murrow was the right man in the right place to fill that need.
Then it comes down to whether or not being a journalist is a profession,
What makes something a profession? Having the college degrees? Passing an exam? Or just saying "I'm a professional," and a group of people agree?
If a profession is defined by the degree or an exam, then Hannity is not a professional, because he didn't graduate from a college and hasn't passed an exam. What he has been able to do is convince others that he has something to say, and can attract an audience with what he says. If that's a profession, then OK. But it's not a journalist, because he doesn't "journal," he speaks. One can say he writes books, but that makes him an author, not a journalist. There are many intermediate levels in writing, and not all writing is journalism. But what is a diploma, other than a piece of paper that tells others that a particular university accepts the credentials of this person as what he says he is?
We live today in a country where 16% of the population believes the President of the United States was born in Africa, and is therefore unqualified to be elected. To them, regardless of the facts, he will never be President, and he doesn't get the respect that comes with that office. That kind of thinking has been applied to lots of other fields, where people can convince others they're knowledgeable about a subject, and are therefore authorities on it because what they say jives with what a group of people believe. One can say that's how Christianity began.
So what does all this mean? That there is no such thing as the truth other than what we believe? Maybe. But at the heart of the issue, no one, whether it's Sean Hannity, Barack Obama, or Jesus Christ, is who they say they are...unless we're willing to believe. If we're not, no college degrees, professional experience, or even electoral results will convince us otherwise. We will ONLY believe what we want to believe. Is that really the kind of world we live in now?
We will ONLY believe what we want to believe.
Niche programming and the internet has allowed people to descend into an ego-centric utopia where lots of people agree with them, no matter how absurd their position. What they feel/think is validated and reinforced by readily available like-minded people. People seem to, now more than ever before, dig in their heels---and that's the end of that. No more hearing both sides.
Is that really the kind of world we live in now?
Two words: Unskewed polls.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
We live today in a country where 16% of the population believes the President of the United States was born in Africa, and is therefore unqualified to be elected. To them, regardless of the facts, he will never be President, and he doesn't get the respect that comes with that office.
If you're going to use an example of something that isn't really a fact to make a point, you should pick an example that isn't really a fact. Barack Obama WAS born in Kenya. The documentation that proves it has been well circulated, along with other proofs such as his own statements about himself on applications for student financial aid. Your post proves that we live in a country where people ignore facts. The fact that you ignore the fact of Obama's Kenyan birth is proof, though not in the manner that you intended. You also imply that Obama is not respected because of his foreign birth, when the truth is that he is not respected because he is incompetent and unqualified for the office, has failed miserably at everything he has attempted, and is pursuing a course of action that would, if successful, turn the United States into a third world country. Most of us wouldn't respect him even if he did have a non-forged birth certificate.
You decry a situation where, "We will ONLY believe what we want to believe", yet you support it with an example that can only be believed by someone who wants to believe it!
You decry a situation where, "We will ONLY believe what we want to believe", yet you support it with an example that can only be believed by someone who wants to believe it!
No, what you're saying is only believed by 16% of the public. So if only 16% believe it, and we operate by majority rule, then the rest doesn't matter. Right?
The real problem is that some people have reached the point where they refuse to accept "majority rule." It's no wonder that mass media is having a struggle in some circles.
I'm not talking about disagreeing with OPINION. Why can't you get that through your head? I'm talking about demonstrably WRONG information that is disseminated by radio ideologues to scare people into agreeing with their side of an argument.
Which differs from TV ideologues doing the same thing? Which differs from the PRESIDENT doing the same thing?
Hell, YOU'RE doing the same thing. Except the "wrong" information you're disseminating is about radio instead of some political issue.
No, what you're saying is only believed by 16% of the public. So if only 16% believe it, and we operate by majority rule, then the rest doesn't matter. Right?
The real problem is that some people have reached the point where they refuse to accept "majority rule." It's no wonder that mass media is having a struggle in some circles.
The majority doesn't get to decide what facts are.
Having said that, those 16% are wrong. The facts don't support that position, and continuing to argue that position is counter productive, because it makes people who have legit problems with things going on in Washington look like raving lunatics by association.
Last edited:
The majority doesn't get to decide what facts are.
They get to decide what THEY believe the facts are. And at the same time, the MINORITY also gets to decide what THEY believe the facts are. And since they all choose the media they use based on what they believe, then those are the facts to them, reinforced by the media they choose. And that's why we're at the place we're at right now.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No, what you're saying is only believed by 16% of the public. So if only 16% believe it, and we operate by majority rule, then the rest doesn't matter. Right?
The real problem is that some people have reached the point where they refuse to accept "majority rule." It's no wonder that mass media is having a struggle in some circles.
"Majority Rules" is found nowhere in the Constitution. "Majority Rules" is the German majority deciding that a "final solution" is needed to deal with the Jews. "Majority Rules" is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.
The truth is the truth. The truth is true even if no one believes it, just as a lie is a lie even though everyone believes it.
At one time, the majority of people believed that the earth was flat, and if you sailed too far, you'd fall off the edge. Guess what? That wasn't true! The world really was round.
"Majority Rules" is found nowhere in the Constitution.
The word "quorum" isn't found in the Constitution either. But that's how Congress works. Same with majority. So our government operates with more than one operating system.
Beyond that, the commercial media, and news talk radio, which is the topic here, is based around reaching the largest possible audience. It's next to impossible to get a majority because there are too many radio stations, and the audience has been splintered too much. But the goal of commercial media isn't to broadcast the truth. But to be #1. If there's a large enough audience for goats bleating, then that will be the next big format.
They get to decide what THEY believe the facts are. And at the same time, the MINORITY also gets to decide what THEY believe the facts are. And since they all choose the media they use based on what they believe, then those are the facts to them, reinforced by the media they choose. And that's why we're at the place we're at right now.
I don't disagree with you there. It doesn't help that some people have no intention of believing the truth even when presented with it.
I don't disagree with you there. It doesn't help that some people have no intention of believing the truth even when presented with it.
As my father once explained, when I brought that to him: That's what makes the world go round.
Or: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I don't disagree with you there. It doesn't help that some people have no intention of believing the truth even when presented with it.
There is an old bit of folklore that claims a professor walked into a large university classroom one day and began his lecture time by drawing a line on the chalkboard, with a small vertical tick-mark to mark each end. He asked the students to write on a piece of paper what their estimation or evaluation was of the length of the line. Folklore has it that he collected all the "ballots" and had a student calculate the average of all the "guesses". Though there were some really crazy LOW estimates and really crazy HIGH estimates, the average was right on the money for the length of the line.
Some of us look at politics, government and social order today with than kind of view. There are some guesses about what is the right thing for government to do that are way, way over to the Left. There are some guesses that are way, way over to the Right. But the theory of "self government" is that when you put all the guesses (election day ballots) on how to run a country, a state or a city into a little basket and have the Poll Workers add them all up, we come up with "what the length of the correct policy" really is.
Thus, one can argue that when it comes to politics, when it come to economic policy, it may be that neither the Left or the Right has THE CORRECT ANSWER. You are making a big deal out of people who don't intend to "believe the truth" even when presented to them. Can you identify for me how I know when I have met someone who knows the truth, believes the truth, acts upon the truth? I know a lot of people who know part of "The Truth" but I am not sure I've ever met or observed anyone who actually "KNOWS THE TRUTH" in its totality. When I meet someone who admits they are not sure they know the truth, WHO is the yardstick I point them to: "Read this person, Listen to that person, Go have a conversation with this other person." At that point you will "own" the truth for your own life.
I have always wanted to meet a person who "Knows the Truth". Who do I need to meet?
If you're going to use an example of something that isn't really a fact to make a point, you should pick an example that isn't really a fact. Barack Obama WAS born in Kenya. The documentation that proves it has been well circulated, along with other proofs such as his own statements about himself on applications for student financial aid. Your post proves that we live in a country where people ignore facts. The fact that you ignore the fact of Obama's Kenyan birth is proof, though not in the manner that you intended. You also imply that Obama is not respected because of his foreign birth, when the truth is that he is not respected because he is incompetent and unqualified for the office, has failed miserably at everything he has attempted, and is pursuing a course of action that would, if successful, turn the United States into a third world country. Most of us wouldn't respect him even if he did have a non-forged birth certificate.
You decry a situation where, "We will ONLY believe what we want to believe", yet you support it with an example that can only be believed by someone who wants to believe it!
E-gads, a birther in our midst.
Let me guess, you were searching your fav wingnut host's names and landed here by mistake. Not to worry, worldnutdaily and all those other nutty sites await you.
To any and all: You do realize there isn't ANY proof that will ever be acceptable to the lunatic fringe on this particular subject, so please don't feed the troll.
Last edited:
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.