Mike Malloy controversial comments

[Avid Listener]

Wing-nuts mostly have authoritarian personality disorder. Right-wing talk appeals to it. So does fundamentalist Christianity. Most people in radio today, also have it. Such people don't respond to logic or evidence but to authority. So, saying "I'm an expert" is mostly effective with such people. A few recycle authoritative opinion and then claim to be experts, too - like talk show hosts.

Left wing extremist are just as susceptible to blindly accepting anything their favorite demagogue says. That's why I do not respect demagogues from either side of the political spectrum. I do take the sum total of all a person's public statements into account, not just the content of a particular sound bite. I have heard sound bites of many people I respect that imply "I'm an expert" as their proof, but when I am familiar with their entire body of rhetoric, and have read them publish detailed proofs based on logic and citations of specifics, I take all of that into account. Rush Limbaugh has never done that. A former local talk show host in Pittsburgh, Jim Quinn, did often provide detailed proofs based on passages from the Constitution and Federalist Papers to support his claims, though not on every single show.

Also, in the case of religion, we see a major exception to the idea of accepting something as "gospel" just because of who he is. When God says something, that is THE authoritative source. Religious beliefs, unlike political beliefs, are genuinely matters of faith, not objective proof.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And my point is that allowing blatantly false views on the air just for the sake of "conversation" is irresponsible.

That point cannot be over-stated. It is the absolute, totally unvarnished truth. It is one thing to respect opposing opinions. It is a totally different thing to expect anyone to respect lies, or to be less inflammatory, totally false information. I'll give the people who are totally wrong the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are misinformed rather than deliberately lying. That would apply to radio show callers, or posters on internet forums.

This conversation has become "circular". One group says those of you quoting what is regularly stated on Talk Radio are being one sided and not telling the whole story, not giving proper value to two sides of the argument. And then the "accused" come back and say: "It would be irresponsible to allow those lies to have equal billing with what we already know to be the truth."

Like a dog chasing it's tail, we can keep running in this same little circle over and over and over and over.

Who gets to decide who is telling the truth, and also gets to decide who is NOT telling the truth and should have no expectation of being read or hear in either a forum like this, or on Talk Radio?

When someone proposes a comment and it is dismissed after being judged to be a lie, what is the appeal process? Here in the forum we can just yell louder and louder and louder until the management of the forum finally says: "Enough already. Both sides need to take a time out." That is not good communication style to help people understand what is going on in our civilization and in our little experiment in self government.

And in Talk Radio, there is no appeal process. The program host (and call screener) either do not take your call (because they know it is a lie) or if you slip through and say something unacceptable to the host, he/she just pulls the plug on you, sometimes graciously, sometimes with condescending not-so-gracious remarks.

Both sides of most political issues today seem to tell some lies. Some on purpose. Some out of ignorance. For our system of self government to work, there has to be a platform where people can express themselves... even when they are lying. But there then has to be a system where the opposing view (whether it is the truth, or the opposing view is the lie) has to be heard.

Our country was not built on the idea that some individuals (newspaper editors, TV anchors, talk show hosts, bullies on an Internet forum) say: I, ME, YOURS TRULY... I know the difference between lies and truth, and I am the only one who is a reliable resource, thus I, the host of this broadcast or, I the bully of this forum will henceforth be the ONLY arbiter of what is truth and what is a lie, and we will not even discuss (on the air or off the air, in the forum on in private messages) whether my judgement on what is The Truth is accurate.

Are you guys interested in having conversation or not?

 

[Avid Listener]

Are you guys interested in having conversation or not?

When someone puts for a reasonable premise, even though I disagree with it, I can have a conversation. When they put forth an unreasonable premise, that contains totally false or totally false arguments, a conversation is impossible.

For example, if someone says, "It would be good for America to have a socialized medical care system for all citizens that is provided by the Federal Government. So, we should just ignore the Constitution and do it.", that's something that is not worthy of consideration because it contains a clearly obvious lie. But, if someone says, "It would be good for America to have a socialized medical care system for all citizens that is provided by the Federal Government. So, we should begin a campaign to amend the Constitution to make that possible.", that is a reasonable opposing view, worthy of respect. The latter statement does not contain a blatantly false premise as part of the argument. Someone who attempts to put for that opposing view is someone that one could have a conversation with. Someone who puts for the former point of view is not.

Again, that's only one example to illustrate a point.

Here's another.

"Guns are nasty, so the government should just confiscate them all, no matter what the Constitution says." Non-starter, there's nothing there to have a conversation about.

"Guns are nasty, so we should pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment." That's something I could engage in a conversation about, even though I'm 100% totally opposed to it.

And please note, saying that what the Constitution says means something totally different from the actual words themselves are also a non-starter for a conversation.

Incidentally, saying "Our country was not built on the idea that some individuals (newspaper editors, TV anchors, talk show hosts, bullies on an Internet forum) say: I, ME, YOURS TRULY... I know the difference between lies and truth, and I am the only one who is a reliable resource, thus I, the host of this broadcast or, I the bully of this forum will henceforth be the ONLY arbiter of what is truth and what is a lie, and we will not even discuss (on the air or off the air, in the forum on in private messages) whether my judgement on what is The Truth is accurate." is just as wrong when the person saying it insists that even those who contend that the earth is flat or that there are reptilian aliens living among us disguised as human beings must be given the same respect as sensible people.

I notice that when I made reference to the many discrepancies and questions surrounding Barack Obama's alleged birth certificate, those who disagreed jumped all over me, denouncing me as a "birther" and other such name calling, and the moderators in here said and did absolutely nothing about it. Perhaps that's because I didn't tattle like a 6 year old.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For example, if someone says, "It would be good for America to have a socialized medical care system for all citizens that is provided by the Federal Government. So, we should just ignore the Constitution and do it.", that's something that is not worthy of consideration because it contains a clearly obvious lie. But, if someone says, "It would be good for America to have a socialized medical care system for all citizens that is provided by the Federal Government. So, we should begin a campaign to amend the Constitution to make that possible.", that is a reasonable opposing view, worthy of respect.

I don't see this example as being really valid to the bigger question of what issues will we discuss and which issues will we refuse to discuss.

I see people suggest that the funding of medical care needs to change and maybe something like the European systems that are called Socialized Medicine should be considered.

I don't recall people regularly saying: Ignore the Constitution. Thus there is nothing like that automatically pouring fire-extinguisher material all over the attempted conversation.

Second point: What part of the Constitution prohibits the government from becoming involved in the funding of medical care. Maybe the lies turns out to be the claim: "Socialized Medicine is unconstitutional!"

Why would would first have a 10 to 15 year expensive and divisive debate over a constitutional change when we haven't had a discussion over whether changing the way we deliver and finance medicine is a change we are even interested in.

We in this country don't seem to be able to have a healthy and civilized discussion over what is socialized medicine and what is NOT socialized medicine. We end up shutting off debate and everybody calling each other liars before such a discussion gets out of the incubator.

I think of Socialized Medicine (and other will not agree with me) as a system where the doctors, the nurses, the orderlies, the surgeons, and radiology people, the lab people and the kitchen workers are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. It is medicine actually performed by the government, medicine actually run by the government. Some European countries apparently do it this way.

I see the issue of who pays for medical care and who runs the payment system as a separate issue. If our nation decided to establish a "single payer" method of financing medical care, but the delivery of medicine remained in the hands of doctors and nurses and lab folks and kitchen folks who worked for community not-for-profit hospitals and corporate for-profit hospitals and clinics... what do we call that system? For one thing, it is commonly referred to as "single payer". Is that Socialized Medicine? Is that unconstitutional? I can't name them for you, but apparently in some countries this system has been adopted.

Why would we change our Constitution FIRST before we even know if we are interested in single payer, before we know if we are interested in government delivered medicine.

I'm just an old country boy.... but it looks like we have to decide what changes, if any, should be made to our current medical system before you can hope to begin a conversation that has any integrity on whether we want to change our constitution.

But to shut down ALL discussion of medical care by saying: That's a lie because the Constitution doesn't allow what you want to do seems to be outside the rodeo-arena where civilized discussion takes place in this country.

 

[TheBigA]

But to shut down ALL discussion of medical care by saying: That's a lie because the Constitution doesn't allow what you want to do seems to be outside the rodeo-arena where civilized discussion takes place in this country.

You're exactly right, and this is why talk radio has shut the door on any meaningful discussion except agreeing with whatever the host says. What the previous poster is doing is setting up parameters and pre-conditions for discussion. I'll discuss as long as you agree with my premise. Like when the Israelis say we'll talk peace with the Palestinians, except we don't want to call them Palestinians, and Jerusalem is off the table. That's not a real discussion. And that's why nothing gets done. That's not democracy. Democracy is a town meeting where everyone speaks, regardless of how ridiculous the statement is. A free and open discussion with no pre-conditions. And that's what's missing from talk radio.

 

[Avid Listener]

But to shut down ALL discussion of medical care by saying: That's a lie because the Constitution doesn't allow what you want to do seems to be outside the rodeo-arena where civilized discussion takes place in this country.

That's the problem with writing a reasonably short post instead of an entire book. All I am saying is that within the overall context of any conversation about turning control of our health care system over to the same government that routinely loses years worth of e-mails it needs to be acknowledged, at some point, that part of the process must include a constitutional amendment to enable such a socialist system. The amendment doesn't have to happen before the conversation takes place, but it needs to be included in the conversation, and recognized as being a step required before the process can proceed into actual implementation, should the nation make that unfortunate choice. When those in the conversation refuse to include the need for a constitutional amendment to enable such a system, then a reasonable conversation is impossible.

And as I said, but you ignored, that was just one illustration of the larger issue.

In fact, that brings up an even bigger example of something that makes a conversation almost impossible. If one uses an isolated example to make a bigger point, one ends up nit-picking over the example instead of discussing the bigger point. But, it one doesn't use an example as an illustration, then the point one is attempting to make isn't made. So, instead of discussing the larger issue, one gets ugly posts nitpicking the illustration instead of a discussion about the larger issue.

 

[Avid Listener]

It should also be noted that in radio, the news/talk format exists to get ratings, just as music format radio exists to get ratings. It's the height of irony to hear those who consistently post in music related forums that expanding music playlists is impossible because it hurts ratings turn around and claim that news/talk radio should ignore what works for ratings and instead provide "balanced conversations", when that is as big a kiss of death to good ratings as open playlists are to music format radio.

If someone wants to take a position that radio should present what's best for the listener, regardless of ratings, fine. Advocate that position. But if you're going to advocate that position, be consistent and advocate it across the board, not just in those areas where your own personal taste is dictating what you personally want to hear.

 

[TheBigA]

It should also be noted that in radio, the news/talk format exists to get ratings, just as music format radio exists to get ratings.

Except that for the most part, talk radio ratings are in trouble. And for the past two years, talk radio revenues have been down. So my viewpoint isn't about ideology. It's about ratings and revenue. Meanwhile, it's been demonstrated time and again that the way to increase music radio ratings is to narrow the playlist. Although no music radio playlist has ever gone down to just one song. That's what people are hearing on most talk radio stations.

 

[flybynight]

I notice that when I made reference to the many discrepancies and questions surrounding Barack Obama's alleged birth certificate, those who disagreed jumped all over me, denouncing me as a "birther" and other such name calling, and the moderators in here said and did absolutely nothing about it. Perhaps that's because I didn't tattle like a 6 year old.

Does anybody really think that, like with much of today's talkradio, there's any point in trying to reason with this mentality?

It's utterly futile. This is why the format is in a tailspin.

Rush Limbaugh and his drones have done a masterful job of cutting the corners off of square pegs to make convincing arguments as to why he is always correct in his wacky, one-sided assertions. Rush comes from a family of lawyers. He's a very persuasive speaker, particularly when the audience is made up of very eager believers.

Rush knows what he's doing. Many in his audience do not, and it shows.

The hyper-partisan lemmings have made talkradio unlistenable for normal, reasonable people---just as they are doing here. This thread has inadvertently become a clinic in what's wrong with today's talkradio.

Bravo.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And as I said, but you ignored, that was just one illustration of the larger issue.

In fact, that brings up an even bigger example of something that makes a conversation almost impossible. If one uses an isolated example to make a bigger point, one ends up nit-picking over the example instead of discussing the bigger point. But, it one doesn't use an example as an illustration, then the point one is attempting to make isn't made. So, instead of discussing the larger issue, one gets ugly posts nitpicking the illustration instead of a discussion about the larger issue.

Whether it is a legislative committee working on a new bill, or a corporation trying to iron out employee policy or work out a new policy for a warranty program for the company's product, the discussion has to start with the "small moving parts". Until what we used to call "group dynamics" get to simmering and cooking by tackling smaller elements one at a time, the group will just come unglued if they try to discuss the big issues, the full issue before the group has established trust and flexibilty and the ability to communicate among themselves.

Talk Radio today wants to take big, broad, inclusive topics, declare them "settled discussion" (like the term "settled law") and then declare, it is a waste of time to discuss little bits and pieces. We have already declared victory on the big broad full topic. The discussion has to start, and trust between those in the discussion has to be established by first tackling small, easy-to-define issues where a discussion can be held without everyone in the room storming out in anger.

You seem to be promoting a mechanical system where we are expected to swallow the elephant and once we have done that, we can back up and decide whether we wanted to swallow the ears, wanted to swallow the left foot, and whether we wanted to swallow the flea on the elephant's butt. But if we decide up front we find swallowing the elephant to be unconstitutional, then we never consider whether the ear or the foot or the flea would have been tasty and nourishing.

 

[flybynight]

It should also be noted that in radio, the news/talk format exists to get ratings, just as music format radio exists to get ratings. It's the height of irony to hear those who consistently post in music related forums that expanding music playlists is impossible because it hurts ratings turn around and claim that news/talk radio should ignore what works for ratings and instead provide "balanced conversations", when that is as big a kiss of death to good ratings as open playlists are to music format radio.

If someone wants to take a position that radio should present what's best for the listener, regardless of ratings, fine. Advocate that position. But if you're going to advocate that position, be consistent and advocate it across the board, not just in those areas where your own personal taste is dictating what you personally want to hear.

Less-extreme talkradio didn't fail. The format just veered more in that direction out of laziness and a lack of creativity. Stations that relied on a mixture of personalities rather than the same type of ideologue all day long, did a lot better than what we see today. Ratings-wise, talkradio is in a tailspin.

 

[boombox4]

That's the wrong bar to be setting. We need to aim higher. We shouldn't be seeking to aim lower. We've gone about as low as we can go. The hosts have NOT been doing it in a responsible way. They've alienated a large chunk of the audience, they've alienated advertisers, and it's time for a change. You know you've got a problem when even the owners are revolted by what they hear.

The fact is that this country desperately needs to have a conversation. And sure, not everything everyone says if true. But when the conversation happens, the truth usually wins out. People need to have a place to go where what they say isn't immediately shouted down. They need a place where the hosts aren't stifling or intimidating different opinions. Unfortunately, listeners won't find it on the radio.

It's obvious from some of your comments you work in radio. You've mentioned over and over that the hosts are the problem -- or, at least enough of the hosts in talk radio are the problem. But don't these hosts -- just like anyone else on an airstaff -- answer to the program directors? Aren't they being coached by the PD to run their show the way it is run?

Maybe the national hosts don't have the equivalent of a program director. But I'm certain that local hosts do.

So how do PDs, and other management at radio stations fit in to this problem with talk radio?

 

[boombox4]

All I am saying is that within the overall context of any conversation about turning control of our health care system over to the same government that routinely loses years worth of e-mails it needs to be acknowledged, at some point, that part of the process must include a constitutional amendment to enable such a socialist system. The amendment doesn't have to happen before the conversation takes place, but it needs to be included in the conversation, and recognized as being a step required before the process can proceed into actual implementation, should the nation make that unfortunate choice. When those in the conversation refuse to include the need for a constitutional amendment to enable such a system, then a reasonable conversation is impossible.

In all fairness, Avid, where in the Constitution does it say anything against socialised medicine?

We have Medicare, we have Social Security, and other government programs that could be considered 'socialist' in nature.

Social welfare programs do not necessarily mean you have a socialist government.

- - - - -
RE: talk radio and certain opinions not aired because they are 'false'. I think talk hosts should air such callers, and debate them.

If you have a show on 9-11, and somebody calls in and wants to say it was an "inside job", take them on, have a debate about it.

Such opinions are already out there, and there are significant numbers of people who believe something that many others will think are false, and nonfactual.

I think it makes for better talk radio if hosts are willing to debate opposite views, even if they think the caller's view (or guest's view) is false. It can make for interesting listening, and I think part of a host's job may be to engage what they believe is a 'false' view and prove it wrong -- no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.

 

[Small Market Guy]

So there you go again, shutting down discussion, calling people names, and attacking someone for no reason. How is that being responsible?

Oh, stop it with the martyr complex. No one is stopping anyone from doing anything.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh, stop it with the martyr complex. No one is stopping anyone from doing anything.

Read what you just wrote.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Read what you just wrote.

Who is stopping you from posting your opinions here? No one. Stop playing victim. We already have one of those here. We don't need another.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I think it makes for better talk radio if hosts are willing to debate opposite views, even if they think the caller's view (or guest's view) is false. It can make for interesting listening, and I think part of a host's job may be to engage what they believe is a 'false' view and prove it wrong -- no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.

Almost no one ever had their mind changed by a radio show. Allowing some attention seeking nutjob on the air just to refute what he says only encourages him to spread his lies elsewhere. It's irresponsible. Thinking that a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is just going to admit he's wrong because you tell him he is on the air is crazy talk.

The list of topics that really are beyond discussing is short. It's not a matter of shutting down "all" discussion. Just discussion that would be irresponsible.

 

[Small Market Guy]

You're exactly right, and this is why talk radio has shut the door on any meaningful discussion except agreeing with whatever the host says. What the previous poster is doing is setting up parameters and pre-conditions for discussion. I'll discuss as long as you agree with my premise. Like when the Israelis say we'll talk peace with the Palestinians, except we don't want to call them Palestinians, and Jerusalem is off the table. That's not a real discussion. And that's why nothing gets done. That's not democracy. Democracy is a town meeting where everyone speaks, regardless of how ridiculous the statement is. A free and open discussion with no pre-conditions. And that's what's missing from talk radio.

It's interesting you use Israel as the example.

It's a perfect example of what happens when you talk with someone who has no interest in a civil discussion. What has negotiating with terrorists gotten Israel? Absolutely nothing. That's the real world equivalent of exactly what I've been trying to get through to you. Thank you for the perfect example proving my point.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Who gets to decide who is telling the truth, and also gets to decide who is NOT telling the truth

The truth is the truth. No one "decides" what it is. It just IS.

 

[flybynight]

The truth is the truth. No one "decides" what it is. It just IS.

Which means no discussion of other viewpoints is necessary since YOU have already determined what the "truth" is.

You just proved BigA's point.

Incidentally, today's talkradio hosts have a penchant for airing false information that has been debunked repeatedly. So much for fact-based "truth".



Nice job.