If the group it's identifying uses it, what's the problem? I can use any term I want to describe myself.
If certain media is the "intelligentsia," what does that make the other group? The opposite? Perhaps.
-
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
“Clay & Buck” debuts today - but where in Market #13?
- Thread starter DN14224
- Start date
If the group it's identifying uses it, what's the problem? I can use any term I want to describe myself.
If certain media is the "intelligentsia," what does that make the other group? The opposite? Perhaps.
This country could use a lot more intelligentsia. Or at the very least, less willful ignorance.
'Dumbpaloosa'
I see more of that style of speech (from both sides of the political spectrum) in social media and news site comment sections than I have heard on conservative talk radio. I don't listen to it much anymore, but I used to turn it on now and then because my mom (who was ill and staying with me) tired of NPR, so I'd switch back and forth.
I don't remember hearing any of the hosts we listened to using the term 'snowflake', not much on anyone being 'triggered' (I've mainly seen that mentioned in liberal leaning media, actually -- 'trigger warnings' and the like), but I've seen 'snowflake' used a gazillion times on social media and news sites' comments and any other online forms of dialog. A few of the hosts talked about 'micro-aggression', but that was when they were reading news reports (micro-aggressions and 'triggering' are apparently related).
Rush might have used terms like that, but I never listened to him.
Never personally heard any talk host talk about leftists needing safe spaces. If they said it, I don't remember hearing it, so it couldn't have been much. Maybe Michael Savage would have, it sounds more like something he would have said. But I think his network dropped him, he's not on the air anymore, and he had lower ratings than other hosts. He seemed to be the most extreme of the right wing hosts, Mike Malloy being the most outspoken and opinionated of the progressive talkers (when he was on the air).
Every term is unknown until used enough to become known. That’s the entire point of language. And if members of the group (acknowledging virtually no group is entirely homogeneous), then it’s not about “intelligentsia” (really?) or whatever, it’s about respect and basic human decency.
"EIB" itself largely originated when he toiled away at WIXZ and KQV as "Jeff Christie," and denoting himself as "the Jeff Christie network, excellence in broadcasting." In fact, much of his talk persona had roots dating back to the late 1960s, plus he copied some of Larry Lujack's act from listening to WLS via skywave. All that really changed--beyond using his real name--was substituting out the songs for extended political monologues and the occasional song parody.
It really makes one wonder what could have been had ABC not bailed on KQV/WDVE and Rush remained there all along as a mere air personality... or if 13Q had taken a flier on him. Or even if Morton Downey, Jr. didn't get fired at KFBK.
The most shocking part about Michael Savage's radio show is that he basically got into a verbal fight with every single person who called into his show. If someone didn't necessarily agree with his point of view, he would lambast them for five straight minutes in a fit of rage. Personally, I think it would have been more interesting if he took the time to have a more constructive dialog with his callers. Becoming engulfed with anger certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind. If your point of view really is correct, why not find a way to explain why that is? Some of the calls he received had to have been trolls who knew he would get fired up.
That confrontational style has always been a part of his act, no different from Morton Downey, Jr's persona.
Said act also sank Savage's MSNBC show and in disastrous fashion.
Think of it as being the talk/opinion version of a Top 40 station that plays its biggest hits 130 times per week. Instead of hearing your favorite song over and over and over, the listener instead gets the pleasure of having their biases and opinions continually reinforced.
Seems boring as can be to me, but there's obviously quite a few folks who enjoy stewing in their grievances on a continuous basis.
When Savage wasn't on a ranting rampage, sometimes he had interesting viewpoints. He was maybe 10 percent iconoclast and ninety percent right wing bombast. The yelling and ranting turned me off to the guy completely.
As for people wanting to have their biases and opinions constantly reinforced, that's been going on forever, and has been exacerbated by internet news, where it's often laced with opinion and/or little more than biased commentary. In that respect, conservative talk radio isn't any different. It's just using older technology.
- Status