Al Timiter said:I have not listened much to Ed Schultz or watched his TV show (I don't have cable). However, I have listened extensively and continue to listen to Randi and Thom. I will say this about both of them: They tend to use cold, hard facts when making their cases.
In all my listening to Thom, I have never, ever heard him use a disparaging term to describe people on the other side of his arguement. Never. His delivery is thoughtful, low-key and intelligent. His content and demeanor certainly cannot be compared to the vitriol that comes from Conservative talk's heavy hitters.
When I used to listen to/watch these fine representatives of the Windbag-American Community (I turned off talk radio about 5 years ago, and cable 3 years ago), I thought Schultz was as whacked as Michael Savage. Thom Hartmann is pleasant and informed, but a bit boring. He'd be good on NPR.
As far as Randi, she is a bit more complicated. She does use disparaging descriptors of her opponents occasionally. She can be testy with her callers. But again, her weapons are cold, hard facts. Her wrath cannot even be compared to what I hear coming from Levin, Savage and Limbaugh.
Randi Rhodes was just as bad as Hannity, and I'd be surprised if she's changed much since I quit listening to talk radio. I found her very unpleasant for the most part.
And as a caveat: I am fully aware and acknowledge that these two fall well below the right wing talkers audience levels.
All of them - liberal and conservative, talk radio and cable "news" - are the problem, not the solution. I don't consider most people who follow them passionately to be informed citizens because they don't follow up with other news sources. Limbaugh, Hannity, Rhodes, Schultz, et al have been off my radar screen for several years now. NPR is usually well-produced and fact-based (even when I don't agree with them, which is most of the time), but is too northeast-centric and is about as exciting as watching paint dry. I don't bother with them either.
I stick with what used to be called the "print" media, and only read opinions that are well thought out and based on fact, both liberals and conservatives. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and The Hill are good sources for these. I stay away from the likes of Drudge, Huffington, Koz, and World Nut Daily.
And yes, when it comes to news, I am an unapologetic elitist - meaning I expect accuracy and impartiality from reporters, and reasoned, well-thought-out opinions even when I disagree. But I hate "boring."