Deleted: Ed Schultz to end syndie radio show

[BOZ Profit]

No you are not imagining things... This thread has been deleted. Honest error on my part. My intent was to delete one specific post but chose the wrong option. My apologies for those of you who were vested in it.

 

[Avid Listener]

Perhaps you might offer some more specific guidelines regarding the discussion of news/talk radio. For example, is it, or is it not, on-topic to discuss the content of the shows that air on news/talk radio? I would assume that if talking about a specific music format, discussing the music itself would be on-topic. Is that also the case in discussing news/talk radio?

 

[frankberry]

These are my thoughts:
I believe that discussing show content is fine ... as long as the discussions don't become personal attacks between users. It's important to remember that each one of us has the right to our own opinion. We can disagree without hurling insults at each other.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For example, is it, or is it not, on-topic to discuss the content of the shows that air on news/talk radio? I would assume that if talking about a specific music format, discussing the music itself would be on-topic. Is that also the case in discussing news/talk radio?

I see the terrain as being quite organized, but our conversations here indicate that other people have another map of the terrain.

It seems logical and intellectual to say: Ed has a Liberal point of view and he sometimes lets his emotional view of things Liberal get a bit too robust. And someone might respond: But isn't it fair to say the many conservative show hosts also get a bit too emotional in expressing their views of the tension in our society between things Conservative and things Liberal. And we might each add to the catalog of examples demonstrating this phenomena. And then we might offer our views on what the audience expects from a Talk Show. Here is what drives the Conservative mind. Here is what drives the Liberal mind. Oh, my dear forum friend, I see a different reason than you do as to why the Conservative thinks that way, votes that way, acts that way. Here is my logic.

Through the years I have known a number of people (back before conversation became so over-heated at the personal level and at the broadcast level) who had a standard response during social events. "I'm sorry. There are two things I never discuss with people. Politics and Religion. Is there something else you would like to talk about?" I NEVER throw that Red-Line down at a social event as the beginning of a conversation. I am willing to engage in intelligent conversation on about any topic.... as long as everyone in the conversation remains civil.

So, talking about Talk Radio and it's content is not the problem.

The problem comes when we step outside the envelope of conversation and start calling people.... people in the conversation here... or people out there in the countryside who "are so stupid as to align with this political group" a bunch of ****** bags, tea baggers, idiots, obvious communists, obvious fascists, etc. etc. At that point conversation has just died. Uncivil verbal war-fare has begun.

Has anyone else noticed the number of well know participants that used to participate in this site who were about to walk away before the site was shut down for awhile? When the site came back up, they decided they enjoyed walking away from the insults, the name calling to the point they just didn't come back! I have stood on the edge of that cliff several times in the last 6 to 9 months. Do I need badly enough to feed my thirst for knowledge about an industry and lifestyle that I once enjoyed and tried to return to a few years back... Do I need this conversation badly enough to put up with the insults, the voicing of obvious arrogance and stupidity that has become our daily grind?

If I hang it up today and remove the link to this site from my browser, I have no concept that suddenly the site will fold, will go away. But when 200, 300, maybe 400 really great participants walk away, the site may be on life support before you can say "Talk Radio Sucks!" I've have been discussing tough subjects with people, both on line and face-to-face for years now. Never have I seen a venue become as rude as we have chosen to be here at RD in recent weeks.

I'm willing to do my share to make it work. But I can walk away today if most people here are more interesting in swimming is a cess-pool.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Considering what the thread had become, it's probably for the better.

 

[FredLeonard]

Considering what the thread had become, it's probably for the better.

And this from the racist person most responsible for what this thread had become.

 

[umfan]

That, Fred, is a perfect example of a comment that caused the deletion of the prior thread.

And you weren't even a main rabble rouser in that prior thread.

 

[Small Market Guy]

And this from the racist person most responsible for what this thread had become.

Do you really want to start throwing around the racism accusations? Don't make me dig up that post you made about John Watson.

Edit: Actually, I will dig it up. I'm not going to let you try that with me.

Sounds like that's exactly what's happening. But I guess the station gets affirmative action points for Watson because it can't be drawing power. How many different hosts trounced him?

For those interested, you can click on the quote and it'll take you to the original so you know it's not altered in any way.

 

[Avid Listener]

Is there anything so lame, so intellectually bereft of any value or worthiness than playing the damn race card?

A pox on anyone who plays it, period!

 

[Small Market Guy]

Is there anything so lame, so intellectually bereft of any value or worthiness than playing the damn race card?

Sure. A racist playing the race card.

 

[davideduardo]

Is there anything so lame, so intellectually bereft of any value or worthiness than playing the damn race card?

There is nothing wrong with "playing the race card" when there is actually an underlying racial issue involved.

 

[Avid Listener]

There is nothing wrong with "playing the race card" when there is actually an underlying racial issue involved.

If race is a bona-fide issue in a situation, then mentioning it is not "playing" the race card. Playing the race card refers to making accusations of racism against anyone who make any reference to race that is a legitimate part of the situation.

If one person mentions the fact that Alan West happens to be of African descent, and someone else accuses the first person of being a racist for mentioning that fact, the first person was not "playing the race card" by mentioning the fact, but second person making the accusation is.

 

[davideduardo]

If race is a bona-fide issue in a situation, then mentioning it is not "playing" the race card. Playing the race card refers to making accusations of racism against anyone who make any reference to race that is a legitimate part of the situation.

You are nit-picking based on semantics to divert the discussion again.

You can correctly and appropriately "play" the race card if that card trumps an otherwise failed argument.

 

[Avid Listener]

You can correctly and appropriately "play" the race card if that card trumps an otherwise failed argument.

If it wasn't that so many, many people make the bogus claim that their playing of the race card was correct and appropriate, my reaction would be very, very different. Tell you what, the next time I see someone play the race card, and it is both correct and appropriate, I'll post a retraction. I haven't encountered that situation in over 30 years, but what the hell? It could theoretically happen.