HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?

[listener-in]

Over the years, there have been plenty of people from the left shouting down people from the right, calling them names, making insinuations about them being racist, sexist, etc.
Only now is there a reason for alarmism, since it happened to the liberal side.

To a slight degree you are correct, and it's no more excusable than similar behavior from the right.

However, if you believe that culpability resides equally on both sides, please explain why violent left-wing protests have never been even tacitly encouraged by the Democratic establishment, while the current over-the-top tea partiers have been embraced by the Republican establishment? Please explain also why militia groups and other assorted crazies who threaten domestic terrorism only crawl out from beneath their rocks (aided and abetted by the toxic talkers) when there's a Democrat in the White House.

To illustrate the current conservative intolerance of dissent, today David Frum, the former George W. Bush speech writer who coined the phrase "axis of evil" was fired from the American Enterprise Institute for daring to oppose the Republican establishment's tactics of getting into bed with the birthers, the tea-partiers and the right-wing media: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/03/david-frum-on-gop-now-we-work-for-fox.html

Things aren't quite right when a major party and its media acolytes (or as David Frum has it, the reverse) purges people who don't toe an ideological line. We saw quite enough of that sort of thing in the 20th century, thank you, and the media were skilfully used to propagate and nourish it.

 

[Holland Cooke]

JUST now...

"I believe there's a chance of bloodshed."
David Gergen, 1 minute ago, on CNN

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: JUST now...

"I believe there's a chance of bloodshed."
David Gergen, 1 minute ago, on CNN

I believe there's a chance he might be right. Bloodshed. Somewhere. At some time. Attributable by some stretch to whoever is the boogeyman.
Just because he says he believes it doesn't mean it will happen. Wonder how his brackets look?
It also doesn't mean he's being any less an alarmist than the people who say "This is the end of America." Those people are villified as extremists and crazy-talkers. But we believe the politicos and politicians [or at least take them as more credible because they get better press].

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: JUST now...

I believe there's a chance he might be right. Bloodshed. Somewhere. At some time. Attributable by some stretch to whoever is the boogeyman.
Just because he says he believes it doesn't mean it will happen. Wonder how his brackets look?
It also doesn't mean he's being any less an alarmist than the people who say "This is the end of America." Those people are villified as extremists and crazy-talkers. But we believe the politicos and politicians [or at least take them as more credible because they get better press].

You are tap-dancing like a man whose shoes are on fire.

I turned on the TV and watched the conversation with David Gergen. He was calm, cool and collected. He was having a rational conversation with Andersen Cooper. He used decent, dignified language as he described the circumstances. He pointed out that both Democrats AND Republicans have received threats. He DID NOT say the any violence that might occur was definitely going to come from one side but not the other.

Yes, it does mean he being less alarmist than the people who say: This is the end of America.

I'm cleaning up the mess on my desk tonight and I have been switching the TV between CNN, CNBC and Fox News. The amusing broadcast is Bill O'Riley interviewing Glenn Beck. In light of all "the sky is falling if we don't cool our speech patterns" tonight, it is truly amusing watching patting themselves on the back for being such enlightened, peaceful, loving guys. Boy are their arms going to sore in the morning. ;D

 

[quadraphonic]

Re: JUST now...

You are tap-dancing like a man whose shoes are on fire.

I turned on the TV and watched the conversation with David Gergen. He was calm, cool and collected. He was having a rational conversation with Andersen Cooper. He used decent, dignified language as he described the circumstances. He pointed out that both Democrats AND Republicans have received threats. He DID NOT say the any violence that might occur was definitely going to come from one side but not the other.

I didn't say anything concrete and specific about Gergen's interview, since I didn't see it. I was speaking of the general tone of the media coverage of the "threats."
If you're sure he didn't insinuate where violence would come from, and neither did Anderson Cooper, I'll take your word for it, and it's the first time the tv commentators didn't make that inference.

Yes, it does mean he being less alarmist than the people who say: This is the end of America.

Why? Because he said it "decent, dignified, etc.?" You can be alarmist without raising your voice.
It's all in the conclusions and the way you get there.

 

[musicsweep]

OKAY! I GET IT! The U.S. is now a communist nation... our children have no future, we are no longer free, yada, yada, yada.

I hear this from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on our local talk station. I have gotten to the point where all I want to listen to is ESPN Radio, Dr. Laura, Dave Ramsey, and maybe a few minutes of Rush during the day.

Seriously, Hannity needs to lower his tone. I can't listen to it anymore... and I have a feeling when the books come in over the next year, I'm not going to be alone. Beck is better on TV... and G. Gordon Liddy is only entertaining if you keep his background on the forefront of your mind.

Oh, and before you blast me for being a liberal, I live in Texas and have voted Republican every election since I turned 18. I still believe in the cause, just not the programming.

 

[del_griffith]

I'm not sure if this relates or not.

I grew up as a radio geek. To me radio was magic. It was on 24/7 in my life. And when talk radio made it's debut in my area, I was even more hooked. Before Rush was carried in my market, I would go out during lunch and eat my sandwich while dialing around as Rush faded in and out from Dayton, Cincy and one other station that I can't remember.

Fast forward to today. I seldom turn him on.

I took a vacation day a few weeks ago and heard Glenn Beck as I was making my way to the lilbrary pining for a simplier time, when the headlines for everyday people made sense.

BTW, my trip to library was to find some old newspaper stories for a project I've been working on. As the microfilm images slowly went by me, the headlines included such stories as the RFK and MLK assassinations, Charlie Manson and the Sharon Tate murders, the Chicago 8, Chappaquiddick, Woodstock, the civil rights riots, Kent State, My Lai, war protests.......need I go on. And those were simpler times when the headlines made sense.

I simply can't identify with hosts hyping hope or fostering fear.

But even more telling......My wife and I drove from Central Ohio to Williamsburg, Va a few weekends ago. The radio never came on. For someone who was literally hooked on radio and survived on a 24/7 fix to not hit the on button for 10 trip both ways.

 

[jerry367]

I'll tell you what is really sad and sums up the problem with talkradio in a nutshell:

Talk radio has become an increasingly inhospitable place for anyone who is rational, irrespective of political slant.

Why is it believed that you have to be irrationally one-sided in order to be entertaining?

It's ridiculous and lazy and short-sighted.

 

[del_griffith]

Let me fix the last paragraph of my last post.

But even more telling......My wife and I drove from Central Ohio to Williamsburg, Va a few weekends ago. The radio was never turned on. For someone who was literally hooked on radio and survived on a 24/7 fix to not hit the on button for 10 hour trip both ways.

added:

When you have that far to drive and the radio is not a part of it, then something has become no longer needed in life.

There simply was no compelling reason to listen.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I'll tell you what is really sad and sums up the problem with talkradio in a nutshell:

Talk radio has become an increasingly inhospitable place for anyone who is rational, irrespective of political slant.

Why is it believed that you have to be irrationally one-sided in order to be entertaining?

It's ridiculous and lazy and short-sighted.

The same could be said for TV with the exception of one channel.

Media, ALL MEDIA, has what political scientists call a commercial bias. Why does Comedy Central put outrageously biased guys like Jon Stewart on the air? Why does MSNBC put biased guys like Ed Schultz on the air? Why does Clear Channel put Rush Limbaugh on the air?

The answer is simple. THAT'S WHO MAKES THEM MONEY. People want to hear/see these guys, so they are on the air. Trying to force balance on one medium while ignoring every other is pointless.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them irrational. I know you hate Rush Limbaugh, and I know you want to force "balance" on the radio waves, but all that would do is destroy the entire business.

 

[jerry367]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them irrational. I know you hate Rush Limbaugh, and I know you want to force "balance" on the radio waves, but all that would do is destroy the entire business.

WRONG.

As is typical, you're generalizing about why I said what I said..

I do not hate anyone for their OPINION, as opinions vary across the board. What I do take exception to, is the blatantly dishonest disemination of information thhat is a staple of many talkradio programs these days---all for the sake of not varying from the pack. The glaring double standards that are apllied for the sake of chastizing one side and favoring the other is nauseating. And yes, irrational. Unless of course you believe that no matter what, one side is ALWAYS right and the other side, no matter what, is ALWAYS wrong.

Irrational.

There are hosts who can have different opinions on various subjects that DO NOT neatly fit into one extreme or the other and can entertain in a fiery debate on whatever given subject IS being discussed at the moment. THAT is what's important, vs. trying to please one whacked out niche that always listened to talk anyway.

Unfortunately, many of those hosts are now too afradi to seperate from that pack.

I always thought talkradio was a great place for individual talent to rise above and shine. Those days are gone. Most hosts are dime-a-dozen clones of Limbaugh. How do they even take pride in themselves?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

What I do take exception to, is the blatantly dishonest disemination of information thhat is a staple of many talkradio programs these days---all for the sake of not varying from the pack. The glaring double standards that are apllied for the sake of chastizing one side and favoring the other is nauseating. And yes, irrational. Unless of course you believe that no matter what, one side is ALWAYS right and the other side, no matter what, is ALWAYS wrong.

Yet you never point out anyone but Rush or conservative hosts for this "dishonesty". You're just as guilty of the same "one side is always right" double standard. I'm relatively new here, but I've picked up that you do nothing but bash conservative hosts, and Rush in particular. And you're just as misinformed as you claim they are. That whole "I now support the Fairness Doctrine" thread was chock full of generalizations and dishonest characterizations of the Tea Parties.

There are hosts who can have different opinions on various subjects that DO NOT neatly fit into one extreme or the other

And no one listens to them.

I always thought talkradio was a great place for individual talent to rise above and shine. Those days are gone. Most hosts are dime-a-dozen clones of Limbaugh. How do they even take pride in themselves?

I'll agree that a lot of the smaller hosts are Limbaugh clones, but at the national level the big hosts are all unique. You can't say that Levin, Savage, Hannity and Beck are Limbaugh clones. The copycat thing is also hardly unique to political talk radio, or even radio in general. Look at TV. Every sitcom was a Seinfeld copy for a while. Then everything was a Survivor copy. Now everything is an American Idol copy. Success breeds imitation. Why should radio be any different? Just because the successful people and their imitators say things that you don't like?

 

[MikefromDelaware]

What many of those national conservative talk show hosts have in common is the anger and demonizing of the "opposition", the Democrats as in these folks are trying to destroy this nation, etc, etc. Golly, I don't think so. I may not agree with some of the stuff the Democrats believe, but I don't believe they want to destroy the nation, they just see the solutions to our problems in a different way (larger government - more socialization, etc, but they are not trying to destroy the United States), and there's a big difference in my viewpoint in this regard vs Beck/Rush/Hannity/Levin/Savage, etc, in this regard.

I can't pick up any national lib talkers (none are carried in my market) so they may also do these same things, so I can't speak on that as I've not heard them. The two local lib talkers will disagree with GOP and conservatives, but I've also heard them agree at times with the GOP, which I never hear Rush/Beck/Hannity/Levin/Savage ever do. The two local lib talkers are not generally angry, they'll lose their cool with a caller at times, but their radio personal is not that of being angry like Rush/Beck/Hannity/Savage/Levin generally do (granted Rush is the most positive of those I've mentioned).

The national conservative talker, I've heard in my market that I like the most is Laura Ingraham. She doesn't come across quite as angry, but she too never found a lib or democrat she likes.

I used to enjoy Roger Hedgecock, when he used to fill in for Rush (he now has his own show, not carried in my market), and Paul W. Smith who used to fill in for Rush (enjoyed him years ago on Philly's former talker WWDB - apparently Smith is now in Detroit- Philly's loss and Detroit's gain). Both expressed their points of view in a intelligent non-angry way that I used to look forward to hearing when elRushbo was on vacation.

 

[jerry367]

What I do take exception to, is the blatantly dishonest disemination of information thhat is a staple of many talkradio programs these days---all for the sake of not varying from the pack. The glaring double standards that are apllied for the sake of chastizing one side and favoring the other is nauseating. And yes, irrational. Unless of course you believe that no matter what, one side is ALWAYS right and the other side, no matter what, is ALWAYS wrong.

Yet you never point out anyone but Rush or conservative hosts for this "dishonesty". You're just as guilty of the same "one side is always right" double standard. I'm relatively new here, but I've picked up that you do nothing but bash conservative hosts, and Rush in particular. And you're just as misinformed as you claim they are. That whole "I now support the Fairness Doctrine" thread was chock full of generalizations and dishonest characterizations of the Tea Parties.

There are hosts who can have different opinions on various subjects that DO NOT neatly fit into one extreme or the other

And no one listens to them.

I always thought talkradio was a great place for individual talent to rise above and shine. Those days are gone. Most hosts are dime-a-dozen clones of Limbaugh. How do they even take pride in themselves?

I'll agree that a lot of the smaller hosts are Limbaugh clones, but at the national level the big hosts are all unique. You can't say that Levin, Savage, Hannity and Beck are Limbaugh clones. The copycat thing is also hardly unique to political talk radio, or even radio in general. Look at TV. Every sitcom was a Seinfeld copy for a while. Then everything was a Survivor copy. Now everything is an American Idol copy. Success breeds imitation. Why should radio be any different? Just because the successful people and their imitators say things that you don't like?

Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE, just MAYBE the reason I am singling out conservative more than liberals is because conservative SOMINATE ALL THE MAJOR SIGNALS?

Hmmmm?

C'mon man, use your head!

Radio execs are a lazy, path of least resistance bunch and they flocked to far right wingers the way music radio dlocked to country music in the early 90s. Unfortunately, AM Talk audiences have become so skewed now in one whacked out direction, that no normal people or young people will tolerate it.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

What many of those national conservative talk show hosts have in common is the anger and demonizing of the "opposition", the Democrats as in these folks are trying to destroy this nation, etc, etc. Golly, I don't think so. I may not agree with some of the stuff the Democrats believe, but I don't believe they want to destroy the nation, they just see the solutions to our problems in a different way (larger government - more socialization, etc, but they are not trying to destroy the United States), and there's a big difference in my viewpoint in this regard vs Beck/Rush/Hannity/Levin/Savage, etc, in this regard.

If you want to see the same thing from the other direction, you need to go to TV. Just watch MSNBC. You'll see the exact same thing there as you'd hear from conservative talkers, just plugging different names into the attacks. Angry sells. Doom and gloom sells. It's not the end of the world, either way. Politics has always been nasty business. Even the Founders had their pocket newspapers attack their opponents. Thomas Jefferson called Madison a hermaphrodite, for goodness sakes. This is all nothing new, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. The "fix" for the problem (Fairness Doctrine) is much worse than any perceived problem.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I agree with you, that we don't need a Fairness Doctrine. The days of "block programming" have been gone from radio for decades, which is what the fairness doctrine would bring back to radio. Every three hours you change formats from conservative to liberal to conservative to liberal or some forced variation of that theme. Most people want to hear talk that they agree with, so it makes no business sense to bounce back and forth from lib to GOP talk any more than a music station going from Country to Rap and back to Country and then back to Rap. Two different audiences.

Yes, MSNBC is the liberal version of Fox on TV. Both are blatantly biased and I don't watch either for that reason, but that does show how a lib show can be just as angry as the GOP talk show. As you said, anger and dooms day sell, which is why my type of listener who prefers a more reasoned debate of the issues generally will tune in to NPR over the commercial talkers of either stripe.

In the Philly market, NPR's WHYY-FM has a slightly higher 12+ numbers (this market uses PPM's) than the Beck/Rush/Hannity station WPHT (check it out here at RI's ratings for Philly). As NPR seems to be thriving, even in this economy (yes they've laid off folks too) as I believe a decent number of radio listeners have tired of the same ole same ole that Beck/Rush/Hannity provide each day and have moved on to NPR.

 

[quadraphonic]

Radio execs are a lazy, path of least resistance bunch and they flocked to far right wingers the way music radio dlocked to country music in the early 90s.

Yeah they tend to like to copy what works in other markets. It's called "trying to be successful."
Radio execs flocked to conservative talk for the same reason most strip clubs only hire women: that's what the audience wants to hear or see.
They didn't make the patrons want to see women dancing, they were just more aware of what the audience wanted.

Unfortunately, AM Talk audiences have become so skewed now in one whacked out direction, that no normal people or young people will tolerate it.

Well it's a good thing you're not biased and are keeping an open mind there.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What many of those national conservative talk show hosts have in common is the anger and demonizing of the "opposition", the Democrats as in these folks are trying to destroy this nation, etc, etc. Golly, I don't think so. I may not agree with some of the stuff the Democrats believe, but I don't believe they want to destroy the nation, they just see the solutions to our problems in a different way (larger government - more socialization, etc, but they are not trying to destroy the United States), and there's a big difference in my viewpoint in this regard vs Beck/Rush/Hannity/Levin/Savage, etc, in this regard.

Bravo for Mike! In this country McCarthyism seems to live on. If I disagree with someone, I accuse them of trying to destroy our nation, our society.

However, Mike, let me pick a bit of a bone in how you went on to express the goodness of people... particularly Democrats. Do Democrats actually propose larger government than does the other party or is that simply the accusation of the other party. Who is the unbiased referee of all this confusion who can tell us for a fact which party (if any) proposes more "socialization" than does the other party?

For years I have chosen not to participate in party politics. First because in my broadcasting years I wore the had of journalist and felt it was improper to openly support and verbalize on behalf of one party or the other. After broadcasting I sent through some career building periods where I did not want having a political badge pinned to my shirt pocket.

Having entered retirement I don't feel restricted from being political or enjoying the political scene. Tonight I went to a candidate debate. I have put a few dollars (very few) into one candidate's campaign. After the debate I went over and talked with the Campaign Manager, and later with the candidate and his wife. It was something of a venue with un-level ground..... tension between some of the debate sponsors who asked the questions and the political position of the candidates. I asked the campaign manager some pretty pointed questions about their preparation for the event. I was extremely pleased with the logic used by the candidate in preparing for the event, and the answers given.

Much of what is said about the dogma of parties and candidates reflects NOT what they do and say, but sometimes what their opponents say ABOUT them.

That is my personal concern with talk radio today. It does not help us understand the candidate and what the candidate stands for. Talk radio simply becomes a sounding board that focuses and amplifies what is a very ugly and loud exchange between candidates and parties today. Works both directions.

Because of my schedules, I have never been able to listen to Rachel Madow in the past. After watching here on MSNBC tonight, I turned to my wife and said: "She is better at being Limbaugh than Limbaugh is." After watching that fire-and-brimstone fest my wife said she will have to read for a couple of hours before she can get calm enough to go to sleep. ;D

 

[DonTheTrucker]

In the Philly market, NPR's WHYY-FM has a slightly higher 12+ numbers (this market uses PPM's) than the Beck/Rush/Hannity station WPHT (check it out here at RI's ratings for Philly). As NPR seems to be thriving, even in this economy (yes they've laid off folks too) as I believe a decent number of radio listeners have tired of the same ole same ole that Beck/Rush/Hannity provide each day and have moved on to NPR.

That's probably the case in many large city markets. More liberal people, more NPR listeners.

As for the AM talkers all being angry, that's not necessarily the case. As I noted a few times, John Batchelor is very reminiscent of an NPR type show. Very soft spoken, and a bit more in depth than most talkers do. I think there's definitely a market for that sort of thing. Whether it can beat conflict-based programming is doubtful, though. It's human nature to like conflict. Once you see Rush, Hannity, Maddow, Schultz and company as entertainment you can enjoy their shows for what they are.

 

[amfmxm]

What many of those national conservative talk show hosts have in common is the anger and demonizing of the "opposition", the Democrats as in these folks are trying to destroy this nation, etc, etc. Golly, I don't think so. I may not agree with some of the stuff the Democrats believe, but I don't believe they want to destroy the nation, they just see the solutions to our problems in a different way (larger government - more socialization, etc, but they are not trying to destroy the United States), and there's a big difference in my viewpoint in this regard vs Beck/Rush/Hannity/Levin/Savage, etc, in this regard.

Bravo for Mike! In this country McCarthyism seems to live on. If I disagree with someone, I accuse them of trying to destroy our nation, our society.

However, Mike, let me pick a bit of a bone in how you went on to express the goodness of people... particularly Democrats. Do Democrats actually propose larger government than does the other party or is that simply the accusation of the other party. Who is the unbiased referee of all this confusion who can tell us for a fact which party (if any) proposes more "socialization" than does the other party?

For years I have chosen not to participate in party politics. First because in my broadcasting years I wore the had of journalist and felt it was improper to openly support and verbalize on behalf of one party or the other. After broadcasting I sent through some career building periods where I did not want having a political badge pinned to my shirt pocket.

Having entered retirement I don't feel restricted from being political or enjoying the political scene. Tonight I went to a candidate debate. I have put a few dollars (very few) into one candidate's campaign. After the debate I went over and talked with the Campaign Manager, and later with the candidate and his wife. It was something of a venue with un-level ground..... tension between some of the debate sponsors who asked the questions and the political position of the candidates. I asked the campaign manager some pretty pointed questions about their preparation for the event. I was extremely pleased with the logic used by the candidate in preparing for the event, and the answers given.

Much of what is said about the dogma of parties and candidates reflects NOT what they do and say, but sometimes what their opponents say ABOUT them.

That is my personal concern with talk radio today. It does not help us understand the candidate and what the candidate stands for. Talk radio simply becomes a sounding board that focuses and amplifies what is a very ugly and loud exchange between candidates and parties today. Works both directions.

Because of my schedules, I have never been able to listen to Rachel Madow in the past. After watching here on MSNBC tonight, I turned to my wife and said: "She is better at being Limbaugh than Limbaugh is." After watching that fire-and-brimstone fest my wife said she will have to read for a couple of hours before she can get calm enough to go to sleep. ;D

GRC, Rachel's interview with the guy from FAIR last night on immigration reform was not typical of her style, at all. The confrontation grew out of comments made previously on the show--about FAIR--by a representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center, so she was sort of attempting to be the referee. But I think she became frustrated very quickly with the FAIR rep's (actually the organization's president) "don't-stop-talking/shout-her-down/put-her-on-the-defensive" approach. It was a mess. She's still relatively young--and may think twice before inviting antagonists into the studio for such on-air wrestling matches again.

Maddow is probably the smartest--and is definitely the best-educated, by far--among all the TV/radio talking heads. And although she definitely brings a liberal point of view to the table, she's probably the closest thing to a real journalist in the whole bunch. In that regard I respectfully disagree with Don C's assessment of Rachel as an entertainer. Katie Couric and Brian Williams are entertainers... Rush/Beck/Hannity are entertainters--"media personalities." Maddow works at a higher level.