-
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
HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?
- Thread starter Holland Cooke
- Start date
amfmxm said:
Maddow has a Ph.D. So does Savage. Levin is a respected Constitutional attorney. I noticed you only picked out the three biggest guys who just happen to be college drop outs.
Doesn't change the fact that they're all entertainers. None of them work on a "higher level" than any others. Opinion talk is just that, opinion. By definition, one opinion can't be any better than the next.
Don C said:
Let me poke and pick at your semantics a bit there. If one opinion can't be any better than the next, then can I assume that if some caller on the phone has an opinion that is no better or no worse than the opinion of the host.
When I travel and listen as I drive, I hear people on talk radio that I wouldn't vote for to be dog catcher if they were on the ballot, and I hear people on talk radio that I would join their campaign team if they were running for congress or for president.
If it is true that on the radio one opinion is no better or no worse than the next, can I assume that when people are elected to congress, the opinion of one congressman is no better or no worse than another congressman?
If one opinion is no better than another, why don't all talk shows have exactly the same audience size ratings? And since ratings do vary, is the person with high rating the one with the BETTER opinion or the one with the BADDER opinion?
I find it interesting that the most popular hosts, who are considered to be the most entertaining, who are all college drop outs, meaning it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to do a successful conservative radio talk show who make far more money than the best and brightest brainiac's in the nation (I lump this big 3 in the same pile as the Hollywood elite, musicians, and sports figures who all are way over paid for what they actually produce that benefits our nation and society). What does that say about their audience? So that would seem to imply that Rush/Hannity/Beck are dumbing down the discussion. This might also explain why those same folks like Sarah Palin so much. She had to go to 5 colleges to complete her 4 year degree. It's a shame that the conservative movement doesn't encourage the brainics of their movement to speak out more ( Newt Gingrigh, Pat Buchanan, Krauthammer, Tony Blankley,etc). Remember when conservative thought was far more intelligent and less reactionary as in the days of William F. Buckley. He was so good that even liberal leaning PBS gave him a TV show on their network, demonstrating that the libs will at least listen to a conservative if he is an intelligent well spoken person who really has something of value to say. Granted if Gingrich, Buchanan, Krauthammer, and Blankley each had a radio show, their respective shows probably wouldn't sell well as the general population wants a less thought provoking program and prefer the bombast that is Beck/Rush/Hannity. So good ratings on commercial radio or TV doesn't necessarily equal a quality thought provoking program (consider what the top rated shows on network TV are and you'll see my point).
So maybe it's time for Dr. Savage, and Levin to ratchet down the anger and hype, and allow their fertile minds to present a compelling point of view that may not pull in the biggest ratings, but might be the venue where the NPR type listener could go to hear conservative points of view that wouldn't insult their intelligence (the same feeling many get when watching most commercial TV programs). You never know how many "converts" they could bring in by being above the Rush/Beck/Hannity anger, volume, hype fray.
So maybe it's time for Dr. Savage, and Levin to ratchet down the anger and hype, and allow their fertile minds to present a compelling point of view that may not pull in the biggest ratings, but might be the venue where the NPR type listener could go to hear conservative points of view that wouldn't insult their intelligence (the same feeling many get when watching most commercial TV programs). You never know how many "converts" they could bring in by being above the Rush/Beck/Hannity anger, volume, hype fray.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Doesn't mean one is "better", just more popular.
My point is to just dispell the belief that somehow conservatives aren't as smart or educated as liberals. This is especially apparent in radio, where the big hosts are college drop outs. This to some means they're somehow not as smart as less successful hosts. What is always overlooked is that Bill Gates is a college drop out. No one would call him dumb, or say that he's dumbing down the computer world.
Don C said:
Having been a long-time viewer of Maddow (since her show came online) I can say, briefly, that she doesn't spew her personal opinion nearly as much as most others. Instead, she tends to present multiple views of an issue (as illustrated by clips, recordings or verbally "from the horses mouths") and allow the viewer to come to their own opinion. This I find very refreshing compared to her competition.
amfmxm said:
And George Bush went to Harvard AND Yale. Didn't stop people from calling him dumb. Including Rachel Maddow.
RE "George Bush went to Harvard AND Yale."
Cue Creedence Clearwater, "Fortunate Son."
AND HAS ANYONE NOTICED that, after correctly pronouncing "nuclear" during the presidential campaign, Sarah Palin is now saying "nuke-U-lur?"
Let's see if she'll now be chanting, "SPILL, BABY, SPILL."
But nobody's accusing Glenn Beck of being an over-educated snob.
Now, he's "a history buff:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhz6b8uCWbE
Cue Creedence Clearwater, "Fortunate Son."
AND HAS ANYONE NOTICED that, after correctly pronouncing "nuclear" during the presidential campaign, Sarah Palin is now saying "nuke-U-lur?"
Let's see if she'll now be chanting, "SPILL, BABY, SPILL."
But nobody's accusing Glenn Beck of being an over-educated snob.
Now, he's "a history buff:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhz6b8uCWbE
landtuna said:
But you can't pull the "prestigious college" card while ignoring it for someone else. That's why this whole "Rush dropped out" nonsense is so silly. The guy is obviously smart. Same with Glenn Beck and Hannity. It's just more sour grapes from people who aren't as successful, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. All of these successful shows on both sides are hosted by people with talent. They say things that people want to hear, and that's why they do so well. You don't just fall into positions like that without both smarts and talent.
Not a thing wrong with drilling for oil, and I don't think that has anything to do with angry; however, what might have to do with angry is that British Petroleum has been sitting on "something that we'd like to try out", and never tested it prior to the destruction they have wrought? I wonder when they would have planned to try it out, or whether they figure their stock will go up with their little experiment after they have trashed our country.
Does anger have to do with the fact that Mary "pay me a few hundred million per vote" Landrieu will be whining for money for this after that was misappropriated?
Drill, baby, drill! what we need to do is to divert the "spill" over toward what's his face in Great Britain.
Shoot, I don't remember any Congressman not being able to speak in a town hall, being "shouted down". If anything, lots of Congressmen and women opted not to even have town halls for fear of having to actualy talk to their constituents.
Where were all of you who are so concerned back in 2006 when a MOVIE was made about the assassination of then-President Bush? When "Kill Bush" was prominent on signs at anti-war protests across the nation? When Bush was given the Hitler mustache constantly?
Yes, everyone has a responsibility to use freedom of speech in a responsible way, but we all also have the responsiblity to respond to the fringes of both sides equally, since they equally could trigger a nut job somewhere.
Where were all of you who are so concerned back in 2006 when a MOVIE was made about the assassination of then-President Bush? When "Kill Bush" was prominent on signs at anti-war protests across the nation? When Bush was given the Hitler mustache constantly?
Yes, everyone has a responsibility to use freedom of speech in a responsible way, but we all also have the responsiblity to respond to the fringes of both sides equally, since they equally could trigger a nut job somewhere.
Tea Party not guzzling THIS Kool-Aid!
After Beck, Rush, and their legion of local wanna-be's have been wailing about The Police State, where's their anger over this show-us-your-papers deal in Arizona?
After Beck, Rush, and their legion of local wanna-be's have been wailing about The Police State, where's their anger over this show-us-your-papers deal in Arizona?
Re: Tea Party not guzzling THIS Kool-Aid!
I am amazed at the who's-who of Republicans around the country who are distancing themselves from the Arizona action, particularly some governors!
It will be interesting to see if "the elite of talk radio" come to a point where they feel the need to cross over to the other side. Will there be some expression of logic from somewhere that gives them some cover to make the change gracefully?
Holland Cooke said:
I am amazed at the who's-who of Republicans around the country who are distancing themselves from the Arizona action, particularly some governors!
It will be interesting to see if "the elite of talk radio" come to a point where they feel the need to cross over to the other side. Will there be some expression of logic from somewhere that gives them some cover to make the change gracefully?
landtuna said:
The same could be said about Rachel Maddow's various degrees. Is there any evidence of that? Of course not. Just like there's no evidence that Bush was just handed an MBA from Harvard.
Do you think Harvard and Yale are that worthless that they hand out degrees? Harvard is a diploma mill? The same Harvard that President Obama went to?
You can't have it both ways. Either a degree from a prestigious school is worth something or its not. You can't shift the standards when talking about a guy you don't like.
Don C said:
This is headed off-course but since you asked a direct question I will answer. Then I'm done.
GWB's various "escapades" at college are well documented. Maddow either had none of those, and took her education seriously, or has covered up her indiscretions successfully. Comparing them speaking I can understand why Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar and Bush wasn't.
GWB's young life wasn't filled with exceptional accomplishments. People who have more knowledge of him than I believe his daddy played a significant role in getting him accepted, and keeping him enrolled, in college. His life after college aligns pretty closely as well. So, do I think GWB was the type of student who would normally be considered Harvard or Yale material? Obviously not, and neither do a significant number of others.
Do I consider either Harvard or Yale a "diploma mill"? No. But I do believe that both schools are influenced significantly by well-heeled and well-connected people interested in getting their friends and family into both schools. Do I think that's what happened here? Obviously.
GWB was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his early life was paved with the good intentions and money of his family - including his election as governor of Texas and POTUS. Had he run for president after anyone but the despised Bill Clinton he likely would have faded away and never been heard from again. Fortune smiled on him once again with the events of 9/11 and he made the most of it. I'd say that, much more than education or natural talent, luck has played significantly in the life of GWB.
Don C said:
Not so. Some opinions are supported by facts, others have no facts to support them, furthermore others are contradicted by obvious facts and some are even based on fabricated "facts", also known as lies.
listener-in said:
Anyone who thinks that one side has a monopoly on lies is fooling themselves.
As for the Bush stuff, I'll just let it be. No use trying to convince people who have bought the story peddled by people with agendas blindly. If someone wants to think that getting elected governor of a large state twice and getting nominated and elected president twice is "luck", there's no use trying to reason with someone who isn't being reasonable.
To get back on subject, I think this thread demonstrates that the overall tenor of politics breeds this sort of angry discourse. Some political scientists actually think that this sort of "angry" public discussion is actually a healthy part of the process. We fight out our differences on TV and radio waves, instead of on battlefields or in bloodless coups.
In other words, don't worry. Both radio and the political process will be fine.
- Status