HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?

[DonTheTrucker]

I think he's joking. I think he knows it's FOX news. He's attempting to equate the organization with "faux pas", even though "faux" is pronounced differently. It's how it looks in print I suppose.

No, "Faux News" is the cliched nickname that some left leaning folks have given Fox. Which is fine, but don't call it that when bashing someone for doing the Democrat switcheroo.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just went back and reviewed this thread. The official subject line is "HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?"

The discussion revolves around the idea that the verbiage of the American people, and some parts of the media in particular, has become disrespectful, coarse, harsh, in-your-face and yes, ANGRY. Time and time again in these discussion groups we demonstrate that those of use who participate here have the ability to be participants in this vulgarity of language.

But even worse than our poor stewardship of the tonality of language is our love affair with demonizing our opponents in debate and discussion. SATECH: I'm sorry my phrase offended you. Before the night is over I will write to my own very favorite expert on the use of language and ask that she referee any food-fight that comes out of the explanation below.

I was born in a state that was part of the Confederacy but also a state that shares a border with Mexico. During grade school we not only had a class named "English" but also a class in learning the mechanics of the language Spanish. Since most of us in American education no longer sit through a class is Grammar we often miss out on nuts and bolts of language such as "the declension of verbs" and other obtuse minutia. Though I have lived in the Corn Belt/Rust Belt of America more years than in the South, I have become a keen observer of the accepted usage and corruption of words here in the South. Apparently the Associated Press Stylebook would permit my questionable use of the phrase: "Most of my neighbors will stay home and die before they cast a Democrat vote." If you want to write a news story that is as word-constipated as this post, then you would say ".... before they cast a vote for the Democratic Party candidate."

But if it will make you feel better, I will be in the presence of key people next week who make up the Democratic Committee of my county. I do maintenance work on their web-site. I will query them on what are acceptable language constructs within their little chunk of the hills of North Georgia.

I'm so glad we could have this chat. Bless your little heart.

 

[satech]

I think he's joking. I think he knows it's FOX news. He's attempting to equate the organization with "faux pas", even though "faux" is pronounced differently. It's how it looks in print I suppose.

I use "Faux News" as an umbrella term for politically biased commentary masquerading as "news." Although the pun on Fox News is obvious, there are plenty of other sources of it from the media, including right-wing talk radio (the majority of Limbaugh's listeners claim his show to be their main source of "news"), and right-wing web sites and blogs like Newsmax and the Drudge Report. And sure, you can throw liberally biased sources in the mix as well, such as MSNBC, the Huffington Post, and Daily Kos.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I use "Faux News" as an umbrella term for politically biased commentary masquerading as "news." Although the pun on Fox News is obvious, there are plenty of other sources of it from the media, including right-wing talk radio (the majority of Limbaugh's listeners claim his show to be their main source of "news"), and right-wing web sites and blogs like Newsmax and the Drudge Report. And sure, you can throw liberally biased sources in the mix as well, such as MSNBC, the Huffington Post, and Daily Kos.

The irony of you making blanket statements about Fox News (and the people who watch it) while bashing people for (unintentionally) making blanket statements about Democrats is totally lost on you, isn't it?

 

[satech]

The irony of you making blanket statements about Fox News (and the people who watch it) while bashing people for (unintentionally) making blanket statements about Democrats is totally lost on you, isn't it?

It's not a blanket statement if it's true. Fox is the only major TV network which consistently incorrectly uses "Democrat" as an adjective, by its "news anchors" and reporters as well as by its commentators. On the other networks, you will only hear the "drop the -ic" game if a right-wing politician or commentator is invited on as a guest.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

It's not a blanket statement if it's true. Fox is the only major TV network which consistently incorrectly uses "Democrat" as an adjective, by its "news anchors" and reporters as well as by its commentators. On the other networks, you will only hear the "drop the -ic" game if a right-wing politician or commentator is invited on as a guest.

MSNBC and CNN are no better,yet you won't see me making up names or slandering them. If you can't see that, we're done here.

To try to get things back on track, this "angry" discourse is nothing new, not exclusive to radio, nor is it the sole domain of the right. The comments in this thread prove that.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Don is correct. Neither side is pure. There is anger on both sides, depending on who's in power and who's Ox is being gored. During the 8 years of George W. Bush, the lib's were going crazy, not just in the public realm of Hollywood - Bill Maher, Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstat, MSNBC, etc, etc. Even among the regular people in the nation there was plenty of anger being expressed towards the Bush White House. I have liberal friends who were simply angry for most of the past 8 years (still feel that Bush stole the 2001 election), etc, but seem more happy now, as their guy is in the White House and they have control of the Congress. They are a bit frustrated that the Dems in Congress haven't done more, quickly, to advance the liberal agenda, etc.

Now the conservatives are unhappy, because Obama is in charge. The conservative talk radio hosts, Fox Cable News, Hollywood folks like Jon Voight (sp) "Midnight Cowboy" fame, etc, as well as regular people out there who are joining tea parties, in anxious anticipation of retaking the Congress for the GOP.

This isn't going to go away any time soon as the country is roughly 50/50 split, one half liberal (granted some are more liberal than others), the other half conservative(granted some are more conservative than others). Unfortunately, we can't easily divide up the nation into two parts, Red America and Blue America, where conservative values, etc would rule the red sections and liberal values would rule the blue sections.

How angry is too angry? When death threats are made to the President or people in Congress, no matter which party they belong, then that's too much anger (Kill Bush movies and signs and the death threats, etc aimed at Dems in Congress now because of Healthcare being passed). However, Washington has itself to blame. Both parties will knowingly lie to the public, say anything to win the election. Win at any cost, etc.. The media interestingly can't ever get the correct figures for the cost or ramifications of a bill UNTIL after its passed. Then the next day the media will say, the healthcare bill signed yesterday by President Obama will cost the taxpayers far more than was anticipated. They did the same sort of thing during the Bush years too. Then the beltway types wonder why people on both sides of the isle are fed up and angry. Radio talk shows and Cable TV talk shows don't help the situation. Both lib talk and GOP talk shows make it their business to inflame people to get them riled up. They both are good at doing that, which of course translates into great ratings. As long as people will tune in to these radio /TV "bash the other side" shows in large enough numbers where the networks make money and the advertisers are happy, then it will continue on. When the public tires of it and tunes elsewhere is when it will stop. because then also will the ad dollars dry up.

Unfortunately, many people are easily pulled into this by listening or watching these talk shows. These radio and TV shows have and do contribute to much of the distrust Americans have in government. Every thing government does is picked apart daily by one side or the other. Even when one side likes what the government did, the other side won't. There is no winning. Unfortunately positive news doesn't sell, so both radio and TV as well as print media tend to stress the negative. Its all part and parcel of the problem of why everyone is angry.

 

[Silkie]

The only thing I need to do is to compare the actions of government with the Constitution. I don't care whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Republicrats or anything else they claim to be. Their donkey or elephant lapel pins mean nothing to me.

And what is all this crap toeing the company "anger", "angry" line just because the President says there is "anger". My grandma had a saying for that: "Just because they say it's so, doesn't make it so".

Let each individual decide whether his or her lot has improved, and let's not go according to the government telling us everything is just getting better and better with each and every passing day.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

And what is all this crap toeing the company "anger", "angry" line just because the President says there is "anger". My grandma had a saying for that: "Just because they say it's so, doesn't make it so".

I'm sure that's the case for some of the people here, it's pretty obvious which ones that applies to. I don't think it's the intent of the OP.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You guys want to translate these last two posts into English?

No comprende!

 

[DonTheTrucker]

You guys want to translate these last two posts into English?

No comprende!

He was saying that people are crying "too angry" because that's the current administration talking point. I told him that some of the people here are obviously in that category, but that Holland isn't with his original post. He's asking the question because it's a current issue in the media and he reports on media stuff.

Hope that makes a little more sense!

 

[Holland Cooke]

As Maxine Nightengale sang...

He was saying that people are crying "too angry" because that's the current administration talking point. I told him that some of the people here are obviously in that category, but that Holland isn't with his original post. He's asking the question because it's a current issue in the media and he reports on media stuff.

Good re-rack.

And y'all are also invited to weigh-in on this topic:
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/has-glenn-beck-peaked/

 

[quadraphonic]

The right amount of anger is hard to quantify. It depends on the situation.

A lot of the anger in today's world isn't really "anger." It's pride. "Anger" is just how their pride comes out.
And pride makes a lot of people cry "your side is angry" when in fact the person crying that is just being prideful.
They didn't get what they wanted, but if they can control everyone else's impressions of the person they're describing, they start out with a leg up, which is actually pride, too.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The right amount of anger is hard to quantify. It depends on the situation.

A lot of the anger in today's world isn't really "anger." It's pride. "Anger" is just how their pride comes out.

You have opened up an interesting new way of looking at what is happening. And it helps in understanding why the situation is NOT self-correcting.

The sender evaluates what is sent. (I meant for it to be [funny / instructive / sarcastic / shocking ]. Take your choice.)

The receiver evaluates what is received. (I think I just heard [anger / ignorance / brilliance / vulgarity ].)

The sender then gets all bent out of shape that the message was received incorrectly and creates a new and improved version and sends it again. By this time the receiver is [insulted / disappointed / angered] that the sender does not understand how the receiver digested the message. Why doesn't that stupid sender of messages pay attention to how I feel about the garbage I perceived a certain way when it got here.

The current American dilemma: "You are so stupid. Instead of hearing what I wanted to tell you, you heard what you wanted to hear. It is people like you that are ruining our country."

What ever happened to two-way communication? What ever happened to conversation. Over and over again as we volley thoughts back and forth like a badminton birdies, ANGER does arise. And anger usually results in an escalation of anger.

HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY? Does anyone have a meter for measuring anger levels? Like the city enforcement guy running around a concert with a sound meter to see if LOUD is too loud?

 

[Holland Cooke]

"imply"/"infer"

The sender evaluates what is sent.
The receiver evaluates what is received.

And remember, only a speaker can imply, and only a listener can infer.

HC
http://getonthenet.com/AndYouCanQuoteMe.pdf

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Here's an interesting thought to mull over, given the tendency of major talk programming to be syndicated nowadays, and the "whatever happened to two way communication" idea:

The guys who are syndicated nationwide are very talented at what they do. With talent usually comes ego. With ego comes less back and forth with the callers, especially when you look at Rush. He takes almost no calls compared to a local host (or even Hannity). Perhaps syndicated radio has also contributed to this perception that radio has become more "angry". There's absolutely no back and forth at all on TV and they're even angrier.

Perhaps the answer to this puzzle is to get radio back to its roots somehow.

 

[redneckriviera]

I think it's important to understand that the two marquee rightwing talkers--Limbaugh & Beck--are just a couple of old Top 40/CHR jocks who learned the lesson from Howard Stern... that extreme content generated better ratings. Stern's slant on extreme content was sex. For Rush & Glenn the schtick is rightwing politics fed by anger.

So if anger is the bait, what do you do for Act II? Greater anger. Act XX? Extreme anger.

Twenty-plus years of extreme anger chases moderates away (it just becomes old). So riling up the extreme right enough to generate strong TSL puts these guys--and their clones--out on the ledge with the crazies.

And so we're at a point when the crazies remaining who are willing to crank up 60 quarter-hours a week are all that is left. And the only way to keep them glued to the radio is to angrily convince them to be armed and dangerous.

Armed and dangerous enough to shoot up a church in Tennessee, a security guard in DC, cops in Pittsburgh, et cetera.

And I think that's the answer to "How angry is too angry." We're there.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Wow, that rant could have been copy pasted from Huffington. Sorry, but blaming talk radio for every bit of violence in the world isn't going to get you taken seriously here.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Wow, that rant could have been copy pasted from Huffington. Sorry, but blaming talk radio for every bit of violence in the world isn't going to get you taken seriously here.

Ah my friend. Don't shoot from the hip before you know the skill set of your opponent. I have come to know the man. As an announced "wanna-be" I recommend you be patient and hear the man out.

I thought his logic far exceeded the normal production of logic you find at Huffington.

 

[gr8oldies]

It's time to bury the "talk radio leads to violence" screed. The left and msm was hoping against hope that the guy who planted the not-quite-a-bomb in Times Square had been spotted at a Tea Party rally and had Limbaugh stickers on his SUV. Not the case of course. Out of towners who vandalized Asheville NC after a pro-illegal immigration rally? Not the right! Much as you may want it that way, violence isn't coming from conservative talk radio listeners.
Care to produce a quote where Limbaugh or Hannity said to take up arms? Not something out of context or made up?