HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?

[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.

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.

I will say I agree that the people with more TSL tend to be on the fringes, but that's not unique to radio, nor is it unique to right-wing talk. There's no evidence that radio had anything to do with any of those instances. To ignore the fringe on the other side seems short-sighted to me. But I'm just going on common sense, not experience. The Contessa Brewer faux pas today just shows how eager some are to pin any violence that they can on the opposition. It just seems a bit one sided to me. We survived 200+ years of people saying pretty bad stuff about one another. I just can't see how this is any different.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

As long as both sides view the other side as the opposition, the enemy, the anti-Christ, evil incarnate, as trying to destroy the nation, etc, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion. There are extremist wacko's on both sides of the isle, yes there are extremist wacko's who are conservatives and extremist wacko's that are liberal. Neither party, Democratic or Republican is totally honest, completely honorable, have all the correct answers, or have a monopoly on wisdom. Both have some of all of those qualities. One group basically wants a market driven system where businesses are free to do anything they want to make a profit for themselves without the bothersome details of regulations from the government to get in the way of making that profit; whereas the other group prefers a more socialistic approach with a more hands on approach from government in having rules and regulations to keep businesses from running rough shod over people and the environment. One way business probably would make more money, but at what expense to the environment and to people's lives in poor working conditions, child labor, lousy wages, no benefits, having rivers that are so polluted that it actually caught fire
(circa 1969), etc. The other way would protect people and the environment, but if taken to extremes can cripple businesses to the point where they go belly up or move to a Third World nation and do all those things they couldn't do in the US and make even more money as they can really underpay those people and pollute all they want in those countries.

So there is a balance that I believe needs to happen. The problem is neither side wants balance, they want it all their way or no way. No compromise.

My guess is, the better answer lies with a bit of both without the extremes of either side. There are some things that may work better as a "socialistic" approach and other things that may work better in a market driven approach. The trick is figuring out which things belong to which approach. But when both sides only want it their way that middle ground is difficult to find.

That probably doesn't make for compelling radio, but I'd sure rather listen to talk shows that try to figure out that than simply bashing the other side each day.

 

[Tom Wells]

Mike Levin is too angry. Even when I'd like to agree with him on a point, his voice and demeanor drive me away.
My radio gets indigestion just tuning past his show.

 

[landtuna]

The problem is neither side wants balance, they want it all their way or no way. No compromise.

I was watching 'Horizon' on PBS last evening and the guest, a political science professor from ASU said the same thing. His opinion was that so many from both right and left have become Independents that it left just the "don't give an inch" people in both major parties.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

That probably doesn't make for compelling radio, but I'd sure rather listen to talk shows that try to figure out that than simply bashing the other side each day.

I think we're in the minority, being people who listen to a lot more radio than the average person, so our opinions of how these shows are presented is probably a bit skewed. With the exception of Levin, I don't particularly like most of the other conservative hosts all that much. I like Rush's presentation, he's the best at what he does, but I can't listen to his show for more than 15 or 20 minutes most days. Hannity is too repetitive, Beck too overdramatic. As I've mentioned a few times, John Batchelor is more my style, just because it's more long form and covers a variety of topics in any given night.

I'm just trying to go at this from an apolitical perspective, since I didn't come here to discuss politics. There are nuts on every conceivable side of an issue, and to think that things are any worse now than they were in 2006 (or 1968 or 1980) is silly. The medium that people go to in order to express their displeasure changes, but the song remains the same, so to speak. I see the whole "angry pundit" gimmick as blowing off steam, and a healthy part of the process.

 

[redneckriviera]

That probably doesn't make for compelling radio, but I'd sure rather listen to talk shows that try to figure out that than simply bashing the other side each day.

I think we're in the minority, being people who listen to a lot more radio than the average person, so our opinions of how these shows are presented is probably a bit skewed. With the exception of Levin, I don't particularly like most of the other conservative hosts all that much. I like Rush's presentation, he's the best at what he does, but I can't listen to his show for more than 15 or 20 minutes most days. Hannity is too repetitive, Beck too overdramatic. As I've mentioned a few times, John Batchelor is more my style, just because it's more long form and covers a variety of topics in any given night.

I'm just trying to go at this from an apolitical perspective, since I didn't come here to discuss politics. There are nuts on every conceivable side of an issue, and to think that things are any worse now than they were in 2006 (or 1968 or 1980) is silly. The medium that people go to in order to express their displeasure changes, but the song remains the same, so to speak. I see the whole "angry pundit" gimmick as blowing off steam, and a healthy part of the process.

Don, for someone who didn't come here to discuss politics, you've managed to chip in two dozen postings to this thread alone.

And in defense of my post yesterday, the Huffington Post never discusses AQH and TSL. That's radio stuff.

But you're dead-on with the TSL analogy--big TSL is piled up by listeners who feel VERY strongly about whatever the content is--rock music, sports, politics.

Where I'll diverge with you is that I don't hear the same kind of extreme content on progressive talk radio. Ed Schultz is probably the most energetic of the bunch, and he's pretty even-keeled. Thom Hartmann is downright professorial. Mike Malloy might be the furthest on the left, but is very low-key. No shouting or yelling or encouraging listeners to grab their guns and take back "our" country.

So the problem is not with "talk radio," as such. The problem is with rightwing talk radio, specifically. And the point is that in order to generate the rabid P-1 audience that racks up huge time-spent-listening and competitive AQH Ratings, the Limbaughs, Becks & Hannitys have pushed it to the edge, already.

And, FWIW, I believe that is the point that Holland was trying to make in starting this thread.

Mr. Cooke?

 

[grey_dan]

Watching this film might make you wonder what the big radio / TV talk show folks actually say when the mic is off. How much is an act? Think Greta Van Sesstren (sp), who was on CNN, a more left leaning network, now on right leaning Fox. So does she really believe what she's saying or is she simply going along, because Fox gave her a better gig than CNN? If the networks had been more right leaning, would have Rupert Murdock have made Fox a left leaning network? If conservative views became the mainstay of network radio/TV who Murdock change his network to being a lib network? The Washington Times, a right leaning newspaper is own by Rev. Young Sun Moon, most probably don't share his "religious" views, but the head of the "mooneys" saw a business opportunity and now runs one of America's leading conservative newspapers. Politics does make some strange bedfellows. The question is does Rev. Moon really believe what his paper publishes or is he simply trying to make money by saying what those readers want to hear.

Broadcasting is a business. Radio stations change formats, not because the owner likes Country music better than Big Band music (he/she may actually prefer Big Band music), but they can't sell Big Band music due to the elderly demo, so Country sells to that valued younger demo, and even though the owner hates Country music, his station plays it, because it does sell. This is the nature of business. Which begs the question, how much of what we are hearing on talk radio, cable TV is real and not just a vehicle for the host, their guest consultants, and the station/network to make money. What is really frightening is that many people get their news from Rush/Hannity/Beck, or Rachel and Ed. Even scarier still is others get their news from Leno/Letterman/Comedy Central. Are we seeing the "dumbing down of the message" to appeal to the masses, who for many don't really want to be bothered studying the issues, so we package it in a simply fun way selling them any point of view just to make a buck?

I haven't been following this conversation the whole time, so I just noticed this post yesterday. But I did want to comment...

I've certainly noticed a shift in the tones of the TV political talkers. It seems that as a network's focus shifts, so does the tone of their hosts.

At least during his time on Fox News, O'Reilly has always leaned somewhat conservative but he used to seem more moderate (both on TV & on his short-lived radio show); now his show and most of the guests are, more often than not, straight-ahead conservative. Greta used to do a more court-based show (both on CNN & early during her time with Fox); now her show is mostly typical Fox conservative political talk. (For the record, I don't know where she stands on Obama when the cameras are off, but I've heard that her husband was a big contributor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.) Conversely, Hannity stays consistent with his message, but his personality on TV is definitely toned down. Similarly with Beck; he makes fun of the libs a lot more often on his radio show, but comes off as much more serious (almost conservative elitist) on his Fox show.

And it goes the other way, too... Chris Matthews' MSNBC show seems to have shifted from relatively moderate to left; while he still has a few conservative guests, the left now gets a lot more face time & sympathy. Olbermann seems to have shifted from left to far left. Schultz actually seems more amped on TV, whereas he generally seems calmer on radio. I can't comment on Maddow in this respect since I never heard her radio show and she only came to MSNBC after the network decided to go full-on liberal, but I'd be curious to know about the differences between her radio show and what she's doing now.

I guess my point is, I definitely agree with MikefromDelaware that the sincerity of some of the things the political talk hosts say is questionable. For the most part, most of them probably believe in what they say. But there's definitely an element of refining their message, or at least the tone, to the network's agenda and what the audience wants to hear. (When I say "network's agenda," I don't think the primary agenda is anything more than maximizing profit, but of course Fox News and MSNBC do that indirectly by appealing to the political viewpoints of their target audiences.) Personally I don't think that makes the poltalk hosts hypocrites; it just makes them professionals doing the jobs they're paid to do. But the ideological shifting of the networks' primary talk shows, as the focuses of the networks themselves have shifted, definitely raises question marks about the sincerity of some of the things the hosts say.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For the most part, most of them probably believe in what they say. But there's definitely an element of refining their message, or at least the tone, to the network's agenda and what the audience wants to hear. (When I say "network's agenda," I don't think the primary agenda is anything more than maximizing profit, but of course Fox News and MSNBC do that indirectly by appealing to the political viewpoints of their target audiences.) Personally I don't think that makes the poltalk hosts hypocrites; it just makes them professionals doing the jobs they're paid to do. But the ideological shifting of the networks' primary talk shows, as the focuses of the networks themselves have shifted, definitely raises question marks about the sincerity of some of the things the hosts say.

Glad you showed up for the party, and you had some interesting observations to make.

As you say, the networks want (and need) to maximize profits.

The line that you posted that left me scratching my head is this: "Personally I don't think that makes the poltalk hosts hypocrites; it just makes them professionals doing the jobs they're paid to do."

If I am Raymond Burr and I am being an actor playing the part of Perry Mason, the lines that I mouth in the courtroom can be different that what I personally believe and I am simply being professional.... a professional actor.

As we discuss radio, the success of radio, the social implications of radio on society (and the effect of TV for that matter).... I see a big disconnect between drama about law, drama about medicine, drama about life, love and six.

When radio and TV begin dispensing "pills" of wisdom about the political scene and giving "do-it-yourself surgery" instructions on how to manipulate, enhance or strangle government, society and politics, are we still actors doing drama or have be become professionals practicing real medicine and real law?

In real life we ask doctors to meet certain educational and training standards and that they maintain a license to practice medicine.

In real life we ask lawyers to also meet standards and maintain what amounts to license.

Shoot. We even demand that hair-dressers and barbers be trained, licensed and ethical.

When I look at it that way, I see talk radio people having the same kind of effect on civilization, on tribe, on community, on empire as these other professionals do on our bodies, our wills and contracts, our hair (if we have any left.)

So why wouldn't we require talk show hosts to have proper training, to have a license to dispense prescriptions of "opinion" and meet a code of ethics.

I know the first answer that is going to be hurled back: "For heaven's sake, man. Lighten up. They are JUST ENTERTAINERS!"

And her is MY RESPONSE to that. How about I set up a Boob Shop tomorrow. Kind of like Howard Stern, we will set up cameras and broadcast the surgery. It's just entertainment!

Every station owner, every broadcaster involved in today's version of Talk Radio needs to look in the mirror and contemplate: If I opened up a boob shop and someone bled to death, I would feel bad about it. What if the society and civilization we love bleeds to death laying on the gurney in Talk Radio?

 

[gr8oldies]

What body is going to license talk show hosts? And again, since we have had two references to Limbaugh and Hannity encouraging people to take up arms against their government..quotes please?

 

[quadraphonic]

Maybe this forum is already like the boob shop?
In generality, of course, not specifically.

 

[jackandcoke]

What body is going to license talk show hosts? And again, since we have had two references to Limbaugh and Hannity encouraging people to take up arms against their government..quotes please?

It took five minutes of Google research but here's a couple of quick examples.

3/30/10: Hannity addressing a Tea Party rally in California calls them "McVeigh wannabes" to cheers. So Sean wants his Tea Party fans to blow up government buildings and kill innocent Americans.

3/24/09: In response to Rep. Michele Bachmann's call for citizens to be "armed and dangerous" and ready for a "revolution"--and to meet her at the White House--Rush says he would "help her dig a tunnel to the White House." In case you've forgotten, Bachmann did indeed show up at the White House gates armed with a shotgun and was joined by a throng of zero. When it became apparent that her call for revolution was a bust, she gave a "press conference" to the three reporters present.

Don't have time to go through all the Beck examples.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

No shouting or yelling or encouraging listeners to grab their guns and take back "our" country.

Who is doing that? Examples? I keep hearing this, but I've never heard one of the major hosts advocate taking up arms against the government. I consider myself one of the few who have P-1 on a talk station (as well as P2-6), so I do hear a bit of the various shows. You're in the business, you know the whole deal with Randi Rhodes and the Bush/Fredo Corleone comparison. I've never heard anything even remotely close to that from Hannity, Rush, Beck or Levin. They all say some crazy things, but I've never heard outright threats of violence. If there are examples of this sort of threat happening, I'd sure like to hear them (in context, of course. Looks like we're already getting the typical out of context examples.)

 

[gr8oldies]

Lots of out of context and made up quotes out there. I should have asked for in context audio examples. I can hear Hannity chastising liberals for thinking the tea party are "McVeigh wannabes" (which has been the left's mantra for a year) but I'd be hard pressed to believe Hannity ever praised McVeigh)

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Lots of out of context and made up quotes out there. I should have asked for in context audio examples. I can hear Hannity chastising liberals for thinking the tea party are "McVeigh wannabes" (which has been the left's mantra for a year) but I'd be hard pressed to believe Hannity ever praised McVeigh)

Your guess is close. Hannity called the people at the rally "McVeigh wannabes" as a jab at the media who are trying to portray the Tea Parties as violent. Anyone who believes that a national host (any national host) could go on the air and seriously advocate armed revolt against the government and get away with it is delusional. The day Google invents a sarcasm filter for its search results is the day we'll have a lot more constructive discussion of things like this.

 

[amfmxm]

Y'all are right, of course. Conservative talk radio is very open to all ideas and is generally quite civil and intellectual. No one in Conservative broadcasting has ever suggested that anyone take any forceful, violent or revolutionary action against the U.S. government. That is nothing more than a figment of the feable-minded liberals. The most extreme suggestion has been merely to wait until the next scheduled election when the nation will rise as one to vote the scoundrels out.

Conservative talk radio targets the best-educated, most successful and level-headed audience in America, whether they be Republicans, Democrats or Independents.

It is a credit to our society, our nation, its practitioners and supporters.

And, indeed, most Americans are proud of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the rest of these fine broadcasters.

When Glenn cries, we all cry.

 

[Holland Cooke]

RE "When Glenn cries, we all cry..."

...although not all for the same reason.

Conservative talk radio targets the best-educated, most successful and level-headed audience in America

Hardly.

The litany of factual errors these high school graduates commits resonates most with like-minded low-information listeners who don't know better.

The problem is the-ring-of-truth what-they're-saying takes-on when it's said on the radio, the trusted voice generations have believed. Blogs and other new media aren't inferred to be as-fact-checked as what's-on radio/TV.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Re: RE "When Glenn cries, we all cry..."

The litany of factual errors these high school graduates commits resonates most with like-minded low-information listeners who don't know better.

Again, I hate to be "both sides do it guy", but on the TV side, Keith Olbermann can't even tell the truth about where he went to college. So having a degree from Cornell's Agricultural College (not an Ivy League school as Keith claims) doesn't make one any more likely to tell the truth than having dropped out after 2 years of wherever Rush went to school. I'm sure his radio-side cohorts are just as guilty.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Thus my point about fact-checking...

Keith Olbermann can't even tell the truth about where he went to college. So having a degree from Cornell's Agricultural College (not an Ivy League school and Keith claims) doesn't make one any more likely to tell the truth than having dropped out after 2 years of wherever Rush went to school.

RE Olbermann/Cornell: Ann Coulter LIE, which Olbermann refuted-in-detail and SHOWED his diploma on TV.

RE Limbaugh: 'Never made it to two years. Clearly he missed some General Science in high school too, based on his on-air claim the other day that nature will just...fix...the Gulf spill.

 

[fybush]

I suspect we're heading for TIO territory here, and I strongly suspect Don C isn't from New York State.

As pretty much any New Yorker who's of college age (or has been of college age in the last 40 years) knows, there are two colleges of Cornell University that are also part of the State University of New York - and which therefore provide the opportunity to receive a Cornell University degree with significantly reduced tuition.

One of them is the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the other is Industrial and Labor Relations (and yes, a quarter-century after my college application days, I can still remember that without even having to look it up.)

What Don apparently doesn't know is that once you're admitted to one of those two colleges, you're a Cornell University student, on the same Ithaca campus with all the same academic and social activities available to you as to anyone matriculated at Cornell's fully-private colleges. It's a really, really good deal, especially given the difference these days in private college tuition and SUNY tuition.

CALS (the "Agricultural College") happens to administer the communications program at Cornell. I believe all communications students enroll through CALS, though I'm not 100% certain of that.

In any event, the only difference between the degree Olbermann holds and the one that, say, a Cornell history major would hold is that Keith paid a lot less for his.

Here's the page from Cornell's own site explaining its land-grant colleges:

http://landgrant.cornell.edu/

 

[landtuna]

Re: Thus my point about fact-checking...

Clearly he missed some General Science in high school too, based on his on-air claim the other day that nature will just...fix...the Gulf spill.

Actually, he is correct. Given enough time and weather nature will fix everything. The Gulf residents may not want to wait 20,000 years however. ;D