HOW ANGRY IS TOO ANGRY?

[DonTheTrucker]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree if we can't even agree that both sides smear and slander the other. I'll just pretend that the years 2001-2009 never happened (or still are, in some cases). It's been a good discussion, though. I learned quite a bit.

Oh, and thanks for the tutorial on Cornell. Looks like the Oblermann and Coulter thing is an inter-school rivalry. But then again, I'm not here claiming that Ann Coulter always tells the truth, either. Hopefully the thread doesn't get booted, at least on my side, I'm trying to keep it relevant to broadcasting issues and civil. This sort of thing seems to inspire everyone to root for their home team, which isn't such a bad thing as long as everyone plays nice.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Boys and Girls. Welcome to Mr. Rogers neighborhood!

Has anyone noticed that this conversation has become a mirror image of what happens everyday on Talk Radio. One of our participants was sandbagged. Set up with a tongue-in-cheek affirmation. And it was bought hook-line-and-sinker and tempers then began to come unraveled.

I don't think anyone here is going to do bodily harm to any one. But when one of Joe the Plumber's coworkers had one too many down at one of his favorite watering holes tunes in his favorite talker on the commute home, and gets sandbagged by some over-exuberant host, guest or caller, all bets are off.

We are having a governors race in my state. I was told this week about a candidate debate in a rural area where one candidate made it clear that if he becomes governor the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution will be cited and the state will withdraw from the Union. The crowd went bonkers in cheering support.

I'm willing to bet that crowd didn't get that frame of mind from listening to broadcasts of the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra on National Public Radio. Then again, you might convince me that Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers may have brainwashed them. Of course, I am also suspicious of the Farmer's Almanac.

 

[landtuna]

Y'all be nice to the Big Red. My great-great grandfather (Ezra Cornell) was one of the founders.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Has anyone noticed that this conversation has become a mirror image of what happens everyday on Talk Radio. One of our participants was sandbagged. Set up with a tongue-in-cheek affirmation. And it was bought hook-line-and-sinker and tempers then began to come unraveled.

Certainly does lend credence to my assertion that this tenor of conversation isn't unique to radio.

I don't think anyone here is going to do bodily harm to any one. But when one of Joe the Plumber's coworkers had one too many down at one of his favorite watering holes tunes in his favorite talker on the commute home, and gets sandbagged by some over-exuberant host, guest or caller, all bets are off.

Or a gal in Cindy Sheehan's knitting circle, after a few too many after-dinner cocktails for that matter.

Y'all be nice to the Big Red. My great-great grandfather (Ezra Cornell) was one of the founders.

Ithaca is a beautiful little town. Can't say I liked driving a big truck through it, though. Glad those days are behind me.

 

[Holland Cooke]

I MISS Joe The Plumber!

Given enough time and weather nature will fix everything. The Gulf residents may not want to wait 20,000 years however.

MUST-SEE: The "Life After People" series that The History Channel ran.
Might be available on DVD @ your local library.

Y'all be nice to the Big Red. My great-great grandfather (Ezra Cornell) was one of the founders.

I can't compete with THAT, but here's MY I-wish-they-had-pocket-size-Flip-cameras-back-then moment:

My last full-time on-air job was afternoons at the late, great WKBW/Buffalo. On the morning-of the-1981-afternoon-I-would-debut, they had me do a walk-on with longtime morning host Dan Neaverth, who quipped, "HOLLAND COOKE...HOLLAND COOKE...ANY RELATION TO HOLLAND TUNNEL?"

You should've seen his face when I deadpanned, "ACTUALLY, JOHN PHILIP HOLLAND, INVENTOR-OF-THE-SUBMARINE, FOR-WHOM THE TUNNEL WAS NAMED, IS A DISTANT COUSIN."

 

[Silkie]

Re: 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.

So one and all need those grand re-education camps called colleges and universities. I wonder what Winston Churchill would be called today? “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

 

[del_griffith]

Re: "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

Or as the geat Barry Farber used to say you inferred what I didn't imply.

 

[amfmxm]

Re: 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.

So one and all need those grand re-education camps called colleges and universities.

In short, yeah.

In the long form, the value of higher education--whether it's at a community college or a top university--is in learning how to think critically. Not "job training." But, more importantly, how to analyze information/situations/problems & opportunities... truth/lies... priorities--how to figure out life.

Critical thinking has nothing to do with liberal or conservative political tags. But it does help listeners understand those respective philosophies and evaluate them in the context of today's reality.

 

[Silkie]

Re: 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.

So one and all need those grand re-education camps called colleges and universities.

In short, yeah.

In the long form, the value of higher education--whether it's at a community college or a top university--is in learning how to think critically. Not "job training." But, more importantly, how to analyze information/situations/problems & opportunities... truth/lies... priorities--how to figure out life.

Critical thinking has nothing to do with liberal or conservative political tags. But it does help listeners understand those respective philosophies and evaluate them in the context of today's reality.

Please define for us "today's reality" and whether you actually listen to politicians' words, mind bending semantics, other gamesmanship, or whether you merely listen to radio.

 

[grey_dan]

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

Thanks for the words of welcome, GRC.

I'm actually a long-time lurker, but just signed up for the first time a few weeks ago to make a few posts. As you can tell by my post count, I still don't post that often, simply because I don't feel I have the time. But that doesn't mean I don't follow the action.

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."

I'm not sure exactly what was confusing to you about that line. But if I wasn't as clear as I needed to be, I apologize. Basically, to use your words...

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.

...this was my point, to a certain extent. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're "actors"... for the most part, I do think the hosts hold to the views they profess on-air. But I wonder to what degree some of the "over-the-top"-ness of the hardcore party-line hosts on either side (Rush, Beck, Hannity, Olbermann, etc.) is sincere. Especially when some of the hosts that in the past seemed a little closer to the middle (O'Reilly, Greta, Schultz, Matthews) have tended to shift their commentary depending on their media platform or the direction of their TV network.

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 wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an idea. But like gr8oldies said, it would be difficult to find a body willing to license talk show hosts. Under no circumstances could such a body be created by the federal government without running into some serious free speech considerations.

If such a body could be created, it should definitely go both ways, allowing for expression by conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. If sanctions were imposed to limit "over-the-top" conservative rhetoric against Obama's agenda, the same standards and sanctions would need to be imposed to determine and limit "over-the-top" liberal rhetoric against the agenda of Bush or our next Republican president. (Of course then you get into philosophical questions such as, What determines "over-the-top" rhetoric?)

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Under no circumstances could such a body be created by the federal government without running into some serious free speech considerations.

If such a body could be created, it should definitely go both ways, allowing for expression by conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. If sanctions were imposed to limit "over-the-top" conservative rhetoric against Obama's agenda, the same standards and sanctions would need to be imposed to determine and limit "over-the-top" liberal rhetoric against the agenda of Bush or our next Republican president. (Of course then you get into philosophical questions such as, What determines "over-the-top" rhetoric?)

You have assessed the scene rather accurately. I fully expected someone to roar back rather quickly with a Freedom of Speech response and yesterday morning I had this foggy concept of how I would deal with that issue. The bright sun of the day burned the fog.... and the foggy idea away so I will have to retrace my mental steps... or maybe admit it wasn't such a bright response after all.

When I got into the business, the NAB played a role kin to what you are describing. As a youthful person I was part of a rather aggressive evangelical church organization and we were "chaffing at the bit" that some of the stations would not sell time for us to evangelize. If a radio station was fully following the NAB Standards of Good Broadcasting Practices back in the 1950's, it was strongly suggested that stations NOT sell time for religious programming, but that they set aside some free time (as in Public Service) and donate it to some accredited organization such as The Ministerial Association of the community, or the the local Church Federation and let them divvy it up on some kind of rotating basis.

Some of us saw that as an unreasonable restraint.

A few years later as the first of the commercial all-religion all-the-time stations began to appear I found myself running one of them. We were hard-core, Bible-thumping, preach-and-teach available to the highest bidder all the time.

Some of us saw that as an unreasonable over-the-top trashing of reasonable free-speech.

My own pastor pulled me aside one day and said to me: "There is enough ignorance on your station in any one day to ignorance the whole world." (He came from that part of the world where western Tennessee and Western Kentucky bumps up against the Ozarks. He had some interesting ways to use words.)

I seem to recall an organization called The Radio and Television News Directors Association which tried to develop some self-policing guidelines for journalism.

Maybe the Talkers need to band together and do some self-policing.

If they don't and the present trend (last 15 years) continues we could see the day when the advertising world gets tired of holding their nose and they simply decide that Talk Radio is no longer a legitimate vehicle for advertising and they pull the plug.

With the great leadership in the field of morality we have seen from Wall Street Investment Bankers this past year, maybe they can champion the cause. ;D

 

[landtuna]

Re: I MISS Joe The Plumber!

You should've seen his face when I deadpanned, "ACTUALLY, JOHN PHILIP HOLLAND, INVENTOR-OF-THE-SUBMARINE, FOR-WHOM THE TUNNEL WAS NAMED, IS A DISTANT COUSIN."

Shucks! I was hoping you were related to Holland Taylor (Evelyn Harper on "2 1/2 Men"). ;D ;D

And yes, "After People" was an excellent series.

 

[amfmxm]

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

So one and all need those grand re-education camps called colleges and universities.

In short, yeah.

In the long form, the value of higher education--whether it's at a community college or a top university--is in learning how to think critically. Not "job training." But, more importantly, how to analyze information/situations/problems & opportunities... truth/lies... priorities--how to figure out life.

Critical thinking has nothing to do with liberal or conservative political tags. But it does help listeners understand those respective philosophies and evaluate them in the context of today's reality. [/quote]

Please define for us "today's reality" and whether you actually listen to politicians' words, mind bending semantics, other gamesmanship, or whether you merely listen to radio.
[/quote]

You want me to define "today's reality" and clarify how I listen to politics and/or radio? Uh, no.

Look, Silkie, calling colleges and universities "grand re-education camps" tells me that you're not a fan of higher education. I'm sorry for you.

But, as Holland suggested above, it helps explain why you're on The Right.

You're the target. Frank Luntz is shoveling the talking points and you're eating them up.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If the Olympics gave out medals for "Shoveling Talking Points" .....
Frank Luntz would certainly win the Gold!

 

[DonTheTrucker]

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

But, as Holland suggested above, it helps explain why you're on The Right.

Sometimes I wonder if people even realize that they're being insulting when they say things like this.

I hate to break it to you, but you know the 10th grade drop out that hands you your fries at McDonalds? His opinion is worth just as much as yours. And chances are he's not a Rush Limbaugh fan. It gets tiring seeing right-leaning people being painted as dumb hayseeds that only care about their guns and bibles.

I thought this was a place to discuss radio matters, not insult those who believe differently than us. I guess I was wrong.

 

[gr8oldies]

And so it goes. Only stupid people believe in limited government.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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

I thought this was a place to discuss radio matters, not insult those who believe differently than us. I guess I was wrong.

We are more or less talking about radio and talk radio in particular. So far there are 135 messages in this thread and it is tough to talk about Talk Radio that long without becoming so "personal" and so "political" that we get banished to the barren lands of T-I-O.

Let me offer a parallel image of what gets us in trouble. On some university campuses, in some parts of the country, a professor can pull off a Comparative Religions course without a lot of tension and abrasion. On a campus with a lot of serious Christian students, particularly strongly Evangelical students, such a class can be very difficult. I have no concept how students of other faiths handle their emotions in a class where the professor offers all the competing faith systems as a parade of equals. I do know how many Christian people are totally unable to continue logical thinking if they have to have conversation in which their favorite religion is treated simply as "one of many equals".

When we talk about Talk Radio we hit this same inability in some people to talk about their (political) belief system as though it might be equal to all the others.

If we are going to talk about radio, we have to talk about the demographics of people who will choose to listen to each branch of Talk. We have to talk about the known data about educational levels, world views, gender, typical religious beliefs, income levels, typical hobbies, factors of timidity vs. gregariousness, and on and on. In this present conversation some of us are demonstrating we are comfortable pointing out characteristics of other people who are attracted to other forms of talk, be we go "wackadoodle" when it comes time for someone else to explore possible traits of our own favorite form of talk.

I have no interest in trying to continue a conversation if we have too many people interested in proving their favorite talk flavor is the only legitimate format. If anybody has some civil discussion about how we can recognize the typical traits, demographics, gender and other issues of the audience of various talk formats, let the conversation flow.

Don C: There are probably several people in this conversation and others who so far are just following this conversation, who can help you come to understand how to be an accomplished and successful talk host. Your current vision seems to be that you would be a Conservative talk person.

Keep your mind open. You may find that you are a Libertarian. When you examine everything people are willing to share with you it may turn out you are a neutral and have no stomach for Talk Radio once you look closer. Then again.... Rush is growing older every day. Maybe you are his "heir apparent" and you just need to be discovered.

 

[quadraphonic]

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

Look, Silkie, calling colleges and universities "grand re-education camps" tells me that you're not a fan of higher education. I'm sorry for you.

But, as Holland suggested above, it helps explain why you're on The Right.

amfmxm,
Why would whether or not someone is a fan of higher education affect your emotions?
Why is someone else's opinion of higher education that important to your feelings?
Should we also, conversely, be sorry for you if you are a fan of higher education? Wouldn't that be "balance?" I'm just trying to think at it from all the angles presented.

You know that conservative talk radio says we should all take up arms against the government but can't provide one example without going into that post full of sarcasm about how pure conservative talk radio is?
Apparently, higher education taught you that you can tell someone is "on The Right" just because their opinion of higher education is not as strong as yours. And that applying sarcasm is better than showing proof of your work.
So much for "critical thinking." So much for "thinking" at all, when you get to the point of expressing that your emotions are determined by someone else's expressed opinions. As if that's all the information a thinking person should need about someone else's life to evoke "sorrow."
Sounds like the "re-education" might have involved more than just "critical thinking."

 

[DonTheTrucker]

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

Don C: There are probably several people in this conversation and others who so far are just following this conversation, who can help you come to understand how to be an accomplished and successful talk host. Your current vision seems to be that you would be a Conservative talk person.

Actually, I have little interest in political talk as the main focus of what I'd do. Not saying I wouldn't do it for a living if the opportunity presented itself, but I'd like to be more than the sum of my political beliefs. And I do lean more libertarian until defense issues come up. I'm also not the one belittling the intelligence of the folks I disagree with. I definitely don't want to be part of that scene, and that's what this thread is about, after all. I'm actually learning quite a bit from the folks I disagree with. I just find it non-productive when some engage in the exact same sort of generalizations and insults that they accuse conservative hosts of (which they're also correct about sometimes). This isn't directed at you, of course, since you're obviously bringing more to the table than that. But there are a couple of folks here who have added nothing but insults.

 

[Holland Cooke]

As John McLaughlin would bark, "PREDICTION!"

After Rush Limbaugh mused that the Obama "regime" may have caused that Gulf oil rig to explode, to put-the-stink-on offshore drilling...

PREDICTION: Today, he will wonder-aloud if the "fat finger" keypunch error that sent Wall Street into yesterday's tailspin was a deliberate cover-up, to divert attention from any losses attributable to Greeks rioting against capitalism.

HC
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/has-glenn-beck-peaked/