Does talk radio make people believe what they otherwise wouldn't? Would Obamacare have passed last summer before anyone had a chance to read it as originally planned? Would those protesting have just said "oh, OK"? If it was 1965 and al5 opinion was filtered through liberal journalists with opposition being buried in obscure publications, would Obama, Pelosi and Co. have everything they want? As for agitation, does Spanish language radio advocate for illegal immigration?
-
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
D
del_griffith
Guest
Does talk radio make people believe what they otherwise wouldn't?
Great question.
I would have to say yes. But the question really needs to exchange the word wouldn't with don't.
The reason I say yes. Why are Salem, Moody and the other Christian teach/preach programmers in business? Because those who pay to play believe they are not only feeding the flock, but also attacting new people to the flock.
Those teacher/preacher folks believe they need to nuture those already in agreement and they also seek and value every person who hits the scan button and the radio stops on their show. Virtually all have cards and letters (ok and social media) read over the air with people saying I was scanning the dial and ran into your program and it turned me the Christ. My guess is that person contacting that program wasn't particularly religious so they didn't align initially to the program until they listened. But they found something that changed their outlook or values and bought into what they were hearing.
Why does the local real estate guy, the gardening guy, the pet guy, the gun guy, the coin guy, the investor guy all buy time every weekend (and in some cities daily) on their local stations? To reach those who are already inclined to buy a home, are going to garden, buy pet meds or vet services, buy coins or gold, or investments and as well as to plant the seed in the person who just happened to listen in and now does something as an impulse.
Look at Dave Ramsey's converts. They go from maxed out credit cards to no credit used.
Why do you see on conservative forums statements such as if Rush or Beck or someone would just talke about X then the whole world would know about it and we could get rid of the guy in the WH. That was more widely said during Clinton when talk radio was the primary source for "alternative information" than now. But I still sometimes see it.
Would Obama care have passed have it had a chance to be read? Probably. The Great Society programs such as medicare passed in the 60's.
As for Spanish radio. I can only speculate. I can't understand a word they say.
Great question.
I would have to say yes. But the question really needs to exchange the word wouldn't with don't.
The reason I say yes. Why are Salem, Moody and the other Christian teach/preach programmers in business? Because those who pay to play believe they are not only feeding the flock, but also attacting new people to the flock.
Those teacher/preacher folks believe they need to nuture those already in agreement and they also seek and value every person who hits the scan button and the radio stops on their show. Virtually all have cards and letters (ok and social media) read over the air with people saying I was scanning the dial and ran into your program and it turned me the Christ. My guess is that person contacting that program wasn't particularly religious so they didn't align initially to the program until they listened. But they found something that changed their outlook or values and bought into what they were hearing.
Why does the local real estate guy, the gardening guy, the pet guy, the gun guy, the coin guy, the investor guy all buy time every weekend (and in some cities daily) on their local stations? To reach those who are already inclined to buy a home, are going to garden, buy pet meds or vet services, buy coins or gold, or investments and as well as to plant the seed in the person who just happened to listen in and now does something as an impulse.
Look at Dave Ramsey's converts. They go from maxed out credit cards to no credit used.
Why do you see on conservative forums statements such as if Rush or Beck or someone would just talke about X then the whole world would know about it and we could get rid of the guy in the WH. That was more widely said during Clinton when talk radio was the primary source for "alternative information" than now. But I still sometimes see it.
Would Obama care have passed have it had a chance to be read? Probably. The Great Society programs such as medicare passed in the 60's.
As for Spanish radio. I can only speculate. I can't understand a word they say.
RE "Does talk radio make people believe what they otherwise wouldn't?"
Orson Welles had people believing flying saucers were landing in New Jersey.
Then, DECADES later, when Welles' gag was well-known, we convinced Rhode Islanders that the same thing was happening:
http://myri.tv/war.html
When something's said on radio -- no matter how outlandish -- it takes on the ring of truth.
Orson Welles had people believing flying saucers were landing in New Jersey.
Then, DECADES later, when Welles' gag was well-known, we convinced Rhode Islanders that the same thing was happening:
http://myri.tv/war.html
When something's said on radio -- no matter how outlandish -- it takes on the ring of truth.
Re: RE "Does talk radio make people believe what they otherwise wouldn't?"
Revising history, are you? Well in advance the audience was told that War of The Worlds was a fictional story. Those who did not hear the repeated statements up front or did not have radios did not hear that it was science fiction, and they were the ones who panicked.
Thus, just as some of us paid attention in class and were Honors English students and got it right, others of you chose to pretend that part did not happen, and so you repeat enough times that the fact of fiction (not a gag, as you remake it) was not well known until you believe it yourself.
So, the new topic within a topic - a mirage within a mirage to play mindbending games - has nothing to do with the original question with respect to how angry is angry. We can see how young, impressionable people might believe and heed wrong advice - well, because it's fun to cause trouble, right?
Holland Cooke said:
Revising history, are you? Well in advance the audience was told that War of The Worlds was a fictional story. Those who did not hear the repeated statements up front or did not have radios did not hear that it was science fiction, and they were the ones who panicked.
Thus, just as some of us paid attention in class and were Honors English students and got it right, others of you chose to pretend that part did not happen, and so you repeat enough times that the fact of fiction (not a gag, as you remake it) was not well known until you believe it yourself.
So, the new topic within a topic - a mirage within a mirage to play mindbending games - has nothing to do with the original question with respect to how angry is angry. We can see how young, impressionable people might believe and heed wrong advice - well, because it's fun to cause trouble, right?
Since you brought up "history..."
And THE REASON they missed the front-end disclaimer?
Pull up a chair.
Back then, before TV, and radio-programming-as-we-now-know-it, radio programs were...programs...which ran lengths that'd seem odd today, and began-and-ended at various times, overlapping competing networks' start/end times.
The Mercury Theater show in which Welles' "War Of The Worlds" aired began DURING a competing show that was higher-rated. So by-the-time that-other-show had-ended, and its tune-outs tuned-into Mercury Theater, they'd missed the disclaimer.
And WHO was hosting the higher-rated show?
Edgar Bergen.
Dad of Candice.
Yep, A VENTRILOQUIST...then a big radio star, later-to-TV.
He and his characters (dummies on TV) "Charlie McCarthy" and others were the higher-rated show.
And NOW, as Paul Harvey used to intone, you know THE REST of the story.
Silkie said:
And THE REASON they missed the front-end disclaimer?
Pull up a chair.
Back then, before TV, and radio-programming-as-we-now-know-it, radio programs were...programs...which ran lengths that'd seem odd today, and began-and-ended at various times, overlapping competing networks' start/end times.
The Mercury Theater show in which Welles' "War Of The Worlds" aired began DURING a competing show that was higher-rated. So by-the-time that-other-show had-ended, and its tune-outs tuned-into Mercury Theater, they'd missed the disclaimer.
And WHO was hosting the higher-rated show?
Edgar Bergen.
Dad of Candice.
Yep, A VENTRILOQUIST...then a big radio star, later-to-TV.
He and his characters (dummies on TV) "Charlie McCarthy" and others were the higher-rated show.
And NOW, as Paul Harvey used to intone, you know THE REST of the story.
del_griffith said:
We can't have this discussion if you're going to insist on using out of context and inaccurate quotes. Rush said that he hopes Obama's AGENDA fails. And trust me, there are many millions of Americans who agree with that.
I wasn't around here during the 2001-2009 period, but I'm willing to bet anything that there wasn't any outcry over the crazy things being said by the left. Fact is, they can dish it out, but they can't take it. It's just the normal demonization of the opposition gag that has been used from the beginning of time.
D
del_griffith
Guest
Don C said:
I'm sure who you take this out of context. I believe he clarified at a much later date, but he was pretty adamant when he initially said it. I'm not sure how you seperate Obama from his policies. I don't like his policies, but if he fails as President, then we all go down the tubes. But appeared it was a blanket failure statement.
RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
del_griffith said:
Except this part:
But that's neither here nor there. Nor do we all go down the tubes if one man fails. That's the problem with political pundits. They over-dramatize everything. I don't think that's dangerous, but it sure is annoying.
Interesting the difference, between John Wayne, who was definitely a conservative, and a patriotic American, said when JFK was elected, I didn't vote for him, but I hope he succeeds. (paraphrase) vs Rush saying I hope Obama fails.
Rush would rather have millions remain unemployed and the economy tank even more than it already has, BECAUSE it isn't going to be fixed HIS way. He the multi-millionaire might be asked to pay some extra tax, that is chump change for a guy like him, to help those who truly need the stimulus, etc. What a childish attitude. Look, I am not in favor of a socialistic solution and I don't want to pay any more tax than I have to (and I make a darn sight less than elRushbo, Beck, Hannity, but if that's what has to happen than it is what it is), but IF a socialistic approach is what it takes to turn our economy around as it was in WW II then go for it.
Don't give me a bunch of malarkey about the excessive spending that happened during WWII wasn't what put our economy back on track, because it was. Roosevelt and the Congress (here I'll say it for you, those socialists) didn't spend enough prior to the war, because even what they spent was far greater than had ever been spent before. These folks were cutting a path no one had ever been on before, so naturally they were very uncomfortable. It wasn't until they had no choice with the bombing of Pearl Harbor that we then had to spend like real drunken sailors, to win a two frontal war against Germany/Italy and Japan. The conservatives today are just steamed that it the money isn't being spent on things THEY value, but on things the libs value. That's the bottom line. I don't remember hearing conservatives complaining about the excessive money Bush Jr. was spending during his 8 year administration. What a bunch of phoney baloneys'.
Rush/Hannity/Beck are only concerned because they , as millionaires, will be asked to pay far more tax than you or I. The wealthiest are the biggest cry babies. Unfortunately, those cry babies get the AM microphones 6 days a week (counting their week in review shows on Saturday) to complain about how bad it is for them - boo hoo.
There, is that angry enough for you ?? I'm tired of hearing those pampered millionaire boys in radio complaining endlessly as they laugh all the way to the bank. So I don't listen any more. This is the end of this discussion for me, because it's a endless waste of time. The libs are not going to be persuaded to think like conservatives and the conservatives are not going to be convinced to think like libs. Rush may be entertaining sometimes, but he isn't good enough to make me ever think like him. So I'll stick with NPR, and you can listen to Rush/Beck/Hannity. That's what makes America great. We have the freedom to listen to and agree with whomever we like. No hard feelings to anyone. Listen to whom you like. Just respect my right to do the same. This has been an interesting discussion, but it's gone on way too long and I'm done. Talk to you all on other threads here.
Rush would rather have millions remain unemployed and the economy tank even more than it already has, BECAUSE it isn't going to be fixed HIS way. He the multi-millionaire might be asked to pay some extra tax, that is chump change for a guy like him, to help those who truly need the stimulus, etc. What a childish attitude. Look, I am not in favor of a socialistic solution and I don't want to pay any more tax than I have to (and I make a darn sight less than elRushbo, Beck, Hannity, but if that's what has to happen than it is what it is), but IF a socialistic approach is what it takes to turn our economy around as it was in WW II then go for it.
Don't give me a bunch of malarkey about the excessive spending that happened during WWII wasn't what put our economy back on track, because it was. Roosevelt and the Congress (here I'll say it for you, those socialists) didn't spend enough prior to the war, because even what they spent was far greater than had ever been spent before. These folks were cutting a path no one had ever been on before, so naturally they were very uncomfortable. It wasn't until they had no choice with the bombing of Pearl Harbor that we then had to spend like real drunken sailors, to win a two frontal war against Germany/Italy and Japan. The conservatives today are just steamed that it the money isn't being spent on things THEY value, but on things the libs value. That's the bottom line. I don't remember hearing conservatives complaining about the excessive money Bush Jr. was spending during his 8 year administration. What a bunch of phoney baloneys'.
Rush/Hannity/Beck are only concerned because they , as millionaires, will be asked to pay far more tax than you or I. The wealthiest are the biggest cry babies. Unfortunately, those cry babies get the AM microphones 6 days a week (counting their week in review shows on Saturday) to complain about how bad it is for them - boo hoo.
There, is that angry enough for you ?? I'm tired of hearing those pampered millionaire boys in radio complaining endlessly as they laugh all the way to the bank. So I don't listen any more. This is the end of this discussion for me, because it's a endless waste of time. The libs are not going to be persuaded to think like conservatives and the conservatives are not going to be convinced to think like libs. Rush may be entertaining sometimes, but he isn't good enough to make me ever think like him. So I'll stick with NPR, and you can listen to Rush/Beck/Hannity. That's what makes America great. We have the freedom to listen to and agree with whomever we like. No hard feelings to anyone. Listen to whom you like. Just respect my right to do the same. This has been an interesting discussion, but it's gone on way too long and I'm done. Talk to you all on other threads here.
MikefromDelaware said:
That's the problem. This argument that conservative radio is somehow responsible for non-existent violence is being used in an attempt to squelch and marginalize conservative hosts. We've even seen threads here for people advocating the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Do you think that if this meme gets some traction that the FCC would hesitate for a second to return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine?
RE "people advocating the return of the Fairness Doctrine"
No.
(Not no-they-won't-hesitate. No there-won't-be-reinstatement.)
The President and FCC Chairman have repeatedly stated-against.
It's just too late.
The toothpaste is out of the tube.
The Fairness Doctrine was of-another-time, when licensees controlled a finite number of "voices."
Now, the software that came pre-installed on a $299 netbook enables anyone to publish, instantly and worldwide.
There's no un-ringing this bell.
Even surrounded by lefty chums, your consultant scoffed at the notion of reinstatement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92H43jx834Y
HC
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/hc-on-msnbcs-ed-show-331-6pm-et/
Don C said:
No.
(Not no-they-won't-hesitate. No there-won't-be-reinstatement.)
The President and FCC Chairman have repeatedly stated-against.
It's just too late.
The toothpaste is out of the tube.
The Fairness Doctrine was of-another-time, when licensees controlled a finite number of "voices."
Now, the software that came pre-installed on a $299 netbook enables anyone to publish, instantly and worldwide.
There's no un-ringing this bell.
Even surrounded by lefty chums, your consultant scoffed at the notion of reinstatement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92H43jx834Y
HC
http://hollandcookemedia.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/hc-on-msnbcs-ed-show-331-6pm-et/
Re: RE "people advocating the return of the Fairness Doctrine"
Because we know politicians never lie.
Sorry, but you know as well as I do, that they'd do it in a second if they thought they could get away with it. The trial balloons were floated and ended up looking like the Hindenburg. Had the result been different, we'd be dealing with it as we speak. This talk of talk radio inciting violence is just another step in that direction.
Holland Cooke said:
Because we know politicians never lie.
Sorry, but you know as well as I do, that they'd do it in a second if they thought they could get away with it. The trial balloons were floated and ended up looking like the Hindenburg. Had the result been different, we'd be dealing with it as we speak. This talk of talk radio inciting violence is just another step in that direction.
As the bumbling Times Square bomber deadpanned when they nabbed him...
Although the line was uttered earlier by Newwwwwwwwwwwwwman in that Seinfeld episode when the cops tracked-down him and Kramer for dog-napping...
"What took ya so long?"
But seriously...
It doesn't matter.
The Man has lost control of the messages.
Other-than, of course, HERE...where we could all end up in T.I.O.-land!
Back to Kramer: Michael Richards -- and Sen. George Allen -- got taken-down-by camera-phone + YouTube.
Licensed media FOLLOWED, rather than lead, those stories.
The Man has lost control of the messages.
And who'd know that better-than the-man-whose-USE-OF-new-media ended up as president?
Besides, there are "real problems."
Who in Congress has the reputation inventory to chase-his/her-tail on what-would-be a moot Fairness Doctrine?
Although the line was uttered earlier by Newwwwwwwwwwwwwman in that Seinfeld episode when the cops tracked-down him and Kramer for dog-napping...
Silkie said:
"What took ya so long?"
But seriously...
Don C said:
It doesn't matter.
The Man has lost control of the messages.
Other-than, of course, HERE...where we could all end up in T.I.O.-land!
Back to Kramer: Michael Richards -- and Sen. George Allen -- got taken-down-by camera-phone + YouTube.
Licensed media FOLLOWED, rather than lead, those stories.
The Man has lost control of the messages.
And who'd know that better-than the-man-whose-USE-OF-new-media ended up as president?
Besides, there are "real problems."
Who in Congress has the reputation inventory to chase-his/her-tail on what-would-be a moot Fairness Doctrine?
Re: As the bumbling Times Square bomber deadpanned when they nabbed him...
I didn't say they'd get it. I said they'd try if they thought they could get it rammed through. This whole "angry radio" thing is just another bullet in the gun.
Holland Cooke said:
I didn't say they'd get it. I said they'd try if they thought they could get it rammed through. This whole "angry radio" thing is just another bullet in the gun.
Grab the wheel.
Kids,
Good evening from Washington, where I'll be wall-to-wall for the rest of the week...checking-in to collect spitballs y'all toss here rarely-if-at-all between-now-and-the-weekend.
So -- if we haven't had-this-conversation-to-death by now -- carry-on without me, knowing that I'm not ignoring you.
I really do LIVE for this.
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
PS: And SPEAKING of Washington: Oh-how-the-mighty-have-fallen. As the bloodbath continues at once-great WMAL here, the station will now SHARE a program director with its sister station IN CHICAGO.
'NOT being catty pointing-that-out. My client here isn't a radio station. But, during the 7 years I did program in this market, WMAL was a formidable competitor. Now it's a dang repeater.
Kids,
Good evening from Washington, where I'll be wall-to-wall for the rest of the week...checking-in to collect spitballs y'all toss here rarely-if-at-all between-now-and-the-weekend.
So -- if we haven't had-this-conversation-to-death by now -- carry-on without me, knowing that I'm not ignoring you.
I really do LIVE for this.
HC
www.HollandCooke.com
PS: And SPEAKING of Washington: Oh-how-the-mighty-have-fallen. As the bloodbath continues at once-great WMAL here, the station will now SHARE a program director with its sister station IN CHICAGO.
'NOT being catty pointing-that-out. My client here isn't a radio station. But, during the 7 years I did program in this market, WMAL was a formidable competitor. Now it's a dang repeater.
Re: As the bumbling Times Square bomber deadpanned when they nabbed him...
Besides, we need to fight with and fear each other, instead of fighting with and fearing The Man.
Yep, it's just another way to marginalize the opposition, in their never-ending quest to find a boogeyman to distract us.Don C said:
Besides, we need to fight with and fear each other, instead of fighting with and fearing The Man.
Re: Grab the wheel.
As a former news-talk PD and radio geek, I visited this board to see if there was a thread dedicated to WLS Chicago PD Drew Hayes splitting time with WMAL Washington. Nada. Two major market radio stations sharing a PD? Hayes has a strong track record, but one wonders if WMAL has capitulated in its battle with Federal News Radio.Holland Cooke said:
- Status