Is there any way to discuss the philosophy of government without partisanship?

[quadraphonic]

You as a talk show host might be able to separate discussing philosophy of government and devolving into partisanship, but most of your audience won't be able to. Most people, whatever their political viewpoints or listening styles or other personal traits, are in the lowest common denominator [hence how it is so "common"], and their world revolves around applying a copious amount of self-affirming aphorisms and sound bite-level words that they believe, and can repeat, thus strengthening their already-held beliefs.

Some of us are called "elitists" because we propose that the proper use of broadcast frequencies is to meet some community benefit and need.

(I find it an interesting tension that the people who are the most vociferous about the government keeping their hands of broadcast programming lest government violate free speech seem to be kin to, if not the same as, the people who show up at zoning meetings and legislative sessions insisting that government DOES have an obligation to tell property owners how their land can be used, and that it must be zoned for "the highest possible value" usage.) [I live in a county where the population has grown by 300% in the last ten years. One should be granted an MBA if he/she has read regularly the newspaper accounts of local zoning squabbles!]

Is it not also an elitist view to throw up your hands and say: "listeners are low-level idiots and we can only provide them with the slop they think they want." Maybe you can help me understand where I misread your posting which I quoted.

You misread it because, like usual, you're talking hypotheticals and what-ifs and what-useta-bes and confusing yourself with half-facts, and I was talking reality.

Just like in the thread you're referring to, you cherrypicked out the part of my post where I said

That's not the way it should be, that's just the way it is.

then you built your argument around what you wanted to pick at to begin with, ignoring the rest.
Just because I recognize the realities of people doesn't mean I'm "resigned to provide them with the slop you think they want." We're talking reality and how things are when you're spending your own money, not talking about going to Pro Baseball Fantasy Camp you won on "The Price is Right."

Seriously, I don't know where you're digging out the "elitist" reference and the thing about zoning, neither of which really apply to what I said. I also don't think I referred to anyone, least of all you, as "an elitist" for your previous dogged interpretation of "community interest" provisions and the realities of how radio has worked for 75 years. "Misguided" maybe, "prone to misunderstanding" most likely, maybe even "stuffy" and "self-impressed," but not necesarily "elitist." In order to be "elitist" you have to believe you're right about everything, and you couch all things in rhetoricals and hypotheticals, so I'd say you aren't sure about most of the things you say. If you can point me to the "elitist" reference, I will apologize and take drastic actions against myself, but realistically I'm going to say you misread that because I don't believe I would have said something I don't believe, and because past history says you don't listen before you write and are prone to misreading.

When people are talking about how radio IS, you want to discuss how radio SHOULD BE, which is fine, as long as you signal if you are talking about NOW or SOME OTHER TIME AND SITUATION. You're not so much an "elitist" as you seem to be someone who just likes to seize upon a few words someone says and try to bend them to make a point that exists only inside your head, using bits and pieces from other situations like "elitist" and that zoning bit. This usually results in your misunderstanding what people actually state, and doggedly going on the bits and pieces you made up on your own.

That's also part of why [the royal] you can't expect to have a talk show where people discuss politics without partisanship. Because the LCD people tend to hear part of a statement, then if they want to bother to think on the topic, they find where they want to go in the first place and hop off on a tangent, convinced that the statement was leading them to a conclusion, when actually they had already made up the conclusion from a few scant facts, and it was where they wanted to go in the first place.

Take it all under consideration before you formulate your conclusions.

FWIW This isn't an "argument" it's still a "discussion." If we can't discuss two different points of view on here, where we have time to think about our replies and edit before posting and can read a whole line of thought, then there wouldn't be any hope for "non-partisan political philosophy talk" on the radio, either.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

FWIW This isn't an "argument" it's still a "discussion." If we can't discuss two different points of view on here, where we have time to think about our replies and edit before posting and can read a whole line of thought, then there wouldn't be any hope for "non-partisan political philosophy talk" on the radio, either.

Good point.

Though I quote back a portion of a previous posting, I don't always restrict my comments to that quote alone. The quote becomes a starting point for addressing the general direction of the thread.

Yes, we are having a discussion. When a discussion moves into being an argument would be interesting but I don't assume that is where we want to go. I have taken the liberty of seeing in this thread a discussion of the opportunity for discussion-type radio, the challenges of discussion-type radio, the responsibility of discussion-type radio, and "Does discussion-type radio as we know it today help the broadcasting industry or is it a corrosive agent that is quietly destroying the vitality of the broadcast industry?"

This is not the first time that you have expressed your distaste for my penchant to jump between reality, could have been, should have been, what if and why not. To discuss the here-and-now, it is sometimes beneficial to review how we got to the here-and-now, and discuss where we will end up 10, 20, 40 years from now if we keep traveling in the same direction that brought us to the here-and-now.

You are right when you point out that having productive and civil discussion is hard for us here in this venue where we have the time to compose, rewrite, correct before clicking the send button and yet we have high expectations of both the talk show hosts and callers who do not have the luxury of mulling it over and trying three or four versions of a potential response.

All of my mixed-metaphors and mixed-tense verb forms are aimed at saying: Talk Radio is like a "volatile explosive" that probably best serves the industry and the American public if handled with a bit more sophistication and reserve than what we hear gushing out of our radios daily. Reminds me of my Journalism days when I took a tour with the Chamber of Commerce group who went to see the new city sewer plant. And there we stood, watching (and smelling) the raw sewage as it came out of the big pipe draining the whole village into the very first containment for treatment.

The workers treat the process with care for they know the fumes can disable them. I think of that site and that tour when I tune across the dial and sample today's Talk Radio. Both the disposal of sewage and the daily discussion of community or national events are necessary and desireable for the well being of society. The difference I observe is that the employees at the sewage plant did not choose to hose us down with untreated sewage. I can't be that benevolent in my description of Talk Radio today.

 

[quadraphonic]

It's not really "distaste" for the meandering, Chinese-menu tenses and such. There's a place for that in discussions, if you build it out and people can tell that is what you are doing. But if you're comparing tenses and situations that are only vaguely analogous, then it makes your points into hodgepodges and nobody can understand just what the hey you are meaning to say

And always remember "Read, don't read into. If you think something's there, ask. Don't make up stuff like 'elitist' when it's not there. It makes it hard to carry on a conversation if the first side is conversing, and the second side is conversing within their self, then blaming the first person for what they think the first person thinks, but misread." [cue closing sounder fx].