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

[Silkie]

Since he can't explain why it is the First Lady and not the President doing the official meeting thing with King Juan Carlos of Spain he has nothing useful to offer on the matter.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

A lot of good thinking has resulted from this thread.

Let me go back and clarify part of my contribution to the conversation.

I understand that since the beginning of time there has been disagreement, contention. debate. And the further back in history you go, the more harsh and brutal the result of disagreement. The point I intended to make but did a poor job in my attempt, was not that a civilized society properly functioning would not have disagreement, contention and debate.

I never knew my grandfather on my mother's side of the family. He was NEVER discussed when I was growing up. The day we buried my mother someone told me the story. Neighbors cow got out of the pasture and into my grandfather's space. He went over to talk to the other farmer about the proper place to keep ones cow. The neighbor took a gun and killed my grandfather.

That is not the proper way for civilized people to deal with their disagreements.

Back in the civil rights commotion on the 1960s, Emmit Till, a young black youth who lived in Chicago was visiting family in Mississippi and made the mistake of whistling at a white woman. They lynched him.

That is not the proper way for civilized people to deal with their disagreements.

I regularly travel a freeway that is known to sometimes be a seedbed for bad driving behavior. And once in a while someone with ram another car and across the city on some other freeways your driving behavior may be disputed with flying bullets.

That is not the proper way for civilized people to deal with their disagreements.

Where does one draw the line? Members of his own party let the congressman from South Caroline know that in a nation where we practice self government, we do not shout in the face of the President: "You lie!"

I'm waiting to hear some Conservative legislators take Rush to the woodshed and point out to him that maybe he is hindering the process of self government by going beyond some yet undefined boundary line. I waiting for some Liberal legislators take Maddow or Olberman or Chris Matthews or someone to the woodshed and offer some advice.

Yes, history is full of disagreement, some of it violent. And history is full of countries that could ONLY function when that kind of disagreement had a referee that we would refer to as a dictator. Sometime last year I read a book about some diplomat who was making the rounds in Iraq trying to convince influential people that there should be a consortium government where Shiites and Sunnis and the Kurds could exist peacefully by more or less staying in their own segment. When this diplomat pitched this to the Kurds, some wise old Elder replied something like this: "It would take a tough old S.O.B. to lead that kind of government. There was one guy on the face of this earth who could do that, and you guys hunted him down and had him executed."

If we don't get a little more civility into our political process, and into our media process, and yes, into our church process, We will eventually have to have our own version of Saddam to run this country.

So there. That is a very strong personal opinion. I am free to express it. I will look forward to whatever counter-point and disagreement others may have in response. I have not and will not call them names. I will not put a price on their head. I will not ridicule you in a public gathering or on the radio because you see the flow of human behavior working a bit differently.

And if your cow eats my wife's roses, I will not take a gun and shoot you. If that happens, do be careful about showing your face when my wife is around. ;D

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I agree with Sean Gilbow, Holland Cooke would add some good insight into this discussion. Hopefully, Holland checks this thread out and offers his viewpoint. As usual Goat Rodeo Cowboy is on the mark. gr8oldies may unfortunately, be right. I hope not. Because if he is right, then we may be witnessing the start of the end of our American society as we know it. America could go the way of ancient Rome (read "A Pillar of Iron" by Taylor Caldwell - written in the 60's, but spot on and we're even more down that trail than her story showed then). Unfortunately, in the real world, no country is too big to fail. There won't be an "Obama bailout" from other nations to keep America #1 superpower, others will gladly move into that spot (think Red China, whoops, I mean the People's Republic of China). It is my hope that we as a people, as Americans can start to work together to find the middle ground on issues so that we can get solid solutions to our many problems before it is too late. This has been a good discussion by all.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Since he can't explain why it is the First Lady and not the President doing the official meeting thing with King Juan Carlos of Spain he has nothing useful to offer on the matter.

Matt, after reading the above post, I can answer your question by saying you are not the crazy one here. I have absolutely no clue what resulted in this posting after reviewing the comments of the likes of Goat Rodeo Cowboy, MikeFromDelaware, Talk Dude and, yes, DonC. I am hoping the Board Editors can do their magic and move the irrelevant comments to TIO (including this one since it would become moot to leave it here).

But I will add this to the conversation: If you do not have a call screener, expect comments from the above, the irrelevance of which will only hijack your show (and this thread) if callers who make such comments get on your show. Experienced hosts like Dial Global's Ed Schultz who take calls unscreened have a lot of experience behind them to take callers out in left field to the woodshed.

I was about to say something involving me, Silkie, mud wrestling and potential audience numbers but instead I will defer to the voices of reason who have indeed added greatly to the discussion.

I would still put Holland Cooke on speed dial.

 

[Silkie]

Where are you getting the notion that we are some sort of close friends who engage in these arguments all the time? You have done this a couple of times in this thread. I am not your friend, I am not your pal, I am not your political sparring partner. You, like a disc jockey up the road to whom I referred in a different post, are nobody to me, and nothing to me - regardless how you may have created the image in your mind to impress. The difference is that she takes it to the streets. You cannot.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Just look at the circulation wars between Pulitzer and Hearst around the turn of the last century.

Interesting you should bring that up since Pulitzer's invention of "impartial" media was started as a marketing gimmick.

Finally! Someone else who knows that. I've posted that same thing in various threads and no one believed me.

 

[Talk_Dude]

It seems that there are some people who think talk radio should be a gentleman's sport, like cricket or the olympics. It isn't. It's the WWE, putting on a show for the lowest common denominator.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Where are you getting the notion that we are some sort of close friends who engage in these arguments all the time? You have done this a couple of times in this thread. I am not your friend, I am not your pal, I am not your political sparring partner. You, like a disc jockey up the road to whom I referred in a different post, are nobody to me, and nothing to me - regardless how you may have created the image in your mind to impress. The difference is that she takes it to the streets. You cannot.

The previous comments still stand, and the feeling is mutual.

And Talk Dude, I also was aware of the Hearst-Pulitzer circulation war from my high school history lessons, particularly its influence on the Spanish-American War. Also, based on the comment I just responded to, I agree with you on your last post.

 

[Silkie]

LOL - based on somebody else's comment....

 

[MikefromDelaware]

It seems that there are some people who think talk radio should be a gentleman's sport, like cricket or the olympics. It isn't. It's the WWE, putting on a show for the lowest common denominator.

Actually, talk radio can be both. NPR is like cricket or the olympics, Rush/Hannity/Beck/commerical radio talkers in general are like the WWE. As in Ancient Rome, keep the masses entertained with their circuses, gladiator fights, feeding Christians to the lions, etc. Electronic Media for the most part and tabloid journalism would have fit right in with Ancient Rome. NPR/PBS and some others in the media world aim to stimulate thought rather than pander to our lowest instincts, but they definitely are in the minority.

 

[Silkie]

So you are saying that taxpayer funded radio stimulates thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and privately funded radio is for animals? Is that your official position?

Just asking, since I do not listen to either. I still have this thing for reading the news and making my own judgment calls based on the Constitution, as I said in my first post on the thread.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

I was about to say something involving me, Silkie, mud wrestling and potential audience numbers but instead I will defer to the voices of reason who have indeed added greatly to the discussion.

In his last post, MikeFromDelaware articulated what I was about to say and gave relevance to it. Thank you, Mike. And, in your defense following the last post from Silkie: What I was going to say originally was that a mud wrestling match between me and Silkie would likely generate a larger audience than the show Matt is envisioning, unfortunately.

One thing for sure: Matt is getting a good education.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

So you are saying that taxpayer funded radio stimulates thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and privately funded radio is for animals? Is that your official position?

I'm pretty sure the consensus around here is that liberal slanting radio is thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and conservative slanting radio is for animals. Funding has nothing to do with the bias, since NPR is mostly privately funded.

 

[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.

These become soothing mantras, the words they live by, and they are the feel-good moments in their day where they KNOW they are right about what they already believe even more than they believed it the last time they remembered the aphorism. That's why most people who listen will listen to a political talk show. Some may listen to you if you're the "opposite" of their previously-held position, but that's usually only to rail at you and your dumbness as they listen. Most people don't research things beyond the initial levels, or think of things with any perspective outside their own, and they are left repeating the same phrases over and over, so they also expect this repetition from someone they would listen to/adopt as a friend/trust/believe in over the airwaves on a regular basis.
That's not the way it should be, that's just the way it is.

Good luck with your project though.

 

[Talk_Dude]

So you are saying that taxpayer funded radio stimulates thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and privately funded radio is for animals? Is that your official position?

I'm pretty sure the consensus around here is that liberal slanting radio is thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and conservative slanting radio is for animals. Funding has nothing to do with the bias, since NPR is mostly privately funded.

It happens that the practice on NPR is to speak softly and with a veneer of civility whilst espousing a (usually) liberal agenda. It also happens that the practice on commercial talk radio is to yell and holler and rant whilst espousing a (usually) conservative agenda.

The nature of the difference of the tone of the speakers has to do with the fact that the small cadre of people who are willing to shell out their own money to support "public" radio happen to prefer a calmer presentation while the people who advertisers want to sell gold stocks and steel buildings to prefer a more "lively" presentation. If there was a group of conservatives willing to support "public" radio, and they wanted calm, NPR-sounding conservative voices, then we'd soon see calm, NPR-sounding conservative content talk stations.

As with so much of talk programming, it's still very similar to music programming. The self-selected "elites" prefer classical music programming because they think it's good for them, which is why so many public stations program classical music around the drive-time news blocks. The vast majority prefer music they like, so the stations with the huge audiences play popular music.

The elite minorities are seldom catered to, unless they have lots of money to donate to keeping "public" stations on the air. It's true for music format radio, and it's true for talk format radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

 

[Talk_Dude]

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

Actually, the people correctly called "elitists" are those who contend that they have superior understanding and knowledge and are therefore the only ones qualified to determine what "community benefit and need" are. Non-elitists accept that the majority decides which stations are best meeting their community benefits and needs by voting with their tuning dials. The idea that a small cadre of superior intellects know better than the mass audience what should be on the air is classic "elitism" at its worst.

 

[mattthetalker]

Sorry guys-- I really didn't mean to incite an argument between you.
I guess it does fall in line with the reality that even the concept of a different approach to talk is controversial...
Which is why I'm gonna do my best to find some hybridized way to pull it off

I really like everything I'm seeing throughout this forum-- thank you again for all your contributions--

 

[Talk_Dude]

Sorry guys-- I really didn't mean to incite an argument between you.
I guess it does fall in line with the reality that even the concept of a different approach to talk is controversial...
Which is why I'm gonna do my best to find some hybridized way to pull it off

I really like everything I'm seeing throughout this forum-- thank you again for all your contributions--

If you regard this rather polite exchange of disagreements as an "argument", and you think that you can create a hybridized format that will somehow minimize on-air conflict, I have only one piece of advice for you. Take the money you plan to spend towards accomplishing this goal and simply mail it to me. You'll end up in exactly the same place you'd end up by starting a new "hybridized" talk station, broke, but you'll get there a tiny bit quicker, and I'll have the money you're going to lose instead of someone else getting it.

That advice won't do you much good, beyond saving you time and effort, but it would sure work out good for me!

 

[MikefromDelaware]

So you are saying that taxpayer funded radio stimulates thoughtful, wonderful discourse; and privately funded radio is for animals? Is that your official position?

Just asking, since I do not listen to either. I still have this thing for reading the news and making my own judgment calls based on the Constitution, as I said in my first post on the thread.

What I was trying to say is, as it stands now, it does appear that for thoughtful, wonderful discourse listener supported and corporate underwritten NPR (they get less than 10% of their money from the government) is the place to go for that style of discussion ( I don't agree with everything said on NPR, but like listening as it is more pleasant to listen and consider their points of view).

It also appears that as it stands now generally, that yes privately funded radio aka commercial paid radio is for not animals (all people are valuable as God created all people and all have souls of eternal significance), but to the lowest common denominator of that group, ie, the WWE audience, the group that appears to be less educated, less well read, etc. There are exceptions to the rule as mental giants like William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Cal Thomas, Monica Crowley, etc, proves.

I believe the Salem Radio Network(heard in Philly/Wilmington markets on WNTP 990) does have some pretty calm conservative talk shows where the discussion is an intelligent look at the world without all the venom, etc, that get next to no ratings in Philly and zero ratings in Wilmington. So based on my experience (there may be other radio markets outside of the Philly/Wilmington metro where the Salem talkers pull in higher ratings than Rush/Hannity/Beck) the Conservative listener does seem to prefer the bombast, venom of the so called Big 3 in Conservative talk. That's not a slam as I share a number of their views and opinions, I just don't like listening to them present those views with all the hatred.

Like you, I do a humongous bunch of reading, both liberal and conservative to get a better picture of the news item so I can make a better informed opinion. It does bother me that many people get their news and opinions by only watching Fox and listening to Rush/Hannity/Beck, or only watching MSNBC and listening to NPR. Too much of either is not how to be a well informed person as I believe that most political issues real truth is in the middle rather than either extreme. There is good on either side, but balance is key. Too far either way is not healthy, in my opinion.