That's not really the teacher's job, is it? Teachers are underpaid as it is. Now you're making them responsible for classroom security.
However, it's a great discussion to have. Too bad we don't hear it on talk radio.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mike Malloy controversial comments
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
That's not really the teacher's job, is it? Teachers are underpaid as it is. Now you're making them responsible for classroom security.
However, it's a great discussion to have. Too bad we don't hear it on talk radio.
Your job is to say, "You're welcome to your opinion. Let's take another call." That's your job. Do it. You might get a better show.
That's what I do. Don't assume something you have no clue about.
But again, good radio isn't having a discussion where false information is presented as equal with fact. Your ideas about the Second Amendment are plain FALSE. It's not a matter of opinion, and a RESPONSIBLE host wouldn't allow that over his airwaves. Just like I won't humor 9/11 conspiracy nuts and anti-vaccine idiots. It's IRRESPONSIBLE.
If you want to have a discussion about the wisdom of Obamacare or some spending bill, we can have a discussion. When it comes to fundamental rights, it's not right to present falsehoods as fact. You wouldn't support a "discussion" of censoring political speech on radio (or the Internet) would you?
Exactly. Let's face it...if the Civil War were to happen again, the Union soldiers would have the complete assets of the American Military Industrial complex on their side, and the Confederates would have a bunch of individual gun owners. Who do you think would win?
A good portion (if not all) of the military would refuse to fire on American citizens. The fighting would be between militarized police departments and citizens with whatever firearms they want.
Still a moot point. The RIGHT to defend against tyranny exists, even if you can't win the fight.
Like I said. Stick to radio. You know that.
Last edited:
Like I said. Stick to radio. You know that.
Yes because "BigA" is just some radio flunky, while "Small Minded Guy" is a constitutional scholar.
But again, good radio isn't having a discussion where false information is presented as equal with fact. Your ideas about the Second Amendment are plain FALSE.
That's not for you to say. You're not the arbiter of what is true and what is false. It's irresponsible for a talk show host to shut down discussion because the other person doesn't agree. The fact that there is disagreement over this issue proves that it's open for discussion.
You wouldn't support a "discussion" of censoring political speech on radio (or the Internet) would you?
Absolutely! I do it all the time. The great thing about the Constitution is that it was written in a vague way that was open to interpretation. The founders assigned the Supreme Court as the branch of the government that could arbitrate those issues. Not talk show hosts. So the founders KNEW the Constitution was open for discussion, and even allowed amendments to be added. All open for discussion IF the talk show host is willing to open his mind.
A good portion (if not all) of the military would refuse to fire on American citizens.
That's what they thought in 1861. They all thought the war would last a few weeks. No one on either side expected it to last as long, or kill so many people. When your property, your family, and your values are at stake, you will do whatever it takes.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Gee, the Air Force has the drone pilots sitting in trailers in air conditioned Nevada and they don't seem to have any problem firing on US citizens.
Neither did those members of the Ohio National Guard at Kent State.
There's a reason why the military were willing to get rid of draftees. Lifers obey orders.
Neither did those members of the Ohio National Guard at Kent State.
There's a reason why the military were willing to get rid of draftees. Lifers obey orders.
But again, good radio isn't having a discussion where false information is presented as equal with fact.
Then you clearly admit that MOST of today's conservative talkradio isn't good, because they regularly present false and repeatedly debunked information as fact.
That's not for you to say. You're not the arbiter of what is true and what is false.
No, I'm not. I'm just telling you that it IS false. According to the guy who wrote the Constitution. I'm not the one who says the sky is blue, but it most certainly is.
The founders assigned the Supreme Court as the branch of the government that could arbitrate those issues.
Have you ever even taken a history course? The Court took that power for itself. Marbury v Madison. Google it.
Gee, the Air Force has the drone pilots sitting in trailers in air conditioned Nevada and they don't seem to have any problem firing on US citizens.
Neither did those members of the Ohio National Guard at Kent State.
There's a reason why the military were willing to get rid of draftees. Lifers obey orders.
Oh, if something were to happen there would be a large number that would follow orders. But there would also be mass desertions. Another benefit of an all volunteer force. Many of them do the job out of love for country, not love for the chain of command. God forbid there be mass unrest, but if there were, the good guys would have a few tanks too.
I'm just telling you that it IS false.
That's not the issue here. The issue is talk radio hosts are stifling discussion. They slam the door on opposing views,
The Court took that power for itself. Marbury v Madison. Google it.
Once again, that's not the issue here. My point is that the court, not talk show hosts, determine what's Constitutional.
That's not the issue here. The issue is talk radio hosts are stifling discussion. They slam the door on opposing views
And my point is that allowing blatantly false views on the air just for the sake of "conversation" is irresponsible.
And my point is that allowing blatantly false views on the air just for the sake of "conversation" is irresponsible.
Hosts do it every day. There isn't a single talk show host on the radio who hasn't said something blatantly false at one time or another.
And when they get called out on it, they do EVERYTHING except apologize.
Talk show hosts have set the standard for allowing blatantly false views on the air every day. I'd suggest it's a far greater problem when HOSTS perpetuate blatantly false views than when some anonymous caller does. It's also a far greater problem when hosts CONTROL the conversation in a way that is aimed to incite listeners. THAT is, to use your word, irresponsible.
Last edited:
And my point is that allowing blatantly false views on the air just for the sake of "conversation" is irresponsible.
This guy either doesn't actually listen to most talkradio or doesn't know what actual facts are and how to find them.
Last edited:
Hosts do it every day. There isn't a single talk show host on the radio who hasn't said something blatantly false at one time or another.
And when they get called out on it, they do EVERYTHING except apologize.
Talk show hosts have set the standard for allowing blatantly false views on the air every day. I'd suggest it's a far greater problem when HOSTS perpetuate blatantly false views than when some anonymous caller does. It's also a far greater problem when hosts CONTROL the conversation in a way that is aimed to incite listeners. THAT is, to use your word, irresponsible.
You're trying to explain that to someone who cherishes the kind of talkradio that has elevated spreading falsehoods to an art form.
Hosts do it every day. There isn't a single talk show host on the radio who hasn't said something blatantly false at one time or another.
That's a mighty big net you're casting there. Believe me, there are tons of honest hosts out there. Everyone makes a mistake from time to time, but not all are dishonest.
And when they get called out on it, they do EVERYTHING except apologize.
Talk show hosts have set the standard for allowing blatantly false views on the air every day. I'd suggest it's a far greater problem when HOSTS perpetuate blatantly false views than when some anonymous caller does. It's also a far greater problem when hosts CONTROL the conversation in a way that is aimed to incite listeners. THAT is, to use your word, irresponsible.
I'd agree, except that it's not as widespread as you claim. As for the host controlling the conversation, it's his damn show. As long as he's doing so in a responsible way, that's fine. If someone wants to tell a bunch of lies on the air, let that person get a show of his own.
If someone wants to tell a bunch of lies on the air, let that person get a show of his own.
That's the wrong bar to be setting. We need to aim higher. We shouldn't be seeking to aim lower. We've gone about as low as we can go. The hosts have NOT been doing it in a responsible way. They've alienated a large chunk of the audience, they've alienated advertisers, and it's time for a change. You know you've got a problem when even the owners are revolted by what they hear.
The fact is that this country desperately needs to have a conversation. And sure, not everything everyone says if true. But when the conversation happens, the truth usually wins out. People need to have a place to go where what they say isn't immediately shouted down. They need a place where the hosts aren't stifling or intimidating different opinions. Unfortunately, listeners won't find it on the radio.
Last edited:
That's the wrong bar to be setting. We need to aim higher. We shouldn't be seeking to aim lower. We've gone about as low as we can go. The hosts have NOT been doing it in a responsible way. They've alienated a large chunk of the audience, they've alienated advertisers, and it's time for a change. You know you've got a problem when even the owners are revolted by what they hear.
The fact is that this country desperately needs to have a conversation. And sure, not everything everyone says if true. But when the conversation happens, the truth usually wins out. People need to have a place to go where what they say isn't immediately shouted down. They need a place where the hosts aren't stifling or intimidating different opinions. Unfortunately, listeners won't find it on the radio.
You really are going a bit overboard with the Chicken Little routine.
The country IS having a conversation. It's just not the one you want.
The country IS having a conversation. It's just not the one you want.
So there you go again, shutting down discussion, calling people names, and attacking someone for no reason. How is that being responsible?
So there you go again, shutting down discussion, calling people names, and attacking someone for no reason. How is that being responsible?
You realize he's doing here exactly what your typical host of today does in talkradio, right? Muddy it up and shut it down. That's the MO.
You're getting nowhere with him because he's is of the mind that if you think or say conservative talkradio is reckless and irresponsible in how misleading and dishonest they can be, you're just being partisan. Nevermind the demonstrably false garbage they vomit out on a regular basis. Does he or his ilk give a rat's rear end about how this needless poisoning of the conversation affects the nation? Of course not. They're on one, big, mass delusional ego trip. Of course it's all in the bubble and not grounded in reality. The reality is they're becoming more and more irrelevant by the day. The problem is, they're dragging the entire format down with them
That's what happens, boy & girl managers, when you put all your eggs in one, boring, uninspired basket.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And my point is that allowing blatantly false views on the air just for the sake of "conversation" is irresponsible.
That point cannot be over-stated. It is the absolute, totally unvarnished truth. It is one thing to respect opposing opinions. It is a totally different thing to expect anyone to respect lies, or to be less inflammatory, totally false information. I'll give the people who are totally wrong the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are misinformed rather than deliberately lying. That would apply to radio show callers, or posters on internet forums. But when someone who allegedly was a constitutional scholar at a prestigious institution of higher learning makes such mistakes, I cannot excuse them as merely misinformation. Anyone with such a high level of education and training who makes statements totally inconsistent with the truth cannot hide behind the "I was misinformed" excuse. Such a person who makes totally erroneous statements about the Constitution is a damn liar. Period. Damn liars deserve no respect, no matter how exalted a job title they may have. One should respect all of the high offices in this nation, but when the people holding such offices use them as a platform for lying, then the people holding those offices are worthy of nothing but sheer contempt.
And let me repeat regarding the difference between an error and a lie. When someone says something that is inconsistent with reality, discovers their error, and issues a correction, the the inconsistency was a mistake, not a lie. When someone knowingly makes a statement that they are fully aware is not consistent with reality, and they cling to that position even in the face of contradictory proof, that is a lie.
Of course, there are also opinions. Opinions can be based on a foundation of truth, in which case they are worthy of respect. Opinions can be based on wishful thinking or parroting what someone else said with no understanding of the facts behind them or based on errors. Such opinions are not worthy of respect.
In my opinion, the opinions least worthy of respect are the ones with no solid rationale for why they are true, just the ethical argument that, "I'm an expert, and I've been an expert for a long time, so if I say it's true, it's true. So there!".
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
In my opinion, the opinions least worthy of respect are the ones with no solid rationale for why they are true, just the ethical argument that, "I'm an expert, and I've been an expert for a long time, so if I say it's true, it's true. So there!".
Wing-nuts mostly have authoritarian personality disorder. Right-wing talk appeals to it. So does fundamentalist Christianity. Most people in radio today, also have it. Such people don't respond to logic or evidence but to authority. So, saying "I'm an expert" is mostly effective with such people. A few recycle authoritative opinion and then claim to be experts, too - like talk show hosts.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.