> Dear JC:
> I knew when I made my point....people would place me on the
> the left side of this arguement....please don't do that...I
> am not comfortable on that side...nor on your side
> either....
I'm not trying to put you on one side or the other, I was simply trying to point out that many people on this board start out making sweeping generalizations about conservative talk hosts and end up bashing either Hannity or Rush without actually making points to support their argument. You started out that way, but in this post you've made your position a little more clear. If you took my post as an attempt to put you in any one camp, I apologize. That's not what I intended.
> but I have nothing against either side..except for
> the fact that I am sick of the silly way the two sides duel
> in the media....the right always points to the evils of the
> "mainstream media" while the left..talks about those awfull
> right wing conservative talk show hosts....Hey I have worked
> in radio for 23 years...and I know that all of these hosts
> on both sides are doing their best schtick just to get
> ratings....thats all they are doing...even Mr.
> Hannity..unfortunately their followers beleive everything
> they say.
Sure, every host is going to have his or her schtick... that's just the nature of radio. As for their listeners believing everything they say, I'd have to disagree with you. I've had and have heard many other listeners who have disagreements with Rush, Sean and other conservative hosts. On the other side of the coin, though, many people have said that talk radio listeners, no matter what side they're on and/or listening to, are going along with the hosts because the hosts have essentially brainwashed them. That's not at all the case, as I'm sure you know. Listeners gravitate toward hosts they agree with most, left, right or center. Maybe even a combination of all three! So sure, hosts try to get ratings in the best way they can, but I think the motivation is more of an idea that the listeners enjoy reaffirming what they already believe, not going to the host to be told what they believe.
> It really is dividing our little country into two
> distinct camps..and when that happens its alwasy "I'm right
> and your wrong"....
I think that's the whole point. There are those of us in this country (and, according to the last election, we're in the majority) who see things as black and white, right and wrong. Agree or disagree with that ideology as you'd like; that's how this country moves forward. We compromise on things, and while many on one side of the aisle or another may disagree with the compromise, somehow or another things tend to move along. There will always be that "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality... the question is, how do we work together to provide the best results? Usually, one way or another, the system works. While it may seem divisive, I think (in one of those odd ways that defies logic) it actually helps the political process. If nothing else, it provides motivation for our legislators so they don't have to put up with all the complaining any longer
> My point is...isn't this country ready
> for anything different...couldn't somebody be neutral...and
> entertaining...by going after both sides when they are
> wrong.
I think that's pretty much how things work, except we have separate sides going after each other instead of one host taking them all on. I don't think there's any way a host can truly be "neutral". As I pointed out before, there's always going to be some point at which a hosts opinion is going to show through.
> Instead of Hannitizing (brainwashing) America
> couldn't Mr. Hannity just once look at a political subject
> and be unbiased...or his he afraid to upset (letdown) all
> his Hannitized listeners.
Well, take a look at the Terri Schiavo case. During the whole ordeal, all Sean would say is that there are too many questions being left unanswered. Of course he took the position that Terri should have lived... I don't think there are very many conservatives that would say she should die, especially not the way she did. But while many of his listeners were saying "Michael did it! He should burn in Hell for killing his wife," Sean maintained a neutral position because, frankly, he didn't have all the facts. Frankly, I don't think
anyone had (or has now) all the facts in that case, and I think Sean did a good job of reflecting that in his own coverage of the story.
> Mr. Hannity is an interesting and entertaining
> broadcaster...but I think he could take his game to a higher
> level by not being so predictable...and using the same
> interviewing tactics when he confronts somebody from the
> other side...Here is an example of one of his tactics:
> He will have somebody from the other side on his show....he
> will play clips of some of the crazy things Al Gore and Ted
> Kennedy and others say...then Hannity will try to force the
> guest to say these people are wrong....ofcourse..nobody on
> either side is going to say their side is wrong...
See, that's exactly his point: in the view of himself and his listners, the guest he has on
is wrong, and he's showcasing their refusal to admit it. Like you said, that's his schtick.
> instead of having an actual debate....Hannity just uses this
> tired ole useless tactic..that basically just wastes
> time...and makes him look superior to his guest...instead of
> using these grandstanding tactics....Mr. Hannity should do
> an actual fair and balanced interview....he is certainly
> capable of doing this...
And there again lies the issue here: he's
not balanced. Fair, yes, but balanced, no, and he's never claimed to be. That was the whole point of my original post: talk radio is all about opinion.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
