Politically Biased Talk Radio

[doc9464]

Re: Bias or advocacy

> I will restrain my impulse to refute this. I only point out
> that my original post was without opinion about the whether
> or not Limbaugh or Franken are biased because my political
> views would prevent even the illusion of objectivity.
> Likewise, your political views (bias if you will) prevent
> you from being being perceived as objective. Objectivity is
> an illusion to the person who perceives himself to be
> objective.
>

Jerry, don't feel you have to restrain yourself....but I made no effort to be objective.....nor did i try to frame my comments as objective....rather than frame a comment to council me on my views (great quote btw...loved it)...i'd hope you continue to do as you have done so successfully in the past with others and in your post replying to my other comments below near the end of this thread.....deal with/debate/refute the point i tried to make....i think that would be more useful ....just my opinion.......

Otherwise, I didn't directly point you out as attacking Franken/Limbaugh..just my musings and thoughts based on the original post and the subsequent responses...

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: Bias or advocacy

"Jerry, don't feel you have to restrain yourself...."

Thanks, but I'll continue to do so. There is too much political commentary on this board as it is.
<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

> Being neither a liberal or a conservative....I am sick of
> the biased talk radio that is taking over this
> country....

There's a difference between news coverage and opinion. Talk radio hosts
offer their opinions. Hopefully they will put guests on from "both
sides" (to some extent Ingraham and Hannity will have liberal guests
and they'll debate liberal guests and callers as well as conservative ones).
One would hope that the guests/callers would be treated with respect
but of course out of entertainment value, you have stuff like Hannity
berating a liberal caller (and I do like SH, most of the time)...

I suppose you could have a neutral talk host (like some of the people
on C-SPAN call ins): 'Caller, you're next'. "Bush is an idiot".

'OK, caller you're next.'

"We have to support the President AND the troops
AND the war."

'OK, caller, you're next.' Etc.

Some of the best talk radio, though, has had the talk hosts actively pushing an agenda and arguing for change/muckraking. The late Jerry Williams in
Boston would urge his listeners to call the Governor, the Mayor, or their
representatives to stop a prison from being put in a town that didn't
want it...to repeal a seat belt law, etc. He used to have Ralph Nader on
all the time and Ralph would urge the listeners to call their Congressmen
and "stop the pay grab" (payraise).

>>Why can't anybody do a
> show that is unbiased?

They can, but would people listen? It would be better to have someone with a definite opinion who tries to then explain it to his listeners and they
react, pro or con. Again: News coverage should be objective. Talk
shows probably should not, and if you don't like Hannity beating up on
Hillary, tune to Franken, etc.

Hannity is incorrect if he calls his (radio) show "news". It's talk.

SH by the way had Janeane Garofolo and his show, and reciprocated by appearing on her show...would he invited Franken to do the same? Well, I don't think
Franken would wish to take him up on the offer as Sean repeatedly calls
him (AF) dumb, etc. Yeah, I know Steph Miller lambastes Hannity and Franken
goes after Rush with comments like that, too.

Can talk radio heal the red state/blue state divide? Maybe, but perhaps
they can rack up high ratings by exploiting that divide and mostly appealing
to a certain base. (That being said, some talk shows do attract listeners/
callers of all political stripes while some shows are so strident that pretty much only the "base" tunes in.)

 

[raccoonradio]

Re: Bias or advocacy

>I can't imagine anything more boring than a show, whether
> it's about politics, computers, legal advice or anything
> else that consists of a talk host who advocates nothing.
>

Exactly--see the post I did above with regards to Jerry Williams.
<a href="http://www.jerrywilliams.org/article-detail.php?article=2&articlename=Question%205:%20A%20no%20on%20seat%20belts%20is%20a%20vote%20for%20freedom">
Seat belt law </a> or roadblocks invading our freedoms? Congressmen taking huge pay increases?
Higher taxes from Mike Dukakis? Jerry tackled it all, with help from the likes
of his future successor, Howie Carr; anti-tax crusader Barbara Anderson,
Ralph Nader, etc. He used to give out phone numbers (pre-Internet) of
congressmen, etc., and urged listeners to call and express their outrage. The
clip he played from "Network" said it all. So go to your window, open it and
stick your head out and yell, I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take
this anymore!

And Jerry's T-shirts pointed out "I'm Not Boring" (and neither was the Dean)

 

[doc9464]

> Hannity is incorrect if he calls his (radio) show "news".
> It's talk.
>
> SH by the way had Janeane Garofolo and his show, and
> reciprocated by appearing on her show...would he invited
> Franken to do the same? Well, I don't think
> Franken would wish to take him up on the offer as Sean
> repeatedly calls
> him (AF) dumb, etc. Yeah, I know Steph Miller lambastes
> Hannity and Franken
> goes after Rush with comments like that, too.

Sean Hannity has been on the Franken show.....im not sure if Hannity reciprocated...if he has i am unaware....

 

[raccoonradio]

Yeah now that I think of it SH probably was, back awhile ago...
There was an offer to have a live public appearance with Franken
debating Hannity (Hannity offered to do that) but I don't think it
ever happened.

By the way years ago talk hosts used to be called "moderators" and
were not supposed to take sides. Talk host Jerry Williams changed that.
In the following clip from his induction in the Radio Hall of
Fame, Dr. Laura--before introducing clips of Jerry--does mention
the "moderators" of the old days.

http://www.jerrywilliams.org/audio/Misc/misc02.m3u

> Sean Hannity has been on the Franken show.....im not sure if
> Hannity reciprocated...if he has i am unaware....
>

 

[FloridaBear1776]

> "journalism is on the wane.
>
> The golden age of journalism is over for professional
> journalists. It is just beginning for the consumers of news.
> The choices are much more diverse now. I don't believe you
> can get an accurate take on world events by seeking
> "unbiased" reporting. You do it by reading news from people
> with a variety of biases. You can then triangulate a three
> dimensional view of events and create your own opinion which
> will contain its own biases. Objectivity is an illusion.

We've been down this road before.

A hundred and fifty years ago, there was no such thing as 'objective' journalism. Every newspaper had its own biases and filtered the news through them. The Hearst newspapers managed to start a war with them (1898).
It wasn't any sort of golden age, unless you consider golden 'yellow', as in yellow journalism. Eventually a kaleidoscope of biases was not adequate for the American newspaper reader. He/she wanted/needed more.

The Associated Press invented objective journalism because all of its member papers had different biases. The only way to serve them all was to try as much as possible to stick to the facts. That model became the norm over the course of the 20th century. Certainly our reporters today, whatever their shortcomings, are better than the pickled drunks that populated newspapers and some radio operations 60 some odd years ago, or the editors like Louis Seltzer, who used his Cleveland paper to whip up hysteria and keep Sam Sheppard from getting a fair trial.

The model for objective journalism has broken down because not only can we not agree on our opinions, we can't agree on what the facts are that drive those opinions. Much of media today consists of creating one's own reality.

 

[JerryStevens]

"A hundred and fifty years ago, there was no such thing as 'objective' journalism. Every newspaper had its own biases and filtered the news through them."

I see that as superior to the modern model of filtering news through biases (because it’s impossible to do anything else) while proclaiming perfect objectivity.

"Certainly our reporters today, whatever their shortcomings, are better than the pickled drunks that populated newspapers and some radio operations 60 some odd years ago"

The image of the 1940’s-era reporter with a cigarette dangling from his lips, a bottle of whiskey to the right of his trusty Underwood is an enduring one. I don’t see that journalism degrees have improved sobriety, however. Drunk journalists are not in short supply today either.

"The model for objective journalism has broken down because not only can we not agree on our opinions, we can't agree on what the facts are that drive those opinions. Much of media today consists of creating one's own reality."

It always has. What’s changed is that the proliferation of news distribution channels has given voice to many that see “the model of objective journalism” as a façade behind which partisans hide.

I feel much better-informed since the advent of the internet and its ability to deliver the bad with the good, yellow journalism and scientific journals, the news from the old guard, the young turks. I have access to many more reporters and I am the editor.

"it is difficult to imagine brilliant, progressive eccentrics like Horace Greeley or Joseph Pulitzer working their way to the top of the huge corporations that have taken over almost all U.S. news organizations in the 20th Century" - Mitchell Stephens, associate professor of journalism at New York University. He is the author of A History of News.

<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[Les]

Hey!

> The image of the 1940’s-era reporter with a cigarette
> dangling from his lips, a bottle of whiskey to the right of
> his trusty Underwood is an enduring one. I don’t see that
> journalism degrees have improved sobriety, however. Drunk
> journalists are not in short supply today either.

Back in the early 60's when I was doing news around Providence
the very best stories were written through a light brown filter.
The color of a bottle of Imperial, Canadian Club, or for the
less affluent, Three Feathers.

That's why the lower left-hand desk drawers were made so deep.
A bottle on the desktop was a bottle for sharing and emptied
out too fast. I could make a quart of CC last two weeks if
I was prudent about keeping it out of sight. Generally used
to clear the smoke off the vocal cords just before reading
a 15-minute local 'cast. Always loved the 2-minute spot breaks
at about 12:07 pm; gave time for another quick pop to keep the
voice sparkling!

I wouldn't say "drunk". Perhaps just "optimistic".

<P ID="signature">______________

Due to underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: Hey!

"Generally used to clear the smoke off the vocal cords just before reading a 15-minute local 'cast. Always loved the 2-minute spot breaks at about 12:07 pm; gave time for another quick pop to keep the voice sparkling!"

Les, I don't know that I believe that Canadian Club improves your ability to deliver news. But if you're ever in Upstate South Carolina, I'll buy a few rounds and maybe you can convince me.

"I wouldn't say "drunk". Perhaps just "optimistic".

I hadn't look at it that way before. Maybe that's why there's too much doom and gloom in the news.. not enough CC!<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[2001]

Re: Hey!

> "Generally used to clear the smoke off the vocal cords just
> before reading a 15-minute local 'cast. Always loved the
> 2-minute spot breaks at about 12:07 pm; gave time for
> another quick pop to keep the voice sparkling!"
>
> Les, I don't know that I believe that Canadian Club improves
> your ability to deliver news. But if you're ever in Upstate
> South Carolina, I'll buy a few rounds and maybe you can
> convince me.
>
> "I wouldn't say "drunk". Perhaps just "optimistic".
>
> I hadn't look at it that way before. Maybe that's why
> there's too much doom and gloom in the news.. not enough CC!
>

You mean to say that 10 cups of coffee per day just isn't enough to keep a guy like you going?

Hmmmm......That's always worked for me! Why, if it weren't for my (massive) daily dose of java, I don't know what I'd do! I'll take a pass on "hidden bottle", thank you! Booze always makes me feel tired (if I drink enough of it, anyway).

 

[Les]

Re: Hey!

> Les, I don't know that I believe that Canadian Club improves
> your ability to deliver news. But if you're ever in Upstate
> South Carolina, I'll buy a few rounds and maybe you can
> convince me.

Gotta remember, that's what "real" news people did in those days.
Whether it worked or not, it was "the thing to do". Cigar smoking
was pretty big, too, but I never acquired the taste. Still, I
kept a copy of big nasty cigars in the pen-holder on the desk just
for effect.

Thanks for the offer but I don't do heat and humidity well at all.
Drove down from Seattle this week and thought I was gonna die
at 106-degrees, even with low humidity!
<P ID="signature">______________

Due to continuing underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[JerryStevens]

Re: Hey!

> Thanks for the offer but I don't do heat and humidity well
> at all. Drove down from Seattle this week and thought I was gonna
> die at 106-degrees, even with low humidity!

Suit yourself. Now that I'm retired from radio, I can live pretty much anywhere and for me, this is it. It's not actually hot and humid much up here in the foothills but sometimes I kinda miss the hot and steamy weather of Hilton Head Island where I used to live. Home of the best place anywhere to have a cold adult beverage:

<center>

</center>
<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>

 

[Les]

Definitely different strokes

> Suit yourself. Now that I'm retired from radio, I can live
> pretty much anywhere and for me, this is it. It's not
> actually hot and humid much up here in the foothills but
> sometimes I kinda miss the hot and steamy weather of Hilton
> Head Island where I used to live. Home of the best place
> anywhere to have a cold adult beverage:

I've retired a couple of times and now live in the foothills of
The Sierra Nevada where winters are mild but summers are incredibly
hot. Even as I type, the fire-fighting aircraft are zooming
overhead. A few more months in this house and I'll be free to
sell and run away with the money. My first choice would be back
to Western Alaska where the rules are few, 4-wheeling and
snowmaching are unfettered, traffic is never a problem and the
bugs have learned not to bite residents; only tourists. You
haven't lived until you've gutted out a grizzly bear at twenty
below zero! But, definitely not for everyone. Amazing amount
of radio to play at there, too. Of course no money in it, but
where IS there radio with any money in it these days? Photo
below is inside an Alaskan AM transmitter building....
<P ID="signature">______________

Due to continuing underwhelming popular demand...</P>