I think you've hit the hammer on the nail. Most people don't care. Radio junkies and political junkies care, most people are just carrying on with their lives. When that early radio gasbag, Father Charles Coughlin, said that jewish bankers funded the Russian Revolution and therefore jews were getting what they deserved from Hitler - did that have any effect on the war effort in America?
-
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
Rage on the Radio
- Thread starter listener-in
- Start date
I think you've hit the hammer on the nail. Most people don't care. Radio junkies and political junkies care, most people are just carrying on with their lives. When that early radio gasbag, Father Charles Coughlin, said that jewish bankers funded the Russian Revolution and therefore jews were getting what they deserved from Hitler - did that have any effect on the war effort in America?
Re: Much Ado About...
Have you listened to Bauerle? Especially when he's got one of his survivalist nutjob friends on?
Steven21 said:
Have you listened to Bauerle? Especially when he's got one of his survivalist nutjob friends on?
You mean the "terrorism expert" who sounds like he's sitting at the card table in the basement of his mother's home? It's so extreme that it sounds like a Saturday Night Live bit, full of caricature and parody surpassed only when he talks about his "liddle kitties."SirRoxalot said:
It’s gratifying that a few of you actually agree with me, so thank you Scott Leffler et al - please spread the word!
To those who got all hot under the collar about the government dictating what you put on the air – methinks you protest too much. A passionately held sentiment, no doubt, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. As you would find if you read it over, I didn’t even imply anything about the government. So your punches landed on a feather duster.
This isn’t about government control, George Orwell and all that. It’s about washing your hands of minimal standards. It’s about accepting personal responsibility and accountability - favorite words in the conservatives’ lexicon when they lecture the rest of us, but too often AWOL when applied to their own actions, especially when they might stand to be out a buck or two.
If it were legal, would you maximize your profits by using slaves, rather than paying free people to work for you? Others might well do so, but would YOU? If you really believe that the only way you can meet your financial goal is by peddling hate, it indicates a stunning lack of imagination, given that you are in a supposedly creative industry.
There are at least a couple of things wrong with the idea that anyone has an absolute right to say what he/she wants at all times and in any place. Let’s say that I stood in a public place yelling obscenities at passers-by, as I have the constitutional right to do. Sooner or later, possibly in response to a complaint, I would at least be told to move and maybe arrested for disturbing the peace. Also, suppose I was at Eastview Mall, a quasi-public space, and attempted to give a speech – political or otherwise – or tried to pass out leaflets. Since the mall is in fact private property, I would be quickly ejected unless I had obtained prior permission for my actions. Furthermore, even were I granted permission, I would probably be silenced if I violated the conditions under which permission was granted; for example, if I started electioneering when I had undertaken to avoid political matters.
And just try invoking the first amendment in the workplace.
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there is such a thing as insulting or abusive speech that crosses a line in offensiveness, and that nobody’s freedom of speech is constitutionally protected in a radio studio since it is nearly always private property.
In other words, owners who really wanted to quit sheltering cowardly hate merchants on their stations would be perfectly within their rights to do so.
No problem with that, JohnC; but equally, when stations refuse to demand from their on-air personalities some minimum standards of decency, I have the right as a citizen to call them out on it. The first amendment neither deprives them of their right to demand standards, nor does it absolve them from their responsibility to do so.
I know hate speech when I hear it, and so do its disciples. Ben Franklin talked about us having “a Republic if you can keep it”. Hate speech doesn’t just affect the immediate parties to a broadcast; it hurts all of us by corroding our culture and degrading our political process, and I can think of no better way of reducing the Republic to a mere shell. Which brings me to the puzzle of SirRoxalot, who has no problem expecting political candidates to run clean campaigns, yet vigorously pushes back when broadcasters are told they should clean up their act.
No less an authority than William Kristol admitted that “liberal media” is a myth propagated by the right as a strategy for working the refs. Talk radio, whether of the hate variety or otherwise, is overwhelmingly a Republican Party tool.
Now think about the opportunity cost. Had station owners, managers and schedulers shown any civic spirit and programmed liberal or centrist talk in the slots they devote to toxic talk, maybe an audience not limited to an opinion monoculture might have learned enough to restrain the Washington and Wall Street clowns who brought you deregulation mania. Lacking an informed public to keep them in check, these incompetent, feckless custodians of the people’s money got us where we landed this week. You thought liberal talk would cost your bottom line a few bucks? So how do you like the bottom line of your portfolios – or would you rather not look?
Mr. Savage, I share your attachment to the marketplace of ideas (that’s one reason I enjoy this board, whose contributors show the respect and decency that’s absent from much that goes on the air, while at the same time keeping no subject off limits). So I eagerly await the opening of your particular market stall to a greater range of opinion. You might consider starting with Bill Press and Rachel Maddow – two programs out of several you could choose from that refute your sweeping stereotype of “negative, nihilistic and lacking in content” – in Maddow’s case, spectacularly so.
Over the years, I’ve heard plenty of sins excused by a terse “this is America” – period, end of discussion.
How about “this is America, and we can do better”?
To those who got all hot under the collar about the government dictating what you put on the air – methinks you protest too much. A passionately held sentiment, no doubt, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. As you would find if you read it over, I didn’t even imply anything about the government. So your punches landed on a feather duster.
This isn’t about government control, George Orwell and all that. It’s about washing your hands of minimal standards. It’s about accepting personal responsibility and accountability - favorite words in the conservatives’ lexicon when they lecture the rest of us, but too often AWOL when applied to their own actions, especially when they might stand to be out a buck or two.
If it were legal, would you maximize your profits by using slaves, rather than paying free people to work for you? Others might well do so, but would YOU? If you really believe that the only way you can meet your financial goal is by peddling hate, it indicates a stunning lack of imagination, given that you are in a supposedly creative industry.
There are at least a couple of things wrong with the idea that anyone has an absolute right to say what he/she wants at all times and in any place. Let’s say that I stood in a public place yelling obscenities at passers-by, as I have the constitutional right to do. Sooner or later, possibly in response to a complaint, I would at least be told to move and maybe arrested for disturbing the peace. Also, suppose I was at Eastview Mall, a quasi-public space, and attempted to give a speech – political or otherwise – or tried to pass out leaflets. Since the mall is in fact private property, I would be quickly ejected unless I had obtained prior permission for my actions. Furthermore, even were I granted permission, I would probably be silenced if I violated the conditions under which permission was granted; for example, if I started electioneering when I had undertaken to avoid political matters.
And just try invoking the first amendment in the workplace.
All I’m trying to illustrate is that there is such a thing as insulting or abusive speech that crosses a line in offensiveness, and that nobody’s freedom of speech is constitutionally protected in a radio studio since it is nearly always private property.
In other words, owners who really wanted to quit sheltering cowardly hate merchants on their stations would be perfectly within their rights to do so.
No problem with that, JohnC; but equally, when stations refuse to demand from their on-air personalities some minimum standards of decency, I have the right as a citizen to call them out on it. The first amendment neither deprives them of their right to demand standards, nor does it absolve them from their responsibility to do so.
I know hate speech when I hear it, and so do its disciples. Ben Franklin talked about us having “a Republic if you can keep it”. Hate speech doesn’t just affect the immediate parties to a broadcast; it hurts all of us by corroding our culture and degrading our political process, and I can think of no better way of reducing the Republic to a mere shell. Which brings me to the puzzle of SirRoxalot, who has no problem expecting political candidates to run clean campaigns, yet vigorously pushes back when broadcasters are told they should clean up their act.
No less an authority than William Kristol admitted that “liberal media” is a myth propagated by the right as a strategy for working the refs. Talk radio, whether of the hate variety or otherwise, is overwhelmingly a Republican Party tool.
Now think about the opportunity cost. Had station owners, managers and schedulers shown any civic spirit and programmed liberal or centrist talk in the slots they devote to toxic talk, maybe an audience not limited to an opinion monoculture might have learned enough to restrain the Washington and Wall Street clowns who brought you deregulation mania. Lacking an informed public to keep them in check, these incompetent, feckless custodians of the people’s money got us where we landed this week. You thought liberal talk would cost your bottom line a few bucks? So how do you like the bottom line of your portfolios – or would you rather not look?
Mr. Savage, I share your attachment to the marketplace of ideas (that’s one reason I enjoy this board, whose contributors show the respect and decency that’s absent from much that goes on the air, while at the same time keeping no subject off limits). So I eagerly await the opening of your particular market stall to a greater range of opinion. You might consider starting with Bill Press and Rachel Maddow – two programs out of several you could choose from that refute your sweeping stereotype of “negative, nihilistic and lacking in content” – in Maddow’s case, spectacularly so.
Over the years, I’ve heard plenty of sins excused by a terse “this is America” – period, end of discussion.
How about “this is America, and we can do better”?
Listener-in,
Since you claim to 'know what hate speech is when you hear it, would you mind explaining just what "hate speech" is. It seems that term comes up whenever someone says anything that simply makes certain groups uncomfortable.
While your at it, explain "hate crimes" too...the punishment for which renders some lives more valuable than others.
I thought we were guaranteed equal protection under the law, but I know of no constitutional right to not be offended.
Since you claim to 'know what hate speech is when you hear it, would you mind explaining just what "hate speech" is. It seems that term comes up whenever someone says anything that simply makes certain groups uncomfortable.
While your at it, explain "hate crimes" too...the punishment for which renders some lives more valuable than others.
I thought we were guaranteed equal protection under the law, but I know of no constitutional right to not be offended.
This isn’t about government control, George Orwell and all that. It’s about washing your hands of minimal standards. It’s about accepting personal responsibility and accountability - favorite words in the conservatives’ lexicon when they lecture the rest of us, but too often AWOL when applied to their own actions, especially when they might stand to be out a buck or two.
Let me ask you this, listener-in. What causes more "damage" to the good people of NY State? 1) Conservative talk that people can tune in or tune out? or 2) Left-leaning scare ads from unions whenever Albany even thinks about slowing down (that's slowing down, not cutting) spending? If radio stations shouldn't air "hate-talk" should they air lies from the left? Where's the accountability? If we did everything the various unions said we should do then NY State would be in a great deal of trouble. Guess what? We do and we are. Sorry to get too political...
Let me ask you this, listener-in. What causes more "damage" to the good people of NY State? 1) Conservative talk that people can tune in or tune out? or 2) Left-leaning scare ads from unions whenever Albany even thinks about slowing down (that's slowing down, not cutting) spending? If radio stations shouldn't air "hate-talk" should they air lies from the left? Where's the accountability? If we did everything the various unions said we should do then NY State would be in a great deal of trouble. Guess what? We do and we are. Sorry to get too political...
Yeah, make the unions the scapegoat again. Organized labor, like government, private business(especially radio), non-profit groups, the military, organized religion etc. etc. has it's flaws. I always say that anytime you get a bunch of human beings together you're gonna have problems(and so far, I'm 100% right). To blame unions for NYS's troubles is just simplifying and having that convenient all purpose villain. New York has so much dysfunction, there's no place really to start.
But I agree that right wing rants on the radio don't really have much effect on society in general. I find much of what these gasbags say to be childish and repulsive, but it's freedom of speech and how do you legislate morality anyway? Like smutty sitcoms on tv, as long as they are profitable they will remain on the air.
First, a shameless plug for a piece I wrote a couple of years ago:
http://www.irwinsjournal.com/ijonline/ijpolarize.htm
[Interestingly, when I actually read this in public not long after I wrote it, someone came up to me and snorted that this had already been done... by Ann Coulter. Parody, where is thy sting?]
Then, a wondering: is the current talk radio climate merely reflective of the times? Cee's comments resonate with me, to be sure. Polarization isn't limited to the airwaves. The Internet, for all the good that it does, is not much help here... anyone with an opinion and a handle (or a blog) can set up shop and declare themselves correct and everyone else an idiot. I see plenty of examples of this on Model Railroading boards that I frequent... wait, Model Railroading boards?!?!? A lot less important than offshore drilling and autism, don't you think? Yet, I see the same demeanor far more than I'd prefer. Anyway, well into my fourth decade in the hobby, I still have yet to find anything to be really angry about, but apparently some people do, and you'd better agree with them or else. Sound like anyone you hear on the air?
Fortunately for my own sanity, there are two things I have taught myself to recall when this potentially depressing thought invades: 1) The Law of Large Numbers, which posits that most of the Internet content providers (including me) are not going to get much if any airplay; and 2) the late Jean Shepherd's observation that (I'm paraphrasing somewhat here) the past was terrific and the future is going to be wonderful and it's only the present that stinks. Certainly if we revisit history we've seen polarization before; as I recall, Adams and Jefferson were slinging the mud at each other pretty good after they got that Declaration of Independence thing out of the way...
http://www.irwinsjournal.com/ijonline/ijpolarize.htm
[Interestingly, when I actually read this in public not long after I wrote it, someone came up to me and snorted that this had already been done... by Ann Coulter. Parody, where is thy sting?]
Then, a wondering: is the current talk radio climate merely reflective of the times? Cee's comments resonate with me, to be sure. Polarization isn't limited to the airwaves. The Internet, for all the good that it does, is not much help here... anyone with an opinion and a handle (or a blog) can set up shop and declare themselves correct and everyone else an idiot. I see plenty of examples of this on Model Railroading boards that I frequent... wait, Model Railroading boards?!?!? A lot less important than offshore drilling and autism, don't you think? Yet, I see the same demeanor far more than I'd prefer. Anyway, well into my fourth decade in the hobby, I still have yet to find anything to be really angry about, but apparently some people do, and you'd better agree with them or else. Sound like anyone you hear on the air?
Fortunately for my own sanity, there are two things I have taught myself to recall when this potentially depressing thought invades: 1) The Law of Large Numbers, which posits that most of the Internet content providers (including me) are not going to get much if any airplay; and 2) the late Jean Shepherd's observation that (I'm paraphrasing somewhat here) the past was terrific and the future is going to be wonderful and it's only the present that stinks. Certainly if we revisit history we've seen polarization before; as I recall, Adams and Jefferson were slinging the mud at each other pretty good after they got that Declaration of Independence thing out of the way...
Jim 8230, maybe this extract from the terms of using this board would help you:
How is this different from the right of a radio station to require standards of its on-air personalities? While you obviously accept Radio-Info’s limitations of your speech in exchange for the privilege of using this board, you apparently exempt the pampered prima-donnas of talk radio from any such bargain. Very strange. I haven't noticed that Radio-Info's rules have in the slightest interfered with my freedom to post any idea or opinion here. People who only present their points of view by resorting to insults or worse are not owed any help in doing so by radio stations or anyone else.
Boundaries exist in all spheres of civilized life. Yes, it’s sometimes difficult to know exactly whether a line has been crossed (as any baseball umpire, school principal, judge or member of the clergy will tell you), but most of the time it’s quite obvious, and station owners have no excuse to wash their hands of what goes out on the air. The NAB just honored Glenn Beck with a recent Marconi award “to recognize excellence in radio”. When the radio industry rewards Beck for being "excellent", how bad does "bad" have to be?
John C, let’s stop union-bashing and union-busting, and empower private sector workers more; that way, perhaps we can prevent corporations from running further amok exporting jobs - at taxpayers’ expense, thanks to a federal tax structure that rewards such behavior. When job-exporting undermines the middle class, the tax base is eroded. That's the root of the problems in our local communities and in Albany.
How is this different from the right of a radio station to require standards of its on-air personalities? While you obviously accept Radio-Info’s limitations of your speech in exchange for the privilege of using this board, you apparently exempt the pampered prima-donnas of talk radio from any such bargain. Very strange. I haven't noticed that Radio-Info's rules have in the slightest interfered with my freedom to post any idea or opinion here. People who only present their points of view by resorting to insults or worse are not owed any help in doing so by radio stations or anyone else.
Boundaries exist in all spheres of civilized life. Yes, it’s sometimes difficult to know exactly whether a line has been crossed (as any baseball umpire, school principal, judge or member of the clergy will tell you), but most of the time it’s quite obvious, and station owners have no excuse to wash their hands of what goes out on the air. The NAB just honored Glenn Beck with a recent Marconi award “to recognize excellence in radio”. When the radio industry rewards Beck for being "excellent", how bad does "bad" have to be?
John C, let’s stop union-bashing and union-busting, and empower private sector workers more; that way, perhaps we can prevent corporations from running further amok exporting jobs - at taxpayers’ expense, thanks to a federal tax structure that rewards such behavior. When job-exporting undermines the middle class, the tax base is eroded. That's the root of the problems in our local communities and in Albany.
listener-in said:
Randi Rhodes maybe?
There are hateful gasbags on both sides of the aisle. Whether one cheers them or despises them has more to do with one's own politics than with anything else.
I get a kick out of the fashionable hand-wringing these days over how political discourse has become "coarse" and "uncivilized" and how we need "bipartisan respect" and recognition that "your passionate opponent's viewpoints are as valid as anyone else's."
This country has 235 years of history of raucous discord. The debate is the crucible which has formed the greatest nation in modern history. Polarized energy feeds on itself. And it can be channelled productively. That's why talk radio from both political viewpoints is useful and perhaps even indispensable.
If you know anything about out Constitutional Convention you know fistfights were not uncommon. There were blackened eyes and powdered wigs were yanked off. Andrew Jackson could not be characterized precisely as a gentleman. Then there was a little thing called "The Civil War," as in "brother against brother."
Think Washington is packed with incompetent windbags? Ever hear of our only President from New Hampshire, one Franklin Pierce? I didn't think so. Most people haven't. What a psycho loser. Think Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore are corrupt, cynical, scheming mountebanks? Try on Warren Harding for size. He croaked in office and there remains a scholarly belief to this day that his iron-willed wife poisoned him to "protect" him from disrepute - a somewhat difficult objective since he fathered an illegitimate child who was born while he was President, the result of a tryst in a Congressional cloakroom. Harding could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two about how to womanize.
The more things change..... Personally I'm glad talk radio is around to comment on the spectacle.
This country has 235 years of history of raucous discord. The debate is the crucible which has formed the greatest nation in modern history. Polarized energy feeds on itself. And it can be channelled productively. That's why talk radio from both political viewpoints is useful and perhaps even indispensable.
If you know anything about out Constitutional Convention you know fistfights were not uncommon. There were blackened eyes and powdered wigs were yanked off. Andrew Jackson could not be characterized precisely as a gentleman. Then there was a little thing called "The Civil War," as in "brother against brother."
Think Washington is packed with incompetent windbags? Ever hear of our only President from New Hampshire, one Franklin Pierce? I didn't think so. Most people haven't. What a psycho loser. Think Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore are corrupt, cynical, scheming mountebanks? Try on Warren Harding for size. He croaked in office and there remains a scholarly belief to this day that his iron-willed wife poisoned him to "protect" him from disrepute - a somewhat difficult objective since he fathered an illegitimate child who was born while he was President, the result of a tryst in a Congressional cloakroom. Harding could teach Bill Clinton a thing or two about how to womanize.
The more things change..... Personally I'm glad talk radio is around to comment on the spectacle.
Some people think that. Some people think the same of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Some people bookmark newsmax.com, some people bookmark dailykos.org
AGREED! Albany stinks. Totally. Even the radio there stinks....well, not really...I have no idea actually, but I'm trying to keep this string from be moved over to the dreaded Take it Outside board
Hmmmmm...Listener-in,
Re-printing the Radio-info terms of service has nothing to do with the question I posed. While these terms of service are no different from a radio station owner demanding certain standards from their on-air personalities, owners that choose not to require these standards have a right to do so. (I'm not sure who these "pampered prima donnas of talk radio" are, but I would bet they don't share your political views).
Most of your response is your opinion of how talk radio should be handled. You don't like Glenn Beck, right? Neither do I. However, I don't think Beck should be censored or silenced because I don't agree with his diatribes. My question to you was to define "hate speech". You have not. Maybe we should defer to the FCC to make that determination for us. Maybe we can hope Senator Kennedy will finally get that pesky hate crimes legislation passed this time around. Or, better yet, let's adopt Canada's policy of hauling before a tribunal anyone that would dare utter an unsavory syllable.
Re-printing the Radio-info terms of service has nothing to do with the question I posed. While these terms of service are no different from a radio station owner demanding certain standards from their on-air personalities, owners that choose not to require these standards have a right to do so. (I'm not sure who these "pampered prima donnas of talk radio" are, but I would bet they don't share your political views).
Most of your response is your opinion of how talk radio should be handled. You don't like Glenn Beck, right? Neither do I. However, I don't think Beck should be censored or silenced because I don't agree with his diatribes. My question to you was to define "hate speech". You have not. Maybe we should defer to the FCC to make that determination for us. Maybe we can hope Senator Kennedy will finally get that pesky hate crimes legislation passed this time around. Or, better yet, let's adopt Canada's policy of hauling before a tribunal anyone that would dare utter an unsavory syllable.
Now everyone knows why I don't bother to listen to talk radio. Besides if you don't like Savage (Michael Weiner), Limbaugh, Ingraham, O'Reilly and the others, there is a device on the radio that allows you to change the channel. Personally I find myself listening more and more to CD's these days.
- Status