Talk Radio Scoreboard for Major Markets: October 2014

[Avid Listener]

It says a lot about his "principles." That people who might have agreed with him didn't agree with his methods. And that's why I used him as an example earlier in this thread.

Principles and methods are one thing. Content is another. The fact that he was a major jerk about how he presented things doesn't change the fact that most of what he presented was accurate. Perhaps there's a corollary to the lack of understanding that being right for it's own sake is motivation enough for people with principles. That would be the inability to separate the methods with which someone speaks the truth with the truth itself. The truth doesn't need to be sugar-coated or even expressed politely to remain the truth. The truth is the truth, even if the person expressing the truth isn't especially admirable in his methods or style.

Do you even grasp the difference between form and substance? You don't need to answer. Your posts have already revealed that truth.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you even grasp the difference between form and substance?

Do you understand the context of why I even brought up his name? It's not to debate if he's right or not, but to use his methods as an example.

 

[semoochie]

This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything positive about Joe McCarthy! The only thing I ever heard was that he ruined one career after the other, in a misguided attempt to thwart Communism, forgetting that this is America and you can believe anything you want. Have any other freshman senators had this much notoriety, within the confines of performing their job? Did the investigation uncover ANY communists?

 

[Avid Listener]

This is the first time I've heard anyone say anything positive about Joe McCarthy! The only thing I ever heard was that he ruined one career after the other, in a misguided attempt to thwart Communism, forgetting that this is America and you can believe anything you want. Have any other freshman senators had this much notoriety, within the confines of performing their job? Did the investigation uncover ANY communists?

What you heard was the revisionist spin. The truth was the McCarthy did get carried away. He was not a nice man. His personality was not admirable. His investigations did not discover legal evidence of attempts by the Soviet Union to manipulate the American government by getting people in the government to act in the Soviet Union's best intentions. That evidence wasn't revealed until the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of information from the KGB's archives, combined with revelations made by high ranking KGB officials who defected to the United States.

That's why the truth is that Joe McCarthy was correct in his allegations that the Soviet Union was engaging in illegal manipulations of the American government for their own purposes, even though he was unable to prove it. He was also mistaken in his belief that those illegal manipulations happened because America's foe was communist. Though the Soviet Union had a communist political/economic system, it was the enemy of the United States for reasons other than the fact that it was communist. It is true that the Soviets did recruit people to further their agenda, often without the recruited people knowing that it was the Soviet Union they were working for. McCarthy fell for the Soviet lie that it was all just a movement of people dedicated to furthering the interests of the "workers of the world", so he pursued "communists" instead of pursuing "Soviet agents". There are some excellent books about this written by former KGB officers that anyone who is interested can find with a simple Google search.

There are also some excellent books written shortly after the time of McCarthy that reveal additional details about Soviet activity in the United States to subvert our government. Many of those books and their authors were viciously attacked when they were published to discredit them. Half a century of hindsight should now let us see how accurate those books were. One good example is None Dare Call it Treason, by Senator Barry Goldwater, GOP presidential nominee in 1964.

We're seeing today the results of what happens when a generation of political leaders and media executives who fell for the Soviet lies when they were students in the 1960's, 70's and 80's are now running both the government and the broadcast media today. The revisionists have successfully suppressed the truth of the events of the 40's, 50's, and 60's by selectively using half of the truth, the half that discredits the voices of the past, to block the other half of the truth about those voices of the past. Looking back in retrospect, much of what McCarthy correctly predicted has come to pass pretty much as he predicted it would. But between his excesses and flawed style and the revisionist history that only reports on those excesses in style and manner while ignoring the substance of his accusations, McCarthy's message is forgotten.

 

[FredLeonard]

And, of course, the good ol' USA has never, ever manipulated, infiltrated or spied on foreign governments. Oh, no!

Funny how right-wingers were so willing to ignore Hitler but got so worked over "godless, atheistic communism" and have their blacklists and witch hunts. Why? Because Hitler was OK with rich people and major corporations, which profited from Hitler's regime (until allied bombers showed up). But they wet their pants over any political philosophy opposed to excessive concentration of wealth. And, of course, McCarthy supporters like the Birchers (led by the Koch Brothers' daddy) and other tea puppet types of the day went right along and did what the corporate elites told them to do.

 

[wadio]

I'd love to read what you consider "good, moderate, non-preachy" talk. Especially such talk that gets respectable numbers in syndication.

How many times do I have to say this? OK, John Gambling, Larry Kudlow, Jerry Doyle, John & Ken, Curtis & Kuby, Alan Colmes, John Grayson ....

And I'm still waiting for somebody - anybody on this board - to report a specific example of public radio being biased.

I'll give you an example. Rush Limbaugh rails against what he calls, "Environmentalist Whackos." It's not particularly helpful or entertaining but you clearly know where the guy stands.

NPR, OTOH, simply approaches every story from the point of view that the New Ice Age, no make that Global Warming, excuse me now it's Man Made Climate Change, is an absolute given. Never mind that science and the universe are not totally understood by mankind and that much of the well funded evidence for MMCC is based on short weather cycles, they simply take that position. So it doesn't sound like bias, it's just baked into the cake.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not suggesting that man's activity on earth has no bearing on climate or that we shouldn't do what we can to be ecologically responsible. But when I talk with some friends who are avid NPR listeners they become absolutely furious if I suggest that we don't know for sure our impact compared to the sun and the ocean and that sometimes well paid researchers can be wrong. It's happened before.

I listen to talk radio to hear new ideas, opinions and perspectives. Programs that take a monolithic viewpoint, be it a bombastic Rush Limbaugh or a subtle NPR news reader, don't interest me.

 

[FredLeonard]

How many times do I have to say this? OK, John Gambling, Larry Kudlow, Jerry Doyle, John & Ken, Curtis & Kuby, Alan Colmes, John Grayson ....

Please note: I said respectable numbers in syndication.

 

[Avid Listener]

And, of course, the good ol' USA has never, ever manipulated, infiltrated or spied on foreign governments. Oh, no!

Funny how right-wingers were so willing to ignore Hitler but got so worked over "godless, atheistic communism" and have their blacklists and witch hunts. Why? Because Hitler was OK with rich people and major corporations, which profited from Hitler's regime (until allied bombers showed up). But they wet their pants over any political philosophy opposed to excessive concentration of wealth. And, of course, McCarthy supporters like the Birchers (led by the Koch Brothers' daddy) and other tea puppet types of the day went right along and did what the corporate elites told them to do.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? What is it that prompts you to so frequently digress into non-sequiturs whenever you can't think of a direct response?

 

[wadio]

Please note: I said respectable numbers in syndication.

No, you said, "especially." Doyle does OK, John & Ken have always gotten respectable numbers on KFI, Gambling is now on a pea-shooter, Kudlow airs on Saturdays, Grayson is on in the middle of the night.

This conversation isn't about popularity -- that's a separate issue. The fact that these programs don't get big numbers only proves that the general public isn't very discriminating or perhaps they're unwilling to make the effort to seek out programs with unique presentations and perspectives. I'd say NPR listeners fall into that category. They set the dial to an NPR station and are satisfied that what they're being fed is all they need to know.

 

[TheBigA]

They set the dial to an NPR station and are satisfied that what they're being fed is all they need to know.

I don't know about that. User studies indicate that NPR listeners are very likely to augment their listening with newspaper reading and usage of other information. However, you're right that they probably don't listen to commercial talk radio.

 

[TheBigA]

What you heard was the revisionist spin.

I don't care about "revisionist spin." He was reviled in his own time by people in his own party. He ruined his own reputation, he destroyed his own message, he imploded from the weight of his own ego. That is the lesson of McCarthy. And I think a lot of people today are ignoring the lessons of the past, and walking down the same road, attacking people with questionable information, saying things without regard for collateral damage, and assuming that the ends justifies the means. It doesn't.

 

[Avid Listener]

I don't care about "revisionist spin." He was reviled in his own time by people in his own party. He ruined his own reputation, he destroyed his own message, he imploded from the weight of his own ego. That is the lesson of McCarthy. And I think a lot of people today are ignoring the lessons of the past, and walking down the same road, attacking people with questionable information, saying things without regard for collateral damage, and assuming that the ends justifies the means. It doesn't.

None of those things alter the fact that looking back in retrospect, he was right. You conveniently trimmed the quote to leave out this:

The truth was the McCarthy did get carried away. He was not a nice man. His personality was not admirable. His investigations did not discover legal evidence of attempts by the Soviet Union to manipulate the American government by getting people in the government to act in the Soviet Union's best intentions. That evidence wasn't revealed until the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of information from the KGB's archives, combined with revelations made by high ranking KGB officials who defected to the United States.

What does your piling on with the people who condemned his methods (and perhaps rightly so) have to do with the point that regardless of his flaws at communicating his message, his message turned out to be correct?

I'll ask again, "Do you even grasp the difference between form and substance?" Do you think you might possibly post a reply that addresses the content of what McCarthy said instead of obsessing over the means by which he said it?

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is suits like you who are more concerned with form than substance that are flushing OTA radio down the toilet, especially talk radio.

 

[FredLeonard]

Except, Tail-gunner Joe did not out one actual, proven Soviet spy in the state department.

Harold Camping predicted the end of the world. Wait long enough and he will be right.

 

[Avid Listener]

Except, Tail-gunner Joe did not out one actual, proven Soviet spy in the state department.

True, but KGB files released after the fall of the Soviet Union did prove it, as I said, in retrospect. We've learned from both former KGB defectors and the release of old KGB files by the new Russian government that McCarthy was right at the time, even if he couldn't find the smoking gun.

 

[TheBigA]

None of those things alter the fact that looking back in retrospect, he was right.

Once again, this isn't a political discussion board. I don't care if he was right or wrong. That's not why I brought his name up. We're talking about methods people use to get their point across. His methods were wrong and became his downfall. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Avid Listener]

Once again, this isn't a political discussion board. I don't care if he was right or wrong. That's not why I brought his name up. We're talking about methods people use to get their point across. His methods were wrong and became his downfall. Try to stay on topic.

Did you not read or grasp the meaning of this?

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is suits like you who are more concerned with form than substance that are flushing OTA radio down the toilet, especially talk radio.

Anyone who attempts to make good decisions about what should or shouldn't go on the air in a talk radio format but who cannot discern the difference between form and substance has no business being in the business of making those sorts of decisions.

 

[TheBigA]

Did you not read or grasp the meaning of this?

I didn't read it because I don't care what you think. You're taking this discussion off topic, and I'm not going there.

 

[semoochie]

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "All I know is what I learned in school." and since what I learned was watching an Edward R. Murrow documentary on the subject, I thought it was a pretty good stand to take. I understand your point but I don't think it means much to those who were blacklisted and their families.

 

[wadio]

I don't know about that. User studies indicate that NPR listeners are very likely to augment their listening with newspaper reading and usage of other information. However, you're right that they probably don't listen to commercial talk radio.

True, my speculation is purely anecdotal, but I do know a number of people like that.

A couple of months before Obama was elected for his first term I was talking with an NPR fan at a party and she was shocked, SHOCKED -- to learn that he was a chain smoker! That fact was covered pretty well in other media, including 60 Minutes.

 

[Ravens]

Did the investigation uncover ANY communists?

Yes. Just about every single person he went after was a communist.