Stern's wild and wooly comedy show, which mixed comedy or satire with pure venom at times, became a litmus test for FCC standards, but most denunciation focused on sexuality or at times racial humor. Far less attention was paid to Limbaugh, who added quips, song parodies and impressions to his political talk show so as to also squeeze under the "just entertainment" umbrella. America didn't notice much as Rush's intimate little AM show permeated small-town markets, attacking and ridiculing the liberal left relentlessly without representation.
In becoming the largest syndicated radio show of all time, Rush touted the moral superiority of the right, exploding in popularity when the rascally Clinton-Lewinsky scandal rocked the nation. But in my years of calling 800-282-2882 to take issue with Rush, I've never gotten on the air, nor have I personally ever heard a well-spoken defender of the left on his airwaves. Competent pro pundits are summarily ignored as Limbaugh carefully shapes the world-minds of ditto-headed devotees, offering calm, conflict-free discourse in phone-ins. This can be confirmed any day by counting the proportion of "friendly" calls. Also unheeded and unexplored are news events which might tilt Rush's boat, such as the Alberto Gonzales hearings (covered live on many other stations). Dismissed as a witch hunt, the actual testimony was ignored as if it simply didn't matter.
Hannity followed in Rush's footsteps starting in 1998, promoted to wider syndication as a back-up strategy while Limbaugh was famously scandalized as an admitted drug addict and charged with illegal prescription use. Though he does not have the hypocritical personal baggage of Limbaugh who has gone through three divorces, Hannity too broadcasts in a well-buttressed right wing utopia, taking ample time to repeat and reiterate the day's talking points. Though controversial topics are discussed, nary is an articulate defender of the left allowed daylight, and the most damning stories or exposés critical of the right are simply left out. Hannitizing (Sanitizing) the News Hannity does make more of an attempt to appear as if he entertains opposing viewpoints, taking the occasional riled-up "lib" caller, and foraying a bit more adventurously to the left with some guests then does Rush, but nowhere to be found on his radio show are the real left wing policy experts, the scholars, the authors, pundits, politicians, whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, or military who are drooling to take issue with Sean's positions and add the missing facts for listeners. He does, however let the occasional hippie-chick or bongwater burnout on for ridicule, summarizing their appearances with sweeping generalities about the left.
On the Hannity & Colmes TV show where Sean is partnered with liberal co-host Alan Colmes, Sean has to work harder to make points amid panels that include left wing personalities, but as is often seen on Fox-TV, Sean spends time shouting them down, cutting them off or employing the common deflection strategies used when sidled with a meritless argument - the "straw man", distraction, the tit-for-tat, or "kill the messenger".
On his presumptuously-named solo TV program Hannity's America however, Hannity uses a barrage of bias tricks designed to vilify lefty targets like MoveOn.org or Michael Moore. Hannity peppers his script with needless derogatory adjectives, no rebuttals are invited, accusations are made without evidence and subjects are wrongly cross-associated. For example, Hannity baldly asserts in one show that liberal billionaire George Soros sponsors terrorists. The proof? He points out that Soros contributed to lawyers defending Guantanamo detainees who had been held for years without evidence or trials. In "Hannity's America", these are "terrorists".
Hate: the Newest American Family Value In addition to whipping up fear of an ever-indeterminate enemy, Hannity loves to fan the flames of hate, reframing anti-war activists as "hating our troops". By painting the peace movement as evil, cowardly or unpatriotic, he himself shows where the deviousness and contempt originates.
I assert any professional political commentator should be able to make a convincing argument without denigrating others, even if "the other guys do it too". If not, perhaps the show may not be suitable for all ages. If our consumer laws protect us from advertising that does not disclose all facts relevant to claims, why do our broadcast laws allow the show content to do so?
Pharmaceutical ads today are required to list all major potential side-effects, protecting buyers from exaggerated promises. This is government regulation, enforcing the requirement that consumers should be educated as to "the rest of the story". So why doesn't this concept extend to the programming? One need only look at the recent developments in media consolidation, where, despite significant public outcry, more deregulation was rammed through last December, ending the 1975 ban on radio and newspaper cross-ownership.
This trend began in 1981, increasing the number of TV stations a single entity could own. In 1985, the FCC eliminated limits on how much advertising stations could run each hour. In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was eradicated, and in 1996, the Telecommunications Act, signed by President Clinton, lifted the 40-station ownership cap so Clearchannel could gobble up 1,200 stations, allowing Limbaugh's show to spread like wild fire. This new megaconglomerate came to dominate key markets with low-cost robotized programming and exert crushing leverage against small independent stations with diverse political perspectives.
If I was a radio commentator, I would not only invite dissent, I would insist on it, to show my audience as transparently as possible that I felt my arguments are able to withstand criticism. The main purpose for public discussion is to practice precisely the democracy and free speech that are cornerstone ideas of our nation. As an educator, I firmly believe that our people, young and old, deserve the honesty and respect to know whatever age-appropriate information is available so they can become independent free thinkers, not automatons, or worse still, customers groomed for gullibility. Money eats Morality in Media I don't single out Rush or Hannity for distorting the balance in news and events of the day, as it's clear from the whitewash of network TV news that many important allegations and stories on unethical politicians are being withheld from the public. From the day-to-day death counts of US combat troops and news from the front lines, to the never-denied Downing Street memo, the vote caging scandals, the DOJ firings, the Niger Document controversy, CBS' Abu Ghraib cover up, Rumsfeld's secretive Operation Copper Green, the Scott McClellan allegations, the Jeff Gannon ruse, the Sibel Edmonds bombshells and so much more, receiving little attention or none at all, despite serious ethical or criminal allegations at the highest levels of our government.
As the TV networks must protect the corporations who provide their profits, news coverage is carefully designed to make viewers receptive to advertising regardless of what's actually transpiring in the world. But Rush and Hannity go out of their way to make social and moral proselytizations while muckraking, sliming people personally instead of debating their arguments, and furthermore regarding them as enemies of America. These tactics run afoul of reasonable civil discourse, like the propaganda of old. I've explicitly heard on the air that Hannity supports the right to intentional distortion on public airwaves. We should all be able to agree that intentional deceit is elitist and immoral - I invite readers to weigh in.
It's ironic to hear Hannity pointing out media manipulation on the left as he does exactly the same thing under his listeners' noses. For example, he travelled to Iraq to speak to soldiers, but 100% of the video he came back with was pro-war despite polls at the time showing the military was about 50% in favor of redeployment. In 2006, Hannity told us to "stay the course" and elect pro-war candidates because the "winds of freedom" will be blowing through Iraq, delicately sidestepping the awkward fact that a majority of Americans already opposed the war. Continuing even after the elections, Hannity retooled his message continually as if he was paid by the war machine to sell listeners on this product.
Hannity is blatant in his support for pro-war candidates, extending them abundant air time - for example, George Allen and Rick Santorum, both of whom went down to defeat in 2006. With his poll numbers slipping, Santorum actually asserted that WMD had finally been found in Iraq. For this Hannity pounded his fist on the desk, blurting "You see? I knew it all along, I never doubted for a minute!" But Santorum's claim turned out to be based on shipping records for unspecified materials trucked out of Iraq and proved nothing. On Fox TV that night, when Santorum referred to WMD, Alan Colmes interrupted to alert viewers that the weapons in question were documented as pre-1991, blowing the air out of Santorum's appearance and landing him in a number of embarrassing online videos the following day. Despite all Santorum's air-time which continues today, I've never heard the K Street scandal mentioned on Hannity's show.
Hannity's other guests include Karl Rove, who feels the need to speak to Sean despite his reluctance to answer Congressional subpoenas on a host of matters ranging from Plame-gate to the DOJ firings. Ann Coulter is another "friend of the show", who at least has the intellectual honesty to admit that she wants to bomb Iran because it's good for Wall Street. Hannity's show is the chosen venue for President Bush or Clarence Thomas to do safe, pre-taped interviews, knowing his is the most sympathetic audience, primed and ready for the soft-pedal, while career journalists look on.
The Public Airwaves For Private Profit As the generation responsible for handing this nation down to the next, I encourage discussion of media bias from all sides. It is increasingly difficult to get reliable information today when for-profit media outlets are so heavy on ad reps and short on investigative reporting staff. No station looking primarily to sell products is looking to foster a discriminating, skeptical viewership - thus the rationale for listener-supported radio channels and not surprisingly, the continual financial struggle of liberal commercial radio, whose hosts are more likely to report corporate wrongdoing.
This said, left-wing hosts should be subject to the same professional expectations, despite the fact that they pull down a fraction of Rush/Hannity's ratings. For example, Air America's Randi Rhodes chortling "she's rotten from the inside" at a mention of Condoleeza Rice's uterine surgery was deplorable, but Rhodes herself underwent a hysterectomy shortly after, perhaps learning the error of her ways.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, garage rock music and rare/unusual vinyl records.
Personally, I cannot tolerate either one. I watched Hannity and Colmes last night on Fox. Mr. Hannity already has Barack Obama judged and sentenced due to his affliation to this Rev. Wright. There are no words to describe Mr. Limbaugh.
by
Linda Bailey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:45:06 AM
The reason the Limbaughs and the Hannitys dominate talk radio is that they are incredibly popular with the people who listen to talk radio (duh). And the reason for that popularity is that they tell that large segment of Americans exactly what they already believe and want to hear repeated, over and over and over again.
The corollary of that is they don't want to hear anything else.
Ignorance, racism, militarism, and fear of the Other are endemic in U. S. culture, and go right into the voting booth with the Dittoheads and, I'm afraid, with most voting Americans.
Vote for Obama or Clinton, but bet on McCain.
by
F T (Ted) Cloak Jr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM
to say that I USED to regard these guys' opinions highly . But that was BEFORE I discovered the unmitigated bias of the media in general. These broadcasters constantly lambaste what they call the mainstream or "drive-by" media, knowing full well that they are describing themselves.
It was the campaign of America's last true conservative statesman, Ron Paul, that awoke me to the error of my ways and to the pure PROPAGANDA that these shows are. They are right-wing to the hilt, and dangerous to critical thinking. The arrogance of the hosts is congagious to the listeners, who live on their every word. Dissent is conveniently screened out or cut off unexplained.
No one should have such power.
by
wgadget (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM
"Dissent is conveniently screened out or cut off unexplained. No one should have such power."
But how to manage this balance while preserving free speech? Whose responsibility is it if a corporation profiteers off political talk that has no journalistic integrity? The sponsors? The listeners? The station? The public? Concerned parents? Educators? Clergy?
One thing we can agree on - it shouldn't be regulated by the FCC.
It's interesting that you and I might call irresponsible, unbalanced reporting "bias" or "propaganda" but that Rush uses the term "drive-by" media, as if to liken it to low-level "street" misconduct, as opposed to a more white-collar or more historical term. A classic classist move, tinging on the more overt brand of race baiting we saw in Rush's "Obama the Magic Negro" song parody. This is because he knows he does it too, but wants listeners to differentiate "them" as other then "us". Hmm.
I'd reach across the aisle to second that Ron Paul was more forthcoming and truthful then any Republican by far, the only candidate not full of see-through rhetoric designed to sustain the classist stovepiping of the national wealth we've seen since 2000 through tired-ass fearmongering and military spending on the tab of unborn Americans.
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:03:02 PM
Some years ago while I was reading while my grandson was watching some afternoon kids' TV show in my living room; when it ended Rush Limbough's TV show came on. I was too lazy to get up and turn it off. I didn't pay much attention until Rush said that "This was his last TV broadcast." Then he said he had a list of ten items he requently got calls and letters on; the first item was about aliens occupying Wall Street business or some such. He read each item from 3 by 5 cards. The items were seriously off the wall. Then he said that if any of us viewers believed even one we were certifiable nuts cases. (Actually I thought one item was worthy of discussion.)
This led me to suspect that Rush goes with what works, knows better and doesn't have an ethicial bone in his body; it's about money and the witch godess, success!
by
Gerald Sutliff (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:20:31 PM
So true - I think I covered that in "Creating a NeoCon Safe Haven", pointing out that the hosts offer what the listeners often want to hear, as opposed to that which they perhaps should hear - for example, the whole truth, the actual percentages of people who support Bush or the war, the Gonzales testimony, frequent news from Iraq, etc.
I wouldn't say that talk radio listeners account for so many they will swing the tide though - current polls say no. Limbaugh's audience is also said to be only half of what it once was.
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 7:01:00 PM
"We need to decide what public media in America should look like."
No we don't. Because there is no such thing, contrary to the late 40's "fairness doctrine" as "public media." Media is created by individuals. Not by the general public. Unless you consider a mob roar to be "media."
I do not consume talk shows such as Limbaugh's or Hannity's, because I do not desire the product they sell in exchange for attention. But the broadcasters nevertheless find many who do. It is the sole right of the broadcasters to decide the content to be broadcasted on their property. There is no such thing as "public airwaves," because private entities gave the airwaves value, not the public. Any attempt by the government to legislate the use of those airwaves in a manner inconsistent with the use their actual owners wish to put them to, is theft.
by
Justin Hinkley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 8:41:29 PM
The fairness doctrine was only as fair as the government officials enforcing it, (up to 1987, not just since the late 40s). It's original purpose was to make FCC licensees "trustees" of the public good. For many years broadcasters understood this responsibility meant following the ethics of responsible journalism, until Limbaugh.
"Media is created by individuals. Not by the general public."
You may have forgot all the public broadcasters acros the globe - PBS, PRI, BBC, NPR, Armed Forces Radio to name a few.
"It is the sole right of the broadcasters to decide the content to be broadcasted on their property."
So there's no line? How about if they said "Justin Hinckley is a gay child molester" - you're on your own? Have to go retain a lawyer?
If you read the article, my case in point was that Hannity aired on his radio show the assertion by Rick Santorum that WMD were found in Iraq, shortly before the 2006 election, late on a Friday. It was debunked on TV and the internet as a desperate and cheap campaign stunt, but not corrected on Sean's radio show.
If your children were listening to that show, would you feel they were being responsibly informed?
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM
I know why the author is upset. For decades, the liberals have controlled the print media and most of the telecast media.
But they can't control these broadcasts, and it drives them crazy. They can't control them because there are people out there who actually would like to hear both sides of an argument or topic before making any decisions.
And the only place they can get the other side -- which is the last thing liberals want -- is non-liberal-controlled talk radio.
by
Ray Walton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 7:59:17 AM
We agree that people should hear both (or all) sides of an argument or topic before making any decisions. But we don't agree that non-liberal-controlled talk radio provides that balance. Limbaugh and Hannity hide the opposing points of view from their listeners.
What you say was "liberal control" was actually a legal statute on the books for decades preventing imbalance. The actual letter of the law was that stations should make every resonable attempt to include relevant contrasting points of view. I never said any one should be controlled, but they should have responsibilty to inform the public without deception. That seems simple and ethical, no?
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM
Rush Limbaugh & Hanity Success--It's called Capitalism
Re: Gustav's rant I have a solution for him.
Why not start his own radio show whereby he can offer comments and pontificate to his heart's content and promote his liberal philosophy.
I cannot imagine it would NOT be a success, considering the dearth of Socialist-Far-Left Radio Programs and a vast listerning audience of like-minded Moonbats, simply waiting for someone to rescue them from the obvious "monopoly" of the eeeeevil, far-right-wing-conspiracy talk show hosts, enjoy throughout the country.
Oh, wait, that has been tried: Can you say Radio Amerika?
Well, Professor Wynn, may I humbly remind you of that old saw: "Those who can do and those who can't teach."
by
Michael Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 8:08:43 AM
"Why not start his own radio show whereby he can offer...his liberal philosophy."
A radio show, or perhaps an online article?
"....vast listerning audience of like-minded Moonbats, simply waiting for someone to rescue them from the obvious "monopoly" of the eeeeevil, far-right-wing-conspiracy talk show hosts, enjoy throughout the country."
Let the record show the respondant initiated name-calling and the "straw man" deflection, as in "Oh it's sooooo terrible and evil and bad", already anticipated in the body of the article (common techniques used to avoid the core issue: is it ethical to hide facts from listeners?)
I'd like all the readers of this thread to learn what your ethics are, as a dedicated Hannity listener and supporter. Would you say Hannity does or doesn't responsibly report all pertinent facts to topics/issues?
Do you value balance when informing your friends and loved ones? Is it ever okay to intentionally dupe people?
Please advise, then the readers can make up their own minds on him, you, and me.
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM
Wow, I could rewrite this entire piece from the conservative perspective, but of course I would consider that were the truth as emphatically as the author believes . . . this stuff, which I find ridiculous. I wonder if he thinks the neocons are behind 9-11 too, or that the Reverend Wright has a valid point hidden somewhere in his sermons on whitey, but I risk proving his point on denigration by way of ridicule. Speaking of which, I would submit that the author is still in need of his day job if civility is required for professional political commentary. Silly me, I thought it simply meant someone else was willing to pay for your opinion, hopefully often enough to pay the bills, but I'm rather quaint.
I have listened to Rush, Hannity, and Boortz for many years, and I often agree with them. I also listen to NPR, the BBC, and Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, and I agree with them many times as well. I have to say that all of these people and organizations promote their own views in the way they select guests and the manner in which they portray the news. My guess is they are all human, and they all feel like they have an equal right to express themselves, and that their opinion is correct. Now I realize this is a radical concept, but I think we will have to embrace the fact that this problem will continue apace until we do away with humans in Journalism.
I have also noted that only those on the left claim fancy titles like "journalist" and probably for good reason, isn't Dan Rather a well-respected journalist? Geeez, call me an entertainer too.
I suppose the most ironic part of this screed is the juxtaposition of the author's call for a healthy and open debate in society against his admonition that only the government can ensure the fairness and accuracy of the content. I would contend that talk radio has flourished because it is just about the only remaining place conservatives can freely express themselves. Without it I wonder how many people or businesses would use AM radio at all, certainly not as many as FM or TV, never mind the internet. I also believe it explains why FoxNews owns the ratings wars against all the other cable news outlets, because it's a lone voice. I submit the real complaint by the author is that the right HAS an effective voice, finally.
This call for government monitoring is instructive and telling, but not compelling. Perhaps if the feds could ever figure out how to run Amtrack or the Postal Service, or if they could ever bring the entitlement programs back into solvency, or if they could drain the swamps that pass for our inner-city schools, perhaps then more citizens would entrust them with picking the guest lineup on their favorite TV or radio show, but I doubt it. On the other hand, it might reinvigorate the public library system.
In response to the admonitions raised for training our young, I have six (so far) and I encourage them to watch different programs, and I have had them listen to Rush as well as Amy Goodman, and I continue to encourage them to think for themselves. I am not afraid of what they might hear or think because I believe in THEM and their ability to discern, even though they are almost bereft of the government's wisdom or direction in these things. As a result, I can proudly say that each of the three main candidates will be getting some votes from my greater household. Unlike the author, I am not afraid of that diversity of opinion.
by
Bryan Brattin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:13:35 PM
"I could rewrite this entire piece from the conservative perspective"
Do it! But I think there are a few asymmetries...be sure to interview Rush's call screeners for us, will you?
"I wonder if he thinks the neocons are behind 9-11 too"
No, and I blogged on that here, but I'd still welcome a new investigation.
"Reverend Wright has a valid point hidden somewhere in his sermons...?"
I think this discussion is moving such radical black church-speech out into the daylight for the positive. He can't call the whole country racist if he really means just our government, or some in our government. He's now paying for that...definitely poor phrasing. Yes, the government's black ops have come back to haunt us, but he worded it as if it was the people's fault. No, HIV/AIDS was not planted, too extreme for me, though I'd heard the claim before.
"...only those on the left claim fancy titles like "journalist"...isn't Dan Rather a well-respected journalist?"
I had weighed in on Rather's rather interesting and complex case here. Egotistical and flawed, humbled by the furor over the disputed memo which was never even needed to prove the Air Guard story, but surely Dandy Dan has a story to tell about CBS News as a top insider regarding illicit White House influence on news coverage. Let's hear his sworn testimony versus Redstone's!
"...the most ironic part of...the author's call for a healthy and open debate in society [is] his admonition that only the government can ensure the fairness and accuracy of the content."
WHERE did I say that? The FCC is (currently) the worst arbiter possible for this, allowing continuing deregulation over great citizen outcry, and also pushing to end net neutrality - I never advocated for new government controls, just reported that there has already been government control for most of our lives...
"I have six (so far) and I encourage them to watch different programs..."
Then I don't believe we have a quarrel - you should encourage your kids to have balance and make up their own minds, bravo! Too bad they have to get it from different places.
I'd like to hear your thoughts - if Rush Limbaugh would have Amy Goodman on his show, we would get information more quickly with a thorough, transparent vetting of logic and research, no? I'm sure she'd love to have Rush or Sean on her show, but do you think Rush would appear there, or have her on his show?
Isn't a format like McLaughlin Group far less cowardly, where both sides are invited to freely discuss matters together for all to see the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments?
"... the right HAS an effective voice, finally."
Agreed, but do you say it is an ethical voice?
Could you and I perhaps agree on what constitutes "ethical commentary", whether it was a patriotic responsibility and if its includes intentional distortion? Thanks for taking the time to write...
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM
Look at the tone of your oped, and the tone of my comments, and you see the same exact phenomenon in a microcosm that we are discussing. Both of us feel our points are valid, and that our views are the most accurate. You are not the least interested in changing your point of view, any more than I am, because we both consider our views to be based on the most accurate interpretation of the world around us. This is why it is demeaning to claim the high ground, it's not yours, at least in my view. This is why you feel those who hold different views are somehow dishonest or unethical. I doubt you have sat through a solid week's worth of Rush's program, but I could be wrong. I say that because if you had you would soon recognize the rhetorical ploys he uses and see that he is deliberately tweaking the left in a satirical manner. Sometimes I think he goes too far, and sometimes I flat out disagree, but I recognize in his efforts his desire to be fair. I can certainly defend him or Sean, or even Amy, with far more vigor and veracity than you can muster for Dan.
Your admonition about my children getting a fair and complete view from only one source is simply silly, since there is no single person who has all of the answers. Even if there were, the ability to recognize that is still important. You should rethink that, unless you are claiming to be that person or to know such an individual. That would indeed be pompous and arrogant.
by
Bryan Brattin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 9:29:33 AM
Our discussion a microcosm of Sean Hannity's show?
There is a difference Bryan, there is no doubt there will be struggles between class or ideology long after we're dead, but we are discussing the issues civilly and thoughtfully here, no? I'd like to demonstrate what I think would be a more accurate 'microcosm' of the way Hannity communicates (I would never write like this, I'm trying to make a point about how they operate):
Since Mr. Brattin here seems to feel the need to defend a junkie, we need to really question his judgment. I would have serious questions about his decisions, for example raising his kids, because he gets his daily fix of insight from a man who has been divorced three times and has been hooked on "hillbilly heroin" for God knows how long - for all we know, he could be popping a few tabs right now somewhere. If Brattin allies himself with this type of sleaze - pathetic addicts - who knows what he might be capable of, and, by Christ our savior, I'd advise anybody to think twice about letting your kids anywhere near him, because I really care about the young people in this country.
My apologies for this sliming of you, it was of course ridiculous, but proves the original point of my essay, that through repetition of character assassination, guilt-by-association, fearmongering and hatemongering (and self-righteousness), talk radio is all-too effective in persuading our kids and those of us with less discerning intellects of whatever the host wants.
Hannity did this all week - if you just change your name to Obama in the above passage, and switch 'junkie' for 'black racist', this is how ridiculous Sean sounds in conflating Rev. Wright's misdeeds with Obama's record.
Honestly, I was surprised at the reaction to my essay - first that so many mistakenly thought I was calling for government regulation when I wasn't - (hence a need for repetition?), but also that so many defended Rush and Sean by taking shots at me, or the tit-for-tat, or other distractions, just as I anticipated in the piece.
My hope was a dialogue - I thought that those who support Rush and Sean would argue that domestic propaganda should go on unabated, or argue that their broadcasts were not propaganda. For others, the question is how domestic propaganda should be addressed in society without impinging on anyone's right to free speech.
You have it wrong that I'd think those who hold different views are dishonest or unethical, for example an ultra-right wing Conservative or Evangelical. It's all in how they argue their case - using deceit and dirty tricks is dishonest and unethical and Rush and Sean do this every day in many ways, as outlined.
I hail any Conservative that practices small, unintrusive government, strict ethics and fiscal responsibility, I just don't see any in sight. I'd vote for Eisenhower in a heartbeat if he wasn't rolling in his grave.
I've been listening to Rush on and off for almost twenty years - for most of the early 90s, it was the only station I could pull in at work and I listened every day for about 3-4 years. I see when he satirizes, and see his desire to appear as if he's trying to be fair, but this, I assert is him at his most subversive. The occasional left wing call that makes it through (like when they fool the screener by changing gears) is the exception, but nowhere near "balance" and certainly not representative of the US population which has been anti-war by a majority for years.
Rush lets through many more dittoheads then dissenters, just count the proportion any day. Obviously the show would be a daily free-for-all if he didn't have this set as policy - and Rush's own promos mention that his is a "calming" environment for Conservatives. I monitor about an hour of Sean every day and I'm just disgusted at his bosses - again it's not just the politics, I often agree with Thomas Friedman, for example - it's Sean's method of delivery, which is the brand of sleaze and slime and exploitation that continues to foment mob mentality and dis-unite the US.
If you feel up to defending Rush or Sean, I'd be happy to meet you online in a new thread or different blog and discuss this openly, bring out a few of these heated issues and do a point-counterpoint thing. This would be exactly the balance I think is missing today and may be interesting to many others as well.
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 8:46:51 PM
"We need to decide what public media in America should look like. I for one will teach my children not to name-call, hide facts, overgeneralize, or "practice to deceive"."
Does the author feel the same towards MSNBC's Keith Olberman or NBC's Chris Matthews, both of whom are staunch liberal democrats who overgeneralize, name-call (ESPECIALLY that hate pig Keith) and fail to show all the "facts?" I do give him credit however for having the guts to bring up that failed liberal experiment known as Air America. I tried to listen to it, but got sick and tired of the daily Bush hate (especially with that wretched hate-filled Randi). I mean, how many different times do we need to hear the same thing? Ok, you hate Bush. I get it. At least Conservative AM talk radio is dynamic and not one day is ever the same.
One thing that liberas constantly fail to address is why AM talk radio got so popular: the media's left-leaning tendencies. Murdoch started FoxNews to counterbalance this exact thing. Of course, liberals and democrat pontificating demogogues whine about that too.
by
Mr Stq (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 7:34:20 PM
Yes! They hurt their own arguments when they get personal, name call, etc. I said in the article the left does it too and should be held to the same standard, offering examples. I think Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow are pretty good for progressives, though no one's perfect.
Who do you think is least biased?
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:14:06 AM
