Right-wing talk radio
I was worried that the shooting at Virginia Tech might divert right-wing talk radio from its self-appointed task of attacking all things liberal. But by the end of that week, Mike Rosen was already playing a tape of Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter and Rush Limbaugh was talking about John Edwards’ haircut.
Good to see they still have their priorities straight.
Joe Conder, Westminster
it sure hurt when the far left extreme socalist liberal democrat realized that the best way to cover the shooting was to talk about it and move on. not so with the libs they want to kick a story to death and then go back to attacking the 'right wing'.
why is alec even still in this country? remember he and babs were going to move if Bush was elected. oh thats right they just talk alot and do nothing like all libs. I do hope you having to listen to baldwin yelling at his daughter made you just as mad if not more so that what the liberal news media ran as a news story from tech. all I remember in the lib media was the 'I'm sorry' from alec and so its all better now. after listening to him yell it shows what a true jerk he is and has no right to be called a dad. maybe a sperm doner but thats it
Hey Joe...my party can kick your party's ass.
Now see....that sounds as stupid as you little rant. Get a life nimrod.
Good letter, Joe. It's an interesting phenomenon that the more incisive a letter it, the more asinine the replies.
Posted by Truth on May 5, 2007 06:33 AMConservative talk radio attacks liberals? Shocking.
And who does liberal talk radio attack?
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 06:50 AMWho does liberal talk radio attack?
Your intelligence if you listen to it for long.
That's not a big worry. They have to be subsidized because not enough businesses or other entities want to waste their money advertising on a program with no discernable ratings nor any meaningful audience.
Mr. Conder,
For someone who hates right-wing radio so much you seem to be pretty familiar with what Messrs. Rosen and Limbaugh are saying on the radio.
Poor Air America. Even right-wing radio hating liberals ignore them.
Posted by John II on May 5, 2007 07:34 AMAir America-
Now there is a "fair and Balance " show
"Good letter, Joe."- Truth
Pointless letter is more accurate.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 08:10 AM
That there liberal radio must be a straight shooting bunch if they can hit a target as small as momma presents.
Posted by donny on May 5, 2007 08:11 AMMichael Savage for president in 08!
Posted by A Dodge on May 5, 2007 08:37 AMJoe seems to have an irrational fixation on the right wing. Methinks he needs to get back on his meds.
Posted by clyde on May 5, 2007 09:00 AMWho [sic] does liberal talk radio attack?
Easy - liars and demagogues. Next question?
Everyone knows that all of MSM is conservatively slated. Stop trying to spin it the other way, it just won't work anymore.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 09:22 AM"Everyone knows that all of MSM is conservatively slated. Stop trying to spin it the other way, it just won't work anymore."
Really?
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Matt Lauer, Tim Russert, David Gregory, etc...are conservative?
Just because they are to the right of you, that doesn't make them conservative.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 09:32 AMI think conservative media forgot to add the (/sarcasm).
Posted by KW on May 5, 2007 09:41 AMIt doesn't look like a sarcastic comment. It could be (since it's obviously way off base), but there are a lot of people out there who think it is conservative. You can read that daily in this forum from people who are serious.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 09:45 AMOops! Sorry Mike, I forgot to add the (/sarcasm) at the end of my post as well. Let me repost:
I think conservative media forgot to add the (/sarcasm).
(/sarcasm)
Posted by KW on May 5, 2007 09:51 AMOh. I should have assumed that.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 10:02 AMYes they all report with a conservative slant. You've had Rosen and the rest of the conservative media beating it in your heads that it's "liberal media" so long you actually believe it along with a lot of other things they spew.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 10:14 AMI drive a lot and occasionally listen to conservative radio, then I wipe the venom off the speakers and go to NPR where the insults per hour are much lower.
Liberals have too much to do to listen to radio and call in all the time.
The demo for right wing radio, their target audience is older white men. Thats why femanazi, princess Pelosi, and all those nasty words for women can be used. Baldwin only represents himself, like Rush does. They are both tiresome.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 5, 2007 10:14 AM"You've had Rosen and the rest of the conservative media" -CM
Rosen is an opinion columnist and talk show host. He is not part of the MSM.
If you actually think that the MSM reports with a conservative slant, then that just shows how far left you are. Colorado is east of California; that doesn't make it east coast, though.
"Thats why femanazi, princess Pelosi, and all those nasty words for women can be used." -Sharon
Those aren't words for ALL women; just SOME women. A feminazi is a woman who hates men. A woman who thinks it is beneath a woman to get married and stay home and raise children. A woman who thinks less of a woman who is happily married and doesn't make her career her number one priority. Most women don't fall into that category and Rush doesn't use it to refer to ALL women.
"Liberals have too much to do to listen to radio and call in all the time." - Sharon
What, like go to a march or protest somewhere?
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 10:30 AMFlibbity flabbity floo liberals suck and so do you!
Posted by boink on May 5, 2007 11:02 AMAnd right-wing talk radio is the ultimate trash. It is targeted at the dull-witted and those full of impotent rage, as the representaitves on this forum amply demonstrate.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 5, 2007 11:05 AM"And right-wing talk radio is the ultimate trash. It is targeted at the dull-witted and those full of impotent rage, as the representaitves on this forum amply demonstrate."
Are comments like this supposed to be facetious?
Posted by No use on May 5, 2007 11:17 AMMike:
"If you actually think that the MSM reports with a conservative slant, then that just shows how far left you are. Colorado is east of California; that doesn't make it east coast, though."
If the MSM would have reported news with a conservative slant over the last six years, there would never have been an Iraq War.
Indeed the MSM is not conservative or liberal. It is radically right wing.
Republicanism is not the same thing as conservativism anymore:
Pre-emptive war = radical.
Huge deficites= radical.
Contempt for the rule of law= radical.
Scaling back civil liberties=radical.
That's why the Republican candidates face such a quandry now. They feel they need to embrace the radical elements of their party to win a primary, but know that there's not a chance in hell it will play well in the general election.
Too bad for you.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 11:30 AMThe liberally slanted mass media has consistently and relentlessly over reported negative Republican news and positive Dem news.
Likewise, any coverage even remotely showing Repubs or their agendas in a positive way is either mis-reported on or buried- as are most stories exposing Dems failures.
This has been business as usual for years and the libs had no problem with it because it benefited them.
Along comes Rush and others who provided a voice that was sorely lacking . Ratings skyrocketed proving conservatives thoughts and ideas needed an outlet that was not there before. I think the creation of Fox news was to fill that void also.
Of course the biggest challenge to traditional media is the internet and the ability of the average Joe to instantaneously fact check their stories.
This cyberspace scrutiny ,along with guys like Rush and Fox News,hold the media accountable like they never have been before.
Get used to it.
"If you actually think that the MSM reports with a conservative slant, then that just shows how far left you are. Colorado is east of California; that doesn't make it east coast, though."
So I'm in Colo. that means I'm suppose to be middle of the road? You bet I'm far left, and proud of it.
"This cyberspace scrutiny, along with guys like Rush and Fox News,hold the media accountable like they never have been before."
There's some real brainwashing going on here.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 11:40 AMThis sums it all up nicely.
http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/mediabias.htm
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 11:52 AMConservative Media knows what hes talking about! The corporate media blackout on the bush attack on the towers proves it! They are covering for them and the repub always.Thank god for people like Rosie and other dems that keep talking to wake people up! Its time to untie like true liberals can and speak out! The truth will be told together!
Posted by Kelly on May 5, 2007 12:05 PMGET REAL,
"Ratings skyrocketed proving conservatives thoughts and ideas needed an outlet that was not there before. I think the creation of Fox news was to fill that void also."Rush does not promote "conservative thoughts and ideas". He is a radical partisan Republican. there is nothing conservative about Rush or the Modern Republican Party.
Studies have shown that your likelyhood to be ignorant or wrong about the facts rises in direct proportion to the amount of Fox News you watch.
But you are correct; abject ignorance has become quite popular.
O'Donell is spoon-fed by the far left and a pig faced uninformed freak. The empty space in her fat head could be used to engulf the universe.
She is the epitomy of disgusting!!!!
I thought Talk Radio is Trash pretty well summed it up. I usually tend to believe most people are intelligent. But when I hear or read people parrot talk radio arguments (as here) and leap to identify their villains (talk radio as we know it wouldn't exist without villains), my faith in humanity wavers a bit and I start to think: "how stupid can people be"?
A regular talk radio listener is the kind of person, who, when someone is poking and jabbing needle a needle in his back, won't turn around and see the perpetrator, but, instead, will hiss and growl at whoever or whatever was planted in front of him--even if it's only a shadow.
Even back in the day when I fancied myself a conservative, I knew that Rush wasn't saying anything particularly relevant. Now I see he and his progeny are, in fact, promoting something else, unrelated to conservatism (in the classical sense)--and all the while taking it to the bank.
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 12:24 PMSpeak for yourself, Anderson. You and "conservative media" are obviously a product of today's left wing public education in this country, unable to think critically.
That's OK with me. Continue to live in your own alternative universe...
Posted by RU Serious on May 5, 2007 12:32 PMCB: "But you are correct; abject ignorance has become quite popular."
Indeed. Some seem to take a peverse pride in showing it. Of course, when your media experience largely consists of listening to or watching a bunch of angry white guys appeal to ignorance, you might tend to think that is the norm.
Anonymous: "Speak for yourself, Anderson"
I did. Didn't I?
"You and "conservative media" are obviously a product of today's left wing public education in this country, unable to think critically."
I didn't make any references to conservative media. But you guys are never strong on details.
Glad to know you know your directions "left and right" well. I'm thinking that's about all you know. How did you, yourself, manage to avoid being a product of a "left wing public education"?"
Another thing, anonymous: when I got my "public education" it was well before the advent of talk radio as we currently know it (Limbaugh came on in the late 80s I believe), so we didn't engage in this idiocy of identifying everything as liberal or conservative. "The media" was just "media". But that's another characteristic of a talk radio listener, your historical perspective is about six months long on a good day.
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 12:49 PMWhat happened to Keith? I miss his venomous name-calling like the other righties that are posting here.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 01:10 PMSharon posts: "Liberals have too much to do."
Like what, raising taxes, dising our military and cut and running?
Posted by Joker on May 5, 2007 02:05 PMJoker,
Thanks for your profound thinking. Your name truly fits.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 02:47 PM"Indeed the MSM is not conservative or liberal. It is radically right wing."- Charles B
Wow. That says a lot about you Charles.
"So I'm in Colo. that means I'm suppose to be middle of the road? You bet I'm far left, and proud of it."- CM
And that is why you think we have a 'conservative' media. Left-center would look conservative to somebody who is "proud to be far left".
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 03:16 PMMike, you said:
"And that is why you think we have a 'conservative' media. Left-center would look conservative to somebody who is "proud to be far left"."You obviously missed the point I was making, which is strange because it's right there in the sentence you quoted.
"Indeed the MSM is not conservative or liberal. It is radically right wing."Mike, "conservative" doesn't mean what you think it does. I suggest you look up the definition and then we won't be talking past each other.
As for the above quote saying "a lot about" me, well, what does it say Mike? And please don't give me your simplistic little "you're so far left the middle looks right" rhetoric, because most of my views are quite moderate despite your misconceptions.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 03:53 PM"The media" was just "media"- Anderson
No, it was liberal then. It has been for quite a while. Cronkite, for example- the most trusted man in America indeed. There weren't any alternatives then.
We now have Fox (right center) in the MSM going up against the rest. It is certainly outnumbered but, at least it is a choice for those of us who prefer that perspective.
And, in the area of talk radio, conservatism dominates. It is striking a good balance between the liberally dominated MSM and the conservatively dominated 'new' media.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 03:58 PM"Mike, 'conservative' doesn't mean what you think it does. I suggest you look up the definition and then we won't be talking past each other."
I know what 'conservative' means, Charles. If we used definitions from long ago, then I would be called a 'Liberal'- I embrace change and innovation but, in today's terms, I am a conservative and you are a liberal.
"because most of my views are quite moderate despite your misconceptions."
Moderate how? Moderately conservative? Moderately liberal? Moderate is an adjective, not a noun.
I have read what you have written in many forums, Charles. I would call you well left of center. If you want to call yourself a 'moderate democrat', I guess that would be close. I would drop the 'moderate', though.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 04:08 PM"And that is why you think we have a 'conservative' media. Left-center would look conservative to somebody who is "proud to be far left"."
I never said that. I know the MSM is conservative. There's plenty of evidence to support it. Just google conservative media.
"We now have Fox (right center) in the MSM going up against the rest. It is certainly outnumbered but, at least it is a choice for those of us who prefer that perspective."
Fox Noise is so far to the right it's comical. Outnumbered by what? The rest of the main stream conservative media?
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 04:17 PMCM- You never said what? You DID say that you are "proud to be far left"; I identify the MSM as left-center, and I believe that left-center looks conservative to someone who is far left.
"Fox Noise is so far to the right it's comical. Outnumbered by what? The rest of the main stream conservative media?"
First of all, let's do without the silly names (Fox Noise, Faux News)- that's childish.
Again, that reveals your perspective. If you believe that Fox News is "so far to the right it's comical", then everything else is going to appear conservative.
Answer this for me: Is Rudy Giuliani right center, or far right?
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 04:33 PMMike:
"Moderate how? Moderately conservative? Moderately liberal? Moderate is an adjective, not a noun."
Not to speak for Charles, but moderate is both a noun and an adjective:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moderate
–adjective 1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4. calm or mild, as of the weather.
5. of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
–noun 6. a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
7. (usually initial capital letter) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.
"The media" was just "media"- Anderson
Mike: "No, it was liberal then."
Like I said before, we didn't have this idiocy of naming everything liberal or conservative then. I may not have been clear on this point but I was also suggesting there is a different meaning between "The media" (as in "the liberal media") and "media" (with the *gasp* possibility it is not all the same). Apparently, you didn't comprehend what I was saying cause you repeat the same sort of inane comment I was talking about. Or maybe you just disagree. That's alright. Stick to talk radio. They'll give you everything niice and easy, and without complication. You won't have to ask any questions. You won't even have to think. Just get mad, and you'll be with the program. It's you against your extensive roster of known enemies. Good luck with fear.
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 05:50 PM"–noun 6. a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
7. (usually initial capital letter) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform."
My apologies; it is also a noun. I think that is a somewhat recent usage, though. I don't remember anyone calling himself a 'moderate' 20 years ago.
I guess a better way to put it, is that it is a qualifier.
Charles is a moderate what?
He is opposed to extreme views or actions? Great, so am I.
He advocates moderate reform? In what direction? Toward a more limited government, or a more intrusive one?
To say you are a 'moderate' is to not announce your ideology; usually out of embarrassment, or because you think it undermines your argument.
I consider myself a right-center republican; conservative fiscally and militarily. I am socially conservative in my own life, but I don't care what you do in your life; it's none of my business.
How would you label yourself, Charles? And please don't tell me you don't like labels.
Anderson- I understand that not all media is the same. The MSM (where most of the great unwashed get their information) is DOMINATED by liberals. They aren't all liberals, but the majority is liberal.
"You won't have to ask any questions. You won't even have to think. Just get mad, and you'll be with the program. It's you against your extensive roster of known enemies. Good luck with fear."
That's an idiotic statement. I get information from many different sources; both liberal and conservative. 'Fear' has nothing to do with it. I just like to know the bias of the person who is supposedly presenting me with news; opinion is easier to discern.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 05:57 PMMike,
"And, in the area of talk radio, conservatism dominates. It is striking a good balance between the liberally dominated MSM and the conservatively dominated 'new' media."Once again you are wrong because talk radio is not "conservative". Also, "new media" is not conservative dominated. Most of the top rated political sites are left of center.
"I know what 'conservative' means, Charles. If we used definitions from long ago, then I would be called a 'Liberal'- I embrace change and innovation but, in today's terms, I am a conservative and you are a liberal."So for you it is "innovative" to change words to mean the opposite of what they once did. The only reason I can think of for doing that is to obfuscate and confuse the issues. This is the same kind of tactic that has turned "liberal" into a pejorative term, the "inheritance tax" into the "death tax", and Democratic into Democrat. It is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst blatant, Orwellian manipulation.
The purpose of the right wing noise machine is not to win arguments, but rather to muddy the waters, and getting suckers to latch onto their bogus terminology is half the battle.
"I have read what you have written in many forums, Charles. I would call you well left of center. If you want to call yourself a 'moderate democrat', I guess that would be close. I would drop the 'moderate', though."I've never once said I was a Democrat. You can call me whatever you want, just like you call radical ideas "conservative", but that doesn't make it true. I have only once voted for a Democrat in a Presidential election- in 2004.
Don't you think it's important to define the terms before arguing about their meaning?
Also, what forums have you read me in besides this one?
...You haven't.
Mike, don't mean to complicate things but do you have a definition of "liberal" and "conservative", or does one or the other other just stand for something you oppose? I mean, where' the line? Maybe like Frankfurter who famously said (with respect to porn) "I know it when I see it", you just know. But if I go by the same standard, and I'm standing in some place other than you, then we have competing subjective impressions of what's liberal or conserative (and forget any political views outside these terms) and there's really no objective basis for your claim that MSM is liberal, just your subjective impression. You say the MSM is dominated by liberals. Let's look at the Rocky Mountain News (RMN). They have their editorial staff (Temple, Carroll), their columnists, their reporters, their opinion columnists, letters to the editor, and forums like this. It seems to me there's a lot of variety of opinions there. Way, way more than talk radio. Or do you disagree? Do you have a definition for "main stream media"? Is talk radio mainstream? Blogs? Or, again, does MSM just represent something you oppose?
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 06:27 PMMike:
"How would you label yourself, Charles? And please don't tell me you don't like labels."I would label myself as an independant thinker with no use for dogmatic views. I can change my mind given new information and feel good about it. I am a skeptic first and formost and in this sense I am as conservative as they come.
By way of example, any real conservative would have argued vehemently against attacking Iraq, because they would have asked quite rightly "what can go wrong"? Instead, the radicals in the White House assumed it would be ice-cream and rainbows and you see how that turned out.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 06:37 PMI agree with Charles that talk radio is not conservative (at least not in the classical sense which means valuing one's history and tradition, and things that have stood the test of time)--and that they will twist words and concepts into whatever is the meaning of the day. My notion, in short, is that conservative and liberal represent an us v. them frame, and that is deliberate. That's just how they want you to see everything. Real conservatives don't value hate and division. Societies didn't and don't survive with that kind of mindset. Talk radio never looks to the past. They only look "against".
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 06:37 PM"Also, what forums have you read me in besides this one?
...You haven't."- Charles
I meant your numerous posts on numerous topics here.
"So for you it is "innovative" to change words to mean the opposite of what they once did."
I haven't changed the meanings.
"I've never once said I was a Democrat."
I never said you did. It is the impression I get from your posts on various topics.
"You say the MSM is dominated by liberals. Let's look at the Rocky Mountain News (RMN). They have their editorial staff (Temple, Carroll), their columnists, their reporters, their opinion columnists, letters to the editor, and forums like this. It seems to me there's a lot of variety of opinions there."- Anderson
Does the RMN count as the MSM? It is one newspaper in a small market.
"Do you have a definition for "main stream media"? "
Yes. I refer you back to my post from 9:32 this morning.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 06:43 PMOh, so you don't really have a definition except by way of those you oppose. That makes it pretty easy to say they are "liberal" then doesn't it. You didn't name the Wall St Journal, or Fox News, or the New York Post, or the Wash Times, or the Drudge report, or world net daily or talk radio (which you can hear coast to coast 24/7 wherever there is radio coverage) in your list. They must not be MSM. I see. I think MSM is code, not for main stream media (undefined) but for liberalism (also undefined but always opposed).
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 06:52 PManderson, you should take the time to read some more of Mike's posts. They don't seem to display an us vs. them mentality, although if you choose to attribute them such a tone, it wouldn't be surprising.
Posted by No use on May 5, 2007 07:03 PMSure they do. Mike's every post is peppered with qualifiers: left, far left, far-far left, too-far-to-the-left-to-see-left, liberal, conservative, etc., etc. Although we are able to, thankfully, exchange ideas here, and he doesn't display extreme opposition (as a few posters do), every thing is still framed as a dichotomy (two sides only), and by degree of opposition. Look at Mike Rosen's column, who Mike cited. He does the same thing.
Posted by anderson on May 5, 2007 07:16 PMIn the end, this all boils down simply to a matter of: "Stick a label on it; and that's what it is." Whether it be YOUR label, or MY label, nothing more.
Thus, if someone hears what he himself does not want to hear, it is labeled, "Wrong"; and what someone hears that he wants to hear is labeled, "Right".
And, unfortunately, this is now what passes itself off as "debate", "discussion", even "research", "evidence", and "proof"; with neither side bothering to consider content, context, meaning, or the possibility of complexity; especially a complexity that includes content from both labels, as well as from both parties labeling.
The multitude of sides, views, and potentials are simply disregarded in the rush to simplify it all into one or other labeled "60 second sound bite", which itself will then be judged not on, or by, any standard of accuracy - much less any fundamental concept of even basic truth (!) - but rather, on whether or not it fits under the particular label the hearer prefers to give it. And whether or not that label itself is the hearer's one of "Right" or "Wrong".
The time, energy, and effort wasted quarelling over labels is appalling. And the legacy of a great Republic, whose government was planned to be - in the words of one of its last statesmen - "of the people, by the people, and for the people", degenerates into nothing more than a set of slanging matches over which label to put on a plan, or a proposed legislative act, and every political idea.
So much potential future, and past greatness, lost to so much ado about nothing!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 5, 2007 07:30 PMMike said:
"I haven't changed the meanings."I never said you did, what I said was:
"So for you it is "innovative" to change words to mean the opposite of what they once did"Your rebuttal of a point I never made is a cheap debating tactic that serves to distract from the central point which you have yet to address:
What you call conservatism is in truth radicalism. Using the term "conservative" to label the current Republican party and the ideology they have embraced is simply dishonest.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 07:40 PMOG,
I'm not quarreling over labels, I'm quarreling over definitions. I am arguing against the tactic of deliberate obfuscation employed by so many, evident in the penchant they have for twisting the meaning of words and phrases. Arguing little points about definitions and such is an attempt to level the playing field so that a real dialogue about ideas can take place.
It may be a quixotic endeavor, but it's marginally better than slinging epithets.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 08:00 PMCharles B -12:16
Concerning the "study" you sited may I suggest an alternate study of Fox viewers compared to NPR and PBS partakers on the veracity of their knowledge on these subjects:
Sandy Bergers theft and destroying of classified documents.
William "$90,000 in my freezer"Jefferson.
Chris Dodd's tribute to Charles"KKK" Byrd that was nearly identical to Trent Lott's comments towards Strom Thurmond.
Dianne Feinstein's role, as ranking member of MILCON ,granting her husband's defense contracting businesses BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Air America stealing almost a MILLION DOLLARS from poor inner city children.
Smart money says Fox viewers know the scoop on these stories where PBS/NPR are clueless.
Why would this be Charles B. ???
Maybe because these stories would be front page headlines with daily follow ups for months if they WERE REPUBLICANS but since it is dirt on Dems it is ignored until Fox ,the internet and conservative talk radio report on it. Even then,the lib media will downplay and bury.
Overblow ,or downright make up
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/07/bogus-bush-scandals-recap.html -
conservative scandals while making a concerted effort to disregard any coverage of libs illegal activities or the failures of their agendas is common practice.
These were just quick examples off the top of my head.
I'm sure my like minded brethren can provide numerous more.
I'm really quite surprised you didn't provide a link to the piece done by,if I'm not mistaken, the moonbat division of psychiatry, "documenting" how conservative thinkers have brain abnormalities.
I'm sure it's coming though for further "proof" in your never ending ridiculous fight to discredit anything challenging your "progress" views.
GET REAL,
"I'm really quite surprised you didn't provide a link to the piece done by,if I'm not mistaken, the moonbat division of psychiatry, "documenting" how conservative thinkers have brain abnormalities."
I think your post is all the documentation needed.
You have addressed nothing. You ask me to consider an alternative study but don't provide a link or any relevant data. Your only citation is a low-end blog?
You imply that the study I cited is flawed by using the familiar "quotes", but don't bother to dispute the results, the methodology, or anything about it.
Lot's of words and no substance.
Posted by Charles B on May 5, 2007 09:05 PMGET REAL,
OUCH!
Posted by SPANKY on May 5, 2007 09:07 PMWhen our President says "you are either with us, or against us" that is the kind of statement conservative radio listeners love. It condences a large subject into a pin drop moment. Every time I try RWR, right wing radio, that is what I hear. And I can only take just so much schtick in any one day.
Now that we have terms like faux news and fox noise Mike complains. But femanazi for a woman who hates men, for whatever reason, is ok?
M. Savage once said what he does is burlesque and that with the exagerated voices and strange tone of voice is annoying.
Liberals are too busy, as in living their lives, to spend much time on any talk radio. I mean day after day, why that would be like if we posted here day after day aft...
Posted by Sharon B. on May 5, 2007 09:26 PMCharles B.
My suggested alternative study was a hypothetical one I posed to exemplify the hypocrisy in the MSM.
I thought I was quite clear but I'll make sure I'm more descriptive when addressing you and your special needs.
I would love to see a poll like that commissioned but the obvious results would not be reported.
Honestly now,
what would you guess the results would be? And why?
Charles B., Try carefully reading through any post before you deem fit to comment.It makes all the difference in the world to understand what you are responding to.Try it sometime.
Posted by SPANKY on May 5, 2007 09:59 PMBoth major parties, ceased to represent most Americans long ago and only are self serving to their own elites. There is really no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans as they exist now. What we need now is a party or parties which reflect the needs and the wants of we American citizens and not special interests and big business.
Posted by M-1 Carbine on May 5, 2007 10:01 PM"You didn't name the Wall St Journal, or Fox News, or the New York Post, or the Wash Times, or the Drudge report, or world net daily or talk radio (which you can hear coast to coast 24/7 wherever there is radio coverage) in your list."- Anderson
Wall St Journal- Liberal on news pages, conservative on editorial pages
Fox News- conservative
New York Post- conservative
Washington Times- conservative
Drudge Report- conservative opinion
World Net Daily- conservative opinion
Talk radio- conservative opinion
Of the 7 you listed, 3 are conservative in a news forum; the rest are opinion.
The more than a dozen I listed, present their liberal opinions as news.
You can always find conservative news sources, but I will stand by my statement that the MSM is DOMINATED by liberals.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 10:10 PMSharon- First of all, it's 'feminazi'; as in feminine.
"Liberals are too busy, as in living their lives, to spend much time on any talk radio. I mean day after day, why that would be like if we posted here day after day aft..."
Oh, okay. That's why Air America is a miserable failure? Its target audience is much too busy with more productive endeavors?
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 10:20 PMMike is sounding more and more like Rosen.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 10:36 PMThank you.
Posted by Mike on May 5, 2007 10:46 PMYou're welcome.
Posted by conservative media on May 5, 2007 10:52 PMM-1 Carbine is so wrong.Bill Clinton went to court and said that the Second Amendment is not the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms but is a State right.When Bush came to office his administration went to court and said it is an Individual Right to own a firearm.M-1 Carbine will be banned if Democrats have their way!!
Posted by Ron on May 6, 2007 07:54 AMFrom conservative media:
Mike is sounding more and more like Rosen.
If he starts resorting to "Mr. Hold Button" then you'll know for sure that's him. Rosen is the only talker I know of that is so incompetent and insecure that he can't live without that.
Posted by Liam on May 6, 2007 08:02 AMOne of the reason's why my show has monster ratings (again; the winter Arbitron book just came out and I sincerely thank my conservative, moderate and liberal audience for listening) and is not only the #1 (by far; no one is even close, including syndicated programs) news-talk program in the evening in the entire Denver metro market is because people of all political persuasions know their voice will be heard on the show. Of the nearly 50 stations (AM and FM) in this market, the "Gunny Bob Show" is #3 in its slot with only two shows above it and those are FM music programs. No matter what fanatics and hate merchants and bigots on the radical left say, they can't logically argue with the numbers and my audience's democragphics.
Sure, we frequent have vigorous debates, but that's part of the program and it makes for good radio, according to the callers and other listeners.
So once more, allow me to thank everyone for listening. I will keep giving you the best radio possible and welcome all voices. If you keep blowing my mind with amazing ratings, I will keep entertaining, informing and motivating you.
Posted by Gunny Bob on May 6, 2007 08:05 AMSorry for the typo. I haven't had any coffee yet.
Posted by Gunny Bob on May 6, 2007 08:11 AMNow if you culd only supply truthful facts on your show instead of spins and lies.
Posted by conservative media on May 6, 2007 09:01 AMCharles B - If the MSM really is "radically right wing" why is it you on the radically far left only spew hatred for Fox and Rush? If you believed what you posted we'd hear you trash NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc... but for some reason we never do.
Guess what CB, you're (full of crap) propaganda has just been exposed.
Posted by KW on May 6, 2007 09:07 AMCharles B,
Sorry to get back to you so late; but I wasn't on the web much after my posting.
When "label" IS - or substitutes for - "definition", what more is there to do? And, in the end, that's what this is all about.
The epithets are nothing more than sloppy labels, showing the limits of the person who always uses them.
The only thing left is trying to find a good music station; if, that is, one still feels a need to listen to the radio.
But then, there are "windmills" and "windmills". Best of luck with those you choose.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 09:40 AM"The epithets are nothing more than sloppy labels, showing the limits of the person who always uses them."
Right-wing talk radio
Right wing-nuts
Fox Noise
Faux News
"Indeed the MSM is not conservative or liberal. It is radically right wing."- Charles B
Sloppy labels, indeed.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 10:10 AMKW
"If you believed what you posted we'd hear you trash NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc... but for some reason we never do."
Go to mediamatters.org you'll find plenty of examples for all of those listed and I'd love to see you dispute any of their findings.
"Guess what CB, you're (full of crap) propaganda has just been exposed."
Better take a good look in the mirror KW.
Posted by conservative media on May 6, 2007 10:11 AMWell said KW
Posted by troll on May 6, 2007 10:20 AMleft-wing nuts
tree hugging liberals
lefties
Democrat (it's Democratic)
Air-head America
Sloppy labels, indeed.
Posted by conservative media on May 6, 2007 10:26 AMC Moron - I notice many people here like to refer to mediamatters to prove their point. Do you consider them nuetral and unbiased? Would you accept references from me that come from other such orgs like newsbusters?
Unlike mediamatters, newsbusters also will give credit to a news outlet for accurately reporting without the usual distortions most outlets resort to.
Besides, why would I go to medaimatters? To hear only what Soros wants me to hear?
Posted by KW on May 6, 2007 10:44 AMMike: "You can always find conservative news sources, but I will stand by my statement that the MSM is DOMINATED by liberals."
Fine, you don't care to define these terms in any sense except by taking sides (us or them). In essence, you let others define them for you.
I don't watch a lot of the American TV news channels, cause I see a lot of superficial reporting, special graphics designed to wow your brain, people dressed in suits designed you let you know they are someone you can trust, and constant self-promotion (that, before the commercial breaks). I see more similarities between CNN and Fox (or any of the other major networks) than differences. So what is that, Mike, liberal or conservative? I'm kinda lost without these labels to tell me what I should think. When we were invading Iraq in March, 2003, I distinctly remember that 99% of the coverage on all the channels you call MSM, was pro-invasion, trotting out one general after another to explain when where and how we were going to "get em". That includes NPR. All the TV networks had pet names for the invasion (Operation Iraqi Freedom *whoosh*, etc). So I want to know, where was your "MSM dominated by liberals" then? Were they on vacation, waiting to take back the reigns once the war was over?
CM- I wasn't the one complaining about labels; in fact, I use them quite frequently. I was pointing out that the only complaints have been coming from those on the left. They seem to be the ones who are most embarrassed to be identified; with your exception, of course.
"Fine, you don't care to define these terms in any sense except by taking sides (us or them). In essence, you let others define them for you."- Anderson
Actually, I have no problem defining terms.
Liberal- left of center
Conservative- right of center
MSM- left of center
Fox News- right of center
I think labels are important. I like to know the ideology of a news or opinion source, so I can take their information through that filter; whether it be conservative, or liberal.
To answer your last question. They were on the bandwagon with everyone else. The MSM is liberal but, above everything else, they are populists. If they think the public will like it, they will say it; much like most politicians.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 01:02 PMKW
Obviously by your post you know nothing about MM.
I suggest you take a look at MM. Everything is backed up with facts and their resources to prove it. If you think they are funded by Soros, you are wrong. They get no money what-so-ever from Soros. O'Reilly's little lie about that has been proven.
Moron, huh? Again take a good look in the mirror.
Posted by conservative media on May 6, 2007 01:20 PMWhat is the center? What does it look like?
Mike: "I think labels are important. I like to know the ideology of a news or opinion source, so I can take their information through that filter; whether it be conservative, or liberal."
Again, you affirm, in your own way, my point. Rather than take any bit of news on it's own merits, or lack thereof, you want to first identify your source as liberal or conservative, so your perception will be colored with that frame. The marketing people at our major media corp's love you, Mike. It's kind of sitting down to dinner and your host says: "Do you want Miller *or* Bud?" (Her guest list identifies everyone as a Miller man or a Bud man but she hadn't got you pegged yet). Maybe you want Fat Tire instead, or maybe you don't want beer at all.
Posted by matclone on May 6, 2007 01:45 PM"Rather than take any bit of news on it's (sic) own merits, or lack thereof, you want to first identify your source as liberal or conservative, so your perception will be colored with that frame."
Do you understand 'spin'? I like to know the ideology of the person presenting news, or opinions, to me. I am conservative. Do you think I would report a story the same way Anderson would? Do you think I would listen to the opinions of Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd the same way? Of course not. I don't take anything at face value, so I like knowing the biases of the persons presenting me with information.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 01:59 PM"'Do you want Miller *or* Bud?' (Her guest list identifies everyone as a Miller man or a Bud man but she hadn't got you pegged yet). Maybe you want Fat Tire instead, or maybe you don't want beer at all."
I would ask for water. Now, if she had some Sierra Nevada...
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 02:20 PMConservative Media-Charles B.,
Are you guys 911 truthers also?
Just wondering considering 35% of Democrats now believe Bush KNEW about 911 beforehand. Just as shocking, 26% AREN'T SURE!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
So now almost TWO THIRDS of dems have crossed over to loony land.
Any comments from you hardcore dem posters?
Posted by GET REAL on May 6, 2007 02:31 PMGET REAL:
"Just wondering considering 35% of Democrats now believe Bush KNEW about 911 beforehand. Just as shocking, 26% AREN'T SURE!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
So now almost TWO THIRDS of dems have crossed over to loony land."
Um, 35% isn't anywhere near two thirds, that would more like 66%.
Posted by on May 6, 2007 03:30 PMLike any good talk radio parrot, "Get Real" is more interested in squawking about a villain, (in this case "the democrats"), than in talking about anything of substance.
Saying Bush had something to do with 9-11 is about as silly as saying Sadaam had something to do with 9-11.
Posted by anderson on May 6, 2007 04:53 PMSo what you are saying, Mike, boils down to: When Channel 9 puts on a story about the tornado that hit Springfield, Kansas the other day, you won't believe it, until you've found out whether or not the newscaster is 'liberal" or "conservative", and what kind of 'spin" there is to the pictures of the damage?
And, logically,then, that also means that when the tornado sirens go off, you don't need to believe there's a tornado in the area, even if you happen to see a funnel cloud, because you first have to find out whether or not the cloud (or maybe the person switching on the siren, or both) is Democrat or Republican?
And the Blizzard of '82 (or the one last year) was only real, if it happened to be reported by the person wearing the label you prefer?
These things depend on the ideology of the reporter?
I'm left speechless!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 6, 2007 05:14 PM3:30-
I think the 26% that "aren't sure" can be safely grouped into the loonyland category,adding up to 61%.
Anderson-
There is an enormous amount of substance involved here and I would think it would interest you ,but,I realize it's hard to face uncomfortable facts.
You and your lib buddies in the MSM love spouting off polls undermining conservatives but when one comes out showing how whacked out members of the dem party are becoming that poll is somehow irrelevant and buried.
Reverse it to Republicans and it would be all over the news. The way it is ,it will get scant coverage .
BTW-I found this poll on the Rasmussen Poll website-not on talk radio.
Also -I'm glad you are not a truther.
Posted by GET REAL on May 6, 2007 05:19 PMGet Real,
One-Third of all people are ignorant, regardless of ideology.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 05:53 PMOG- "These things depend on the ideology of the reporter?"
No, and neither do the sports scores.
'Spin' would only apply to information that can be spun; wouldn't it?
I expect better from you, Old Grouch.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 05:58 PMGET REAL,
More than eighty percent of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus... talk about your crackpot theories. Christianity makes the tin-foil hat wearing 9-11 conspiracy theorists look downright normal.
Ignorance is the religion of many.
Posted by Charles B on May 6, 2007 06:08 PM"'Spin' would only apply to information that can be spun; wouldn't it?"
Everything comes with a political point of view (what you've been encouraged to call "spin"). Yes, it's hard to spin a baseball score, but sports stories all have a political slant. What do you think about Barry Bonds and how has media shaped your perception of him as a person? Why do athletes seldom say anything controversial, especially eschewing overtly political comments about, say, the war in Iraq, or Katrina? On the other hand, why do athletes always say controversial things about "approved" subjects--like trash talking opponents? Hmmm? Thank god football season ended last season because I don't think there was a single day in which ESPN didn't talk about T.O.
Weather? How about Katrina? Global warming. You don't think those stories have a political stance behind them?
The same corporations that shove "liberal v. conservative" down our throats, also want to deliniate that we confine political talk to only certain subjects. That makes it easier for them to fashion a product for your consumption.
Which gets back to my question before: liberal v. conservative implies a divide and a center. What does the center look like? How would you know it if it exists? Is it possible for "liberals" and "conservatives" to pass back and forth freely or are people forever one or the other? And are we only one or the other? This war has been going on for a while now--at least since the late 80s when talk radio arose (Quick: what were you in 1985?). Reminds me of WWI, where there was a lot of slaughter in the trenches, but no progress was made.
Posted by anderson on May 6, 2007 06:37 PMGET REAL:
"I think the 26% that "aren't sure" can be safely grouped into the loonyland category,adding up to 61%."
OK, I see.
Of all those surveyed (Republicans, Democrats an unaffiliated) 22% answered yes and 22% answered not sure so according to you, 44% are loony.
Think about that for a moment - are 44% of the people you know personally loony? You are pretty much saying that almost half the population is basically insane - do you really think that?????
Posted by on May 6, 2007 07:02 PM"Weather? How about Katrina? Global warming. You don't think those stories have a political stance behind them?"
Of course I do. Many issues can be spun.
But, the examples that Old Grouch threw out were silly.
"And the Blizzard of '82 (or the one last year) was only real, if it happened to be reported by the person wearing the label you prefer?"
Be serious.
"(Quick: what were you in 1985?)."
The same as I am now. When you are right, why change?
That was a joke; sort of.
Posted by Mike on May 6, 2007 07:11 PMHmmm...I lost count of how many pro-CCW letters the Rocky Mountain News immediately published after the VA Tech shooting...and how many responses to those letters were full of liberal bashing from posters on this forum.
I guess we're to blame for the VA Tech going berserk, too.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 09:11 AMtypo correction: the VA Tech shooter> going berserk.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 09:13 AMMike,
YOUR postings:
01:02 PM, 2nd Sentence:
"I like to know the ideology of a news or opinion source; so I can take their information through that filter . . . ."
01:59 PM, Last Sentence:
"I don't take anything at face value, so I like knowing the biases of the persons presenting me information".
How are my questions concerning examples of INFORMATION any sillier than that?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 7, 2007 09:15 AMmytwosense
The conservative media has already been blaming liberals for the shooting. Limbaugh, Boortz, Rosen etc.
Posted by conservative media on May 7, 2007 09:22 AMmytwosense
The conservative media has already been blaming liberals for the shooting. Limbaugh, Boortz, Rosen etc.
Are you serious?? My God, are these people trying to start a civil war in this country by inciting such hatred and fear???
I do not understand where this kind of hatred comes from. I just don't. I cannot imagine taking the deranged act of a deranged person and then turning it around on American citizens who happen to hold different political beliefs. Such an accusation would make about as much sense as me blaming the NRA for the VA Tech shooting.
-shakes head-
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 09:39 AMOld Grouch-
"How are my questions concerning examples of INFORMATION any sillier than that?"
Seriously?
"And the Blizzard of '82 (or the one last year) was only real, if it happened to be reported by the person wearing the label you prefer?"
Whether, or not, a blizzard happened cannot be spun by a reporter.
The ideology of a sports reporter is irrelevant if he is reporting the score of a game. There is no way he can alter the fact that they won, or lost. There is no reason to, either. Now, his bias can come into play if he chooses to blame a certain player or the manager for the loss.
When a reporter selects the quotes he puts in his story, he can spin the story based on his ideology. When an editor runs a story critical of democrats on page 52, and a story critical of republicans on page 1, you can see his bias.
Obviously, there is information that cannot be spun (the amount of cash in your wallet, the make and model of your car), but a lot of news stories can, and are, spun.
If Dan Rather reports a news story to you, are you going to receive it the same way that you would from Brit Hume?
If Maureen Dowd describes an event in her opinion column, are you going to look at it the same way that you would if it came from Ann Coulter?
Posted by Mike on May 7, 2007 10:17 AM"The conservative media has already been blaming liberals for the shooting. Limbaugh, Boortz, Rosen etc."
I don't listen to this stuff that much (it never changes anyway), but I remember in March, 2005, the Savage show (a guest host) screaming "The left killed Terri Schiavo!" (she was actually still alive at the time this comment was made). That's just a tip of the idiocy you hear on talk radio.
Twosense, I think all this hatred they spew is simply a Machievellian approach to politics. Anything goes. Talk radio is a frank appeal to fear and insecurity--think of Maslow's theory about the hierarchy of needs--hit em low and higher reason, including any thoughts of community, are likely to go by the wayside. Advertising, speaking engagements, books, newspaper columns etc etc. Hate sells. As disgusting as many of us find this, they've found a niche market.
Posted by anderson on May 7, 2007 10:21 AMTwosense, I think all this hatred they spew is simply a Machievellian approach to politics. Anything goes. Talk radio is a frank appeal to fear and insecurity--think of Maslow's theory about the hierarchy of needs--hit em low and higher reason, including any thoughts of community, are likely to go by the wayside. Advertising, speaking engagements, books, newspaper columns etc etc. Hate sells. As disgusting as many of us find this, they've found a niche market.
I actually think it's a bit more of a darker motive than just the bottom line of profits. It's a class war - and the ignorant are the pawns in the crossfire. The wanna-be Ruling Class scares the pawns so that they'll give up all of their economic interests and be content to be serfs again under the illusion that the Ruling Class will keep them safe and protected.
Kind of like how some kids side with schoolyard bullies and become their simpering sidekicks in order to survive, instead of sticking up for themselves.
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 10:39 AM
Mike: "The ideology of a sports reporter is irrelevant if he is reporting the score of a game. There is no way he can alter the fact that they won, or lost. There is no reason to, either. Now, his bias can come into play if he chooses to blame a certain player or the manager for the loss."
Mike, on one hand you argue that we should view our news with a critical eye (your Dowd-Coulter example). I think everyone would agree. But then you seek to eliminate pretty much all relevant context except for the liberal v. conservative frame (your example again: Dowd versus Coulter and democrats versus republicans--and sports reporting isn't political). There are many ways for a sports reporter to express a certain ideology, including what he reports (my T.O. example), and how it is reported.
It's reasonable to say there is a spectrum of political views, and you can reasonably say liberal and conservative fall on that spectrum. However, forcing issues into a liberal v. conservative paradigm, is all too often an artificial construction by a media organization selling you a product (news).
Hence, we get all these threads, filled with modifiers (left- right-) etc. It seems we can't talk about any important issue, say health care, without resorting to this Hatfields v. McCoys kind of thinking. And so I don't see Hatfield as a person who probably has a lot of things in common with me (family, work, the land we walk on). We never get to talk about those things because I see him only as a Hatfield. My enemy. That's all I need to know.
Posted by anderson on May 7, 2007 10:47 AMmytwosense, I don't disagree with your analysis (dark as it may be). I always wonder, though, what people in those positions (Sean Hannity for example) are actually thinking. They probably rationalize what they do in some way (as most of us do with respect to our work).
Posted by anderson on May 7, 2007 10:57 AMI just noticed your reference to the bully. Yeah, I often think of talk radio purveyors and fans as the bullying crowd. There's definitely a thug sort of mentality going on. It's also in the realm of juvenile thinking.
Posted by anderson on May 7, 2007 11:05 AM"Mike, on one hand you argue that we should view our news with a critical eye (your Dowd-Coulter example). I think everyone would agree. But then you seek to eliminate pretty much all relevant context except for the liberal v. conservative frame (your example again: Dowd versus Coulter and democrats versus republicans--and sports reporting isn't political). There are many ways for a sports reporter to express a certain ideology, including what he reports (my T.O. example), and how it is reported."
I agree that there are many ways that a reporter can express a certain ideology. I even mentioned a reporter blaming a player or manager for a loss (or excusing for that matter) based on his bias.
I have been concentrating on the liberal/conservative frame because the original letter was about "right-wing talk radio". And, that is the main conflict in political reporting.
I believe we can get past a political perspective and debate issues. But, I believe it is important to know one's ideology first. It helps with the context of one's argument. I don't disregard what that person says based on his ideology but, it can help me understand the basis for his argument; and help him understand the basis for mine.
Half the time I can`t understand M. Savage. What is a red diaper doper? When a woman was quoted by him, on some kind of gun contol, he called her a candy-a$$. What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Sean makes me think of those Elmer Gantry types, the ones who use an ideology for personal gain, or go home at night and yuck it up over people believing them.
right wing radio is for people wao need their opinions constantly reinforced and in the broadest most burlesque manner possible.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 7, 2007 12:47 PMSharon- "right wing radio is for people wao need their opinions constantly reinforced and in the broadest most burlesque manner possible."
And left-wing radio is for whom?
I know it's not a lot of people but, who are they?
Posted by Mike on May 7, 2007 12:51 PMQ. "And left-wing radio is for whom?"
A. For people who need their opinions constantly reinforced and in the broadest most burlesque manner possible.
If you don't know, the Clear Channel corp. owns the so-called "progressive" channel in Boulder as well as an entire network of stations where right-wing talk is broadcast.
Yes, I do know.
I was just checking to see if the same description applied to those on the left.
Sharon, is your answer the same as Anderson's?
Posted by Mike on May 7, 2007 01:06 PMMike,
One of the problems most often encountered all over the website, regardless of topic, is the rash generalization and overstatement. This is often coupled with an assertion that it (whatever is rashly generalized or overstated) is the result of a label, or comes from someone who has been labeled, or is typical of those who are given - or who are supposed to wear - the label. All, or any, of which may, or may not, be what the writer intended to say.
You used the generalization, "information", in this way, whatever you intended to write at the time. And, in doing so, you weakened your whole argument; and left a false impression as well. That false impression being an inability to distinguish sufficiently to present a logical premise.
Had you written ONLY, "opinion", "viewpoint", "story", "article", or other particular - or limited combination of such particulars - contained in the general, "information", I would not have had any questions to ask; nor would I have asked any. That would have been a perfectly applicable, and logical, expression of your opinion. But I couldn't resist going after the idea that "information" - as a generality - was something requiring knowledge of the bias of the person informing before you accepted it, or believed it.
Jest caint break them thar goldurn schoolmaster ways I got inta back some 60 yars ago, thet show up some times
Posted by Old Grouch on May 7, 2007 01:25 PMThe reason the liberals want to close talk radio is they want the liberal media to control the minds of the people.As long as we have talk radio the media can not control the minds of the people.
Posted by Ron on May 7, 2007 01:35 PMOld Grouch-
Anywhere I had placed 'information', please read: opinion, quotations, observations, alleged facts, statistics, polls, eyewitness accounts, etc...
It was much easier (and more concise) to use the word, 'information'.
Posted by Mike on May 7, 2007 01:40 PMRon said:
The reason the liberals want to close talk radio is they want the liberal media to control the minds of the people.
Where did you hear liberals want to close talk radio? From a talk radio host????
Posted by mytwosense on May 7, 2007 02:04 PM"As long as we have talk radio the media can not control the minds of the people."
It took me a moment but I get it. Talk radio isn't part of "the media" thus it can't control the minds of the people. That sounds like an Orwellian moment.
Do you ever wonder how a certain party rapidly gained strength in 1930's Germany?
Mytwosense, the direct answer to your question is probably "yes". The indirect answer is, I believe some have proposed a return to the "Fairness doctrine" in political campaigns (equal time). That, of course, would be an anathema to talk radio, whose entire schtick is built on showing only ONE point of view. If their audience were to be subject to conflicting opinions, even for a day, they might clutch their heads, fall to the floor, and scream in madness.