Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Mar '10 17:19
    http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

    I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
  2. 23 Mar '10 17:57 / 3 edits
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that people like Rush or Beck don't really believe in much (or even any) of what they say. They've discovered a lucrative format and will keep at for as long as someone's willing to pay them to do it.

    I remember back in the 1990's in the New York area, WABC (770) had a talkshow host named Jay Diamond. He was the kind of grumpy conservative that WABC liked to air. He was sometimes funny to listen to, especially when he would periodically foam at the mouth over certain things. His reaction to Farrakhan's Million Man March in 1995 was especially hilarious.

    Anyway, somewhere in there WABC fired him, and I thought that was the end of his program. Then sometime after 2000, I was surprised to find he was on the air again on WEVD (1050). Same Jay Diamond. Same partisan outrage. Same style of humor. Same foaming at the mouth. Except now he had totally changed his political position to liberal. Both versions of Diamond seemed to be completely genuine, but clearly at least one of them (probably both of them) had to be totally phony. It was really bizarre.

    At that moment, I realized that many of these talkshow hosts are just a bunch of really good actors being paid to provide a certain "point of view" for a given radio or TV station's audience. Some of them may indeed be genuine, but how would the listener ever be able to tell the difference?
  3. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    23 Mar '10 18:02
    Originally posted by Palynka
    http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

    I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are ...[text shortened]... they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
    Modern day version of Punch 'n Judy. Old as government itself: keep the dolts entertained, and they'll let you get away with anything. Anything.
  4. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    23 Mar '10 18:12
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that people like Rush or Beck don't really believe in much (or even any) of what they say.
    I think that's absolutely true, and the reason why I didn't agree with this part of the article (though I think most of it is right on the dime):


    If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.


    There are always new things to get people pissed off about. Unless the democrats disappear completely (and they won't) they'll always be a target for anger. And if the democrats aren't the target, there will always be another target (foreign countries, "terrorists", or whatever else).
  5. 23 Mar '10 18:12
    I've always found talk radio rather odd. Why do you need some angry dude to tell you what you should think?

    Then again, I find radio itself rather odd now that you have access to all the music in the world through the internet.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Mar '10 18:28
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I've always found talk radio rather odd. Why do you need some angry dude to tell you what you should think?

    Then again, I find radio itself rather odd now that you have access to all the music in the world through the internet.
    Semi-irrelevant teaching tip - social interaction and validation is very important for learners to construct knowledge.
  7. 23 Mar '10 18:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Semi-irrelevant teaching tip - social interaction and validation is very important for learners to construct knowledge.
    Not quite getting your point... If you want to learn something, why go to someone you know beforehand you can't trust? It's like going to a priest to learn about evolution. Then again, a lot of people do that.
  8. 23 Mar '10 19:09
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Modern day version of Punch 'n Judy. Old as government itself: keep the dolts entertained, and they'll let you get away with anything. Anything.
    Do you suspect only talk radio hosts of this?

    Do you also suspect that liberal politicians do the same thing? (e.g. keep them angry, serve up an enemy, etc.).
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Mar '10 19:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Not quite getting your point... If you want to learn something, why go to someone you know beforehand you can't trust? It's like going to a priest to learn about evolution. Then again, a lot of people do that.
    There is no point. I'm constructing my own knowledge of constructivist learning by socializing with you about how learners construct knowledge through social interaction.
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Mar '10 19:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    There is no point. I'm constructing my own knowledge of constructivist learning by socializing with you about how learners construct knowledge through social interaction.
    Tip: It's not osmosis.
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Mar '10 19:21
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Some of them may indeed be genuine, but how would the listener ever be able to tell the difference?
    The corollary is to avoid having a favourite show or, even better, listen to the ones you disagree with. Since you don't agree with the speaker, you don't empathize with the outrage and so are less likely to be misled through emotion.
  12. 23 Mar '10 20:12
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Tip: It's not osmosis.
    more like injection via sandpaper.
  13. 23 Mar '10 20:13
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that people like Rush or Beck don't really believe in much (or even any) of what they say. They've discovered a lucrative format and will keep at for as long as someone's willing to pay them to do it.

    I remember back in the 1990's in the New York area, WABC (770) had a talkshow host named Jay Diamond. He ...[text shortened]... may indeed be genuine, but how would the listener ever be able to tell the difference?
    he's got a cover story.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Diamond

    Jay Diamond is an American talk radio host from the Manhattan Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn who began his move to the mic by being a frequent caller to other radio programs, especially New York City's popular Bob Grant show. Initially conservative, Diamond's politics began shifting leftward sometime in the late 1990s as he became dissatisfied with the pro-big business, pro-wealthy corporate conservatism of the 1990s and 2000s.

    ...
  14. 23 Mar '10 20:15
    belief vs. ruthlessness: who makes it to the top?
  15. 23 Mar '10 20:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    he's got a cover story.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Diamond

    Jay Diamond is an American talk radio host from the Manhattan Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn who began his move to the mic by being a frequent caller to other radio programs, especially New York City's popular Bob Grant show. Initially conservative, Diamond's politics began shifting lef ...[text shortened]... with the pro-big business, pro-wealthy corporate conservatism of the 1990s and 2000s.

    ...
    I'm aware of the wikipedia entry.

    But I doubt that he just "became dissatisfied with the pro big-business, pro-wealthy corporate conservatism" - although I'm sure that would be the answer he would give you if you asked why he had "changed his views".

    He may have merely become dissatisfied with pretending to be a conservative just to please his boss at WABC, especially after they fired him - or perhaps he was a true conservative who became dissatisfied with being overshadowed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and felt it would be more financially rewarding to stake a claim in the less inhabited field of left-wing ranting.

    Or perhaps he really did "see the light" and did a genuine 180 shift in his positions.

    What's your view on this?