Talk Radio - No Fair!!!

[Inquartata]

your side of the aisle seeing that their hands can get bitten too.

Meh, be fair, Jeff: "gummed" is more like it.

Why? Some 47% (IIRC) of the voters sided with Kerry last time around, so there should be a market for non-conservative talk radio. Or can someone claim that the talk radio media format is inherently conducive to expressing conservative views, but not to liberal views?

If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because liberals are generally younger and thus are much less inclined to listen to people talking on the radio than in listening to music on their iPods or texting their friends on their cell phones. A generational thing, in other words.

[Slim]

Aisle, man, aisle.


Anyway, this is the point of view of one Democrat, not the whole party. (At least the article only mentioned one, I certainly hope it's not the whole party.)

The idea is ridiculous. If you listen to conservative talk radio, you're going to get the conservative point of view. If someone listening to it doesn't realize this, legislation is hardly going to change anything.

One democrat? I think not, my friend.

Of course it's a stupid idea. The lesson should have been learned last time it was tried.

[Inquartata]

Never underestimate a politician's propensity for scoring cheap rhetorical points with his or her base.

[jeff]

Jeff, really, when did slim come to these forums to actually consider the view point of the other side, instead of spouting overused talking points?

It was the last time hell froze over...

[Slim]

As a general rule, giving equal voice to both sides of an argument is stupid. Many points do not have a legitimate counter argument, and it leads to idiotic ideas such as teaching creationisim in a science classroom because stuff just has to be balanced.

Hmm. I've read this a few times. You've either run out of scarasm mid thought, or you feel there really is an issue with opposing viewpoints. I'd hope it was the former.

[jessicasimpson]

http://www.annenberg.northwestern.ed...tabloids04.htm

My favorite part:
Quote:
According to a new study by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, talk radio listeners think they know more than other people but actually answer less accurately on public affairs questions. Jamieson's research tracked how citizens learned about the health care reform debate over a nine-month period in 1994. "At the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio and...asked them how well informed they felt. We had been watching their level of information across the process. Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.

[Have At You]

Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.

So that justifies putting speech restrictions on the radio programs they listened to?

[Slim]

Never underestimate a politician's propensity for scoring cheap rhetorical points with his or her base.

If it were that innocuous a reason, I'd probably be ok with it. But I dont think it is. Now Kerry is piling on, and he has no real political future.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6pwU0FygLlY

[Slim]

Meh, be fair, Jeff: "gummed" is more like it.






If I had to guess, I'd say that it's because liberals are generally younger and thus are much less inclined to listen to people talking on the radio than in listening to music on their iPods or texting their friends on their cell phones. A generational thing, in other words.

One theory is that since radio could be considered a background form of information that does not require complete attention as does watching television for instance, one can listen to it while participating in other activities, such as driving to and from work. In fact, so called "drive time" talk radio has some of the highest ratings out there, lending some credence to this theory.

An interesting statistic would be to see the % of unemployed that regard themselves as liberal vs. conservative. I'd guess its pretty lopsided towards the liberal side. Another one would be to see the % of commuters who regard themselves as liberal vs. conservative. I'd wager the conservatives would be a higher %.

I dont imagine % of unemployed conservative talk radio listeners is very large compared to % of unemployed AirAmerica listeners and this could be part of the reason AirAmerica has failed so miserably. Who wants to spend advertising $$ on an audience that cant buy anything?

[telkanuru]

Hmm. I've read this a few times. You've either run out of scarasm mid thought, or you feel there really is an issue with opposing viewpoints. I'd hope it was the former.

Of course there really is an issue with opposing viewpoints. Not all opinions should hold equal weight or be given equal (or, in some cases, any) time or consideration.

The example of this I gave was evolution in public school's science programs. A lot of creationist groups (read: morons) are trying to get it taught under the argument that their version of events has a right to be heard. However, this argument isn't legitimate for a number of reasons, not the least being the fact that none of their beliefs have anything to do with science. It could be my opinion that earth was formed by benevolent flying space monkeys; it doesn't mean I have the right to have my belief put along side one that has facts and things to support it.

My main point is that most news programs (notable exception being fox) are falling over themselves to at least seem like their giving voice to all sides of an argument, even if one side of an argument is an idiot. Places who don't do this often are criticized for a "liberal bias". News Flash: the truth has a liberal bias.

[telkanuru]

An interesting statistic would be to see the % of unemployed that regard themselves as liberal vs. conservative. I'd guess its pretty lopsided towards the liberal side. Another one would be to see the % of commuters who regard themselves as liberal vs. conservative. I'd wager the conservatives would be a higher %.

I'd wager you're dead wrong.

[jeff]

Yeah, I'd wager he's wrong too. After all, my totally uninformed wild guesses and cheesy stereotypes are just as good as his! After all, the disadvantage AirAmerica had compared to conservative talk radio is that their listeners learned how to read, while Limbaugh's fans have to get their information by having it spoken out loud to them.

[Slim]

Yeah, I'd wager he's wrong too. After all, my totally uninformed wild guesses and cheesy stereotypes are just as good as his! After all, the disadvantage AirAmerica had compared to conservative talk radio is that their listeners learned how to read, while Limbaugh's fans have to get their information by having it spoken out loud to them.

Heh, Heh. Good one.

I hate to break it to you, but Rush Limbaugh isn't the only game in town.

[jeff]

I know that, but I didn't have all day...

BTW, Telk raises an important point: Creationists use a variety of "fairness" argument to try to push their agenda in the public school. (They explicitly describe this as their strategy). After all, nobody wants to appear "unfair", which gives them their entry point. Problem is, not all viewpoints are equally worthy - or we would have equal obligation to give time to people who believe the world is flat.

[Slim]

Of course there really is an issue with opposing viewpoints. Not all opinions should hold equal weight or be given equal (or, in some cases, any) time or consideration.

Now there's a thought. And I suppose you'll be the arbiter of what ideas you deem legitimate enough to be heard by the great unwashed masses? I think there are even entire forms of government based inpart on this idea. Bravo.

The example of this I gave was evolution in public school's science programs. A lot of creationist groups (read: morons) are trying to get it taught under the argument that their version of events has a right to be heard. However, this argument isn't legitimate for a number of reasons, not the least being the fact that none of their beliefs have anything to do with science. It could be my opinion that earth was formed by benevolent flying space monkeys; it doesn't mean I have the right to have my belief put along side one that has facts and things to support it.

It's a poor example, and out of context here, as you surely know. The context of this thread is the "Fairness Doctrine". You've just taken the opportunity to slam creationists. Well done. How about a "Bush is an idiot" plug while you're at it?

My main point is that most news programs (notable exception being fox) are falling over themselves to at least seem like their giving voice to all sides of an argument, even if one side of an argument is an idiot. Places who don't do this often are criticized for a "liberal bias". News Flash: the truth has a liberal bias.

Ok, now you're back on track. Based on what you've attempted to say, I'll take it you're a fan and fine with seeing the "Fairness Doctrine" revived?

So, truth has a liberal bias, eh? Sounds profound perhaps and makes for a really neat bumper sticker to put next to your "Impeach Bush," ones, but really now... WTF is it supposed to mean???

[Slim]

I know that, but I didn't have all day...

BTW, Telk raises an important point: Creationists use a variety of "fairness" argument to try to push their agenda in the public school. (They explicitly describe this as their strategy). After all, nobody wants to appear "unfair", which gives them their entry point. Problem is, not all viewpoints are equally worthy - or we would have equal obligation to give time to people who believe the world is flat.

Another one. Great. "Not all viewpoints are equally worthy". Don't you find this a bit elitist? Do you think someone professing the world is flat would have an audience for very long? Or, are you afraid people are too stupid to make up their own minds, and therefore need to be "protected" ?

Setting the curriculum at a school is not what we are talking about here. As I stated to Telk, it's a different discussion all together. The thread was started to discuss the fear of talk radio and using the fairness doctrine to stifle opposing viewpoints.

Since you mention it, my kids are not taught Intelligent Design in school. They were, however, forced to learn about the koran and the religion of peace.

[Slim]

Now Durbin is on board.....

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

[jessicasimpson]

Or, are you afraid people are too stupid to make up their own minds, and therefore need to be "protected" ?

That is exactly what the study I posted earlier shows. People who get their news from talk radio think they kow the most, but end up knowing the least.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

If it were that innocuous a reason, I'd probably be ok with it. But I dont think it is. Now Kerry is piling on, and he has no real political future.

You know, once upon a time they said the same about Nixon too. Didn´t turn out right that way.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

Another one. Great. "Not all viewpoints are equally worthy". Don't you find this a bit elitist? Do you think someone professing the world is flat would have an audience for very long? Or, are you afraid people are too stupid to make up their own minds, and therefore need to be "protected" ?

Setting the curriculum at a school is not what we are talking about here. As I stated to Telk, it's a different discussion all together. The thread was started to discuss the fear of talk radio and using the fairness doctrine to stifle opposing viewpoints.

Since you mention it, my kids are not taught Intelligent Design in school. They were, however, forced to learn about the koran and the religion of peace.

Context is all, Slim. When I refer to 'misuse of "fairness" in school curriculum', I mean 'misuse of "fairness" in school curriculum'. I've already referred to bipartisan abuse of the FCC-style fairness doctrine, but you were too busy to notice.

To your last point: I see nothing wrong with teaching your kids about the Koran, provided they are not being taught it's holy truth. Which takes us back to the creationists who do want their religion taught as the holy truth in the public schools. I know it's a different topic, but I'm expecting you to brace yourself enough to hold two different thoughts in your head at the same time.

Jessica: that study explains a lot, doesn't it...

Peter - good catch!