Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Right Wing Radio is an Embarrassment

  1. #21
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2651221]Unfortunately in the mad rush for ratings everybody on both sides has been all too eager to blur the lines between news and opinion.

    It didn't used to be this way. Reporters used to be able to investigate corruption without being accused of bias.[/QUOTE]

    Sure.

    And Reporters, newspapers and TV Networks used to be able to simply BE biased, and no one would call them out on it.

    Ah, the good old days, eh? Not exactly.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2651237]But television hosts...they are the voice of moderation and reason (provided they are not on Fox). Correct?

    It's all entertainment. And good for them all.

    I think Rush makes as much as Howard Stern - you going to badmouth that gig as...unprofessional? Right.[/QUOTE]

    Boy, talk about jumping to conclusions.

    I said in my first post that this applied to both sides, amazing how you assumed I was only referring to neocons. :rolleyes:

    Howard Stern does not promote his show as being "news" in any way shape or form. Rush promotes his show as political analysis. O'Reilly, perhaps the biggest idiot on the planet, refers to the "no-spin zone" and then repeatedly spins everything that comes across his desk. Olbermann seems to think that whining louder makes him right.

    Not to mention that when you are providing what is supposed to be analysis, even it is clearly stated as biased opinion, you do have a responsibility to get the facts straight.

    Also, when you are trying to hold politicians to a higher standard of consistency, in order to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain in their head, regardless of political persuasion, you must first demonstrate that consistency yourself.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2651255]Sure.

    And Reporters, newspapers and TV Networks used to be able to simply BE biased, and no one would call them out on it.

    Ah, the good old days, eh? Not exactly.[/QUOTE]

    Not really. That is simply the cry of the uninformed biased analyst.

    There was a time when reporters and editors knew the difference between news and opinion and understood that a good news story was a good news story regardless of political persuasion.

    The press is supposed to be there to keep those in power honest and used to do a pretty damn good job of it. Unfortunately in recent years they have morphed into propaganda instruments with every publication and media outlet choosing sides and reporting spin and not news.

  4. #24
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2651203]Actually, they're not professionals in any sense of the word, and I am talking about political radio hosts of every persuasion here.

    They are actually shameless whores, appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to get ratings.

    Truth and facts have no business on their shows, only exaggeration and hyperbole.

    The sad part is that people confuse these programs with the news.[/QUOTE]

    Blame the stations that hire them. Imus was able to form a lawsuit against the guys that fired him because his contract stipulated that he engage in controversial discussions.

  5. #25
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2651221]Unfortunately in the mad rush for ratings everybody on both sides has been all too eager to blur the lines between news and opinion.

    It didn't used to be this way. Reporters used to be able to investigate corruption without being accused of bias.[/QUOTE]

    Only trustworthy ones. Tim Russert was able to go after everyone because he was well-liked, well-read, and well-informed.

    Dan Rather, on the other hand, had a virtual vendetta against the Bush administration and ruined his career by pushing some phony documents.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2651285]Only trustworthy ones. Tim Russert was able to go after everyone because he was well-liked, well-read, and well-informed.

    Dan Rather, on the other hand, had a virtual vendetta against the Bush administration and ruined his career by pushing some phony documents.[/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately for every Tim Russert, there are 50 Bill O'Reillys and Keith Olbermanns.

    Too many journalists take the easy road of sensationalism to success rather than building a reputation of fairness.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Please don't forget "the most trusted man in America" Walter the lying scum-bag Croncrite After the Tet offencive saying "this war is lost" Tet was an abject failure and a Viet-cong high comand General years later would say" we were about to give up taking over S. Vietnam if it were not for your media." You libs hate the fact that you controled the media for 50 years and now there are other scorces.So thanks to pieces of sh8it like uncle wally and other(mainstream journalist, joke inserted) you have millions of people suffering under commie's. or how about Caty coric attacking Barbra Bush with venom (about policy, which she was nowhere near involved with) when her husband was running for president and Then asking Mrs. Clinton "what kind of cookies do you bake for husband" What a Joke.

  8. #28
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2651291]Unfortunately for every Tim Russert, there are 50 Bill O'Reillys and Keith Olbermanns.

    Too many journalists take the easy road of sensationalism to success rather than building a reputation of fairness.[/QUOTE]

    O'Reilly and Olbermann are pundits though. They don't deliver news, they deliver commentary.

    I brought up Rather because he was a straight up, old school newsman who allowed his own personal bias to get the best of him. He deserved what he got.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2651323]O'Reilly and Olbermann are pundits though. They don't deliver news, they deliver commentary.

    I brought up Rather because he was a straight up, old school newsman who allowed his own personal bias to get the best of him. He deserved what he got.[/QUOTE]

    I never viewed Rather as a newsman. I always viewed him as a goofy prick.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;2650747]I'm middle of the road, one of these swing voters the press is always talking about. But the right wing radio i've heard lately is so out there I've started to view the Republicans as the party of insaniacs.[/QUOTE]

    Can you give specifics? Btw, are you flyfishing in thos ewaders?

  11. #31
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2651333]I never viewed Rather as a newsman. I always viewed him as a goofy prick.[/QUOTE]

    haha, well, in the end you were right

  12. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2651071]Thats a fair answer, of course.

    But with that said, one cannot (as I see it) give an educated or objective opinion on right-wing radio pundits if they have no experience listening to their left-wing brethren.

    It's very easy, especially if one is liberal-minded, to bash a Limbaugh. It's pretty obvious that someone who is liberal will not agree with him on most issues, and would find reason to exploit anything they can in what he says.

    However if one has no experience with his left-learning opponents, the bashing tends to come across as simply "political bias as usual". One can certainly say Limbaugh is wrong or even dishonest or similar, but if they do not listen to Air America, or (worse IMO) are unable to see that Air America is exactly the same if not even more aggressive in their propaganda pushing dishonesty (since the smaller guy always has to yell louder to be heard), then it really is just the same old bias at work to have a thread bashing one side of the political propaganda/political talk spectrum.[/QUOTE]

    I'm one of the few people who's listened to both Rush Limbaugh AND Air America so I think I can make a fair assessment of both.

    I grew up listenting to Rush Limbaugh. I even watched his tv show when it was on Fox 5. I stopped being a Republican before 9/11 and Iraq and the neoconservative movement took a strangle-hold of our country's foriegn policy.

    To be fair to Limbaugh - he puts on an entertaining show. Are most, if not all of his opinions wrong? I think so but that's just my opinion. The difference between him and the O'Reilly's, Hannity's, Savage's and Coulter's is that Rush is actually a good talk show host - whether his opinions are wrong or not I will get into that.

    That being said Rush Limbaugh really is a piece of human excrement. He dodged the Vietnam War with a very lame excuse and then like a good hypocrite bashed Clinton to no end for doing the same thing. He's all anti-drug and for putting drug dealers behind bars and keeping marujuana illegal meanwhile he's abusing prescription drugs hardcore and even threatening sick women to get the junk for him.

    As for Air America I thought it had it's ups and downs. Obviously the network is pretty much a ghost by now - mediocre ratings plus corporate boycotts caught up to it. Franken had a good show and he's not the pit bull attack dog Limbaugh and O'Reilly are, if anything he was too nice and too classy. Sam Seder and Randi Rhodes were both very good broadcasters with entertaining shows, Janeane Garofalo was a disaster and should have never been allowed on the network.

    Getting back to the subject of right-wing radio - most of the people on it are hacks. Anyone who is right-wing can get a radio show and make money pretty much. I can go on the radio and complain about being oppressed by environmentalists for 5 hours a day and I'd probably get a good share in the ratings.
    Last edited by VincenzoTestaverde; 07-31-2008 at 04:28 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us