149 replies to this topic

[rwac]

I think you are confusing vitriol with wit.

Rush tends to be very hyperbolic. It's easy to take his words out of context.

[maxwatt]

I think you are confusing vitriol with wit.

Rush tends to be very hyperbolic. It's easy to take his words out of context.

His words are still offensive to his targets if not in outright bad taste, and I think meant to be so. E.g.: "Jared Lee Loughner has the 'Full Support' of Democrats".

On a related note, this is uncanny:



Separated at Birth?

[rwac]

His words are still offensive to his targets if not in outright bad taste, and I think meant to be so. E.g.: "Jared Lee Loughner has the 'Full Support' of Democrats".

On a related note, this is uncanny:

Separated at Birth?

Bad taste ? That's the extent of your claim ? Anyway, the sentence in quotes is about as true as blaming the tea party for Loughner.

Can you say photoshop ?

[david ellis]

I think you are confusing vitriol with wit.

Rush tends to be very hyperbolic. It's easy to take his words out of context.

It is a shame that you have to alibi your friends so often. Maybe you should hang out with more reputable folks.

[maxwatt]

His words are still offensive to his targets if not in outright bad taste, and I think meant to be so. E.g.: "Jared Lee Loughner has the 'Full Support' of Democrats".

On a related note, this is uncanny:

Separated at Birth?

Bad taste ? That's the extent of your claim ? Anyway, the sentence in quotes is about as true as blaming the tea party for Loughner.

I could say a lot more but I don't want to stoop to his level.
The Tea Party certainly isn't responsible for Loghner's heinous act, but those who stir them up with paranoid visions of the government bear no little responsibility. Harold Meyerson: Dangerous outcomes from a culture of paranoia

Edited by maxwatt, 14 January 2011 - 03:49 AM.

[rwac]

I could say a lot more but I don't want to stoop to his level.
The Tea Party certainly isn't responsible for Loghner's heinous act, but those who stir them up with paranoid visions of the government bear no little responsibility. Harold Meyerson: Dangerous outcomes from a culture of paranoia

Yes, insinuation is quite hard to rebut.

The guy who flew a plane into the IRS building ? He speaks favorably of the communist creed.
The guy who shot people in Pittsburgh ? He was white supremacist and a member of stormfront.
We already know about Loughner.

None of these guys sounds like they listen to Rush Limbaugh all that much.

"Culture of paranoia" sounds like an expression someone would use when there's no evidence of any sort linking the violence with right wing radio.

[niner]

Rush Limbaugh is paid millions of dollars as an "entertainer". He doesn't claim to be a journalist, so he is free to lie and distort, which he does a lot. His shtick is the demonization of "liberals", which he expands to include all Democrats. He makes a lot of money because his shtick sells. There is a big audience for it, consisting largely (though not exclusively) of people who are on the wrong side of a number of trends: Globalization, an information economy that places a premium on education, a political system that favors the wealthy over them, and demographic trends leading toward an eventual loss of majority status for Whites. The fact that these people enjoy Limbaugh's demonization and listen to it in large numbers doesn't mean it's good any more than cigarettes are good because a lot of people smoke.

A culture of demonization of Democrats, demonization of government, and violent imagery doesn't "cause" particular events, and no one is claiming a direct causal connection. But ask yourself this: Will such a culture make a violent political event more likely, or less likely?

Jared Loughner could have caused mayhem in any number of ways. He could have shot up a school, a mall, a church, or a football game. He chose to shoot a Democratic Representative and her supporters. That fact makes this a political event. I wish I could say that I thought things would change, but the demonization continues apace. Money talks.

[maxwatt]

I could say a lot more but I don't want to stoop to his level.
The Tea Party certainly isn't responsible for Loghner's heinous act, but those who stir them up with paranoid visions of the government bear no little responsibility. Harold Meyerson: Dangerous outcomes from a culture of paranoia

Yes, insinuation is quite hard to rebut.

The guy who flew a plane into the IRS building ? He speaks favorably of the communist creed.

He was a nut, and the bloviating right makes much of a manifest posted on a blog he allegedly kept, inferring from his anti-government ramblings that he was a communist. He paraphrased Marx once, supposedly this makes him communist? (* below) He belonged to no organized party. Wait, he must have been a democrat then.

The guy who shot people in Pittsburgh ? He was white supremacist and a member of stormfront.

You can read his sad story here;Another unstable nut who bought into the conspiracies that talk radio and Fox televison keep summoning out of the ether. Stormfront members would show up at PAlin rallies, much to her embarrassment.

We already know about Loughner.

None of these guys sounds like they listen to Rush Limbaugh all that much.

"Culture of paranoia" sounds like an expression someone would use when there's no evidence of any sort linking the violence with right wing radio.

If you look into these cases, I think it strengthens the argument: fanning the flames of irrationality makes such events more likely. It doesn't matter if you pour gasoline on the right or left side of a fire. These commentators know their stories are false and inflammatory, but they sell. Dante reserved a circle in hell for such sinners. Ailes is reported to have told his Fox employees to tone it down after Loughner's rampage.

*What Joe Stack actually wrote:
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

This no more makes him a Communist than a cup of water.

[rwac]

If you look into these cases, I think it strengthens the argument: fanning the flames of irrationality makes such events more likely. It doesn't matter if you pour gasoline on the right or left side of a fire. These commentators know their stories are false and inflammatory, but they sell. Dante reserved a circle in hell for such sinners. Ailes is reported to have told his Fox employees to tone it down after Loughner's rampage.

You can read his sad story here;Another unstable nut who bought into the conspiracies that talk radio and Fox televison keep summoning out of the ether. Stormfront members would show up at PAlin rallies, much to her embarrassment.

*What Joe Stack actually wrote:
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

This no more makes him a Communist than a cup of water.

"Know their stories are false and inflammatory" ? really ? I seriously doubt that.
"makes such events more likely" is very vague. Do you really want the government to go after anyone who fits such a vague definition ?

Ailes was not accepting responsibility, merely being prudent.

If the right wing has been so vitriolic, why is there so much violence (rhetorical and physical) from the left wing ?

http://michellemalki...imer-2000-2010/

Joe Stack doesn't sound like a "capitalist" in any case. And his hate was directed at the IRS, I don't recall very many rants directed in that direction.

There have been assassinations and mass killings long before talk radio. You can't blame it on talk radio anymore than you can blame it on violence on tv or rap videos or grand theft auto.

[Brainbox]

Well, if it is to much diversity, it's diversity of the wrong kind on the wrong side. What I did mean to express is that with a two party system, it is difficult for one of the parties to attract half or more of the electorate without the need to resort to indoctrination and demagogy. Otherwise it is impossible to attract an omnifarious group of followers to one single political movement. Furthermore, the endless and boring contradictions between these two parties, that are continuing for decades without fundamental changes, do ask for creative debating. I think that's to much to ask from current modern politicians.

So, more diversity in the political movements, hence at least 4 or 5 political parties, would introduce a better intrinsic match with the opinions of the population. Changes in coalitions from governmental period to period will introduce more variation in the political landscape and context of debates. It will keep itself fresh and fruity.

The current political situation is dictated by boredom. Politicians and the electorate are literally bored to death by the two party dogma that goes on and on and on..

Be careful what you wish for. I wish times were boring here. What is going on is a revolution has occurred. We are divided, and the dominant philosophy is the extreme right. It is a very different country than it was 25 years or so ago. Before when business got too powerful we passed laws to control them. All of those leashes are off and the country is run by gigantic corporations and an oligopoly class. Proof of that is who was rescued in the recession. Not people, but huge corporations. Additional proof is that there is no plan to rescue and create jobs for the millions out of work. Middle class income has declined over the last 20 years and will fall quickly now that globalization is complete. It is not a pretty picture.

A late reply, better late then never.... :-)

"Proof of that is who was rescued in the recession". In the EU the situation regarding the rescue of big corporations, mainly banks in our case, is quite the same. And I'm convinced that in our case we are not politically run by the big corporations. So there can (and probably must) be different reasons that this is happening.

"Additional proof is that there is no plan to rescue and create jobs for the millions out of work.". Hmm, isn't this the classical contradiction between the two basic macro-economic models? The Keynesian model and the other of which cannot recall the name right now. The question is where to start injecting the stimulating financial triggers, either at the producer or consumer side. I'm certainly not a big company and still do not like taxes as a main mechanism for wealth sharing and distribution. Hence, still possible (in my opinion probable) it is a plain political decision determined by a democratic electorate process.

"It is a very different country than it was 25 years or so ago. What is going on is a revolution has occurred. We are divided, and the dominant philosophy is the extreme right.". As I see it, these 25 years have always been dominated by at least the form of two political parties, the republicans and democrats. For my out-of-the-box position, polarization did increase, but the form did not adapt to it. Which is probably strange, semantics did change, but not the form or syntax? US electorate can still only vote for these two parties, although the political positions of them did dramatically change? To me this seems to be unnatural. The form does not conform to the current political dynamics. I, as far as I understand your situation, would not be able to vote in the US according to my opinion. There possibly (probably?) are US citizens who also are not able to vote according to their opinions as well? And hence get the feeling being manipulated by conspiracies (and what not) and ultimately get alianized by their own political environment?

[niner]

If the right wing has been so vitriolic, why is there so much violence (rhetorical and physical) from the left wing ?

http://michellemalki...imer-2000-2010/

I can't believe you are going to Malkin for anything resembling well-reasoned thought, but anyway... This is the same old nonsense that is cropping up all over the Right Wing blogosphere. They collect up a bunch of egregious statements, placards, bumper stickers and whatnot that were employed by various random clowns on the Left. By and large, these things appeared briefly somewhere and were seen by a small number of people. This is not a well-organized, well-funded, long term campaign such as exists on the Right. If we were to dredge up the last decade's worth of violent imagery from Malkin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, etc etc etc, do you have any idea how long the list would be? If you then factor in the size of their audience versus the puny audience that existed for Malkin's list of stunts, do you have any idea how many ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different they would be? If we are going to collect examples of bad behavior from random people, there are plenty on the right; easily as many as on the left, and probably a lot more, but those people aren't the point. The point is the people with the LARGE MEGAPHONES and audiences in the MILLIONS.

[rwac]

The point is the people with the LARGE MEGAPHONES and audiences in the MILLIONS.

Why is it that there is so much "incitement" on the Right, but much of the actual political violence is from the Left ?

[niner]

The point is the people with the LARGE MEGAPHONES and audiences in the MILLIONS.

Why is it that there is so much "incitement" on the Right, but much of the actual political violence is from the Left ?

I think there are a couple things going on. One is that the political violence on the Left isn't very violent. The left seems to have more protesting college student types, and while that sort of thing sometimes gets out of hand, it tends to be property damage and shouting rather than people getting killed. The other thing that I think is going on is that the Right likes to gather up and catalog every incident they can find that makes the Left look bad, and they pass that information around, so maybe it seems like there's more than there really is. I have a feeling that if we looked for it, we could find a lot of similar ugliness committed by the Right. It also depends who we're really talking about. I don't think mainstream Democrats have much in common with the people protesting the G20, animal rights nuts and other extreme elements. Likewise, I don't think that mainstream Republicans have much in common with StormFront, Militias, and other far right extremists. The Tea Party and the 2nd Amendment crowd is a lot closer to mainstream, and they have been guilty of a fair amount of bad behavior of late. I Think that if you cut out the small far extremes on both sides, the whole picture looks a lot different, but the Tea Party and the gun toters are still there. If someone carries a gun to a political event, that's pretty disturbing, IMHO.

[rwac]

I think there are a couple things going on. One is that the political violence on the Left isn't very violent. The left seems to have more protesting college student types,

That doesn't include the intimidation by SEIU, especially the time when Ken Gladney got beaten up.

and while that sort of thing sometimes gets out of hand, it tends to be property damage and shouting rather than people getting killed. The other thing that I think is going on is that the Right likes to gather up and catalog every incident they can find that makes the Left look bad, and they pass that information around, so maybe it seems like there's more than there really is. I have a feeling that if we looked for it, we could find a lot of similar ugliness committed by the Right.

You are mistaken. Any ugliness by the Right would end up on national prime time. See how eager the media is to attribute Loughner to the Right with minimal to no fact checking.

It also depends who we're really talking about. I don't think mainstream Democrats have much in common with the people protesting the G20, animal rights nuts and other extreme elements. Likewise, I don't think that mainstream Republicans have much in common with StormFront, Militias, and other far right extremists. The Tea Party and the 2nd Amendment crowd is a lot closer to mainstream, and they have been guilty of a fair amount of bad behavior of late. I Think that if you cut out the small far extremes on both sides, the whole picture looks a lot different, but the Tea Party and the gun toters are still there. If someone carries a gun to a political event, that's pretty disturbing, IMHO.

I agree that brandishing a gun at a political event is disturbing. However, I bet that atleast a few protesters carried concealed firearms unnoticed. I'm not certain that this is something to be very scared about.

The difference is that the Democrats in power are much closer to the extreme elements in terms of philosophy, but this is partially tempered by the practical limits of power. For instance you can distinguish Obama by the czars he chooses, without needing senate approval. These are the decisions he has made without pressure from Congress. Just about any untoward incident is used as an excuse to push for progressive policy.

Edited by rwac, 15 January 2011 - 04:26 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Leftist Alec Baldwin calling for the stoning of Henry Hyde and his family.
Paul Kanjorski, (d-pa) calling for the shooting of Governor Scott of Florida.
Effigy of Sarah Palin hanging over some left wing nut's front door.
The Democratic Leadership Conference publishing a map to targeted districts...with (horrors) targets on the map!

And from dear leader Obama:
If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. – June 2008.

I want you to go out and talk to your neighbors… I want you to argue with them, get in their faces. – September 2008.

I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry. – March 2009.

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder, and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on November 2. – October 2010.

New Hampshire state house candidate Keith Halloran, responded to the plane crash that killed Alaska Senator Ted Stevens by wishing Sarah Palin was on board
New Hampshire Democrat, Timothy Horrigan, forced to quit the state legislature for saying "A dead Palin would be more dangerous than a live one" and "if she was dead, she couldn't commit any more gaffes."

You don't get it, aim. These are one-shot statements from individuals, most of whom no one has ever heard of. How many people do you think heard those statements? Contrast that with Right Wing Hate Radio, with an audience in the tens of millions. There simply is no analog on the Left. You're acting like there is some kind of "they all do it" symmetry between the Left and the Right, and it just doesn't exist. You can always find something intemperate that one person says one time. What you can't find from the left is the demonization of half the country like we hear EVERY F'ING DAY from the Right. Just today I heard Limbaugh calling Democrats "conspirators" who were wrecking the future of his listeners children and grandchildren. His whole act is about demonization of Democrats. Not Left Wing Extremists, just plain old average Democrats. That's the problem.

In the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence of Journalism's annual State of the Media report, which studies trends in organizational and audience behavior, the authors help to illustrate the macro picture of the media marketplace, which they deem fundamental for counterbalancing against public and private forces that threaten the harmony of a system of competing interests and laws. And since there is an enduring controversy over the ethical adherence and political tone of content emanating from certain elements in media organizations, and the behavioral consequences that such has on its target audiences, I think it might be worthwhile to provide hyperlinks to data findings of the study. Accompanying each hyperlink, I'll either succinctly provide a summary of the findings, or upload images of measures concerning organizations that I believe to be pertinent to the said topic.

Online News
http://www.stateofth...hogetstheirnews-Pew contracted Nielsen Media Research to the monitor web traffic of news websites over the period of September to November of 2009. And in Nielsen's top 20 ranking of news websites, divided into categories of the average number of unique visitors per month, and the average number of monthly hits, only Fox News managed to secure a place in the first category measure, while the aforementioned and the Drudge Report earned a position in the latter category metric. Fox News placed seventh on the first metric by attracting an average of 12.65 million unique visitors, and in the second metric, fifth place, with an audience share of 1.96%. While the loyal followers of the aggregator The Drudge Report elevated this organization to a 6th place position, commanding a 1.93% audience share.

Of the 39 niche websites, 17 were classified as predominantly politically focused. And of these 17, 9 were judged to be conservative oriented, 3 were deemed liberal oriented, and the remaining 5 fit into a non-partisan orientation.

Niche Sites By Topic

Minutes Per Person for Niche Sites

Edited by Rol82, 16 January 2011 - 11:57 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Cable News

Cable News Prime-Time Viewership, by Channel

Cable News "Cume" Audience, by Channel

Top Sites by Topic
Percentage of Sites

Edited by Rol82, 16 January 2011 - 06:54 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Magazines

Circulation for Select Magazines Over Time

[Rational Madman]

Well, I apologize for the sloppiness of my previous two posts, but I was having difficulty pasting most of the data tables, and a demand for my attention elsewhere left me indifferent to cleaning up the mess that I left. Anyway, I don't think a wide circulation of the Pew Report will make any real contribution to settling the multiple sources of contention that animate mainstream media critics, since the author's methodology---especially their coding decisions----is unlikely to be supported by a consensus. But for those interested in the study, which I don't expect many to find earth shattering, here is the hyperlink: http://www.stateofth...rview_intro.php

However, I think the data does seem to indicate a strong preference for news content that's either apolitical or non-partisan, which I hope will to some extent, help to dispel the popular perception that a vocal minority of zero sum minded progenitors of demagoguery in the media represent a historically aberrant power capable of gravely threatening the health of the body politic. But it should also be noted that in spite of the transient political success of the most strident voices in this amorphous political movement of limited momentum, they're unlikely to triumph over strong counterbalancing forces, like the present demographic trends, that are pushing the future voting public left of the present median. And since many of these figures revel in the divisions erected by their immoderation, or for varied reasons, cannot countenance the necessary adaptations needed for political primacy, I see little need to be alarmed by what appears to be a temporary period of setbacks.

Edited by Rol82, 16 January 2011 - 11:52 PM.

[Rational Madman]

To add some balance to the debate, I'll offer some voices from the left that I personally find to be insufferable, and to be polluting the state of discourse: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn.

Edited by Rol82, 16 January 2011 - 11:22 PM.

[DairyProducts]

But it should also be noted that in spite of the transient political success of the most strident voices in this amorphous political movement of limited momentum, they're unlikely to triumph over strong counterbalancing forces, like the present demographic trends, that are pushing the future voting public left of the present median. And since many of these figures revel in the divisions erected by their immoderation, or for varied reasons, cannot countenance the necessary adaptations needed for political primacy, I see little need to be alarmed by what appears to be a temporary period of setbacks.

Rol82, which trends are you referring to? I recall Nate Silver of 538.com predicting this move to the left because of the voting records of Latinos, especially Latino youth, skew left (but not heavily) and I only see that happening more as younger Latinos grow up seeing a republican party that does not show them much respect.

Are you referring to the oldest generation now dying off or something else?

[Rational Madman]

But it should also be noted that in spite of the transient political success of the most strident voices in this amorphous political movement of limited momentum, they're unlikely to triumph over strong counterbalancing forces, like the present demographic trends, that are pushing the future voting public left of the present median. And since many of these figures revel in the divisions erected by their immoderation, or for varied reasons, cannot countenance the necessary adaptations needed for political primacy, I see little need to be alarmed by what appears to be a temporary period of setbacks.

Rol82, which trends are you referring to? I recall Nate Silver of 538.com predicting this move to the left because of the voting records of Latinos, especially Latino youth, skew left (but not heavily) and I only see that happening more as younger Latinos grow up seeing a republican party that does not show them much respect.

Are you referring to the oldest generation now dying off or something else?

Well, there are several variables, but yes, I would say that the increasing proportional share of the population that Latin Americans and Asian Americans are trended to hold has influenced my beliefs heavily. But the uncertain voting behavior of the 65+ group may mitigate this drift to the left to some degree.

[niner]

To add some balance to the debate, I'll offer some voices from the left that I personally find to be insufferable, and to be polluting the state of discourse: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn.

To add a bit more balance, can you say something about the audience that these people command? I believe it ranges from not all that big to negligible. To be honest, I find a couple of them insufferable too. There are three that I've never heard of. (Vidal is still alive?!?)

[Rational Madman]

To add some balance to the debate, I'll offer some voices from the left that I personally find to be insufferable, and to be polluting the state of discourse: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn.

To add a bit more balance, can you say something about the audience that these people command? I believe it ranges from not all that big to negligible. To be honest, I find a couple of them insufferable too. There are three that I've never heard of. (Vidal is still alive?!?)

I was not trying to equate these figures with the leading demagogues on the right, but just trying to remind myself and others that those inhabiting the right hemisphere don't have anywhere near a monopoly on virtue. As for audience share, I've included prominent columnists, bestselling authors, a literary titan, one of the most widely cited academics, a leading figure in the anti-globalization campaign, a prime time cable news host, a pioneer in the liberal blogosphere, editors of some of the most famous political magazines of the left, one of the most lauded actors of our generation, and two premier figures in Democratic Party policy making. Do they have millions of daily listeners? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that they should be considered poor contrasting examples, because their influence is still considerable.

I think an analytical error that many make is assuming that just because some polemicists on the right have millions of listeners, and few peers on the left, that their political influence is immense. I think this disparity is due in part to the liberal affiliation that most journalists have---and many of the humanity disciplines, which is a finding that has been confirmed repeatedly, and most insiders openly admit to exist. So consequentially, those inhabiting the left hemisphere have a much larger number of influences, which diminishes their audience potential. Why this happens is open to debate, but I suspect there is a strong correlation with some disciplines and political affiliation, which is a question that we're only beginning to illuminate. In some fields of academia, it must be truly dreadful to be a conservative, and I've personally witnessed pervasive bullying and marginalizing of students and colleagues that stray from the left. In one unforgettable instance, a Palestinian professor of mine learned that one of the students in my class had formerly served in the Israeli Defense Forces, which happens to be compulsory, and brazenly asked him if he knew the quantity of Palestinians that he murdered? And then proceeded to interrogate him for five torturous minutes in front of a classroom of over a hundred students. In a review of one of this professor's books, Edward Said described him as "brilliant."

Although the aforementioned example is extreme, it is part of a condition that gives rise to reactionary elements in the media. But like I've said, when we examine the macro picture of news consumers, the right doesn't have anywhere near a stranglehold over the flow of information. And I can't help but think during these trying times in our civil society, how terrible the conditions were during the Vietnam/Watergate years, the Eisenhower decade, the American Civil War, the Great Depression years, our nascent period as a nation-state, and during the Jackson era. Unfortunately, though, most members of free societies suffer from what I like to call "doomsday neurosis," which because of the barrage of information, leads avid consumers of news to scream about the imminent collapse---or irretrievable regression---of their society. But in most cases, they're quite wrong, but every generation, some apocalyptic prophet in the information marketplace captivates millions. At present, I think we're near the peak of this cycle, but I suspect ten years from now that many will look back at much of this nonsense with incredulity.

At present, I'm disturbed by figures like Glenn Beck, but I'm proud to say that I grant him almost no time in my life, because I've concluded that the political obstacles to the triumph of his vision renders him immaterial. And furthermore, I realize that allowing voices like Glenn Beck to exist is exceedingly more preferable to the alternative of frustrated members of the right hemisphere resorting to arms---which may happen at a slightly increased frequency if policymakers heed calls to take action against outlets like Fox News. For good reason, liberal democracies have restrictions to free speech rights, and as long as there is not a clear violation of boundaries that have been correctly set by jurisprudence, I have little problem with the less enlightened spewing nonsense to millions of viewers. Because the overwhelming burden of information ensures that the majority will remain ignorant in many regards, and rely on figures like Beck as rationalizing devices. And as long as they exist, the more enlightened will feel compelled to continuously refine and expound upon their arguments, since feelings like disgust are perhaps some of the most powerful drivers of scholarship.

And yes, Vidal still breathes, but I wish he would concentrate his energy on creating works like Myra Breckinridge.

Edited by Rol82, 17 January 2011 - 07:33 AM.

[david ellis]

To add some balance to the debate, I'll offer some voices from the left that I personally find to be insufferable, and to be polluting the state of discourse: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn.

To add a bit more balance, can you say something about the audience that these people command? I believe it ranges from not all that big to negligible. To be honest, I find a couple of them insufferable too. There are three that I've never heard of. (Vidal is still alive?!?)

I was not trying to equate these figures with the leading demagogues on the right, but just trying to remind myself and others that those inhabiting the right hemisphere don't have anywhere near a monopoly on virtue. As for audience share, I've included prominent columnists, bestselling authors, a literary titan, one of the most widely cited academics, a leading figure in the anti-globalization campaign, a prime time cable news host, a pioneer in the liberal blogosphere, editors of some of the most famous political magazines of the left, one of the most lauded actors of our generation, and two premier figures in Democratic Party policy making. Do they have millions of daily listeners? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that they should be considered poor contrasting examples, because their influence is still considerable.

I think an analytical error that many make is assuming that just because some polemicists on the right have millions of listeners, and few peers on the left, that their political influence is immense. I think this disparity is due in part to the liberal affiliation that most journalists have---and many of the humanity disciplines, which is a finding that has been confirmed repeatedly, and most insiders openly admit to exist. So consequentially, those inhabiting the left hemisphere have a much larger number of influences, which diminishes their audience potential. Why this happens is open to debate, but I suspect there is a strong correlation with some disciplines and political affiliation, which is a question that we're only beginning to illuminate. In some fields of academia, it must be truly dreadful to be a conservative, and I've personally witnessed pervasive bullying and marginalizing of students and colleagues that stray from the left. In one unforgettable instance, a Palestinian professor of mine learned that one of the students in my class had formerly served in the Israeli Defense Forces, which happens to be compulsory, and brazenly asked him if he knew the quantity of Palestinians that he murdered? And then proceeded to interrogate him for five torturous minutes in front of a classroom of over a hundred students. In a review of one of this professor's books, Edward Said described him as "brilliant."

Although the aforementioned example is extreme, it is part of a condition that gives rise to reactionary elements in the media. But like I've said, when we examine the macro picture of news consumers, the right doesn't have anywhere near a stranglehold over the flow of information. And I can't help but think during these trying times in our civil society, how terrible the conditions were during the Vietnam/Watergate years, the Eisenhower decade, the American Civil War, the Great Depression years, our nascent period as a nation-state, and during the Jackson era. Unfortunately, though, most members of free societies suffer from what I like to call "doomsday neurosis," which because of the barrage of information, leads avid consumers of news to scream about the imminent collapse---or irretrievable regression---of their society. But in most cases, they're quite wrong, but every generation, some apocalyptic prophet in the information marketplace captivates millions. At present, I think we're near the peak of this cycle, but I suspect ten years from now that many will look back at much of this nonsense with incredulity.

At present, I'm disturbed by figures like Glenn Beck, but I'm proud to say that I grant him almost no time in my life, because I've concluded that the political obstacles to the triumph of his vision renders him immaterial. And furthermore, I realize that allowing voices like Glenn Beck to exist is exceedingly more preferable to the alternative of frustrated members of the right hemisphere resorting to arms---which may happen at a slightly increased frequency if policymakers heed calls to take action against outlets like Fox News. For good reason, liberal democracies have restrictions to free speech rights, and as long as there is not a clear violation of boundaries that have been correctly set by jurisprudence, I have little problem with the less enlightened spewing nonsense to millions of viewers. Because the overwhelming burden of information ensures that the majority will remain ignorant in many regards, and rely on figures like Beck as rationalizing devices. And as long as they exist, the more enlightened will feel compelled to continuously refine and expound upon their arguments, since feelings like disgust are perhaps some of the most powerful drivers of scholarship.

And yes, Vidal still breathes, but I wish he would concentrate his energy on creating works like Myra Breckinridge.

I am trying to balance one Glen Beck, with a huge audience, against your list of insufferable voices from the left.

"Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn."

All of the "insufferable voices" you listed added together seem to me to have an audience that is a fraction of Glen Beck's audience. Can't you come up with one major league "insufferable" lefty?

[Rational Madman]

To add some balance to the debate, I'll offer some voices from the left that I personally find to be insufferable, and to be polluting the state of discourse: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn.

To add a bit more balance, can you say something about the audience that these people command? I believe it ranges from not all that big to negligible. To be honest, I find a couple of them insufferable too. There are three that I've never heard of. (Vidal is still alive?!?)

I was not trying to equate these figures with the leading demagogues on the right, but just trying to remind myself and others that those inhabiting the right hemisphere don't have anywhere near a monopoly on virtue. As for audience share, I've included prominent columnists, bestselling authors, a literary titan, one of the most widely cited academics, a leading figure in the anti-globalization campaign, a prime time cable news host, a pioneer in the liberal blogosphere, editors of some of the most famous political magazines of the left, one of the most lauded actors of our generation, and two premier figures in Democratic Party policy making. Do they have millions of daily listeners? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that they should be considered poor contrasting examples, because their influence is still considerable.

I think an analytical error that many make is assuming that just because some polemicists on the right have millions of listeners, and few peers on the left, that their political influence is immense. I think this disparity is due in part to the liberal affiliation that most journalists have---and many of the humanity disciplines, which is a finding that has been confirmed repeatedly, and most insiders openly admit to exist. So consequentially, those inhabiting the left hemisphere have a much larger number of influences, which diminishes their audience potential. Why this happens is open to debate, but I suspect there is a strong correlation with some disciplines and political affiliation, which is a question that we're only beginning to illuminate. In some fields of academia, it must be truly dreadful to be a conservative, and I've personally witnessed pervasive bullying and marginalizing of students and colleagues that stray from the left. In one unforgettable instance, a Palestinian professor of mine learned that one of the students in my class had formerly served in the Israeli Defense Forces, which happens to be compulsory, and brazenly asked him if he knew the quantity of Palestinians that he murdered? And then proceeded to interrogate him for five torturous minutes in front of a classroom of over a hundred students. In a review of one of this professor's books, Edward Said described him as "brilliant."

Although the aforementioned example is extreme, it is part of a condition that gives rise to reactionary elements in the media. But like I've said, when we examine the macro picture of news consumers, the right doesn't have anywhere near a stranglehold over the flow of information. And I can't help but think during these trying times in our civil society, how terrible the conditions were during the Vietnam/Watergate years, the Eisenhower decade, the American Civil War, the Great Depression years, our nascent period as a nation-state, and during the Jackson era. Unfortunately, though, most members of free societies suffer from what I like to call "doomsday neurosis," which because of the barrage of information, leads avid consumers of news to scream about the imminent collapse---or irretrievable regression---of their society. But in most cases, they're quite wrong, but every generation, some apocalyptic prophet in the information marketplace captivates millions. At present, I think we're near the peak of this cycle, but I suspect ten years from now that many will look back at much of this nonsense with incredulity.

At present, I'm disturbed by figures like Glenn Beck, but I'm proud to say that I grant him almost no time in my life, because I've concluded that the political obstacles to the triumph of his vision renders him immaterial. And furthermore, I realize that allowing voices like Glenn Beck to exist is exceedingly more preferable to the alternative of frustrated members of the right hemisphere resorting to arms---which may happen at a slightly increased frequency if policymakers heed calls to take action against outlets like Fox News. For good reason, liberal democracies have restrictions to free speech rights, and as long as there is not a clear violation of boundaries that have been correctly set by jurisprudence, I have little problem with the less enlightened spewing nonsense to millions of viewers. Because the overwhelming burden of information ensures that the majority will remain ignorant in many regards, and rely on figures like Beck as rationalizing devices. And as long as they exist, the more enlightened will feel compelled to continuously refine and expound upon their arguments, since feelings like disgust are perhaps some of the most powerful drivers of scholarship.

And yes, Vidal still breathes, but I wish he would concentrate his energy on creating works like Myra Breckinridge.

I am trying to balance one Glen Beck, with a huge audience, against your list of insufferable voices from the left.

"Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Robert Fisk, Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal, the Cockburn brothers, Noam Chomsky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Keith Olberman, James Carville, Paul Begala, Markos Moulitsas, and Sean Penn."

All of the "insufferable voices" you listed added together seem to me to have an audience that is a fraction of Glen Beck's audience. Can't you come up with one major league "insufferable" lefty?

Re-read my post, because I explained the reasoning for my choices.

Edited by Rol82, 18 January 2011 - 05:24 AM.

[david ellis]

I haven't heard of any recent studies confirming liberal media bias. Reporters don't do analysis much anymore, they just write the republicans said "Blah, blah, and blah" and the democrats said "Yada, yada, and yada". That is what passes for news these days. I don't see how you can find bias there. I did check out a few recent complaints about liberal bias on the republican version of media matters, and thought the republicans were just whining about the facts.

Do you know of any recent comprehensive proofs of liberal bias? I would like to see them, cause I think times have changed.

[Rational Madman]

I suppose this study is a good start, since its findings gave me reason to examine the question several years ago:
http://www.sscnet.uc...edia.Bias.8.htm

[Rational Madman]

I like Jesse Shapiro a lot:
http://papers.ssrn.c...tract_id=819825

From Stanford:
http://www.sciencedi...e2&searchtype=a

[Rational Madman]

But it should also be noted that in spite of the transient political success of the most strident voices in this amorphous political movement of limited momentum, they're unlikely to triumph over strong counterbalancing forces, like the present demographic trends, that are pushing the future voting public left of the present median. And since many of these figures revel in the divisions erected by their immoderation, or for varied reasons, cannot countenance the necessary adaptations needed for political primacy, I see little need to be alarmed by what appears to be a temporary period of setbacks.

Rol82, which trends are you referring to? I recall Nate Silver of 538.com predicting this move to the left because of the voting records of Latinos, especially Latino youth, skew left (but not heavily) and I only see that happening more as younger Latinos grow up seeing a republican party that does not show them much respect.

Are you referring to the oldest generation now dying off or something else?

Well, there are several variables, but yes, I would say that the increasing proportional share of the population that Latin Americans and Asian Americans are trended to hold has influenced my beliefs heavily. But the uncertain voting behavior of the 65+ group may mitigate this drift to the left to some degree.

Thanks for the vote Shadowhawk!

[caliban]

Automatic message


This topic has been moved from "Round Table Discussion -> Spirituality & Religion" to "Round Table Discussion -> Politics & Law".