Talk Radio

I've said for years that I wish I could be on the mailing list for the talk radio and blogger's talking points e-mail. Does Brooks, Krauthammer and the other print columnists get it too?

To be precise, in my post I wrote that I thought there were some parallels between bloggers and talk show hosts, but not necessarily the ones you cite in your excerpt. I was specifically talking about groupthink not victimization. I don't see a whole lot of the latter in the liberal blogosphere.

Some of the rhetorical techniques,however, are very similar, such at IOKIYAR and the media criticism. (Of course, that doesn't automatically mean we're equally deluded...)

And I did discuss the ways in which we are different, most especially the idea that our dialog with our audience is much more open.

Digby, thanks for the clarification. I was just about to post something to the effect of, "Wow, for once Digby's wrong," but with your follow up here I can more readily see the point.

I think groupthink depends on the blog. I see a lot of groupthink at DailyKos, but maybe less at a site like this one.

The one bit of groupthink that bothers me is the constant ragging on Congressional Democrats. It's not that they don't deserve derision for caving on Iraq and FISA, but does anyone *really* believe having them in control is no different from having Republicans? I doubt we would even know as much as we know now if not for the party switch. Yet rarely do I see the bloggers attempt to maintain perspective. It's always: "Those doormat Democrats just let Bush walk over them AGAIN." When they do something right, it's: "Gee, they didn't screw up this time!" The reader comes away with the impression that Congressional Democrats are toadies to the right, when in fact the situation may be more complicated.

I agree with Ethel-To-Tilly. If you look at the way the two campaigns used the Internet

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/blogged_down_in_the_past.php has a good analysis which I net as the right wing uses it to broadcast and create astroturf and we use it to organize and communicate laterally.

It's hard to be an authoritarian bottoms up organization, kind of like an oxymoran.

How many realize that Rush Limbaugh may have been partially responsible for Obama's Presidential Victory? Everybody laughs when I say this except possibly Rush! Rush knew the Republicans were in trouble this election and he came up with his controversial "Chaos" Idea. He tried to manipulate the Democratic Primary Campaign by having his Republican Listeners vote for the weakest Democratic Presidential Candidate. In the beginning, he naturally assumed it was Obama and his people were told to vote for Obama to get rid of Hillary. When Obama's campaign took off, the Republicans began to see that Hillary would be easier to defeat and Rush changed his listeners to vote for Hillary! Alas, he was too late. Please have everyone who reads this article call or write Rush and compliment him on helping to elect Obama-It will really make his day!

Sadly, this reminds me of Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy and more than a few liberal radio hosts. (Well a few, since that's all there is.)

The blogger half of the equation is even MORE fitting on the left.

Just look at the primary and past election to the talking points handed down from TPM, ThinkProgress, Eschaton and echoed at WAMO, MOJO, SadlyNo, Pandagon, ....

We should not be taking the worse antics of the right and just recapitulating them.

There is probably going to be plenty of "outreach" from the powers that be to keep us from going off the reservation. And even if we resist that impulse, groupthink is always a danger:

Look what Digby says, and then count the number of times people here call troll of others whose only crime is disagreement.

I've noticed this for years in clowns like Sean Hannity. It's not so much that their ideas are bad or from a particular viewpoint. It's that they shout the same stuff over and over, as if it would be no different than a voice recording would be watching this. It wouldn't surprise me if these people were more than happy to regurgitate whatever pops into the heads of the monkeys at the RNC. Of course, this isn't absolute, and there are some days when these people may do some thinking on their own. But I'd bet that if people tracked this, there'd be a considerable overlap between the RNC and the media personalities and between the media personalities. If that's the case, if these people are essentially propagandists for the Republicans, isn't that illegal?

Whoa! there, cowboys!
+ any cowgirls, too, who imagine Digby & Drum haven't been out behind the barn toking loco weed. Again.

So, they tell us, we read blogs because we feel like victims?

Puh-lease speak just for yourselves, D & D.

Sure, blog readers — left + right alike — tend to be discontent w/ the status quo and voracious for more in-depth news coverage (and/or rumour-mongering, if you insist) than commercial media outlets provide.

But in no way does that make blogs morally, psychologically, intellectually or politically more akin w/ the lunacies of right-wing talk radio.

D & D are comparing readers generally interested in being better informed, (and while yes, it is obvious the blogosphere has it's fair share of logorrhea + then some) with right-wing talk radio junkies obsessed with having their bigotry & prejudices validated.

Sorry, dudes, your logic not only sucks ditch, but implies a weird, internalized self-loathing, comparable with racism among minorities, or even more closely resembling the internalized homophobia of closet homosexuals.

So, D & D, please don't be offended, but have you considered laying off that loco weed a bit until your brains clear up?

How many realize that Rush Limbaugh may have been partially responsible for Obama's Presidential Victory?

I agree, but not in the way you think: Obama ran his campaign on "change" and as a break from "the smallness of our politics." Voters heard from Rush-quoting right wingers and decided, "wow. These guys are really petty and shallow. I'm voting for Obama because the Republicans have nothing to offer."

One thing I don't understand about liberals is why they waste a tremendous amount of time and bandwidth telling each other about how dumb republicans are

Rank-and-file Republicans these days do nothing but say what was fed to them by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and were last heard frothing at the mouth about Obama's "socialism" and Marxist/Muslim/terrorist sympathies and screaming about the evils of gay marriage. I'm really not impressed, nor do I accord Republicans any intellectual respect. Next, they get offended when I write them off for spouting such idiocy. When they are ready to think like reasonable human beings and take responsibility for their actions, I will reconsider. But for now, they have to realize that if they act like talking-points-spouting idiots, they will be treated as such.

The biggest problem that plagues the right wing media echo chamber is that the talking points often contradict themselves over time.

For example:
In early September this year, the talking point was the "genius" of the Sarah Palin choice for Vice President. They were all 'atwitter' over the bump in the polls after she managed to give a speech without drooling on herself.

Then, the fact that she wasn't vetted came down like a wet blanket on the back slapping and smiling over the drop in the polls.

After losing the election, of course, it was allSarah's fault. The new talking point was "Wasilla Hillbilly" and she didn't know "Africa was a continent"

This is what the intelligent republicans see as the hypocrisy of right wing media.

The rest of them just go along with it, changing their opinions to suit the current talking point trend.

John Hansen wrote: You should actually spend your time engaging the smart republicans.

If you meet any, send 'em over.

The only comment about silencing the voices of right wing conservatism comes from a right wing conservative. No liberal or leftist has proposed silencing talk radio.

I can only hope when that eventuality comes that liberals with integrity will stand shoulder to shoulder against that kind of tyranny. And I objectively know that many of you will. What surprises me is that so few of you see the inevitability. Time will tell.

I don't know about scared, but "witless" is sure apt.

Got any non-straw-man arguments, witless?

To Scared Witless at 1:30 PM,

You demonstrate my point beautifully.

Instead of attempting to deal with the ideas I presented, you manipulatively try to insult me and start a non-productive argument. You have no clue regarding my religion, for example, but you are prepared to reject me and anything I present because, as your chosen nom-de-pixel (an interesting piece of bravado there) states, you are scared witless of outsiders and I am clearly an outsider to your insular group.

You wrote " We just try to understand how people sufficiently educated to read and write could not only believe those ideas but also do their best to hide their beliefs as they apply them in government. Then we share our explanations for the idiocy that is most conservatism." And then wrote: "Instead of attempting to deal with the ideas I presented, you manipulatively try to insult me and start a non-productive argument."
This shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness. You struggle to understand how someone "sufficiently educated to read and write" could "believe those ideas" that define the "idiocy" of conservatism --and then accuse me of insulting YOU! This is the chasm of dialogue and thought. You imply a lack of education (as we are "sufficiently" educated) and I AGREE that obviously you represent intellectual superiority but I am the manipulative invective hurler! If it wasn't so frightening I would laugh.
Conservatives are "followers" of a cult. But liberals are free-thinking loving people who embrace diversity and tolerance. I have no doubt that you and many like you BELIEVE this. My level of education and or intelligence does not matter. Conservatism means ignorance, period. And once I accept this and agree to believe everything YOU believe, life will be exponentially easier I'm sure.

What is inherently DISHONEST about believing in creationism? It can ONLY be ignorant!
I do not watch television or listen to talk radio (though I do listen to some radio programming like "This American Life"). I met someone recently who had been told I was a conservative Christian -- I mentioned something about This American Life and she chortled, "I thought you were conservative!"WTF?I read headlines online. I read a smattering of liberal leaning and conservative leaning news -- I figure somewhere between the two falls the truth. The most telling thing I read is the comments on liberal blogs. Someone commented to me, and read in a variety of places all of the "negativity" of the last election -- these accusations were repeated often and applied to the McCain/Palin campaign. I'm sure it must have been AWFUL -- but I never saw any of it. What I did see was outright hatred from the left. When I said in conversation to a liberal friend that it really makes a difference the source of your news (I was meaning television news vs. print media in an online venue) she said, "Oh right, you must watch FOX news". I have never SEEN a Fox news broadcast. But it doesn't matter. To say so must be dishonest.

I am grateful for your patient attempts to have a dialogue of ideas. By being a jackass and a liar I have not deserved the open-minded attempts on your part of explain your objective problems with conservatism. Some people, a few scientists even (though granted they surely do not deserve to be scientists, regardless of credentials) do not believe in the single-celled organism as origin of life. Evolution as adaption of species is one thing, but to explain the origin of human life is quite another thing entirely. You believe one way, I believe another, therefore, You are right and I am intellectually dishonest. I understand this rationale -- why can't you? For the record, I do not want intelligent design taught in the classroom. Conservative Christians need education only sufficient enough to read and write -- the rest will be wasted on them. Jackasses and Liars be damned!

witless wrote: By being a jackass and a liar I have not deserved

Congratulations! You got something right for once! Oh, wait:

the open-minded attempts on your part of explain your objective problems with conservatism.

Straw man again. You aren't arguing in good faith, so no one's bothering to explain objective problems with conservatism to you. No one needs to; you embody many of them. Like this:

Evolution as adaption of species is one thing, but to explain the origin of human life is quite another thing entirely.

Straw man again. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

As I said in my original post, you embody the intellectual dishonesty of movement conservatism. Your straw man arguments here prove it, and make it abundantly clear you aren't here for good-faith debate. So no one's trying to engage you, witless; you insist it's a waste of time. We're only pointing and laughing. And as long as you demonstrate that conservatives can't argue in good faith because they can't make arguments grounded in reality, we'll continue to laugh.

Jackass.

Scientists do not believe in evolution like religious people believe in creation myths. Scientists think evolution best describes the origin of species in the observable world. There may be some scientists who think evolutionary theory is not the best description of how single cell life came into being. These scientists' task is to produce, through the scientific method, repeatable experiments that support their new hypothesis. Until these scientists can produce this evidence and have it successfully repeated by a disinterested third party, they might be considered believers instead of thinkers. Cold fusion scientists have the same problem.

Nevertheless, scientists do not expect the majority to prohibit the rights of other scientists to search for new evidence on theories that may be contrary to conventional wisdom with prohibitions amended to the constitution. Mormons have resorted to stripping homosexuals of the right to marriage by appealing to a majoritarian bias that aligns with their beliefs. Mormons are playing with fire here because the majority also has bias against their religion. California's homosexuals have every right to attempt to change the constitution of their state to limit the rights of Mormons, and they should appeal to Californians' bias against Mormons to do it. Mormons will not like having their rights limited by a majority of biased voters, which might teach them to keep their religion out of politics.

Wasn't the African American community heavily biased against LGBT also? You'd better get on their backs as well! Better yet, find some African American Mormons and teach them a thing or two!

I misunderstood. By bringing up Creationism I thought you wanted to talk about the Origin of Life, Evolution of Man, etc. It was an ignorant correlation, but as someone to be pointed and laughed at, what more can be expected?
I have accepted that we believe different things. At the very core of our beings, we believe different things. You've heard my song and dance before -- it disgusts you. What is my recourse? What is the recourse but to demonstrate in a non-threatening way the sheer hateful hypocrisy you express? I certainly won't be donating money to political campaigns ever, ever, ever. I wouldn't do that to my family or coworkers.

I thought there was a democratic election wherein all Californians were allowed to vote, and they did vote

There was an election, and the Mormons - as a group - used that election to strip the rights of homosexuals to gain the government-offered legal benefits which hetrosexuals can obtain by publicly declaring themselves in a committed relationship.

The outcome of such an election can be later revised. One thing that the attacked minority, homosexuals, can do is reply similarly to the attacking group. It's part of politics. You educate your opposition regarding the negative outcomes of their behavior.

The Mormons felt so certain that everyone would accept that they are right that they did not expect the reaction. Tough. Now it is becoming more clear that when they try to use government to enforce their religion on others they are leaving the realm of religion and entering the realm of politics.

There was an election. There will be another. There are also other responses possible in politics. Many of the Mormon followers were not ready for that reaction. They are now a great deal more aware, I am sure.