Quote:
Originally Posted by bobnick
Thanks for your views. I tried listening to Npr today, but it seems like the hosts have soothing voices comparable to a hypnotists. Maybe thats just in contrast to the conservative stations I've been listening to. Also, there were no call-ins from listeners to get their perspectives, which I like. Maybe I was just listening at a bad time. But, I will take a week or two break from listening to any political shows.
|
Don't choose entertainment over accuracy. The vast majority of talk radio is not designed to be an accurate purveyor of news. Rather, it exists to entertain and reinforce particular worldviews. NPR is soothing (read: not abrasive and full of high emotions) and has infrequent listener call ins because their goal is not to entertain or spin, but to inform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I find it interesting that liberal and conservative talk show hosts are being glommed into the same boat so consistently in this thread. While I think anyone who exclusively gets their news from talk shows on either side of the aisle is begging for ignorance, I think there is a fundamental difference between the two.
I've heard left-wing firebrands like Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, and Ed Schultz blast Obama several times already, and we're less than a year into his presidency. I don't recall ever hearing Limbaugh blast Bush. Ever. Only now, that the Republicans have imploded, is Limbaugh finally starting to criticize his party - and not over philosophical issues, but over the fact that they aren't good enough at tricking people into voting for them anymore.
I'm not saying the 3 liberals I mentioned are always, or even often, right. But I do think that they tend to be more willing to crucify anyone, Republican/Democrat/or other, if they think it's deserved.
I think that points to the fundamental difference in philosophy between left and right wing radio/TV hosts. The right wing tends to have a philosophy of "get him elected and keep him there as long as possible no matter what." The left tends to slant more toward "find the guy who will do what we think should be done and then keep on him after he gets elected to make sure he actually does it."
They've actually been getting pretty pissed off at Obama for not getting rid of "don't ask/don't tell," and for not trying to push through state-run/single payer healthcare, and for not prosecuting Bush & co. for war crimes.
It's also interesting to note that rightwing hosts tend to be in lockstep with the Republicans, while leftwing hosts tend to be more liberal than the "liberal" candidates. This, of course, is easy to understand when one realizes that this country does not have a left wing. The republicans are far to the right, and the democrats aren't quite as far out to the right.
|
This is an absolutely worthwhile post to read again, and it is why I have a higher tolerance for liberal "commentators" than the conservative ones.
When I was in high school and very early on in college, I used to love watching Bill O'Reilly. He seemed so... common sense! I bought into the "no spin zone" for a bit and thought "here's a place I can get straight-forward news from someone who tells it like it is." The most important point is that he was
entertaining!
Then I started to pay more attention... partly because I started to actually study political science, partly because of the situation our country was getting into, and partly just because I was growing older and more critical of where I get my news. What's fairly easy to discover, if you take the time to look just below the surface, is that much of what is said is simply not true. I enjoy Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and it is important to realize that they are the closest "liberal" equivalent to O'Reilly and Hannity... except they're not. Yes, their shows are more accurately described as entertaining opinion shows than news shows, but there is a dishonesty that professional commentators on the right have that many on the left do not. You do not frequently hear Olbermann or Maddow yelling at guests to "SHUT UP!" or hear about guests complaining that their interview was dishonestly edited (and those are just two examples).
It's like that classic Colbert line: "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Olbermann and Maddow, like O'Reilly and Hannity, are entertainers first and foremost. In the case of Olbermann and Maddow, though, there is a far greater willingness to find entertainment within the actual facts and news, where O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbauch, Beck, etc all frequently feel the need to misrepresent the facts in order to serve their entertainment and predetermined message. You're not getting the full story from either source, but only one makes a habit of being downright deceptive.
I forget who it was further up in the thread that made the observation that Limbaugh (and the others) start out at an almost reasonable point A and then gradually take the listener over to point B such that it doesn't seem so crazy... except it is! There are far too many examples to list, but how about two of the most recent topics: Obama may not be a natural-born American citizen (debunked MONTHS ago) and Obama's health care plan will secretly euthanize the elderly population (Aside for the obvious reasons why this is a paranoid conspiracy, if you listen to "liberal" commentators you'd know Obama doesn't even HAVE a health care plan - they've been criticizing his lack of specifics for awhile now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boink
try listening to NPR on and off. actually, just leave it on. I just find it appealing to listen to people talk calmly about the issues of the day. I can't stand the yelling. it comes off as childish I feel like I'm being "bated" into listening (not that I've listened to Rush on the radio) I mean come on man he's a lying sack of shit.
|
So, to bring this back to NPR....
Seriously, ditch the talk radio that serves to entertain, and let NPR be your source for news on the radio. Think about what you said earlier: you had a hard time listening to NPR because it was too soothing and did not spend a large amount of time providing a soapbox to the general public instead of doing actual reporting. Should the priority of a news source be to entertain or to inform?
I remember when I stumbled upon NPR years ago. It did take some getting used to, not being consistently entertained by the radio. Now, I pretty much leave NPR on and never change the station while driving. It was a gradual process to get there, but I not only found myself appreciating their reporting, I also slowly started listening to programs and topics I initially had no interest in.
Not all public radio is created equal: I'm fortunate to be in the Chicago Public Radio market, which is seen as one of the best in the country. That said, while driving to Iowa a few weeks ago I listened to the various public radio stations along the way and they were each informative and interesting. NPR programs get a lot of play obviously, as do PRI, APM, etc, so there is overlap but there is often local, original programming too. Here's a tip on finding the public radio station wherever you go: I don't remember the exact number, but all public radio stations are below the FM frequency of 94 or something like that (I think it's actually 92 or 93, but I said 94 to be sure).
If public radio is not enough for you - if you still feel the need to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, etc - then balance it out. Public radio does not take the time to debunk those guys, instead taking the "ignore them and they'll go away" approach. So if you're going to listen to them, start downloading the audio podcasts to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. You'll find them here:
Podcasts on MSNBC.com- msnbc.com
And one last thing: I'll second (or third?) the recommendation to read The Economist for a more reasonable, informed conservative viewpoint.