sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,213
- 5,794
- 126
Rush spins/spun the News like no other before him. To say he put a "Conservative" viewpoint to it is to insult Conservatives. What he did/does is put a Partisan spin on things. The closest to being "Conservative" his spins become are that they blame Liberals for all the negative, praise Conservatives for all the positive.
Like I said before, Rush was not in response to anything that existed. The idea of "liberal media" was based not on a Partisan Media, but based on a Media that was not in sync with Conservative Values. Those Values included not mentioning "sex" or anything to do with "sex". They also were horrified by non-Christian references, persons, or ideas being of a differing religion. Any reference to non-Capitalist ideas/solutions/etc, were also controversial.
The "Liberal" Media that existed before Rush were simply a Free Media looking at a wide spectrum and trying to inform through knowledge.
Brian Williams in 1994 said the United States voter threw a temper tantrum.
The best example imo is the 2000 election when Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw were up late waiting for the final tally of Florida. The second they announced Florida went to Bush Couric got up and threw a tantrum as she walked off the set without saying much of a word and Tom trying to make a light hearted comment on her leaving.
Remember barbie is the same who instructs us peons on how to conserve energy by turning down our heat or up our air conditioning. Then runs her heat at 80 in the winter. When asked about the hypocracy her publisist simply stated "Well these are guidelines she believe people can follow, not that she will follow".
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
I totally agree. Who wants to advertise on AA. I honestly think that Libs in general, simply don't listen to talk radio even if it is a Bush bashfest. I have the opportunity to listen to it here in Detroit and I drive around with WWJ News Radio on. Politics is not something I find interesting while driving in my car.
Don't forget that CNN witch that almost started crying. IIRC Blitzer wasn't too thrilled either :laugh:
Like Al said when the rumors started, United Arilines did a chap 11, and they are still in the air. (or was it American airlines?).
Al has GREAT guest! He is the cornerstone. Here in the midwest all you have is Mike Reagan, Rush, all that crap-ola 24/7 on the air. Air America is just a baby and it takes time to get a foothold. All Rush, Reagan and the others do is push the daily whitehouse Rove talking points. So its no wonder THEY have no funding problems.
Air America will just reorganize and maybe dump some shows, like Springer (which I could NEVER understand how he got a show on Air America in the first place).
All I listen to on Air America is Al's show (downloaded from the website). His guests are great, both demo and repubs as guests. And a lot of the scandals you hear about now, that people are going to jail over now, were FIRST mentioned on Al's show by guests like Tom Oliphant way back before CNN took interest (shame on them!).
Radio audio clip
Al has GREAT guest! He is the cornerstone. Here in the midwest all you have is Mike Reagan, Rush, all that crap-ola 24/7 on the air. Air America is just a baby and it takes time to get a foothold. All Rush, Reagan and the others do is push the daily whitehouse Rove talking points. So its no wonder THEY have no funding problems.
Air America will just reorganize and maybe dump some shows, like Springer (which I could NEVER understand how he got a show on Air America in the first place).
All I listen to on Air America is Al's show (downloaded from the website). His guests are great, both demo and repubs as guests. And a lot of the scandals you hear about now, that people are going to jail over now, were FIRST mentioned on Al's show by guests like Tom Oliphant way back before CNN took interest (shame on them!).
Radio audio clip
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
What do you want me to say about Rush and the drug problem? i worked at Walgreens, would get e-mail lists of pharmiscist who were fired for become adicted to and stealing much less powerful pain killers that oxicoton. Vicodin is the most abused. And this was by people who make $70k a year and know the risks of the drugs.
It's a shame that Rush had that problem, but he got treatment and since then has not had a relapse.
What are you suggesting? Half of Hollywood has had drug problems should we lock them all up along with Rush?
How about Joe Kennedy and his problem? Ted Kennedy and his drinking? etc etc etc
BTW:I don't think Rush went to the ACLU, they came to his case on their own. The whole medical records thing stinks, since when do prosecutors go after medical records that suppose to be confidential.
Notice "friend-of-court" that means they are not nessicarily part of the case but are filing a motion as an outside expert.
That's frequently how the ACLU operates in many of the cases it is involved in, it's a lot less effort on their part but still allows them to have an impact.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Some good points there Prof John---but it still dodges Rush's blanket allegations about those who become drug addicted---and Rush's prior statements that any so addicted
should be locked up for life suddenly not applying to the wind bag himself.--and suddenly drug addiction becomes a not so clear problem---less binary and a more multi-dimensional
people problem.
And if Rush's feelings about the ACLU were genuine---he could have asked them to butt out---and did not.
should be locked up for life suddenly not applying to the wind bag himself.--and suddenly drug addiction becomes a not so clear problem---less binary and a more multi-dimensional
people problem.
And if Rush's feelings about the ACLU were genuine---he could have asked them to butt out---and did not.
Yes, but the great thing about reality is that it's NOT just a "he said she said" spin-fest, there are actual facts and actual truths behind most of the issues. If I read a story in the New York Times and think it's fair and factual, and you read it and think it's slanted crap, it's not a matter of opinion. The story is either one way or the other, our views don't have equal merit. I'm kind of tired of the righties bitching about the "slanted media", totally failing to back it up with anything other than anecdotal evidence, and then mumbling something about it being a matter of opinion. It's not. Now the viewpoint that's wrong COULD be mine, and if so, I welcome righties to prove it...but this dodging the issue with "it's my opinion" BS doesn't fly.
An interesting, and valid, point. Starting a small radio network with a big name is a mistake unless the name is HUGE. Until you have a large audience, the costs are running the network are just too great. If you have a ton of money to burn, it might work, but it's a big risk.
The other thing I wonder is if lefties are fundamentally a good audience for talk radio, but in a different way than you suggest. There is a large and growing market for right-biased news and opinion sources in what might be considered mainstream mediums, but the lefty market seems a lot more lukewarm. Look at the opinion sections of major papers to see what I'm talking about. While papers like the Washington Post editorial section clearly lean left, there are far more centrist than the right-wing competition like the Washington Times. And this is true in a lot of markets, there seems to be little draw for the kind of heavy biased commentary on the left compared to the right.
The major factor that springs to mind is that a lot of conservatives seem to be of the opinion that there is some vast, left-wing conspiracy focused on the media, which would naturally make them want to seek out an alternative. Of course that raises the question of why, if "bias" drove them away from mainstream media, it would drive them into the arms of someone like Rush. Obviously that IS a factor, but it's certainly not the only one. Part of me thinks that righties are simply more attracted to sources that confirm their views than lefties are. Obviously P&N is not a good sample, but even given that we have more lefties than righties, I see far more articles from right-wing "news" sites like Newsmax than I do from similar left-wing sites. It would be interesting to do a broad study on who gets their news where broken down my political views.
On a personal note, and in no way proof of anything (personal anecdotes are not science...right-wing book authors take note), I have a fairly interesting story about this kind of thing from work. At lunch I almost always pick up a copy of both the Washington Post and the Washington Times...I read the news in the Post and read the Op-Eds in the Times. More liberal coworkers always seem surprised that I'm reading the Times, since my political views are fairly well known (and not nearly as liberal in real life as I may appear on here
). I explain to them that I like reading Op-Eds that I disagree with, it broadens my perspective on the issues, even if I think the author is an idiot. And almost all of them immediatly understand, some of them have even started doing the same thing. When more conservative coworkers ask me the same thing, I try in vain to explain it to them, but few of them seem to grasp the idea...they simply don't understand why I'd subject myself to views I disagree with. Maybe I just have a good set of liberals and a bad set of conservatives to work with, but it IS fairly interesting...I wonder if maybe righties just like biased news more than lefties do.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Rainsford, I said in another thread about political bias that there is not some vast left wing conspiracy out there. It is just that the majority of people in the media are personally on the left, has been proven time and time again, and therefore write things about the world in the way they see it.
Look at this board and see how I write about an event and compare that to Dave or another leftie. Two very different views emerge because we see the world differently.
As far as P&N and news sources I think the major sources are AP and Washington Post, and that is because the post is free and the New York times is not.
The right wing sites are put up by us righties in an attempt to ?balance? out what we see as bias in the media.
Remember, bias is a personal thing, it is not math where 1+1=2. I read a story on the great economy and say ?about time they post the truth? and someone from the left reads the same story and bitched ?what about the rich getting richer, and runaway spending? etc.
BTW: The best evidence I have seen to prove media bias comes from the late David Brinkley. On the left media bias.
I think you are making too much out of Rush?s drug statements. All his pre drug problem statements are in regards to illegal drugs, pot, cocaine and the like. Rush did not wake up one day and say ?hey I am going to get addicted to pain killers? it just happened. Very different than someone choosing to smoke pot and then coke etc etc.
Lemon find and post some of these statements you mention.
Let me help you out some: Limbaugh on Drugs Nice web site "FAIR" posting some Limbaugh drug quotes, notice every one of them deals with illegal drugs.
Look at this board and see how I write about an event and compare that to Dave or another leftie. Two very different views emerge because we see the world differently.
As far as P&N and news sources I think the major sources are AP and Washington Post, and that is because the post is free and the New York times is not.
The right wing sites are put up by us righties in an attempt to ?balance? out what we see as bias in the media.
Remember, bias is a personal thing, it is not math where 1+1=2. I read a story on the great economy and say ?about time they post the truth? and someone from the left reads the same story and bitched ?what about the rich getting richer, and runaway spending? etc.
BTW: The best evidence I have seen to prove media bias comes from the late David Brinkley. On the left media bias.
I think you are making too much out of Rush?s drug statements. All his pre drug problem statements are in regards to illegal drugs, pot, cocaine and the like. Rush did not wake up one day and say ?hey I am going to get addicted to pain killers? it just happened. Very different than someone choosing to smoke pot and then coke etc etc.
Lemon find and post some of these statements you mention.
Let me help you out some: Limbaugh on Drugs Nice web site "FAIR" posting some Limbaugh drug quotes, notice every one of them deals with illegal drugs.
You're correct there's no 'vast left-wing conspiracy' though there is a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. The political orientation of the 'majority of people in the media' is irrelevant - it's true that they tend to be better informed and therefor on the democratic side. But what affects the stories far more is the *republican* orientation of a majority of publishers/editors.
John, you really need, IMO, to read the book "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman. Read that, and then post on the topc. I'll buy you a copy if you need.
I'm not sure how I'm making too much out of Rush's drug issues, I didn't express any opinion about them as far as I can tell... But if you want my views, it's that his drug problems are his personal medical issues, certainly not something I think anyone needs to be sticking their nose into.
As for bias, I see what you're saying, but my point is that you have the Washington Post being "balanced" by the Washington Times. You have a publication that MAY lean slightly left, and a paper that is blatantly in the tank for the conservatives.
But I think a fundamental problem in this debate is how we define bias. Your example about an article on the upsides of the economy is NOT something I would consider biased, even if I thought there were other facts to consider. Our personal reaction to stories is almost entirely based on our OWN bias, the most unbiased, fair, fact based story in the world will be viewed as biased by someone. But that's not really bias, real bias is NOT a personal thing...bias is intentionally slanting the facts to further an agenda. On matters of opinion, bias is a null word, and when facts are concerned, there is no such thing as having an opinion. Clearly there is some wiggle room in the real world, but not all that much.
And that's the problem, you have a group of people totally untrained in journalism attempting to detect bias among the writings of professionals who are trained to be as unbiased and factual as possible. The repeated statements from righties that political leaning OBVIOUSLY influences writing proves exactly what I'm talking about, most people simply don't understand the concept of "bias" in journalism and the media. Frequent citings of bias when the facts are simply against one party or another are another example, very few people seem to be able to tell the difference between "balanced" and "unbiased". How you and Dave view the world is totally irrelevant, if both of you were good, professional journalists, your writing would have almost no bias at all. Of course neither of you would be even remotely good journalists, especially Dave, an neither would the vast majority of people out there. Obviously there are some journalists that have the same problem, but I'm not convinced it's some sort of epidemic.
"May" lean "slightly" left? ROFL.
If you can't see the blatant and obvious bias of the mainstream media (Washington Post being a perfect example) you've got to order some lighter shades.
The NY Times and the Washington Post are both blatant liberal rags.
Because liberals read things other than books that do nothing more than confirm their own views and are the intellectual equivalent of masturbation?
Yeah...the fact that you think the Washington Post and the NYT are "blatant liberal rags" pretty much confirms that my assumptions about them are right. There is not a single post of yours on here that convinced me that you would know "unbiased" if it bit you in the ass, and you'd see left-wing bias in Hitler propaganda speeches.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Personally I think media overall is decidedly biased to the right---but still the media basically delivers news.
And that is the current failing of the right---for all their efforts to spin things---they can't deliver positive results---the war in Iraq GWB promised would be a cake walk is anything but.
Defecit spending is out of control---GWB's Korea policy just blew up in his face---the middle class is struggling to stay in place while the rich surge ahead. America no longer holds the moral highground and is isolated abroad---our military is over extended---our largely republican congress is corrupt.---I could go on and on.
All facts---spin them as you will---they amount to a blanket indictment of Republican policies.
The American people are running out of patience---they have been lied to too often.
And one other problem exists---the facts are likely to get worse---far worse---in the next few years----because of bad Republican policy---cause and effect---bad policy---bad results. And somehow the repubs think that the American public won't notice---or will be convinced bad news is not really happening as it occurs.
And that is the current failing of the right---for all their efforts to spin things---they can't deliver positive results---the war in Iraq GWB promised would be a cake walk is anything but.
Defecit spending is out of control---GWB's Korea policy just blew up in his face---the middle class is struggling to stay in place while the rich surge ahead. America no longer holds the moral highground and is isolated abroad---our military is over extended---our largely republican congress is corrupt.---I could go on and on.
All facts---spin them as you will---they amount to a blanket indictment of Republican policies.
The American people are running out of patience---they have been lied to too often.
And one other problem exists---the facts are likely to get worse---far worse---in the next few years----because of bad Republican policy---cause and effect---bad policy---bad results. And somehow the repubs think that the American public won't notice---or will be convinced bad news is not really happening as it occurs.
Air America is going bankrupt because quite frankly it's boring. Their hosts are not interesting and do not put forward compelling broadcasts. I gave the station a chance, several in fact, but they failed to keep me interested.
Even though I disagree with most of the hosts on KFI AM 640 here in LA, I still listen because their shows are entertaining and compelling.
Even though I disagree with most of the hosts on KFI AM 640 here in LA, I still listen because their shows are entertaining and compelling.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter