01
Jul
2003
Mainstream talk shows, whether radio or television, are becoming as irrelevant as their print counterparts. Interestingly, the majority of these are conservative in nature amidst what is widely considered a liberal media.
From Rush Limbaugh (syndicated radio talk show) to Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor, FOX News) to Chris Matthews (Hardball, MSNBC) to Sean Hannity (syndicated radio talk show) to James Carville (Crossfire, CNN), the modus operandi is the same: pontification versus discussion. Bill O'Reilly, and even politically middle-of-the-road talk-show hosts such as Jay Marvin (WLS Talk Radio, Chicago), can't resist the diatribe that defines his own viewpoint over those of his callers.
It is hardly hardball when Matthews fires pointed questions at his guests with no expectation of answers. My guess is that his guests feign a thoughtful response, knowing only too well that pausing for just a moment will result in Matthews moving on to the next question, thereby letting them completely off the hook for any response at all. Meanwhile, tactically speaking, Matthews appears to be the hard-hitting interviewer, while his guests come off slow to respond, undermining their own credibility. At least that is the strategy. Fortunately it fails because the show lacks meaningful information, and it doesn't invoke discussion or expansion of ideas and alternative viewpoints. In other words, there is no debate to be had, and within 10 minutes intelligent viewers are changing the channel.
The same is true for most of these shows. Watch and/or listen to the pundits and gauge for yourself whether this tactic does not prevail. When a caller is articulate, informed, and prepared with an opposing viewpoint, the hosts rarely allow for the development of these callers' arguments, let alone engage in any robust debate with them. Why is that? My theory is that most of the hosts' positions cannot be sustained beyond a superficial basis. A serious debate could expose the lack of substance behind much of the conservative, and liberal for that matter, dogma, threatening the credibility of the hosts and indirectly the political parties.
How different would the political arena be if the pundits actually questioned, and made earnest attempts to answer, the actions of the administration and Congress? Once again, I call your attention to the fact that CNN produces an entirely different news broadcast for American consumption than for the rest of the globe. While Americans are being regaled with the disappearance of a basketball player, the rest of the world is being exposed to an examination of the international criminal-court process. While FOX and MSNBC labor over the new book on John Kennedy Jr. and his wife Carolyn, the rest of the world is being exposed to North Korea's escalating nuclear capability. It is no wonder that Americans appear clueless and self-absorbed. Our news consumption is petty and irrelevant on so many levels.
Limbaugh had the audacity to opine sympathy for the Kennedy family's burden of dealing with the recent publication that is critical of John Jr. and his wife because there is no way for them to respond to the data. He called the book "grist for gossip," as he simultaneously and hypocritically listed each allegation by way of example. No one is fooled by this tactic, either.
Did You Know?
Did you know that any member of Congress can stall a bill even when it has passed with overwhelming support? Stalling a bill is supposedly a legitimate process that allows for a secret ban and keeps the bill from moving forward as law. According to Republicans, the HEROS Act, a bill extending a moratorium on student-loan payments for servicemen and -women that passed 421 to 1 experienced this measure via John Edwards, who secretly stalled it to add his amendment forgiving interest on these student loans for anyone currently serving in our armed forces.
The more important issue is the ability for one congressman to stall a bill once it has passed. What is the rationale for such a process; how long can it be stalled for; what are the criteria for stalling; why is it secret; how many times has this occurred with a bill; what have been the impacts/consequences of such an action; is this publicized when it occurs; if so, where and when and if not, why not; where is this process defined for clarification?
From Rush Limbaugh (syndicated radio talk show) to Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor, FOX News) to Chris Matthews (Hardball, MSNBC) to Sean Hannity (syndicated radio talk show) to James Carville (Crossfire, CNN), the modus operandi is the same: pontification versus discussion. Bill O'Reilly, and even politically middle-of-the-road talk-show hosts such as Jay Marvin (WLS Talk Radio, Chicago), can't resist the diatribe that defines his own viewpoint over those of his callers.
It is hardly hardball when Matthews fires pointed questions at his guests with no expectation of answers. My guess is that his guests feign a thoughtful response, knowing only too well that pausing for just a moment will result in Matthews moving on to the next question, thereby letting them completely off the hook for any response at all. Meanwhile, tactically speaking, Matthews appears to be the hard-hitting interviewer, while his guests come off slow to respond, undermining their own credibility. At least that is the strategy. Fortunately it fails because the show lacks meaningful information, and it doesn't invoke discussion or expansion of ideas and alternative viewpoints. In other words, there is no debate to be had, and within 10 minutes intelligent viewers are changing the channel.
The same is true for most of these shows. Watch and/or listen to the pundits and gauge for yourself whether this tactic does not prevail. When a caller is articulate, informed, and prepared with an opposing viewpoint, the hosts rarely allow for the development of these callers' arguments, let alone engage in any robust debate with them. Why is that? My theory is that most of the hosts' positions cannot be sustained beyond a superficial basis. A serious debate could expose the lack of substance behind much of the conservative, and liberal for that matter, dogma, threatening the credibility of the hosts and indirectly the political parties.
How different would the political arena be if the pundits actually questioned, and made earnest attempts to answer, the actions of the administration and Congress? Once again, I call your attention to the fact that CNN produces an entirely different news broadcast for American consumption than for the rest of the globe. While Americans are being regaled with the disappearance of a basketball player, the rest of the world is being exposed to an examination of the international criminal-court process. While FOX and MSNBC labor over the new book on John Kennedy Jr. and his wife Carolyn, the rest of the world is being exposed to North Korea's escalating nuclear capability. It is no wonder that Americans appear clueless and self-absorbed. Our news consumption is petty and irrelevant on so many levels.
Limbaugh had the audacity to opine sympathy for the Kennedy family's burden of dealing with the recent publication that is critical of John Jr. and his wife because there is no way for them to respond to the data. He called the book "grist for gossip," as he simultaneously and hypocritically listed each allegation by way of example. No one is fooled by this tactic, either.
Did You Know?
Did you know that any member of Congress can stall a bill even when it has passed with overwhelming support? Stalling a bill is supposedly a legitimate process that allows for a secret ban and keeps the bill from moving forward as law. According to Republicans, the HEROS Act, a bill extending a moratorium on student-loan payments for servicemen and -women that passed 421 to 1 experienced this measure via John Edwards, who secretly stalled it to add his amendment forgiving interest on these student loans for anyone currently serving in our armed forces.
The more important issue is the ability for one congressman to stall a bill once it has passed. What is the rationale for such a process; how long can it be stalled for; what are the criteria for stalling; why is it secret; how many times has this occurred with a bill; what have been the impacts/consequences of such an action; is this publicized when it occurs; if so, where and when and if not, why not; where is this process defined for clarification?
