The Dangerous Influence of Far-Right Talk Radio on American Politics

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: And it's scary to think that there are people out there who actually believe and support his extreme views. It's also concerning that this type of rhetoric is influencing and shaping the political landscape in our country. In summary, Michael Savage, host of a popular right-wing talk radio show, is known for making outrageous and controversial statements. He has a large following, but his extreme views and fear-mongering tactics are concerning and have the potential to negatively impact our society and political climate.
  • #71
drankin said:
Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization.

LOL

drakin said:
Not counting N. Korea and a handful of other nations on the planet and what their ideals are.

Their ideals? You think the N. Korean people want what Kim Jong Il wants?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
chemisttree said:
Getting back to the topic of the thread...

You are quoting the op. That is the topic.

Are the likes of Larson, Limbaugh and Savage having an effect?

There is no way to know precisely how much effect they have, but I have heard the same nonsense coming from Bush supporters for years. There is no doubt that it has an effect. In fact an old friend of mine had his mind warped by this nonsense to the point where he no longer welcome in my home. And I'm not even a liberal.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Poop-Loops said:
Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

drankin said:
Yes, it's impossible to even suppose that "everyone" wants that. Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization. That takes peace and freedom out of it right there. Not counting N. Korea and a handful of other nations on the planet and what their ideals are. I'll believe that everyone wants prosperity but that's about as close assuming what everyone wants that I can swallow.

Are you taking "peace" out of the things every nation that has ever fought a war wants?

It seems to me you're confusing the "ends" with the "means" used to get there. The Allies in World War II wanted peace - just not a peace under Hitler.

Still, I see your point.

I think it's safe to say everyone wants food and shelter and maybe even love (at least initially as a child). Beyond that, you're getting to a point where goals are a matter of priorities. For example, people in the US are a lot more concerned with security than their personal freedoms. That doesn't mean Americans don't like freedom - it means most Americans don't think it's worth dying for. There's other, less prosperous nations, where people couldn't care less about freedom - they're just worried about where their next meal is going to come from and where they're going to live. Freedom is so far down the list of priorities that it doesn't even show up on the scope.
 
  • #74
chemisttree said:
Or do you believe that there was no effect whatsoever, that, "http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-confirm-operation-chaos-abject-failure/"
That is one of the most brainless arguments I've seen on the news lately, if it even is an argument.

Just because the republicans voted for Hillary in about the same proportion as democrats did does not, in any sensible way, point to the absence of a Limbaugh effect. If anything, it points to a strong influence of Limbaugh once you consider that lots of Republicans will be hard pressed to name even a handful of people that they hate more than Hillary. What would the Republican vote for Hillary have looked like, were there no Operation Chaos?

To make any argument about the effect of a particular influence, you must compare data with and without the influence (the reference). Look for the answer in the early primaries, before Operation Chaos began. What fraction of Republicans favored Hillary in Missouri (both demographically, and results-wise, closest to Indiana among the early races)? The answer is 21%, while 74% voted for Obama. Iowa, another demographically similar early state saw 10% of the Republican vote go for Hillary as opposed to 44% for Obama. Both fractions are significantly smaller than the 54% in Indiana. Another telling sign is that while Republicans made up 3% and 6% of the electorates in IA and MO, they made up 10% of the electorate in IN.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#MODEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#INDEM

PS: My own experience in Indiana involved 1 person admitting to be a part of Op. Chaos. That's about 2% of all the people I spoke to, in a very liberal part of the state. So, I know it's not a myth!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
BobG said:
I think it's safe to say everyone wants food and shelter and maybe even love (at least initially as a child). Beyond that, you're getting to a point where goals are a matter of priorities. For example, people in the US are a lot more concerned with security than their personal freedoms. That doesn't mean Americans don't like freedom - it means most Americans don't think it's worth dying for. There's other, less prosperous nations, where people couldn't care less about freedom - they're just worried about where their next meal is going to come from and where they're going to live. Freedom is so far down the list of priorities that it doesn't even show up on the scope.

Your point is a good one. The priorities of a country are what distinguish them from another country. But I'm saying we all still want the same things. This isn't Lord of the Rings where Orcs want to kill all of us and we need to stop them. No, it's people arguing with people. Nobody wants to slaughter an entire nation. The leaders might, but you can't say that the people do.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
You are quoting the op. That is the topic.
Yeah, that was the point, Ivan.

There is no way to know precisely how much effect they have, but I have heard the same nonsense coming from Bush supporters for years. There is no doubt that it has an effect. In fact an old friend of mine had his mind warped by this nonsense to the point where he no longer welcome in my home. And I'm not even a liberal.

I wonder why the pollsters didn't just come out and ask if the voters were members of Operation Chaos? In Texas I heard the same rant but since the Republican voters voted roughly an even split between the two candidates http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html" , it is difficult to tell if it had a serious effect.
A review of the Texas vote shows that among the 15 counties Mr. Obama won with his biggest margins, the voter falloff between the president and Senate races ranged from 22 percent, in Harris County, to 38 percent, in Jefferson County. (c-tree: Voter falloff is the tendency of the voter to vote only for a presidential candidate and ignore the downticket choices. This is believed by the authors to reflect the likelyhood of the voter either not returning in the fall if their choice loses or of crossover voters not wanting to support downticket Democrats)

The biggest falloff was in Republican-heavy Collin County, which Mr. Obama carried by 55 percent. Four in 10 Democratic voters who cast ballots in the presidential race didn't vote in the Senate race.

Republican strategist Royal Masset said the Collin County vote illustrates a big reason for the voter falloff – Republican crossover voters who wanted to influence the outcome.

Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little evidence that happened.

According to exit polls, only 9 percent of Democratic voters statewide identified themselves as Republicans, and they went for Mr. Obama, 53 percent to 46 percent.

Republican pollster Mike Baselice said a 9 percent to 15 percent crossover vote is typical in Texas, and early-voter analysis indicates many of the "new" voters had some history of voting Democratic in general elections and were only new to a primary.

On the Clinton side, her top 15 counties had a substantially lower voter falloff, from 11 percent in Webb County to 24 percent in Bowie County and 26 percent in Hidalgo County.

In South Texas, a Clinton stronghold, more people likely voted for both president and Senate because of the presence of a Senate candidate with a Hispanic surname.

Removing the South Texas counties from the equation did not significantly change the falloff numbers.

The Democrat primary assigns delegates proportionally, not absolutely like the Republicans, so I don't think there is much of an effect either way. The primary in Texas occurred just about the time that the Jeremiah Wright affair came out (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html) and began to get some traction so that could also have affected Hillary's numbers positively, I suppose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
Gokul43201 said:
That is one of the most brainless arguments I've seen on the news lately, if it even is an argument.

Just because the republicans voted for Hillary in about the same proportion as democrats did does not, in any sensible way, point to the absence of a Limbaugh effect. If anything, it points to a strong influence of Limbaugh once you consider that lots of Republicans will be hard pressed to name even a handful of people that they hate more than Hillary. What would the Republican vote for Hillary have looked like, were there no Operation Chaos?
I understand, but in a 2 way race they only need one not a handful. Remember that this all happened after the Wright, Ayers and bitter/angry stories came out.

To make any argument about the effect of a particular influence, you must compare data with and without the influence (the reference). Look for the answer in the early primaries, before Operation Chaos began. What fraction of Republicans favored Hillary in Missouri (both demographically, and results-wise, closest to Indiana among the early races)? The answer is 21%, while 74% voted for Obama. Iowa, another demographically similar early state saw 10% of the Republican vote go for Hillary as opposed to 44% for Obama. Both fractions are significantly smaller than the 54% in Indiana. Another telling sign is that while Republicans made up 3% and 6% of the electorates in IA and MO, they made up 10% of the electorate in IN.
PS: My own experience in Indiana involved 1 person admitting to be a part of Op. Chaos. That's about 2% of all the people I spoke to, in a very liberal part of the state. So, I know it's not a myth!

You mean you want to compare Obama's numbers before the Wright affair, the Ayers story, the angry bitter comments? I think you need to recalibrate your analysis.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Poop-Loops said:
Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?
Others have pointed out some specific examples of direct problems with this claim. I could add more (what about happiness?) -- but I want to point out some entirely different flaws.

For the sake of argument, I will assume in this post that the above list is actually correct.

The other problems stem from the fact that these are just the high-level, and vague descriptions:

(1) Different groups of people, and even different people within the same group, will have differing opinions about what most of those goals really are.

(2) These high-level goals are comprised of many subgoals which certainly vary between different people -- e.g. the means acquiring food will be much different for a group of people living in the North American midwest versus a group of people roaming the deserts of the Arabian peninsula!


So even if you can successfully abstract away the diversity of the human condition, you only get homogeneity at this abstract level. As soon as you start specializing to concrete instances, that diversity reappears.
 
  • #79
So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?
 
  • #80
Poop-Loops said:
So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

Actually, I think that's true in a way. Their idea of freedom is different than the Western idea. They despise our form of freedom.
 
  • #81
chemisttree said:
I understand, but in a 2 way race they only need one not a handful. Remember that this all happened after the Wright, Ayers and bitter/angry stories came out.



You mean you want to compare Obama's numbers before the Wright affair, the Ayers story, the angry bitter comments? I think you need to recalibrate your analysis.
I agree that there are definitely other factors that weigh in as well, and you need to find some way to adjust for them. Notice I never said that the comparison made above was conclusive of anything, but if anything it's heading in the direction towards a fuller analysis. And that's also why I brought up the numbers on the fraction of Reps voting in a democratic primary. Negatives about Obama may turn Obama favouring Reps towards Hillary or McCain, but they shouldn't get more Reps to want to vote for Hillary over McCain. On the other hand, Op Chaos specifically requires even McCain supporting Reps to vote for Hillary.
 
  • #82
On the topic of nations:

We need to have nations, but we need to be more accepting of diversity. Everyone has a different life goal.
 
  • #83
Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect?

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect?

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well.

I think the term "hate radio" be defined so that people know what you are talking about? What is this "hate" anyway?

In order to be considered KKK-like shouldn't they be exclusive to a particular race or at least wear white cloaks with pointy hoods or something?
 
  • #85
Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK because the definition of the enemy is a variable that changes according to the needs of the show. As stated, liberals are the enemy; liberal being anyone who disagrees with any position held by the hate mongers, apparently. I gave a list that Savage expands in the link from Edward, in ~post 3. It seems that even "latte lappers" and college grads aren't safe.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Note also that Gokul cited at least 40 million listeners just among the top five rated hate shows, and though we don't know what crossover exists, there are plenty more shows.

In 2004 Bush received a total of just over 62 million votes.

So at 28 million, the Limbaugh listeners alone add up to just under half as many people as voted for Bush.
 
  • #87
Limbaugh on Michael J Fox [Parkinsons Disease victim and spokesman]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Ivan Seeking said:
Chemisttree, are you saying that you approve of hate radio?

Do you support the hate-speech and the role that it plays in shaping the psyche of the voting public?

Support? I hadn't even heard of Michael Savage until this thread. Nice try... Kind of like "Have you stopped beating you wife yet?"

Are you saying that million and millions, in fact tens of millions of voters have devoted as much as thousands of hours each listening to these KKK-like nutjobs but with no effect?
Little effect. One person that you meet (in a really liberal part of the state) doesn't really appear to me as an 'effect'... more like 'affect'.

I wasn't talking about the so called "Operation Chaos", but that applies as well.
Are you saying that Operation Chaos is hate speech? Did you hear how fast Limbaugh "released the superdelegates" to support Obama? It was clear to me that he was trying to take credit for the next obvious development in the campaign and claim the credit for it. Hate speech? No, just a bit petty and vindictive perhaps.
 
  • #89
Poop-Loops said:
So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

They couldn't give a rat's a_s about our freedoms. It is all about overthrowing the Conservative Arab countries. They only attack us because we support the Saudis and other conservative states. If we didn't support those states, they would ignore us.
 
  • #90
Gokul43201 said:
Didn't he actually settle the suit and pay her off because the plaintiff's case included word-to-word quotations of the phone conversations?

PS: Quotes such as these?

I would be surprised if Oreiley acknowledged his reasons for settling out of court.

Are you going on public record that you believe that settling out of court is an indication of guilt?
 
  • #91
Gokul43201 said:
The O'Reilly Saga, Part 2 of many:
What's the problem with this?

There is no such thing as the "Paris Business Review" - O'Reilly just made it up, as we've come to expect from him.

Such hogwash.

That's what you've "come to expect from him"?

That certainly implies a pattern of behavior. You know ... a pattern...something that could be expected to be repeated in the future with certainty ...

say TONIGHT or TOMORROW night or ... PICK A NIGHT!

Say whaaat? You'd rather just wait until your favorite blogger or website (*We watch...so YOU don't have to!) parses through history and finds the tidbits and passes down the treats? Aww, isn't that cute.

Yes, I am back. The evil conservative who listens to NPR every morning, Tavis Smiley every evening and watches CNN and Olbermann every night. The guy who has a raging hardon for Oreiley even though I only watch him about once a week.

The closed-minded (shut tight tight tight!) monster who offended the open-minded liberals by suggesting that we actually watch a show firsthand and compare it to another show, again watched firsthand (tight! tight! tight!)




So... what are we watching tomorrow night?
 
  • #92
Ivan Seeking said:
Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

I don't think you mean that, do you?

I think this is a fair example of how exaggerations can be generated by people discussing an emotional topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
seycyrus said:
Ivan Seeking said:
Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

I don't think you mean that, do you?

I think this is a fair example of how exaggerations can be generated by people discussing an emotional topic.

Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??

Savage gave the emotional caller a hateful boost when he replied: "I pull up beside of these people and yell at them"

He actually says a lot worse than "yell" at them. Listen to the last 45 seconds of this link:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Savage is the man!
 
  • #95
Ivan Seeking said:
Limbaugh, Lason, and Savage are all examples of hate radio - people who profit by creating hate for a group by pepetuating lies and half-truths. And it is even worse than the KKK ...

edward said:
Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??

Savage gave the emotional caller a hateful boost when he replied: "I pull up beside of these people and yell at them"

He actually says a lot worse than "yell" at them. Listen to the last 45 seconds of this link:



I am trying to avoid going down the KKK path ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Ivan said:
Since when did a bumper sticker that says: "I am already against the next war" become an emotional subject for a normal person??

Well that certainly is a stupid bumper sticker.

That's simply announcing to the world that you have already been brainwashed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
drankin said:
Savage is the man!

Grown @ss men don't act like that...screaming at other motorists because of a bumper sticker on their car? Come on - what a loser.
 
  • #98
lisab said:
Grown @ss men don't act like that...screaming at other motorists because of a bumper sticker on their car? Come on - what a loser.

He's passionate!
 
  • #99
I have edited the posts on this page so that they make sense. If I missed something, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
  • #100
I'm sure you're ready for your shower now...
 
  • #101
*Sigh* The wasteland that is talk radio and cable news television.
 
  • #103
Ivan Seeking said:
Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

It seems as though that video is only a few minutes of the discussion, not the full exchange. The full exchange (nine minutes long, with the latter five consisting mainly of Kevin James shouting "It all goes back to appeasement" and "Energized, legitimized", etc.) can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24655385#24655385
 
  • #104
Ivan Seeking said:
Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

Wow, that guy sure is no William F. Buckley! He just keeps spewing talking point, talking point, talking point!
 
  • #105
Ivan Seeking said:
Gokul already posted this, but it really has to be included in this thread.

Conservative radio talk show host Kevin James:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043
Who says he's conservative, besides himself no doubt? Sounds like he's just partisan.
 

Similar threads

News Why is right-wing radio declining and independent voices gaining popularity?
    • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
5K
News RIP, Dick Gregory, Comedian and Civil Rights Activitist, 84
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
News Why Americans Love Obama's Kill List
    • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
News When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
News White House Blocking reputable News agencies
    • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
3K
News How Did James Garner's Roles Influence His Political Activism?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?
    • General Discussion
8
Replies
253
Views
25K
News Green Solution to a Political Problem?
    • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
News A Great Day for Hope in America
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
News Cheney Thinks Obama will Appreciate Expansion of Executive Power
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top