Stuck in AM Radio Mode: Ranting and Raving on the Airwaves

[Cyrus]

I really don't want any government agency deciding what is "correct" and what is "respectful". I say let the jack***es be jack***es. Its the easiest way to show people who they are. When you censor people you martyr them. People will listen to them and stick up for them if they see them as an underdog being ill treated by the government. They won't listen to reason or facts in the face of a cause. There are still people out there that honestly believe in 9/11 conspiracies about bombs and such.
Besides, their liberal counterparts are hardly any better. They just target different people and take up different issues.

Which gets to the other program on AM radio. Some dude was talking about this bank in france controlling all the money and the US government and how the luminati controls the world.

<Smacks forehead>

Come on people, this is 2009. We should be past this kind of ignorance.

At least CSPAN radio isn't quite so bad. But sometimes the callers are pretty stupid too.

 

[DaveC426913]

I accidently got into AM radio mode in my car for the last two days, and I can't figure out how to take it back into FM because there isn't a stupid AM/FM button.

"Double-click" your pre-set station buttons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From the thread linked; from Gokul.

Approximate weekly audience (in millions):

Rush Limbaugh - 13.5+
Sean Hannity - 12.5 +
Michael Savage / Dr Laura Schlessinger - 8.0+
Glenn Beck / Laura Ingraham - 5.0+
Neal Boortz / Mark Levin / Dave Ramsey - 4.0+
Mike Gallagher / Michael Medved - 3.75+

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/10652/Personalities/Top+Talk+Radio+Shows.aspx

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which gets to the other program on AM radio. Some dude was talking about this bank in france controlling all the money and the US government and how the luminati controls the world.

<Smacks forehead>

Come on people, this is 2009. We should be past this kind of ignorance.

At least CSPAN radio isn't quite so bad. But sometimes the callers are pretty stupid too.

I listen to Coast to Coast (Ufology, conspiracy theories, ect.) all the time. Its entertaining! lol
And also a good example of people who make themselves popular by claiming to be censored and harassed by the government.

 

[russ_watters]

The line of being criticism and being hate speech. This kind of news broadcasting should have government regulation that enforces all factual information be (a) correct, and (b) respectful.

It's ok to disagree with solid facts and present it in a reasonable manner. Calling the president 'chuckels' while spewing all kinds of nonsense and making racist remarks shouldn't be allowed if it want's to be any form of a news program.

He's more than welcome to say those things provided he calls it a commedy show.

Ok... so you think that line makes or should make that kind of speech illegal? It might be detestable, but you're on the wrong side of the acceptable free speech line.

The man is a racist. I've heard him with my own ears talking about how the 'white man' built the golden gate bridge. He's bonkers.

Racism isn't illegal.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok... so you think that line makes or should make that kind of speech illegal? It might be detestable, but you're on the wrong side of the acceptable free speech line. Racism isn't illegal.

I think this whole 'free speech line' is taken way too far. The right to free speech isn't absolute. What I'm proposing is that news media be limited in what they can present. They have to be [a] factually accurate (no speculative BS reporting anymore. If they want to report the news, they have to get their facts right) they have to be professional when they do it. Bozo's like Bill O'tool the fool shouldn't be allowed to present that garabge as 'fair and balanced' news.

In other words, news like News Hour on PBS, Charlie Rose, or Meet the Press.

I don't care for clowns like olberman either. It should be a given that yelling at people on your show should get you off the air.

 

[drankin]

I think this whole 'free speech line' is taken way too far. The right to free speech isn't absolute. What I'm proposing is that news media be limited in what they can present. They have to be [a] factually accurate (no speculative BS reporting anymore. If they want to report the news, they have to get their facts right) they have to be professional when they do it. Bozo's like Bill O'tool the fool shouldn't be allowed to present that garabge as 'fair and balanced' news.

In other words, news like News Hour on PBS, Charlie Rose, or Meet the Press.

I don't care for clowns like olberman either.

You live in the wrong country to see censorship like that. China has a pretty good censorship program! :)

 

[Cyrus]

You live in the wrong country to see censorship like that. China has a pretty good censorship program! :)

Not really. What I'm saying is in no way sensorship of good ideas. In fact, its simply a filter for bad, unsupported nonsense. I fail to see how this compares to China where they sensor anything that goes against the government.

 

[rootX]

Better to have informed listeners. I don't think anyone who's informed and rational would take these shows seriously or would even listen to them.

But, overly biased new sources prevent that so I would also say that new sources should be held accountable for what kind of information they are delivering.

 

[drankin]

Not really. What I'm saying is in no way sensorship of good ideas. In fact, its simply a filter for bad, unsupported nonsense. I fail to see how this compares to China where they sensor anything that goes against the government.

The problem is, who determines the filter? The way our society works, the listeners are the filter. If they don't listen, the programs go away. They are supported by advertisements after all. If no one listens, no one will advertise with them. So there you go, it's filtered the old fashioned way.

 

[Cyrus]

The problem is, who determines the filter? The way our society works, the listeners are the filter. If they don't listen, the programs go away. They are supported by advertisements after all. If no one listens, no one will advertise with them. So there you go, it's filtered the old fashioned way.

What do you mean who deterimines the filter? I already told you. It's based on fact. If you have a running history of presenting information that is factually incorrect you're gone. It's the same way creationists abuse and misuse principles of science to prop up their arguments. They would not be allowed to have a news program because what they are presenting is bogus.

In other words, the news needs peer review.

 

[drankin]

What do you mean who deterimines the filter? I already told you. It's based on fact. If you have a running history of presenting information that is factually incorrect you're gone. It's the same way creationists abuse and misuse principles of science to prop up their arguments. They would not be allowed to have a news program because what they are presenting is bogus.

In other words, the news needs peer review.

Well, Michael Savage isn't a news man. He reads the news and gives his perspective. If he is your example, then you are hanging the wrong man. Peer review would require all the news networks to critique each other. But that wouldn't do anything, really. They have no authority over each other. The tabloids would be screwed if there were a "news police".

 

[OAQfirst]

I think this whole 'free speech line' is taken way too far. The right to free speech isn't absolute. What I'm proposing is that news media be limited in what they can present. They have to be [a] factually accurate (no speculative BS reporting anymore. If they want to report the news, they have to get their facts right) they have to be professional when they do it. Bozo's like Bill O'tool the fool shouldn't be allowed to present that garabge as 'fair and balanced' news.

In other words, news like News Hour on PBS, Charlie Rose, or Meet the Press.

I don't care for clowns like olberman either. It should be a given that yelling at people on your show should get you off the air.

Nah. It's just like pot. Those people who do this stuff and come out about it make it easier for the rest of us to sort out the riffraff. When some guy informs me that O'Reilly is all that, I don't have to wonder if I should take him seriously or waste time considering what they have to say.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, Michael Savage isn't a news man. He reads the news and gives his perspective. If he is your example, then you are hanging the wrong man. Peer review would require all the news networks to critique each other. But that wouldn't do anything, really. They have no authority over each other. The tabloids would be screwed if there were a "news police".

Good, because there crap-o-la. I couldn't care less if they all vaporized overnight. I really don't need to see if Oprah lost 22lbs! They can fill that shelf slot with Popular Science, or something about Art, or Literature, or real News. Anything of actual value to the person that picks it up and reads it.

BTW: real news: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4883166n

 

[lisab]

Yeah, AM radio is pretty much a wasteland. Hope you can figure out how to get back to FM soon...dog forbid, you may have to consult the User's Manual .

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, AM radio is pretty much a wasteland. Hope you can figure out how to get back to FM soon...dog forbid, you may have to consult the User's Manual .

I'm a man. I don't need no stinking 'users manual'. I kept hitting button after button. I actually figured out for the first time the off button! You have to hold it. If you just press it it cycles to CD, RADIO, or AUX. I just put it on AUX because it has no sound if there's nothing plugged in... lol.

 

[Redbelly98]

I remember back when AUX meant CD.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm a man. I don't need no stinking 'users manual'. I kept hitting button after button. I actually figured out for the first time the off button! You have to hold it. If you just press it it cycles to CD, RADIO, or AUX. I just put it on AUX because it has no sound if there's nothing plugged in... lol.

Press your station button twice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good, because there crap-o-la. I couldn't care less if they all vaporized overnight. I really don't need to see if Oprah lost 22lbs!

Yeah yeah. The world according to Cyrus. My kid thinks the same way:

"Everything I don't care for should be eliminated. Everything I do like should get special treatment."

and

"The Government (or better yet, me) should have special magical powers that magically filter the factual stuff from the garbage, and eliminate the bad stuff. This power will never run afoul of the sensibilites of intelligent people (me), only of idiots (which it can magically distinguish between of course) and will never get out of control and infringe upon my rights."

and

"This should all happen without changing my right to live in a free country with freedom of speech and unfettered access to information."

Uh huh.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Press your station button twice.

That's the way mine works. If you hit the preset button multiple times it will switch over to AM presets.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wanted to quote this to make a rather interesting point.

From the thread linked; from Gokul.

Approximate weekly audience (in millions):

Rush Limbaugh - 13.5+
Sean Hannity - 12.5 +
Michael Savage / Dr Laura Schlessinger - 8.0+
Glenn Beck / Laura Ingraham - 5.0+
Neal Boortz / Mark Levin / Dave Ramsey - 4.0+
Mike Gallagher / Michael Medved - 3.75+

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/listid/10652/Personalities/Top+Talk+Radio+Shows.aspx

In the 2004 Presidential election, 122 million people voted. Bush ended up with about a 30% approval rating by the end of his second term of office. 30% of 122 million is 37 million, which gives us about the same number of people listening to the shows listed above. It would reeeeeeeally be interesting to know how this maps to Bush's popularity. I would bet that it maps nearly 1:1.

 

[seycyrus]

...would reeeeeeeally be interesting to know how this maps to Bush's popularity. I would bet that it maps nearly 1:1.

Yes, it is quite surprising that people who listen to conservative radio programs might support a conservative president...

I'm sending in my nomination for a Nobel Prize!

 

[lisab]

I remember back when AUX meant CD.

I would think AUX would mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auk" to you, Redbelly.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yes, it is quite surprising that people who listen to conservative radio programs might support a conservative president...

I'm sending in my nomination for a Nobel Prize!

No, but it would be interesting if the only people who supported that conservative president were those listening to those radio programs.

That said, it's extremely unlikely that the 13 million listening to Rush and the 8 million listening to Savage have no or little overlap

 

[Zdenka]

One must remember, when you're debating about whether socialism is a good or bad thing, only democracy allows you to do that.

 

[Cyrus]

One must remember, when you're debating about whether socialism is a good or bad thing, only democracy allows you to do that.

What? Since when is it illegal to debate that in a socialist country?

 

[Nabeshin]

One must remember, when you're debating about whether socialism is a good or bad thing, only democracy allows you to do that.

One must also remember that socialism is an economic doctrine, and is completely compatible with democracy!

(You can have a socialist democracy, or a socialist monarchy, or a capitalist democracy, or a capitalist monarchy, etc.)

People seem to think socialism implies dictatorship. While it is true the two often go hand in hand, they need not.

 

[Redbelly98]

I would think AUX would mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auk" to you, Redbelly.

It auk to, but it doesn't.

 

[Count Iblis]

I accidently got into AM radio mode in my car for the last two days, and I can't figure out how to take it back into FM because there isn't a stupid AM/FM button. I had to have hit some funky combination of buttons to go into AM and now I am stuck. ANYWAYS, I've been stuck with this AM radio for the past few days now.

WoW.

This stuff is intense. One bozo is Michael Savage. This guy is a real jerk. He was saying stuff like: "See that, those evil white men with slide rules built the golden gate bridge in the 30s. With just a slide rule, those evil white men (sarcastically)."

Then there was Sean Hannity talking about how Obama wants to make this country have currency that's part of the world economy (think euros) and how were turning into a socialistic nation. On and on and on hating Obama, these two.

Now, I don't mind the if republicans disagree, but the tone of what these guys are saying is really to the level of hate speech. It's pretty absurd. Frankly, I'm shocked they have an audience. That scares me.

They weren't just against Obama, they were nasty about it - and I mean nasty. This Savage bozo wouldn't even call him obama, he called him 'chuckles'.

America should be split into a conservative part and a liberal part. You don't need to have a territorial separation, just issue two nationalities. You then have two presidents, two Supreme Courts, two armies etc. etc.

 

[Cyrus]

America should be split into a conservative part and a liberal part. You don't need to have a territorial separation, just issue two nationalities. You then have two presidents, two Supreme Courts, two armies etc. etc.

Mmmmmmm, that's a bad idea.