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

[drankin]

Yes, liberal talk radio was a total flop. I find it notable that hate-talk doesn't sell among liberals nearly as well as it sells to conservatives - neo-conservatives, that is. That is rather ironic when one considers that the neo-cons see themselves as being more Christian - a philosophy of love, at the least - than liberals. And even more ironic is the fact that nutjobs like LL&S rant about the "liberal media".

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, I'm afraid. Boy, you got me there.

Yeah, keep talking.

I think Osama Bin Laden is a piece of crap, but I still went and read his manifesto. read it *myself*.

You're worried about something or another. You can rationalize it to yourself however you want, but I guarantee you that if it was a youtube video of O'reileys stupidest sayings, you'd find the time to watch it.

You've had time to watch a bunch of snippets. Post them, and participate in a thread about them, but not watch an actual show.

In the meantime, somehow I watched both CNN and Olbermann. You know, so I would have a clue about what I was talking about.

The fact is, your "treasure trove" of material wouldn't manifest. Oreiley would say just as many stupid things as Olbermann or any CNN pundit.

One of the points that was brought up in an early post in this thread was an "Open mind to an alternate point of view."

Well looks like that idea was just shot to pieces and replaced by ..."Err let me log on the web and see what my favorite blogger who supports my own point of view tells me I'm supposed to believe."

 

[seycyrus]

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".

Hate talk is the term used when conservatives succeed in markets in which liberals fail.

The failure of liberal radio *couldn't* be due to poor talent, inefficient marketing or an uncommitted audience.

Meanwhile, comedy central is doing quite well.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess I don't. I didn't come up with any links that offered what I would consider to be anything other that hear say.

Do you have any links of the recordings?

Am I supposed to believe that none of the anti-Oreiley sites have the actual tapes?

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

The O'Reilly Saga, Part 2 of many:

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

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. Not just that, The US Census Bureau reported increased imports from France during the time of the "O'Reilly Boycott" compared to a year earlier.

Just the usual self-aggrandizing nonsense that shows nothing but wanton disrespect for any kind of journalistic ethics.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

 

[chemisttree]

Is it any wonder that with people like this bending the ear of working class Americans - hour after hour, day after day, year after year - we get what we have in Washington? But the worst of it is that in spite of the nonsense this guy spreads like horse manure, I defend his right to free speech. At the same time, it makes me sick to see what his brand of bs, and that of his comrades in arms, Larson & Limbaugh, has done to the country. And I have to wonder if there comes a point where his words of hatred are indeed like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Getting back to the topic of the thread... Are the likes of Larson, Limbaugh and Savage having an effect? Did Rush's "Operation Chaos" really have an effect? Do really believe that Limbaugh is responsible for two Bush terms? Do you believe that the Limbaugh dittoheads swayed the election in Indiania to give Hillary a slim victory?

Do you believe what Obama's campaign has said about it... namely that, http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Exit_polls_indicate_Limbaughs_minions_turning_0506.html"

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/"

I think Operation Chaos' real goal is just to get the left's panties in a wad. That appears to be working.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Good point, and what is this "exact same goals" nonsense? I thought we were talking about this planet?

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

 

[edward]

What exactly is hate talk? Just curious why both the conservatives and the liberals accuse each other of "hate talk".

What exactly is hare talk? Below is hat talk.



As Ivan mentioned the neocons are vicious. They try to defend their actions by accusing the liberals of doing it too. That is about as far as the two way accusations go.

 

[edward]

To be fair, here is a list of liberal hate radio talk show hosts as presented in the Free Republic.

Google the names, or bring them up on youtube. You will not see the angry vicious attacks against conservatives as a whole, and very little about individuals.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Liberal Hate Radio Guide



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thom Hartmann -

Anti-Corporation, thinks the "evil" coporations are out to screw the middle class.
Invokes Ronald Reagan's name in a negative way every single show, thinks Reagan destroyed the country forever.

Thinks Jimmy Carter was a great President...no, really.

Has Liberterian or "conservative" guests on, then spends the rest of the show, with his callers, making fun of them.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News


Ed Shultz - Big on improving gas milage and using additives in your vehicle.

Makes fun of "Slanthead" every show...aka, Sean Hannity.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.


Stephanie Miller - Has the worst amateurish radio show ever, including sound effects from your old high school radio show.

Like to laugh at her own comments...constantly.

Has the entire 1st hour about "Right Wing World"

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.


Bill Press - Thinks Dennis Kucinich is a very viable candidate.

Makes fun of CNN and Fox News, all the while wondering why he's never on these networks.

Thinks Karl Rove runs the government.

Thinks George Bush should be impeached.

Hates Fox News.

 

[drankin]

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

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.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Probably half the Muslim world believes in a Jihad against Western civilization.

LOL

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[BobG]

Food, shelter, peace, love, prosperity, freedom. Do you deny that everybody wants that?

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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!

 

[Poop-Loops]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Poop-Loops]

So you're saying that terrorists hate our freedom?

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[drankin]

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Limbaugh on Michael J Fox [Parkinsons Disease victim and spokesman]

 

[chemisttree]

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.

 

[wildman]

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.

 

[seycyrus]

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?