The other day, my worst fears were realized. I had thought that Rush Limbaugh must have had to have 'some' intelligence to amass such a "Radio Empire". I had thought that his take on things must have some fairly intelligent fans tuning in on a daily basis to support his gigantic "EIB" Network.

It was then I realized that the "EIB" which ostensibly stood for his slogan of "Excellence In Broadcasting" could now be a hollow claim.

Years ago, in my more impressionable days, I had thought Rush had lots of valid points. He was at least a contrarian. Perhaps he did "in those thrilling days of yesteryear" as I borrow a phrase from "The Lone Ranger" Television Show.

But, friends, fast-forward to May of 2005. I heard a supposedly sober Limbaugh tell his Radio World that the reason the United States had such a low percentage of population growth was "ABORTION"!

Yes, you heard me right! Abortion was THE cause for low birth numbers! He even spelled the word "A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N" to dramatize his answer for almost zero population growth in the U.S.

In his opening monologue (a tactic seldom used by what he refers to as the "Mainstream Media"), he proceded to TRY to tie this argument to illegal immigration and from there his case simply became too complicated (if you believe he is really "Talent on loan from God") or too irrational (if you believe he is really "Talent on loan from the Pharmaceutical Industry").

My question for debate is not whether he said it or not - I heard him say it. My questions for debate are: 1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish? 2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1? 3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes? 4. Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?

Unfortunately, yes. I don’t listen to Rush. He’s on locally on WBAP and takes batting practice for three hours, then his spiritual cousin Sean Hannity steps up to the plate. All this is mixed in with some local wannabes.

I do, however, think it’s important to keep up with what the right has on its mind on a given day. How else can one throw it right back in their faces? So, I watch Scarborough Country on MSNBC nearly every night to get a capsulized version of what’s going on the right. It’s about all I can take.

Don't listen, or watch them on TV. It galls me that so many pundits are getting paid so much for accomplishing so little that can be considered to be even slightly constructive.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?

I worked on a job in the summers of 1964 & 1965 where the radio was always on, and there was always a chorus of amens when someone called in to say that the U.S. should pass a law to prevent people in other countries from burning our flag. I think that working hourly there, 3 of us had high school educations. I worked with one man who dropped out of elementary school at 16 when they told him that he couldn't get driver's education until he reached high school.

I ended my career a decade ago working in a shop full of well educated men who believed every word of the Rush to Limbo show. I learned to listen in silence.

At home, I usually kept my radio tuned to NPR.

On the road, I listen to Country music. I can understand the words and no one asks me to sing along. I can ignore it easily and pay attention to the road.

I don't know how the number of listeners compare, but I suspect that we tend to listen to programs we like or switch the station.

I never have looked to radio as a source of ongoing education.

2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1?

Perhaps you mean, Does my answer to question #1 give me any insight into the recent political landscape?

I don't have any clue why someone who works by the hour, perhaps has no union, and no insurance would have voted for George W. Bush and his cronies. Then again, it's been nearly a decade since I listened to Rush to Limbo. There is the possibility that he, or the FOX network, promised that "four more years" of the GOP would be a Grand Old Party for everyone; and they were expecting a kegger at the beach...

3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?

The outcome of elections has to be shaped by persuading people both how to vote, and that they should vote. The people who I have known who listened to talk radio were more likely to be of the attitude that the election was already rigged, so there was no reason for them to vote. My liberal friends who listen to NPR have long felt we could eliminate the annual telethons and pleas for cash if we could once again gain control of legislature and Presidency. We tend to vote.

4. Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

I neither agree mor disagree.

Yes, there's Planned Parenthood. On the whole, I would rather see children raised by a married couple who wants to raise children. Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was at one point, seen as a laudable goal to help the world sustain a human population by using fewer resources. It is laudable to be able to wait to raise children until you feel you can afford it.

Then there are unwed mothers, victims of rape, victims of incest, etc. I would suspect that these are the people who keep abortion clinics in business.

In Michigan, a mother who does not want an infant (up to about 2 weeks I think) can take it to any hospital, fire station, or police station and give it up for adoption with no questions asked. Nonetheless, babies are delivered full term in public rest rooms, and then left to die in the wastebasket. Young mothers smother their babies by sleeping on them. The stories are in the newspapers all too often.

I cannot imagine that any young woman would have several abortions a year as a method of birth control. I would personally view it as a last resort solution, although I have been told that it was practiced historically for a very long time before it was first made illegal.

If I were a young unwed mother, trying to decide whether to bring a child into this world; listening to Rush Limbaugh might tip the scales for me. It would be the one more thing where I could say, "It isn't fair to subject another human being to this."

1. I think US radio listeners are more informed than ever given shows like Rush and competing shows and also the internet. In the past, information was sparse and only offered by print media and a handful of TV networks. The people, in general, are FAR more astute as a result.

2. Yes. Bush won in spite of the overwhelming opinion against him from the "traditional" forms of information; newspapers, traditional TV networks, and the "elite media" which is overwhelmingly liberal democrat in outlook, attitude, and mentality.

3. Sure. Rush hit a home run and changed the landscape because he filled a void that was just waiting for someone with the talent and the insight and the cahones to fill.

4. What? What does this have to do with a debate on the media?

At the end of the day, the two biggest radio pioneers in the past 20 years are at different ends of the political spectrum; Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern. Every opinionated political host with a call in show should bow down to a statue of Rush and every potty mouthed sex-obsessed FM jock should be kissing the feet of Stern.

The others are followers to one degree or another.

Those two have changed the landscape to a huge degree.

I think we are defining terms a little bit differently. I personally think more people are being missiformed by Rush, Hannnity, Coulter and others. At best Limbaugh is a second rate entertainer with no real credentials in journalism or political science.



It depends on how the "official" scorer calls it. I would suggest that Rush's listeners, especially the self-proclaimed ditto-heads, make tons of four base errors.

BTW: I don't like Howard Stern very much either, especially his demeaning of "Gary the Retard."

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?
As an occasional listener to Rush Limbaugh, I think he does keep people more informed (tangentially). He often reads pieces by others and critiques them. He often has quotes from public figures on various issues. On many, many occasions Rush will say something like "So and so wrote an article in the LA Times..." and I will go read it and it not only sparks my quest for knowledge, it often starts topics here on AD.

Just raising issues raises the awareness of people. And that is a good thing, in my opinion.


2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1?

I'm not sure what the political landscape has to do with it. Limbaugh started during the George H.W. Bush years, continued through Clinton and now again into George W. Bush. Did he misinform enough people to get Clinton elected (twice)?


3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?

I tend to agree with 'Mudge here:



The fact that these programs are popular mean that people agree with them. It is quite rare that someone is converted by listening to shows like this.

What talk radio does do is it points out the broad popularity of Conservative thinking. So many shows are successful and most of them are Conservative. Liberal shows of similar formats are not as successful. That should tell us something.

Does it shape the outcomes of elections? I agree that it probably energizes people to vote, which affects outcomes. It keeps people interested in politics, which is also healthy.

4. Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

Hmm, one of these questions is not like the others. Time to switch gears...

It is my view that most abortions are mistakes. Those that plan to not have children take the necessary precautions. Those that aren't thinking about children take chances and (eventually) get burned. That's where abortion comes in: a remedy to the mistake of lack of planning.

I certainly hope that no one is at home planning on having an abortion sometime in the future. It is a last ditch effort to avoid a situation, not a planned-for event.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?



While there might be some minute advantage to listening to Rush, I think it’s far out stripped by negatives. If he hasn’t encouraged his band of dittoheads, he certainly hasn’t discouraged them. There used to be a slogan by the bus company, “Go Greyhound and leave the driving to us.” It now seems, in some individual cases, to be “Go Rush and leave the thinking to him." I choose to do my own thinking.

Rush is to be commended for referencing the Los Angeles Times or whatever. Maybe an occasional listener can learn something, regardless of how minimal from him. The problem lies in his often twisted, sicko commentary on things.

This is from a Salon.com article entitled “The Tortured Logic of Rush Limbaugh:"



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/...y/index_np.html

A play is, afterall, an artistic endeavour. Who is Rush to pass judgment? An even bigger puzzlement is why anyone would really care what Rush thinks is about “hating America.” If Harvard decides to take this on the road or a local theater company picks up, I'll be sure go see it.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?
On the whole, I would say slightly smarter. If you had included blogs, I would have said definitely. Of course, most talk show hosts have their own websites of varying degrees of worth.
I hate it that Rush is seen or held up as the standard when we debate talk radio. Yes, he has a large audience, and he's controversial, but I'm really not sure what standard some people are using when they believe that listeners may be dumbing down as a result of listening.
Rush is an entertainer and a partisan, and interjects his opinion on events and issues. But I think anyone would be hard pressed to say, with certainty, that his show is filled with lies, half-truths or falsehoods. I personally don't listen to him, and haven't since others have come on the scene, that I find more palatable. But I also believe that Rush blazed the talk radio trail to enable it to compete with traditional media. His so-called 'wannabees' and even Air America probably owe him a small thank you. After all, 'twisted, sicko' commentary comes from both sides of the aisle.........

I listen to some talk radio programs not for the rhetoric, or to guide my political beliefs, but to hear news items that don't, and will likely never be covered by the MSM. I also listen on occasion to AAR, for the same reasons that BoF watches Scarborough. So on the whole, I like to think that I am more informed, and by a more diverse collection of news sources: Radio, Blogs, Internet, Cable News....and the occasional newspaper.

BTW, if Rush listeners are dittoheads, are AAR listeners airheads?

Certainly sicko commentary comes from all directions. You may even be right about AAR's audience. The difference is that some, and I stress some, of Rush's listeners describe themselves as "dittoheads" and seem proud of it. To me, proud "dittohead" status has about as much merit as being proud of hanging out at the local Exxon station's restroom.

Yes, just as you have 'Deaniacs', 'McCainiacs', and other bands of loyal followers who give themselves a name/identity.
How is this line of logic proving that Rush listeners are dumber than others? Assuming that is your endeavor.

I personally think anything American's can do (including listening to talk radio) that will make them think and challenge themselves is contributing to a smarter population. I try to listen to as much of Sean Hannity as I can possibly stand and I find him constantly challenging my set political view points and redefining the opinion I had made without considering ramifications of the issue. Anything that can possibly educate us, even if it is sometimes pointless, is worth letting flourish.




I'd like to plead the Fifth.




Some decades ago women stood on real soap boxes to protest unfair treatment of their gender, I believe talk radio is just a political soap box for the attention span impaired. Women of the day made changes, great changes, towards the treatment of other women. Political analysts with talk shows are making great strides into shaping the opinion of society. If you tell a lie to the masses and if it is believable, in twenty minutes you'll have half the world convinced. It is all a matter of showmanship, talk show hosts have showmanship (vocal showmanship, i.e., passion/conviction) and that showmanship can influence people into changing sides minutes before casting a ballot for an elected office. Considering the large audience talk radio has I am surprised we do not have more flip-floppers (thank you who ever started calling John Kerry that and letting me borrow the phrase) thanks to talk radio.




I cannot answer this question to the best of my ability, so: again I plead the Fifth.

Again you make a valid point.



My endeavour is not to prove "Rush's listeners dumber than others." If someone can listen to Rush and evaluate him on a point-by-point basis, fine. It's the self-proclamation of "dittohead" that I find disgusting. The same would go for "Deaniacs" or whatever. I liked Dean, but even he made me angry at times. His statement that he would "talk about Jesus" when he got to the South was at best obnoxious. Although I liked much of what Dean had to say, my candidate was Wesley Clark--someone I think could have beaten Bush.

Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall)
if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?

I'm not sure that it is a matter of intelligence, as that is something that is hard
to increase just by "listening" to talk radio. What people gain, if you will, is
information. That information is always coming from a biased source.

It is the level of intelligence in a person that helps or hinders him from weeding
out the valid points in the information he receives.

Some people follow Rush Limbaugh blindly, as though he was their role-model
and opinion leader, and can do no wrong. That is dangerous because they
are relinquishing their power of thought to some (in his case, SLOB )
person who may simply have it all wrong.


Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of
question #1?

Certainly to some degree. There are people who let their favorite radio talk-show
host do their thinking for them. "Ditto-heads", for example.

Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the
outcome of elections and societal changes?

I'm sure it has some bearing.

Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to
support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually
have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

I agree. I have two kids, and what stops me from having a third is not an
abortion. It is the awareness of how much it takes to bring a child
into the world and raise that child. It is really quite amusing to see men like
Rush Limbaugh spew such ridiculous propaganda. And what's even more hilarious
is the "ditto-heads" who eat it up like it's the gospel.



No offense, but how are you seeing all sides of an issue if all you do is tune in
to Sean Hannity?

That is... umm.... an excellent question.

Seriously though: I try to listen to what my mainstream thought-process is (conservatism) and form my own conclusions. If I hear something that makes me start to think out loud I know something is worthy of further investigation. If I find resources to help educate me on the topic I was verbalizing, I consider finding a varying opinion that what I think I may have as the other side of an opinion.

So in reality my system requires a bit of thinking and taking action only when inspired by talk radio. I'm not one to be programmed by the media into thinking one thing when I could research it and find out.

Wouldn't that count as making America smarter as opposed to dumber if some of us care enough about our standings on issues to look up further information and find what best suits us?

Where my concern lies is in the habitual one-show listeners. They get hooked
on one show, which in essence is one point-of-view. Sean Hannity has made
some statements that I strongly agree with. He's also said some things that
have made me laugh out loud.

When a person limits his information (propanganda) intake to a limited amount
of sources he's only getting one view of the world. That, my friend, is not an itelligent thing to do.



It makes you more involved. I don't know that it would make you "smarter."

I must agree with you. While it is true people who tend to listen to one show and one show only are usually narrow-minded or too unprepared to handle a different point of view. However I do not only listen to Hannity I try to keep myself "fair and balanced" as they say. I do not listen to liberal talk radio because they're usually too inflamed or too annoying, however I enjoy watching liberal television shows (however little much I watch), such as "Real Time with Bill Maher."




Bill Maher does the same thing with me. Sometimes I do not agree with his commentary, other times I find myself nodding. You take the good with the bad in this world and usually you must go to other programs to find different points of view to help form your own opinion and break away from the program's mindset.




I do not personally know first-hand but I do know the negative effects of getting information from only one source without checking facts or hearing from the other side on another radio station. Example: Nazi Germany, one source: Hitler, people: willing to accept anything, result: not much.




I try not to quibble that much. My friend, you have made wonderful points that only you could possibly make. I try to maintain a level-head when it comes to deciding new things, to do this I either listen or read liberal (in some cases conservative) (re)sources.


So our points could be summed up fairly simply:

Talk radio - partisan opinion + factual information on which to base political stances presented from all angles of possible agreement/disagreement in a comprehensible and coherent fashion = good

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?

If one's sole source of information were Rush Limbaugh - or Sean Hannity - or Michael Savage, one would be way dumber. In fact, one would be a complete idiot. Their programs are full of misinformation, distortion, and outright lies - and I've never heard one of them make a distinction between their own opinions and documented facts. One may "know more things" from listening to such pundits, but if the "things" one "knows" are not factual, one just becomes increasingly ignorant. In fairness, I've come across similar exaggeration and misinformation listening to Air America's Randi Rhodes and Al Franken, for example (astonishingly, perhaps, the radio personality I've come across who is most likely to back up his opinions with research and well documented sources is Jerry Springer ). In short, if one does not seek out a variety of sources - including at least a few that aren't ridiculously biased and pushing a highly partisan political agenda (such as the European press and some online sites), one cannot possibly become "smarter". One might "know" more, but where's the profit in knowing something that's wrong?

Fortunately, I don't think many people listen to such programs as sources of information. They listen to hear their prejudices affirmed.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the mainstream media. They often inherit the "news" from such pundits and, to an extent, do use them as sources of information. The sort of tripe that one hears on talk radio is often repeated on Fox "News" and their far-right spin subsequently tends to filter into and dominate all media - often with little or no research of their own. And they do so because it serves the ends of their owners. The fact that all of our mainstream media is in the hands of five multinational corporations means that we are never going to hear another unbiased news report for the rest of our lives - at least not on the networks or cable news - and the national dailies and newsmagazines aren't much better. This has clearly resulted in a dumbing down of news coverage in general - as well as a decidedly corporatist right-wing slant.

I'm not saying that I'd like to see Rhodes and Franken sway the mainstream media any more than I appreciate conservative pundits and multinationals doing so. I'd just like to see a media that does its homework and presents fact-based news for a change. Fat chance.

2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1?

Yes. The Terri Schiavo case would be a good example. Without the noise machine, this wouldn't have been a story, period - never mind a story that dominated the press for weeks, moved Congress to attempt to pass legislation contrary to the beliefs of their constituents, and caused the president to actually cut a vacation short.

3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?

Sure. Without right-wing talk radio, for example, the term "activist judges" would not have any currency whatsoever - and our judiciary would not be under very real threat. And a genuinely informed populace - with a critical, investigative press that reported facts - could not possibly have elected George W. Bush to a second term.

4. Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

I was once bitten by a squirrel and my favorite color is blue. In other words... huh? Sorry, that question is just too much of a non-sequitur. If you're asking whether I think Limbaugh is wrong in the instance you cited in the opening post, yes, he is wrong (like that should come as a surprise). The main factor in our declining birthrate would be birth control. To suggest that it's abortion is lunatic. But the way you phrase the question strikes me a bit daft. It could be argued - easily - that the cost of child support is a common factor in deciding to terminate a pregnancy - if not the dominant factor.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?


I think variety is the key. That means we need to have views from all sides. If you don't listen to Rush or Hannity or Joe Scarborough you won't know how the "right" views the issues. Same for Franken and that Randi Rhodes No doubt they often take very simplistic and black and white views, but so what. You get the picture. Take it with a grain of salt and expose yourself to lots of outlets and you will grow "smarter". Listen to NPR and you will hear issues discussed intelligently (although sometimes with a liberal bias ) and also issues that are not being discussed by the other media.





I agree Wertz. Springer is actually pretty intellectual at heart I think. He just got sucked into that show of his and making a boat load of money from it. A shame really, as he could have been a good radio personality presenting the left's view. And he does have his show on Air America-- and I think he is the best of the bunch.




You make a good point here, Wertz. Unfortunately, many people seek out sources that will confirm the bias they already have instead of keeping an open mind and trying to learn more about the issues.



Wertz, I can't let this go without comment. I agree wholeheartedly in part, but also disagree vehemently in part. The concentrated corporate ownership in the media does result in programs (both news and entertainment) geared to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Discussion of the issues is simplistic with a focus on sound bites (think USA Today) and screaming commentators (think crossfire). In entertainment, good, creative, original shows like Dead Like Me and Wonderfalls get cancelled -- but the Bachelor shows up every season.

However, I disagree that the news takes a "corporatist right-wing slant". Take FOX and maybe the Wall Street Journal out of the picture and we are left with mostly left leaning news outlets: New York Times; LA Times; Washington Post (best of the bunch, but still left leaning); CNN; the major networks; NPR. etc. I find it hard to believe that the "corporatist right-wing" media would not have wanted Dan Rather to check his sources more thoroughly.


2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1?

Yes, maybe. The culture wars and national security issues have divided this nation more than I can ever remember it being in the past. I think the media outlets reflect this extreme divisiveness.


3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?


Very much so. Talk Radio makes the issues of the day accessible to the general public in a way that traditional news never did. As Wertz points out, Talk Radio has really flagged the important issue of judicial activism. People are upset (and rightfully so) about what activist judges are doing out there. Given the complex nature of judicial activism, without right wing talk radio, this issue would not have been understood by most people.


4. Do you agree with me that Americans are realizing how much it costs to support children and to educate them and that they make the choice to actually have fewer children far before they visit an abortion clinic?

Yes. I agree with you. People are deciding to have fewer children in general these days and the decreasing population has nothing to do with the availability of abortion IMO.

[quote=PACPanzer,Jun 2 2005, 04:43 PM]
1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?[/i]

They are, by default, informed of more stories and issues than people who listen only to, say, music stations. But Rush and other partisan, hyperbiased entertainers (of every political stripe) bring up items merely to use them to affirm their fans' biases. So "smarter" and "dumber" may not be the right terms.

If the criteria is how much these shows have contributed to a well-rounded, incisive, and contructive understanding of issues, then Rush is definitely a huge negative in this regard. But then that's not at all what his fans want, so I can't really blame him; he's a symptom of a disease endemic to humankind. (The destructive indulgence of the impulse to wallow in the denigration of those who are not like us).

Then I probably shouldn't let this go without comment. I'd agree that many of the sources you mention aren't quite as far right as Fox News, the WSJ, and the Washington Times, but that doesn't mean they're left-leaning. I find it hard to believe that a "liberal media" would have wanted Dan Rather to have resigned over a single dubious source that merely confirmed dozens of other, well-documented and undisputed sources that said exactly the same thing - nor can I believe that a "liberal media" would have allowed that dubious source to have become the story that dominated the news rather than the content of the dozens of other sources that confirmed what the real story should have been.

You are quite right about NPR. As theirs is the best researched and best documented news coverage available, they naturally appear to be more liberal compared to all of the corporate media. In fact, they are decidedly middle of the road - and about as balanced as we're likely to find in this country.


Really? I haven't heard that much about the Supreme Court's decision to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to corporations on talk radio - and that is surely the most egregious case of "judicial activism" in our country's history. Or are you referring to the Supreme Court's unconstitutional decision regarding the 2000 election? I didn't hear much about that "judicial activism" on talk radio either.

If you're referring to more recent decisions in which the state courts have merely been upholding the law, then you're talking about radio pundits "flagging" extremist opinions that are so out of touch with reality that they border on psychosis. I would agree, though, that without right-wing talk radio, this psychosis would never have percolated into the minds of the general public. Without the dementia of the radio pundits, the average Jane or Joe tends to be a bit more rational.

What are you referring to specifically here Wertz?



Maybe that is because it was not judicial activism Wertz, have you considered that? IMO, it was not because of the special circumstances surrounding the case (as the opinion made clear). When it all shook out-- the best court to ultimately decide the presidency was the Supreme Court and not the florida supreme court.



I am not referring to the Schiavo STATE court decisions. What other "state" court cases would you be referring to? Perhaps you mean the charges about an activist judiciary relating to the FEDERAL courts in the Schiavo case-- in which case, it was activism.



They are exposing the judges who engage in activism for what they are-- Rogue judges that impose their own views in an absolute fashion with no political accountability.

I think the big issue is the limited amount of variety in broadcast information.
Earlier this year I spent a few weeks driving around in small town NM and AZ. The number of radio station was very limited. All the talk shows were right wing.

The local newspapers had almost no international news and very modest national news as well.

The cable news channels were solely concerned with Schiavo and the Pope's death to the extent that nothing else was reported, not even on the headline news channel.

With such limited access to information it seems logical that people's opinions would be influenced by what's available. If this weren't so, advertisers wouldn't try to influence people using the same media outlets.

So, what's needed is more access to a variety of viewpoints. Perhaps Air America (which was just available in the big cities) and eventually the internet may serve a suitable role.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?



Wertz your remarks about the media are well put. I ran across the article below in the Saturday (June 4, 2005) edition of The Dallas Morning News. I don’t know if listening to just “Christian” or “religiously slanted” news makes people dumber, but it does limit their scope of information. “Christian” and “religious” in this sense are limiting adjectives. Certainly, it doesn’t make anyone smarter, but a better word might be less informed or maybe even ill informed.

This is a rather long article. I tried to pick six passages that present its flavor.



http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/latestn....116feb8eb.html

Link requires free registration.

BoF,

Are you really saying that you are against individual channels being able to determine the content that they broadcast?

How does the loss of a swimsuit competition or the latest antics on Paris Hilton make people dumber, or less informed or ill-informed??

ESPN doesn't carry these things either. Does that mean I am ill-formed or misinformed because I watch SportsCenter?

I don't listen to any religious channels, but don't insult those who do by disparaging the content. It's just rude.

No, I’m saying that if someone listens only to the type sources mentioned in the DMN article, they are limiting their view. There’s nothing balanced about listening to just adjective limited sources. Think how ludicrous it would be if NPR called its show "All Things Christian" instead of "All Things Considered."

You can accuse me of rudeness if you wish. Rush’s “dittoheads” and those who listen to or read one source invite the derision they get.

My question for debate is not whether he said it or not - I heard him say it. My questions for debate are:

?

I don't think their IQ changes one bit, that's perhaps a bit harsh to say along ideological lines IMHO. With that being said, I think it does lead people to overly simplify problems that we have in society.

QUOTE

2. Does the recent political landscape give any insight into your answer of question #1?

Yes, it's clear that Rush and others have divided America into an "us vs. them" kind of contest. The left does it too in all fairness with Michael Moore.

QUOTE

3. Does Talk Radio of this genre matter one way or the other in shaping the outcome of elections and societal changes?

It shapes the issues of the day by putting out pithy statements and publicizing the likes of the riverboat group that did a hatchet job on Kerrey. In that regard, it's very influential. I doubt they do a bit of good in terms of the long run, they are just powerful short run actors.

QUOTE

I don't believe this to be the case. In actuality, the rates of abortion have been decreasing from what all I've read about on the internet. If it wasn't, there wouldn't currently be a debate as to whether or not it's due to abstinence only curriculums or the widespread availability of contraceptives.

I think the larger issue here (at least in my mind) is that both sides just love 'activist' judges (I can't even stand to hear that phrase anymore, it's so often misused) when they make decisions they agree with and hate them when they make decisions they disagree with. It's so intellectually dishonest. Janice Rogers Brown is such a great example of the Right conveniently ignoring the 'activist' behavior they claim to loathe. It doesn't matter who's doing it, let's call a spade a spade and an unfit judge an unfit judge. I don't mean to pick on the Right, but they scream about this stuff all day long and then nominate this woman??

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

On radio, I listen to right-wing radio all day because NPR is the only alternative and NPR is so hit-and-miss... it's either great or it's monotone drivel. I absolutely think that listening to a diet of Sean Hannity/et. al. without challenging what they say or investigating on your own will make you an uninformed rock. The PIPA study about the percentage of misconceptions among viewers of various news outlets definitely shows a link between the outlet and the viewer's level of knowledge about current events. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf)

Fixed quote. -Amlord

Is there evidence that people who listen to Rush Limbaugh or people who listen to Christian stations ONLY listen to those outlets? That they never pick up a newspaper, Time magazine, or what CNN? I have yet to see any evidence to this effect.

In absence of such evidence, your blanket statements are just that: unfounded, broad generalizations.

Amlord stop reading things into a statements. I'm not saying that everyone who listens to these sources doesn't get information elsewhere. Yet I am sure there are some who do just that--what percentage--I don't know.

I know people who listen to Limbaugh (3 hours), Hannity (2 hours) in the car and then come home and turn on FNC. There's not much diversity in that. It's sort of a cycle of deception or maybe it's just preaching to the choir.

I know people who read the NY Times in the morning, drive to work listening to NPR, and then come home and watch CBS News and PBS.

Not much diversity their either.

Diversity doesn't matter. What matters is that your news isn't fake news.

Average rate per misperception/News Source

11% NPR/PBS
25% Print media
30% NBC
30% ABC
31% CNN
36% CBS
45% Fox

link


....but actually, there are more diverse views expressed in the NYT and on NPR, than in any of the right-winged media. That most likely does help those people that you know to be more informed than the Fox / Rush people.

That's probably true. Again, as some of you do so often by pointing a finger at Bill Clinton to excuse Bush, you have dodged the issue of right-wing media by pointing a finger at what you see as left leaning sources.

I read the local paper and watch MSNBC which achieves some balance by providing conservatives Joe Scarboough, Pat Buchanan Monica Crowley, who wormed herself over from FNC and now Tucker Carlson. Over the long haul I would put more stock in the NYT, CBS and certainly NPR than in Rush, Hannity or Christian broadcsters.

I don't listen to any "Christian" matertial. I grew up and have long lived in the "Bible Belt." I've had more than enough. I generally listen to music in the car and occasionally NPR, if they are talking about something of interest.

Come on, Bof! Did you think you sneak that link past me???

pipa.org? Who, pray tell, funds this lot?

Well, here are a few (sounds like the NPR crowd).

Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation

I'm sure Ben and Jerry put their money behind non-leftist organizations (lol).

And look who runs this outfit. This is a "Brookings Institute" Lite.

Please.

Organizations like this were designed to build up liberal media and take pot shots at centrist ones like FOX News.

Thanks god the market forces dominate these pointed headed people.

And Fox is currently kicking some serious booty of people like CBS.

It's more than probably true. It's "true". Why bring up Bill Clinton? I've been trying to forget that clown. It's bad enough he sticks his big mug on TV every chance he gets due to attention-craving-disorder.

Right wing media? It sure exists. It's people like Rush, Hannity, Liddy, Ingraham, Coulter, etc.

It's NOT Fox News. They are just "conservative" by "comparison" to the liberal elitists at the NY Times. And, the NY Times DRIVES the coverage at CBS, NBC, NPR, and ABC. That's the head of the dirty dog if you ask me.

The difference? The right wing media (the ones I mentioned) admit their views, their bias, and their outlook.

Does the liberal media? No. For the most part, they don't even admit that they exist. They, like the arrogant elitists that they are, claim that they report the "truth" not the liberal view of the truth.

it's not BoF, it's nifty. and you neglected to explain why anything in the study isn't true.



Indeed.



It's a two way street. But, again, is the study wrong?



An appeal to popularity? Please, Indeed.

Lordhelmet you quote niftydrifty and argue his points with BoF. Then you quote and address me in a separate post four minutes later. That's an excellent way to saturate the board and run up your post count. It must be a slow day at the ranch.

There is something wrong with this report I think. Something just doesn't add up. On page 12 of the report they asked their sample which network they watched for news with the following results reported:

Two or more 30%
Fox 18%
CNN 16%
NBC 14%
ABC 11%
CBS 9%
PBS-NPR 3%

I'll have to see if I can find a link to the latest television ratings for the various news programs, but there is something wrong with this sample. NBC Nightly News typically pulls in around 8 MILLION viewers a night. That's more double the number of viewers than I've ever seen for any cable news program. I think O'Reilly (which I don't consider news, but that's beside the point, it's the highest rated show on FNC) on his best nights pulls in a little over 3 MILLION. There is something very wrong with this particular part of the report.

Edited to add a little additional information.....

The ratings I've seen are not available to the general public it would seem so I won't bother to post a link to them. However, this site does have April ratings for cable "news" shows. O'Reilly is on top with a 1.9, and that's the top rated cable news type program. I gotta tell ya, a 1.9 rating would get a broadcast network executive producer fired, that's a crap rating in broadcast television even these days. Even local news programs in Los Angeles (the number 2 market in the country) typically pull a high 2 to a mid 4 rating on a pretty consistant basis. So, I find the claim in this report that FOX and CNN are bigger sources of television news for the sample taken than NBC, ABC, or CBS highly suspect.

I don' think the answer is dumber or smarter. I think the answer is lazy.

I listen to talk radio all day almost everyday. I listen to Mike McConnell on 700 WLW from 9-12, Rush from 12-3, and the insanity of Hannity from 3-5:30.

Mike McConnell is more of a centrist and most times, employs simple common sense. Even though I disagree sometimes, he's enjoyable to listen to. He is a voice of reason even if you disagree (usually).

Rush hates liberals like me. Even though I think abortion is murder, I want less government in our lives, I demand fiscal responsibility, and think the Bush's immigration policies are dangerous and reckless, I get called a liberal 10 times a day because I think the war in Iraq is wrong. Because after all, he'll tell you all day everyday there is no such thing as a moderate.

Hannity is quite simply, an idiot. A true, dyed-in-the-wool 'tard. I listen to him the same reason I slow down to see a car wreck. He says things on his show that are so absurd and so disingenuous, I literally laugh out loud. But not to worry, his legions of lemmings call in and repeat the same vitriol with the passion of a Zell Miller/Chris Matthews interview.

I listen to the crap just to see how much they bend and twist the subject. Rush is spot-on in many areas (more areas than most would care to admit), has entertainment value, and flatly partisan. Hannity is extremely partisan, pretty much useless, and almost always wrong. But I get my traffic reports on the same station, so he's decent comic relief.

But people listening cannot be thinking for themselves or neither of them could get away with that crap they spew on the radio. That's not dumb. It's just lazy.

I have to agree with DaytonRocker to some degree here. People naturally listen to the talk shows that share their general outlook on life and avoid those that do not. I will admit to doing so myself.
When you hear someone on the radio expressing something you do not believe in as truth, you are going to have a negative reaction. Especially when they are abrasively calling your point of view idiotic. The result being that you will switch off their show, and never listen to them again, going back to the show that just reiterates your point of view again and again.
This is intellectually lazy; us not being willing to hear the other point of view. but it goes with our natures. Just as choosing who you hang out with, you are not likely to spend time listening to the people who disagree with you and call you an idiot.

So in answer to the question of if we are getting smarter or dumber? I dont think there is a significant shift in either direction because of the success in talk radio.
I think people are becoming more informed (being given more information, regardless of how flawed it might or might not be) if they wish to be because of the plethora of news/talk programs that are out there.
I think those that are conservative are staying conservative because they are more likely to listen to more conservative shows. Just as Liberals will remain liberals, neither group is going to have some great inspired shift of intelligence because of the banter of a radio personality.

Good on you if you can listen to those personalities who "bash" your way of thought, for at least you have the patience to get through the offensive banter and hear a different point of view. you are an exception to the vast general public and i commend you.

All the radio show does is allows another mind to pick apart the news of the day and express their translation of what it means to you... Let us all take what anyone says and be sure to run it through your own though process before calling truth, regardless of who says it.

my conclusion: The American public is intellectually lazy as a whole and is not willing to actually listen past the "heated" part of the other sides discussion and analyze what they have to say. Thus, no one is really becoming smarter or dumber, just lazy. as our esteemed friend DaytonRocker put it for us.



ok... I might not be Seans greatest fan, but thats pretty harsh there...
anyways, to each his own.


Semper Fi

Quane

I visit here less often than I would like. First, I thank everyone for the replies. I was simply floored when I heard Limbaugh's statement that a decline in population growth in the U.S. was chiefly caused by abortion. I was listening alone while driving and yet an aloud, "WHAT?" escaped my lips.

There have been some thought-provoking statements made in this thread so far.

I'll revisit later to read subsequent posts but as it stands now, I really like Dayton Rocker's overall assessment of the Radio personalities and I also agree with the theory about the new "currency" being given to the phrase "activist judges" by some of these same "news sources".

AND...I find the above-referenced quote about the centrist nature of FNC by Amlord to be quite possibly the closest parallel as far as credibility is concerned, to Limbaugh's theory on Abortion's effect on U.S. population growth. I guess some Radio and TV shows DO actually influence the way people formulate theories about issues. I'm not sure I follow those formulations but I DO enjoy uttering an occasional "WHAT?" even if no one is around. It has a certain, "Hold on! It's time for a wake-up call", ring to it.

You must excuse me. I have to leave to spray the Downing Street Memo with a mixture of Luminol and Sodium Pentathol (We fans of CSI Las Vegas know that little forensic trick will get to the Bloody Truth post haste.)

Later,

Fox is Centrist? Not even on a slow news day are they ever anything than hard right.
Just like saying 100 times a day "Fair and Balanced" doesn't make it so--so would trying to make Fox anything other than the official news source of the right.
I have never seen a single report on Fox that does not try and justify anything the Bush administration id trying to do and portray opposition as somehow un American. The only one on Fox who would even come close to qualifying as Centrist might be Shephard Smith. The only news source more to the right than Fox I can think of would be Newsmax or Drudge. Calling Fox Centrist is like calling Ann Coulter or Randi Rhodes impartial.

There is nothing even remotely Centrist on televison I can think of.

1. Do you think U.S. radio listeners are growing smarter or dumber (Overall) if programs like Rush Limbaugh's continue to flourish?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062301940.html

I was thinking about this question as I watch with sadness the last airing of CNN’s Capital Gang. The show may not have had a large audience, but Saturday evening isn’t exactly the best slot for a political debate show.

I don’t know if radio and cable audiences are getting dumber or if it’s just that the media expects less of its listeners and viewers. In education, we have long talked about having high expectations for students. I suggest that many media outlets have a shrinking expectation for the their audiences.

From the Washington Post story above, it seems that FNC is driving CNN and I would suggest MSNBC as well.

What does one make of news coverage when Joe Scarborough moves his show to New York to do an hour special on the New York location of Billy Graham’s last "crusade." Tom Cruise’sconfrontation with Today’s Matt Lauer was the other non-event on last night’s Scarborough Country. Graham’s mini-revival deserved maybe five minutes and Tom Cruise, for god’s sake, is an actor not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

In recent weeks much media attention has focused on Terri Schiavo, the Pope’s death, the election of a new Pope, Michael Jackson, the royal wedding, the run away bride and now Graham, Cruise and Natalie Holloway. While, Holloway’s disappearance and probable murder is tragic, it doesn’t need to be the centerpiece of endless coverage.

The media, including Rush Limbaugh, needs to have greater respect for its audience.

I salute "The Gang:" Al Hunt, Robert Novak, Margaret Carlson, Kate O'Beirne and Mark Shields. They gave us 17 great years. They set a high standard, informed and didn't insult our intelligence. I will miss the show. Perhaps some of the motor mouth media media moguls with malignant, muddy messages and massive brigades of mindless followers could learn from their example.

That's a loaded question, but even limiting myself to just Limbaugh, I'd have to say smarter. He does provide lots of good information that you wouldn't get elsewhere, though he does it in a very opinionated way, and his analysis, though certainly from a conservative PoV, is very insightful. Nor is Rush, as many people seem to think, an intellectual lightweight. I've heard him discuss fine points of conservative theory with as much depth and nuance as Bill Buckley. I wouldn't recommend that anyone make Rush or any other opinion show their primary news source, but if someone watched CBS News and listened to Rush, they'd be better informed than if they watched CBS and didn't listen to him. Variety is key, and he does increase the available variety. I enjoy his show sometimes, but I can only take so much of him. Lately I've been listening to Tony Snow in the same time slot instead. Tony's low key manner and gentle humor are much easier for me to take on a sustained basis.


Sure. The rise of alternative media, including talk radio and blogs, has changed the political landscape, and from my PoV for the better. The media elites no longer have an effective monopoly, and that's a Good Thing, even if it does drive them nuts.


Same as my answer to #2 above.


Sort of. I'm not sure that the main considerations are financial, but all over the world, more affluent nations have lower birth rates. I don't know that abortion is even much of a factor when it comes to that.