Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C'mon, relax. All you gotta do is just listen to everything the Bush administration and the talk shows tell you, all you have to do is believe it all. What could be easier!
I'm quite relaxed, thanks so much for the concern. Again, you sound pompous. Just because I think you are full of yourself does not mean I am swayed by the EVIL talk shows that you are so afraid of. Just curious...what "talk shows" are you referring to? If it is the extreme right like Michael Savage or the extreme left like Rand Rhodes that would be a no. I do like to listen to Dennis Prager. Is he one of the dullards you intellectuals sniff at?
I'm quite relaxed, thanks so much for the concern. Again, you sound pompous. Just because I think you are full of yourself does not mean I am swayed by the EVIL talk shows that you are so afraid of. Just curious...what "talk shows" are you referring to? If it is the extreme right like Michael Savage or the extreme left like Rand Rhodes that would be a no. I do like to listen to Dennis Prager. Is he one of the dullards you intellectuals sniff at?
I've listened to Prager several times. He tries to project the image that he is open minded and will listen to other views. But, if you think along as he speaks, you might be able to find various flaws in his ideology.
He, like most other talk show hosts, is clever, shrewd, and knows how to manipulate an audience to his favor. That's the most important talent of talk radio, substance isn't as important.
He also knows what to avoid. For example, as the American invasion of Iraq was in its early phase, he invited an anti-war group on his program. But the activists were high school kids, certainly no match for his experience in manipulation.
Recently, Prager had a "creationist professor" on the program to discuss the issue of creationism vs evolution. One intelligent sounding caller put a serious challenge to Prager and his guest. Prager saw what was coming - namely that their fragile thesis of creationism would flounder. It was still early in the program. So Prager cut off the call.
Prager and the many other talk shows are promoting anti-intellectualism. That's why they are popular.
I've listened to Prager several times. He tries to project the image that he is open minded and will listen to other views. But, if you think along as he speaks, you might be able to find various flaws in his ideology.
He, like most other talk show hosts, is clever, shrewd, and knows how to manipulate an audience to his favor. That's the most important talent of talk radio, substance isn't as important.
He also knows what to avoid. For example, as the American invasion of Iraq was in its early phase, he invited an anti-war group on his program. But the activists were high school kids, certainly no match for his experience in manipulation.
Recently, Prager had a "creationist professor" on the program to discuss the issue of creationism vs evolution. One intelligent sounding caller put a serious challenge to Prager and his guest. Prager saw what was coming - namely that their fragile thesis of creationism would flounder. It was still early in the program. So Prager cut off the call.
Prager and the many other talk shows are promoting anti-intellectualism. That's why they are popular.
Dennis Prager is promoting anti-intellectualism? If you believe this you are either foolish or haven't listened very often. He ALWAYS takes dissenting callers first. He will debate anyone from the left. He tried to debate Ed Schultz, a talk show host played on Air America, after Schultz demanded to debate him (on the Bill Bennett/race issue a few years back) then Schultz ran like a chicken. Of course that would not have been a stellar debate, as Schultz is not the sharpest guy...but the point is Prager was eager to take the challenge. Prager pretty much NEVER cuts anyone off unless they insult him. Your charge sounds odd to me...it's just not his deal to cut people off.
I also think Michael Medved, who is also a solid conservative radio talk show host is an "intellectual". He is logic based and history based. I've rarely seen him lose an argument and he, like Prager invites dissenting voices on before other callers or guests.
Please let me know a couple of names of people that have talk or commentary programs on radio or tv that you consider "intellectuals". And, if you think radio/tv commentators are all anti-intellectuals, who in the print media fits your standards?
Dennis Prager is promoting anti-intellectualism? If you believe this you are either foolish or haven't listened very often. He ALWAYS takes dissenting callers first. He will debate anyone from the left. He tried to debate Ed Schultz, a talk show host played on Air America, after Schultz demanded to debate him (on the Bill Bennett/race issue a few years back) then Schultz ran like a chicken. Of course that would not have been a stellar debate, as Schultz is not the sharpest guy...but the point is Prager was eager to take the challenge. Prager pretty much NEVER cuts anyone off unless they insult him. Your charge sounds odd to me...it's just not his deal to cut people off.
I also think Michael Medved, who is also a solid conservative radio talk show host is an "intellectual". He is logic based and history based. I've rarely seen him lose an argument and he, like Prager invites dissenting voices on before other callers or guests.
Please let me know a couple of names of people that have talk or commentary programs on radio or tv that you consider "intellectuals". And, if you think radio/tv commentators are all anti-intellectuals, who in the print media fits your standards?
In my area Air America was not available. But, several times at night, I listened for several minutes to the program from a distant station. Thru the static I really didn't care much for the content. I wouldn't classify Air America as an intelligent program. Too much ranting.
Prager and Medved are intelligent and clever (using the attributes I've already posted) and they may be intellectuals, but their programs are not.
An intellectual program would stimulate the listeners' minds to thinking, but they want the listeners to accept their point of view instead. About two years ago Medved included in his program a daily segment of historical mistakes made by France. It was not an objective program, but his intentions were to rouse up disgust for France, if not outright hatred. That is not intellectual. An intellectual does not throw stones. To objectively evaluate a country it's only fair to consider the good as well as the bad.
On other Medved ("Another great day on god's green earth!") programs I've heard him snicker at people he didn't like.
Medved once labeled Nazi Germany as a pagan culture. However, Hitler is quoted as saying he was doing the work of god. Some German army soldiers wore a belt buckle, upon which was embossed "Gott Mit Uns", which translated into english states, God With Us. It's good to know some of history before listening to Medved.
Primarily, the talk show hosts tell the audience what the audience wants to hear. The hosts play upon existing prejudices, such as hatred for muslims, they try to develope in their listeners a disgust for Europe, a mistrust of anyone who disagrees with the current president, and to reject any media which offers a different point of view.
Talk show hosts subtly promote the idea that the whole world is screwed up, except conservative, religious Americans. As if conservative, religious Americans are the crowning glory of the human race...Only we know what is true and righteous...if everybody was only half as perfect as we are! Everybody else is just dirt.
As for allowing the dissenting callers to get the first crack on the shows' phone lines, there is a good reason. Anyone who writes professionally knows that the final paragraph and/or sentence of an essay or editorial is the most important, because that is the one the reader will remember. Therefore, the hosts get the contra calls first, so that they have the remainder of the program to knock them down.
Sadly, the mass media is not very intellectual, because the general population is not interested in any intellectual views on anything.
Is the NYT newspaper part of the right-wing disinformation media? What about 90% of the other print media...they a part of this cabal that is brainwashing all the dullards you smarty-pants look down your nose at.
The New York Times was founded in 1851. That sort of predates the right-wing disinformation media, but its editors have certainly stumbled into being the unwitting pawns of right-wingers of power and influence. It has had to apologize publicly for that, and certainly this most recent NYT era is not numbered among its proudest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmonellie
I imagine all the intellectual elites, you included of course, are just frosted that those you think are out of touch do not have your world view. I mean, how dare they! You know you are smarter! You just know it!
It has nothing to do with any particular world view, and nothing to do with being particularly smart. It has to do with independence and curiosity. With being unwilling to accept the mere word of authoritarians and demanding to be shown the evidence. Not concocted and fabricated evidence...actual evidence that holds up under the rigors of examination and scrutiny. These are not things that are beyond the grasp of most people. Except of course for those who will steadfastly refuse to reach for them.
Prager and Medved are intelligent and clever (using the attributes I've already posted) and they may be intellectuals, but their programs are not. An intellectual program would stimulate the listeners' minds to thinking, but they want the listeners to accept their point of view instead.
Quite so. These days, there are a lot of actors who dress up to play the role of intellectual. It is no more than costume and make-up. Much like the old-time creationists, who suffered so badly at the hands of science. Had to don the cloak and mantle of science. Turned their claims into 'creation science', they did. Oops, not good enough. Had to repackage it again, this time as 'intelligent design theory'. Same old package. Different wrapping paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visvaldis
Primarily, the talk show hosts tell the audience what the audience wants to hear. The hosts play upon existing prejudices, such as hatred for muslims, they try to develope in their listeners a disgust for Europe, a mistrust of anyone who disagrees with the current president, and to reject any media which offers a different point of view. Talk show hosts subtly promote the idea that the whole world is screwed up, except conservative, religious Americans. As if conservative, religious Americans are the crowning glory of the human race...Only we know what is true and righteous...if everybody was only half as perfect as we are! Everybody else is just dirt.
Classic leader-follower, label-and-smear, divide-and-conquer propagandism. Your post goes right to the heart of what the disinformation media do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Visvaldis
Sadly, the mass media is not very intellectual, because the general population is not interested in any intellectual views on anything.
I think it's true that a significant enough fraction of the general population has basically been bludgeoned into a belief that actually studied and informed views are suspect for it to make a difference. That said, the majority would still like to have and hold opinions and outlooks that hold up. And in a sense, Mr. Bush has been a valuable ally in so regularly demonstrating how poorly those right-wing ideas and theories actually do hold up.
In my area Air America was not available. But, several times at night, I listened for several minutes to the program from a distant station. Thru the static I really didn't care much for the content. I wouldn't classify Air America as an intelligent program. Too much ranting.
Prager and Medved are intelligent and clever (using the attributes I've already posted) and they may be intellectuals, but their programs are not.
An intellectual program would stimulate the listeners' minds to thinking, but they want the listeners to accept their point of view instead. About two years ago Medved included in his program a daily segment of historical mistakes made by France. It was not an objective program, but his intentions were to rouse up disgust for France, if not outright hatred. That is not intellectual. An intellectual does not throw stones. To objectively evaluate a country it's only fair to consider the good as well as the bad.
On other Medved ("Another great day on god's green earth!") programs I've heard him snicker at people he didn't like.
Medved once labeled Nazi Germany as a pagan culture. However, Hitler is quoted as saying he was doing the work of god. Some German army soldiers wore a belt buckle, upon which was embossed "Gott Mit Uns", which translated into english states, God With Us. It's good to know some of history before listening to Medved.
Primarily, the talk show hosts tell the audience what the audience wants to hear. The hosts play upon existing prejudices, such as hatred for muslims, they try to develope in their listeners a disgust for Europe, a mistrust of anyone who disagrees with the current president, and to reject any media which offers a different point of view.
Talk show hosts subtly promote the idea that the whole world is screwed up, except conservative, religious Americans. As if conservative, religious Americans are the crowning glory of the human race...Only we know what is true and righteous...if everybody was only half as perfect as we are! Everybody else is just dirt.
As for allowing the dissenting callers to get the first crack on the shows' phone lines, there is a good reason. Anyone who writes professionally knows that the final paragraph and/or sentence of an essay or editorial is the most important, because that is the one the reader will remember. Therefore, the hosts get the contra calls first, so that they have the remainder of the program to knock them down.
Sadly, the mass media is not very intellectual, because the general population is not interested in any intellectual views on anything.
Okay, it's clear you think that Prager & Medved are/may be intellectuals...but don't think their programs are. I don't agree with that, but I understand your point of view. I asked in my previous post for you to tell us who in the media you think of as an intellectual. They don't have to have a "talk" show...just someone in the media. I'd be curious as to who would be on your list. Thanks for replying.
Oh, and to comment on the last paragraph being the most important, I do write and I agree with the truth of that statment. However, Prager and Medved will take dissenting calls at the end of the show ALL THE TIME. I've heard, especially Medved take only dissenting calls for his entire 3 hr program.
The New York Times was founded in 1851. That sort of predates the right-wing disinformation media, but its editors have certainly stumbled into being the unwitting pawns of right-wingers of power and influence. It has had to apologize publicly for that, and certainly this most recent NYT era is not numbered among its proudest.
It has nothing to do with any particular world view, and nothing to do with being particularly smart. It has to do with independence and curiosity. With being unwilling to accept the mere word of authoritarians and demanding to be shown the evidence. Not concocted and fabricated evidence...actual evidence that holds up under the rigors of examination and scrutiny. These are not things that are beyond the grasp of most people. Except of course for those who will steadfastly refuse to reach for them.
Okay, that's the mea culpa for the NYT. What about the other print media. How much of that has a right wing bias?
Do you think the left has the market cornered on independence of thought and curiosity? Tell me why most of the universities cloister their world view and make it very, very difficlt for conservatives to get a position?
And, why yes, I agree that evidence that holds up under the rigors of examination and scrutiny is not beyound the grasp of most people. I do see that the left thinks they alone are capable of this.
Quite so. These days, there are a lot of actors who dress up to play the role of intellectual. It is no more than costume and make-up. Much like the old-time creationists, who suffered so badly at the hands of science. Had to don the cloak and mantle of science. Turned their claims into 'creation science', they did. Oops, not good enough. Had to repackage it again, this time as 'intelligent design theory'. Same old package. Different wrapping paper.
Classic leader-follower, label-and-smear, divide-and-conquer propagandism. Your post goes right to the heart of what the disinformation media do.
I think it's true that a significant enough fraction of the general population has basically been bludgeoned into a belief that actually studied and informed views are suspect for it to make a difference. That said, the majority would still like to have and hold opinions and outlooks that hold up. And in a sense, Mr. Bush has been a valuable ally in so regularly demonstrating how poorly those right-wing ideas and theories actually do hold up.
I see the terms, "label and smear", "divde and conquer proagandism" and "disinformation media" on virtually all of the major left wing web sites. Perhaps you are a victim of the same frightening brainwashing as the dullards of the right who listen to talk radio. Oh, no....I forgot. Not the same.
Okay, that's the mea culpa for the NYT. What about the other print media. How much of that has a right wing bias?
Do you think the left has the market cornered on independence of thought and curiosity? Tell me why most of the universities cloister their world view and make it very, very difficlt for conservatives to get a position?
And, why yes, I agree that evidence that holds up under the rigors of examination and scrutiny is not beyound the grasp of most people. I do see that the left thinks they alone are capable of this.
Medved, after taking the show's final caller, usually closes his program with his own comments.
I am not connected in any way to any university. I've heard Prager often mention his dislike for universities and teaching staff. But, what exactly are the world views of universities?
Intellectuals exist with various political views, but I don't think that intellectuals will necessarily promote one political party over another. These may be people who have thought out their ideas and are willing to calmly and thoughtfully discuss issues. But we'll rarely, if ever, see such people in the media. The public prefers the emotionally charged shouting matches. Better for ratings.
One thing I agree with Prager...that is about TV. About five years ago I gave away my TV and don't miss it one bit. I didn't think the TV landscape presented very much for stimulating thought. Maybe there are some, but I couldn't name anyone from TV that could be considered an intellectual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
