First, I think you misconstrue my argument about a "single view", or else you're just taking it in a different direction (and that's okay).

My argument is that it's a poor (and prejudicial) medium because it presents only a singular point of view--akin to a commerical--and you admit as much with your statement about Hannity above. You argue that talk radio shouldn't have to present a counterargument--which is a slightly different proposition.

I think there's a good analogy between talk radio and yellow journalism. Talk radio is nothing more than fearmongering. The only difference between that and yellow journalism is the medium in which it's presented.

There's a distinction between one being a strong advocate for a particular point of view (say George Will), where one at least acknowledges that there are other views, and one who is purposely trying to inflame and cares little for facts or truth (talk radio or political ads).

I haven't suggested that we do anything about talk radio, other than we be informed, and recognize it for what it is, and its effects (see Trent Lott quote).

It's fine for you to say you turn to other sources, because you recognize it for the garbage it is. But clearly many do not.