Talk radio has a detrimental effect on public discourse by promoting division amongst people
Talk radio defined: a commercial radio program that is overtly political in content, and which primarily advocates a particular point of view (p.s. feel free to improve on this definition)
It's clear to me, having argued many political issues the past few years, that talk radio has had a tremedous effect on the issues discussed and the quality of arguments people make about politics. I also hear people say they are not affected by this medium (some get mad if you suggest as much), or they don't listen to it, but the evidence to me suggests otherwise. You don't have to go far to find it: turn on an am radio, scan, and hear strident, often angry voices 24/7. Sen. Lott's quote above seems to support my thesis.
The above link pertains to the immigration debate, but I'm not particularly interested in a discussion of immigration here.
Nor am I making any sort of suggestion that we curtail talk radio or anything like that. I want to know what others think is the effect.
Is it healthy for America? Not healthy? Doesn't make a difference? Why?
Talk radio defined: a commercial radio program that is overtly political in content.
Maybe if applied to NPR, but as a generalization the statement is inaccurate. I listen to talk radio all of the time and the aoverall theme is non- political. Obviously Politics willa rise on occsaion and then, it sure is a one sided discussion - but a healthly and deserved lambast of specific local and federal politicians.
One thing is for sure, the guys and gals behind the mike control the direction of the dicussion and most definatley a one way discussion.
I thought I might get in trouble with that definition. Now, how to define political.
A one-sided discussion is one of the key features I find in talk radio.
NPR is not commercial radio. I think that distinction is important in that commercial and public stations have some different purposes.
How many times have you listened to these radio stations and just had a great urge to comment on their stance on issues but heard no one on that station with even remote views to those of yours?
But, last night as I was flipping around the dial in my car I have to admit I actually heard a counter view and one I agreed with. The radio host was going on and on about the all-important issue of whether we have to press "1" for English. But then he let some guy argue why that was silly.
This followed another station in which two guys were doing the usual mutual-grousing thing, i.e., a singular point of view.
Only about 20-25% of the american public actually gives a damn about anything political.
It's a small insulated circle of people on both sides of these issues that care about talk radio, blogs, message boards, etc.....We all fool ourselves into believing that thses issues weare discussing are important to everyone, being discusses at dinnertable from LA to Miami.
But the average american could care less, as long as he can Jr to Little League and sissy to Dance and still have time to throw one in the old lady once a week
I cant stand talk radio unless it is ESPN. All of the pollitical radion is too one sided and the party the host supports is never wrong. But it is like they say people dont listen to talk radio to get informed or actually have their views challenged, they listen to the shows to have their views affirmed and strengthened. The folks that listen to Rush only listen because he echos their thoughts not because he is challenging them, and he has a low number of democratic listeners. I am a fan of Meet the Press with Tim Russert, I feel it is balanced and the guests have a chance to speak. I know it is not radio.
I will admit, I flip flop on talk radio, sometimes I love it, and sometimes I hate it. Is it good for America though? I think the quick answer to that is yes. The reason is it gives people a voice, they may be in the minority, they may be in the majority, but in the case that Trent Lott is using I think he needs to listen as many Americans now have an opportunity to organize and have their voice heard on certain issues. I am not saying what the stance on the particular issue of immigration is or should be, but the fact that so many respond is worthwhile. As to Trent Lott, he can't have it both ways, loving the stance of conservatives one moment and then hating it the next.
I agree Lott can't have it both ways. However, I think he's saying talk radio is driving the debate (a point with which I agree) rather than the people driving the debate (as they would have us believe).
I agree radio can and should be a voice for the people. But one of my criticisms of talk radio is that this is not where they're coming from. I believe they're pursuing a commercial interest above all else, not just acting as a conduit for opinions. I believe they are actively engaged in creating demand for their product more than responding to a particular need for a voice. I believe they are not selling conservatism, but rather division (it sells).
Traveling this past weekend, I listened to a fair amount of "talk", including Air America, the self-proclaimed "progressive" view (when I got close to Denver/Boulder--the only place you can hear it). They have a guy named Ed Schultz who sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh. Same music at the front of the show, same tone of voice, same exaggerated statements about everything. Different villains (Bush/Cheney) but common to talk radio there are villains. This suggest to me that talk radio is merely a product, and it operates on a formula.
Talk Radio is Running America 
Linear Mode
