Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc

[Udog]

Do you think shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The O'Reilly Factor have any value? Can you be a more educated voter and citizen by watching them? If you are looking for a balanced view of the candidates, is it worth watching both of them?

[Jack Flak]

They are a pure and total disgrace. Some people take their garbage for truth.

[Risen]

I like Glenn Beck personally. He's been right on the important issues since the days when he only had a radio show. By and far talk radio has a much better grip on reality than anything you'll find on t.v. Not surprising, most of it is also "conservative".

[ajblaise]

They are what the market wants apparently. It's news for a more "broad" market.

[Anja]

I dunno. I listen to a little bit of everything. I like to find both sides and hear the perspective.

I did Rush faithfully for about five years. It was my big laugh for the day.

(I still listen to the ersatz Dr. Laura now and then just because I get a perverse delight in listening to her try to shame people well. There no accounting for what people consider entertainment.)

Does it influence me? Probably in a steady dose it can.

[Jeffster]

If it's entertaining to you, then it has value.

[Jennifer]

I like Glenn Beck personally. He's been right on the important issues since the days when he only had a radio show.

Yeah. Like when he called the transgender kid out west a "freak boy" on the air, among other crappy things. Just wonderful stuff, you know.

You know, I hate all every one of these "entertainers" who pretends to be the voice of "real news." In actuality, they're just stirring up their particular constituents, and basically in order to make a living like everyone else; and I usually recognize them by their lack of respect for those they either disagree with or see as easy targets.

Thus I ignore them all.

If it's entertaining to you, then it has value.

If people just recognized it as "entertainment," I could laugh at it.
Unfortunately in our culture it passes for critical thinking.

[pure_mercury]

They all suck, but this is America. You can't muffle the voices of the stupid.

[Risen]

Yeah. Like when he called the transgender kid out west a "freak boy" on the air, among other crappy things. Just wonderful stuff, you know.



Meh. He's said a lot of stupid crap in his career (and everyone has), but his intentions are in the right place and he's a good source of info when it comes to the IMPORTANT issues. The rest will of course be mired in "entertainment", because everyone on the airwaves or cable need to attract as many people as possible in order to keep the show going, and continue to deliver information to people. You can't gripe about how they all try to incorporate entertainment aspects because that's the only way they'll stay in business for goodness sake. Yet, that doesn't mean their prime directive is to entertain. For many, it is to INFORM people.

[Enyo]

I like Glenn Beck personally. He's been right on the important issues since the days when he only had a radio show. By and far talk radio has a much better grip on reality than anything you'll find on t.v. Not surprising, most of it is also "conservative".

Oh, I love Glenn Beck, myself. But I like to balance him with Jon Stewart.

I don't care for a lot of GB's views that are influenced by his religion, though. (Abortion, homosexuality, etc.)

[Enyo]

Yeah. Like when he called the transgender kid out west a "freak boy" on the air, among other crappy things. Just wonderful stuff, you know.

You know, I hate all every one of these "entertainers" who pretends to be the voice of "real news." In actuality, they're just stirring up their particular constituents, and basically in order to make a living like everyone else; and I usually recognize them by their lack of respect for those they either disagree with or see as easy targets.

Thus I ignore them all.



If people just recognized it as "entertainment," I could laugh at it.
Unfortunately in our culture it passes for critical thinking.

I'd like to take this moment to point out that Glenn Beck does not consider himself to be a reporter or a journalist. He says repeatedly that he is not a journalist, an his show is not news. It is an opinion show.

[ajblaise]

But seriously.......... why Glenn Beck? lol

[Enyo]

But seriously.......... why Glenn Beck? lol

He makes me think. Even when he pisses me off (which is fairly often). That, and my TV lives on CNN Headline news. I sleep to it. Something about Nancy Grace's southern accent and self-righteousness puts me out like a light.

[Udog]

In some ways, I find Beck (who I only know a little about, admittedly) and Stewart to be more constructive than O'Reilly, Olbermann, and the sort. Part of it is that they both make it clear that it's meant to be entertainment. But oddly enough, it's also that they both revel in making fun of / make pointed commentary towards what is really going on. To do that, they must do a fair amount of work and research to find out what is actually going on!

Strangely enough, by claiming their show isn't about journalism it almost frees them to do, well, actual journalism.

[Orangey]

He makes me think. Even when he pisses me off (which is fairly often). That, and my TV lives on CNN Headline news. I sleep to it. Something about Nancy Grace's southern accent and self-righteousness puts me out like a light.

Really? I think Nancy Grace is just about the most terrible thing to happen to television in history. Seriously. At least with O'Reilly I get a good laugh (like when he repeatedly calls Snoop Dogg a pinhead, or when he got owned by that one kid from that Colorado High School over the drugs/sex speech). But Nancy Grace honestly makes me want to throw something through the screen every time I see her.

[Aimahn]

I think its her complete butchering and disregard of logic coupled with an EXTREMELY annoying personality.

[Orangey]

Yes, that would be it. Don't forget her voice, though.

[Enyo]

Aimahn and Orangey:

I didn't say I liked her. I said she put me to sleep.

[Orangey]

Aimahn and Orangey:

I didn't say I liked her. I said she put me to sleep.

I know...and I was saying that she could never put me to sleep because she makes me want to break things. Exactly the opposite of a soporific.

But if she puts you to sleep...awesome. Then you never have to listen to her (though I wouldn't want her voice playing in the background all night while I was sleeping...subliminal messages and all).

[Risen]

Is it just me or is Nancy kinda hot? Maybe its the domineering personality, or the country accent :p .

[Enyo]

I know...and I was saying that she could never put me to sleep because she makes me want to break things. Exactly the opposite of a soporific.

But if she puts you to sleep...awesome. Then you never have to listen to her (though I wouldn't want her voice playing in the background all night while I was sleeping...subliminal messages and all).

I think the reason I sleep so well to CNN headline is because it's on that repeating loop. I do, however, end up with weird dreams if I fall asleep to something else. I've actually had borderline nightmares when falling asleep to other prime time television.

[Orangey]

Is it just me or is Nancy kinda hot? Maybe its the domineering personality, or the country accent :p .

Sick bastard :).

[lowtech redneck]

Regarding O'Reilly, he's good at bringing items the mainstream media dosn't cover to my attention, much the same way that talk radio does. Just like the latter, however, I can seldom stand to listen to an entire episode.

[Jennifer]

Really? I think Nancy Grace is just about the most terrible thing to happen to television in history. Seriously. ... Nancy Grace honestly makes me want to throw something through the screen every time I see her.

I'll agree with that.

I've tried to like that woman, but I'm just not enough of a saint.

Essentially we just seem to have a bunch of personalities nowadays in charge of the dissemination of information, due partly to the advance of technology and the economics involving modern media. It's colorful and engaging, perhaps, but full of self-indulgence and confusion of issues.

Meh. He's said a lot of stupid crap in his career (and everyone has),

Um, everyone makes mistakes, but I'd wager that some people are more consistently stupid than others.

but his intentions are in the right place and he's a good source of info when it comes to the IMPORTANT issues.

And so you've determined what issues are important? And which ones are not?

He seems consistently, from what I've seen, to make disparaging remarks about people who he either doesn't understand or agree with, and because of his position of public authority (i.e., someone with a following) can really turn public opinion and make life hell for the targets of his commentary.

His intentions are in the right place? My opinion about people's "intentions" is how they treat others... especially people they don't understand. That's where we see what people's "intentions" are. Are we inclusive or exclusive? Are we trying to understand and work together, or are we angry and trying to blame another group for the woes of our lives? "America would just be better if...<such group was not here>."

Attitude -> behavior -> expresses intention

I could use your same arguments to excuse the behavior of some people known generally to be reprehensible in our culture.

You can't gripe about how they all try to incorporate entertainment aspects because that's the only way they'll stay in business for goodness sake.

That's rich: "It's just business -- my making public fun of you, stirring up hatred against you, blaming you for the ills of the culture. I've gotta stay on the air, you know."

Let's hope you're never part of a vilified minority.

For many, it is to INFORM people.

Exactly.

Which demands a great responsibility not only to stand up for what one believes... but to actually understand the opposition, and to treat people with respect as part of a large public dialogue.

That's not what happens here.

People are vilified, mocked, and blamed by these self-aggrandizing nutcases. They think they're on some "holy mission" to do good, but they're too full of themselves to be aware of their own hubris. (Whatever happened with that case a year or two ago with Nancy Grace, where one of the targets she accosted on her show ended up killing herself? Grace accused her of murdering her own kid. I don't remember if any proof of that was found, so I'm curious now... but Nancy has the "bull in a china shop" thing down pat).

Look at them all -- they ALL have similar personalities. Scary, huh? It's a certain type of person who does well in this field of pseudo-journalism.

They're actually "activists" -- they're more interested in pushing a particular viewpoint and overwhelming opposition, they're NOT reporting raw news and letting people make up their minds about it. (The entertainment factor comes into it as well, because it makes them more successful and watchable.)

[Eileen]

(I still listen to the ersatz Dr. Laura now and then just because I get a perverse delight in listening to her try to shame people well. There no accounting for what people consider entertainment.)


Heh.

There's a stretch of I-40 between Asheville and Winston Salem, NC where I can't find a decent NPR station, and it happens that I usually leave there at about the same time every time and end up tuning into Focus on the Family with James Dobson and co. I am kind of entertained by the things he says about gender roles. I like sitting alone in my car and saying, "FUCK YOU, JAMES MOTHERFUCKER DOBSON!!!" It may not be healthy.

[Orangey]

Heh.

There's a stretch of I-40 between Asheville and Winston Salem, NC where I can't find a decent NPR station, and it happens that I usually leave there at about the same time every time and end up tuning into Focus on the Family with James Dobson and co. I am kind of entertained by the things he says about gender roles. I like sitting alone in my car and saying, "FUCK YOU, JAMES MOTHERFUCKER DOBSON!!!" It may not be healthy.

James Dobson? Isn't that the psychologist who writes books about spanking children? I always thought he had some rather crappy views on family, in my opinion, but I didn't know he said anything overtly egregious. I always found Pat Robertson a thousand times more entertaining in that regard (if you like to call a mixture between indignation, affronted-ness, and comic delight being entertained).

Any specific examples of some stupid shit he's said? I always like a good laugh.

[Aimahn]

I'll agree with that.

Which demands a great responsibility not only to stand up for what one believes... but to actually understand the opposition, and to treat people with respect as part of a large public dialogue.

That's not what happens here.

People are vilified, mocked, and blamed by these self-aggrandizing nutcases. They think they're on some "holy mission" to do good, but they're too full of themselves to be aware of their own hubris. (Whatever happened with that case a year or two ago with Nancy Grace, where one of the targets she accosted on her show ended up killing herself? Grace accused her of murdering her own kid. I don't remember if any proof of that was found, so I'm curious now... but Nancy has the "bull in a china shop" thing down pat).

Look at them all -- they ALL have similar personalities. Scary, huh? It's a certain type of person who does well in this field of pseudo-journalism.

They're actually "activists" -- they're more interested in pushing a particular viewpoint and overwhelming opposition, they're NOT reporting raw news and letting people make up their minds about it. (The entertainment factor comes into it as well, because it makes them more successful and watchable.)


Exactly and that is the one thing that has made me intensely dislike people or call them "stupid" regardless of what their percieved intelligence is. I especially hate the fact that they have so much influence and audience. I truly don't see what the value or skill is in pushing a topic so vehemently and not trying at least on some level to view the otherside, I don't even ask for complete objectivity not even close to it really(though it would be great), but to be completely narrow sighted to the point where you dont even care about backing things up or seeing the effect from the otherside is just maddening to me.

[Risen]

Exactly and that is the one thing that has made me intensely dislike people or call them "stupid" regardless of what their percieved intelligence is. I especially hate the fact that they have so much influence and audience. I truly don't see what the value or skill is in pushing a topic so vehemently and not trying at least on some level to view the otherside, I don't even ask for complete objectivity not even close to it really(though it would be great), but to be completely narrow sighted to the point where you dont even care about backing things up or seeing the effect from the otherside is just maddening to me.

Question: Does the bias of the mainstream media and the bias "journalists" make you guys equally ticked off, or do you mainly focus on people who try to express their views from the other side of the issue? And are you so sheepish that you cant look at different sources of information and discern for yourself what is right and true? Or do you believe people should (and are only able to) listen to a favored source of information and take everything they say as fact?

Folks, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In the real world, nobody is going to be perfectly objective, not yourself and certainly not any figurehead in the media. That's just a pipe dream. If you have a mind of your own, it is your own responsibility to determine what is worth listening to and taking as fact. If there are some people you don't like, then so be it. Some people are going to appeal to you, and others might turn to different sources. It all harps back to the simple fact that human intelligence and perception hinges on a SUBJECTIVE reality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go invest in some gold and watch more of Glenn Beck :) .

[Jack Flak]

Question: Does the bias of the mainstream media and the bias "journalists" make you guys equally ticked off, or do you mainly focus on people who try to express their views from the other side of the issue?
There's a difference, of course. Agreeing with O'Reilly, which isn't universal by any means, is kind of like when I happen to agree with an SJ. Totally different reasons for the same conclusion.

I don't like any one-sided preach TV because it collectively damages truth and society.

[Aimahn]

Thats exactly the point I am hyper critical so I can and often do discern things for myself and am comfortable with that. The problem is a lot of people can't be bothered to and their opinions are formed based on those figure heads. I think it really bothers me when I have to argue (or feel the need to) against people who derive their arguments almost literally from those figure heads. I could care less about other peoples opinions( meaning I won't be on a mission to change it) as long as I felt they have thought it out and can back up their position with some level of clarity. That doesn't happen nearly as often as I would like though.

[Orangey]

Question: Does the bias of the mainstream media and the bias "journalists" make you guys equally ticked off, or do you mainly focus on people who try to express their views from the other side of the issue? And are you so sheepish that you cant look at different sources of information and discern for yourself what is right and true? Or do you believe people should (and are only able to) listen to a favored source of information and take everything they say as fact?

Folks, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In the real world, nobody is going to be perfectly objective, not yourself and certainly not any figurehead in the media. That's just a pipe dream. If you have a mind of your own, it is your own responsibility to determine what is worth listening to and taking as fact. If there are some people you don't like, then so be it. Some people are going to appeal to you, and others might turn to different sources. It all harps back to the simple fact that human intelligence and perception hinges on a SUBJECTIVE reality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go invest in some gold and watch more of Glenn Beck :) .

Sure, and I've determined that ideologues such as O'Reilly are not worth listening to. So what are you complaining about again?

[Risen]

Sure, and I've determined that ideologues such as O'Reilly are not worth listening to. So what are you complaining about again?

I was making a point mainly in response to Aimahn and Jennifer. No matter what figurehead you choose to listen to, I don't (and NOBODY should) take every single thing they say as being factual. It is up to each individual mind to determine the worth and value of their words. If I seek information from someone, I don't care much about their character, I care about the integrity and validity of what they say and proclaim to be truth. If what they say holds water, I'll take it. If not, I'll throw it out. I don't particularly care what source it comes from as long as I have an alternative means of validating what was said so I can determine for myself the validity of it. That is where the balance of the mainstream liberal media and conservative talk radio comes in. It is a balance because they offer alternative viewpoints to people, giving them more freedom to make choices on what they think is true.

Where I discriminate between the mainstream media and the more conservative sources of info is really, truly based in my subjective view of reality, as it is for everyone. I appeal to the conservative sources of information because I find the facts they present to be of much greater quality and validity. For the most part, they are also not journalists. They don't claim to be practitioners of objective journalism as the mainstream media does; the mainstream media that so horribly fails to uphold that standard and falls into the pit of its own biases while still claiming to be objective. At least the conservative media doesn't make such false hypocritical claims, and I'd say it's the main reason why I gravitate to the other side. That's not to say the conservative sources are always right. What is true requires individual discernment...

Now I'll stop rambling :) . Funny how this discussion is dominated by INTP's...

[Enyo]

There's a difference, of course. Agreeing with O'Reilly, which isn't universal by any means, is kind of like when I happen to agree with an SJ. Totally different reasons for the same conclusion.

I don't like any one-sided preach TV because it collectively damages truth and society.

And this is precisely why I like to go with two sources that are on opposite sides of the spectrum. :cheese:

I'd be watching Glenn Beck right now, but I really should be reading Hesiod's Theogony instead of posting here or watching TV.