Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and

Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

VanessaChaland -> Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 1:33:09 AM)
For the people that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time viewing their shows and reading their blogs, do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate? I am asking a serious question and not trying to inflame the usual partisian verbiage and retorts. Its like on one side, you have endless political posturing, sound bites, be "right back after this commercial". The other side is people that are willing to get on a stage, debate certain issues, no clock, no "cutting off mics", no judges other than a moderator and an audience. Do you ever wonder why the Dobsons, Limbaughs, Hannity's, Coulters are not willing to debate other people in public? Does that not bother anyone that certain people only spew their vitriol and misguided notions from a one sided, safe and secure, no rebuttal possible, recording station?

MrRodgers -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 1:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland For the people that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time viewing their shows and reading their blogs, do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate? I am asking a serious question and not trying to inflame the usual partisian verbiage and retorts. Its like on one side, you have endless political posturing, sound bites, be "right back after this commercial". The other side is people that are willing to get on a stage, debate certain issues, no clock, no "cutting off mics", no judges other than a moderator and an audience. Do you ever wonder why the Dobsons, Limbaughs, Hannity's, Coulters are not willing to debate other people in public? Does that not bother anyone that certain people only spew their vitriol and misguided notions from a one sided, safe and secure, no rebuttal possible, recording station? That is their purpose. They seek to be inflamatory...obtain and secure a crowd of ditto heads and go laughing all the way to the bank. Did anyone notice how once the smoke was clear, Hillary was out, all but McCain was out, they all pretty much disliked McCain and went easy on Obama ? They new they'd keep a decent bottom-line. To debate in publc without their secure, warm cacoon of the studio would require them to think on their feet and I don't know that any of them can.

VanessaChaland -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 2:05:24 AM)
Thanks for the reply MrRodgers, but my point/question was more to those that follow them rather than the actual "actors" themselves. Meaning doesn't it bother the general public, their fans and followers, that these people are not willing to put their ideals, egos and reputations out there, in front of a crowd, in a free exhange of ideas and conversation rather than just hide in their isolated protective studios? What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers That is their purpose. They seek to be inflamatory...obtain and secure a crowd of ditto heads and go laughing all the way to the bank. Did anyone notice how once the smoke was clear, Hillary was out, all but McCain was out, they all pretty much disliked McCain and went easy on Obama ? They new they'd keep a decent bottom-line. To debate in publc without their secure, warm cacoon of the studio would require them to think on their feet and I don't know that any of them can.

Thunderbird56 -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 2:09:06 AM)
Yes, I do not listen to any of the "big" guys or gals. I have spent many years of my life in commercial broadcast radio and the first thing you have to understand is that these people are putting on a "show". These programs are not news, or even really opinion, they are entertainment first, last and all through the middle. The fact that they blatantly pander to a specific group of a moral and political mindset doesn't change that. That's one of the reasons, IMHO, that Glenn Beck has climbed so strongly in the ratings ... he's simply more entertaining than Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. I know it's hard, even for me, to keep that in perspective when 'they' are trying to wind you up like a cheap coukoo-clock, but just don't let it get to you and turn the dial.

MrRodgers -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 2:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland Thanks for the reply MrRodgers, but my point/question was more to those that follow them rather than the actual "actors" themselves. Meaning doesn't it bother the general public, their fans and followers, that these people are not willing to put their ideals, egos and reputations out there, in front of a crowd, in a free exhange of ideas and conversation rather than just hide in their isolated protective studios? What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers That is their purpose. They seek to be inflamatory...obtain and secure a crowd of ditto heads and go laughing all the way to the bank. Did anyone notice how once the smoke was clear, Hillary was out, all but McCain was out, they all pretty much disliked McCain and went easy on Obama ? They new they'd keep a decent bottom-line. To debate in publc without their secure, warm cacoon of the studio would require them to think on their feet and I don't know that any of them can. Yes, they are afraid as that would require they back-up what they say and we know they can't. Even most of Limbaugh's and Coulter's interviewers for example never challenge their assertions...one on one. No it doesn't bother their followers because obviously they too fail any challenge of their celebrities, as they need their rant to reinforce their own presumptions and prejudices.

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 5:24:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland Thanks for the reply MrRodgers, but my point/question was more to those that follow them rather than the actual "actors" themselves. Meaning doesn't it bother the general public, their fans and followers, that these people are not willing to put their ideals, egos and reputations out there, in front of a crowd, in a free exhange of ideas and conversation rather than just hide in their isolated protective studios? What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? In all fairness, some do. Ann Coulter has been on Bill Maher's show a number of times and Hannity has been on The Daily Show more than once.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 6:36:56 AM)
Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Richard Dawkins- The secular guy who admonishes people of faith, instead of living and let living ? I hardly call either of them unbiased. But to answer your question. I try to listen/read a bit of them all. I think the insinuation that all or most non liberals live in some osrt of information vacumn is a bit silly. Not saying that with ruffled feathers, just sayin.[:)] mbmbn

FirmhandKY -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 6:50:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland ... do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate? An excellent example of confirmation bias, if there ever was one. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:14:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Richard Dawkins- The secular guy who admonishes people of faith, instead of living and let living ? I hardly call either of them unbiased. But to answer your question. I try to listen/read a bit of them all. I think the insinuation that all or most non liberals live in some osrt of information vacumn is a bit silly. Not saying that with ruffled feathers, just sayin.[:)] mbmbn No, most don't, but what is troubling is how many do. I understand her point here. There are many complaints of liberal media bias, and I can agree with that to a certain extent. But the bias is generally very subtle and due mostly to the fact reporters, as much as they may try, are human and cannot always separate their views from what they are reporting. Contrast that with Fox News which doesn't even make an attempt to disguise its blatant bias. Turn it on right now and all you will see is a steady stream of how Obama is turning the country socialist and why the the stimulus package is going to ruin our economy.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland For the people that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time viewing their shows and reading their blogs, do you ever have the urge to check out people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, you know, people with an education, that are well read, unbiased, articulate? I am asking a serious question and not trying to inflame the usual partisian verbiage and retorts. A serious question demands a serious answer..... Dawkins and the other bloke are not biased? Everyone is biased. Information is absorbed, formatted and presented according to the individual's view of the world. I'm not a fan of Dawkins - too militant for my liking. I mean, why get involved in putting a banner on a bus stating: "there probably is no god" - this may come as a surprise to him, but many of us worked that out for ourselves a long time ago. He may think he's saving the world, but from where I'm standing he's fighting a cause that moved on in England a fair, old time ago. Yes, I read books....usually in a coffee shop so people can see how intelligent I am..........in fact, I'm that intelligent that I pay three quid for a sub-standard coffee for the privilege of reading in a coffee shop, when I could quite easily sit at home and absorb the same information.

truckinslave -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:27:57 AM)
Don't know what you consider well-educated. Wiki: As an undergraduate at Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[4] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[5] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[6] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[7] After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[8] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[9] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[10] One can make totally unsubstantiated claims concerning pro-Bush bias, but are you aware of what is involved in an Ivy League MBA? Are you aware of the tremendous educations of the Wall Street Lords of the Universe types, the bankers, and the CEOs that are largely responsible for our current economic mess? Coulter and Hannity frequently debate in open, even hostile forums (not that I think Hannity is always particularly effective). Rush says unabashedly that "My show is about me" and has never liked interviewing or debating. Dobson is more counselor and theologian than commentator, and very non-confrontational; the medium would not fit his message. Hitchens I enjoyed sometimes until he became so sneeringly condescending, particularly in his anti-God polemics. Don't know Dawson. Colbert used to be amusing. Frankly, I get about as much overt liberalism as I need (or can stand) from NPR, USA Today, and John McCain,.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Very much off topic, but I'm curious to know: who are Forbes? and what was the criteria that constituted the vote? He is absolutely nowhere near the top 25,000 most influential liberals, never mind the top 25.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:34:46 AM)
A note........ Dawkins is well respected here....Hitchens has zero credibility for a variety of reasons (which is why he's in the US).

intenze -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:38:23 AM)
Interesting OP. The problem I see is that there are so many people who take the "showmanship" of Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., and try to turn it into something more than it is. It's kind of like watching professional wrestling, not exactly food for the intellectual mind. If I were a conservative, those people would annoy the crap out of me. How many thinking conservatives out there cringe when they hear sound bites from Coulter or Limbaugh spouted like conservative dogma? Ugh.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:38:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife But the bias is generally very subtle and due mostly to the fact reporters, as much as they may try, are human and cannot always separate their views from what they are reporting. Here is where I see the difference: There is a liberal media bias, as you stated. That is News Reporting. I don't care how tempted a news reporter is to inject their own personal view, it's wrong. On the part of any News Reporter. Now OTOH, Limbaugh, Coulter et al and Hitchens and Dawkins et al are not News Reporters. They are commentators and as such it is their job to give their opinion. I expect any commentator, from any side of an issue to come complete with their own bias or slant on a topic. I think many people have forgotten the difference or never known the difference with all the multi media sources out there currently. And often times people take the word of commentators as " news" when in fact it is an opinion on the news. Easy to do when those that call themselves newsreporters are compelled to be commentators also. mbmbn

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:41:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Very much off topic, but I'm curious to know: who are Forbes? and what was the criteria that constituted the vote? He is absolutely nowhere near the top 25,000 most influential liberals, never mind the top 25. You've never heard of Forbes magazine? I know you guys don't how to talk American but you've never heard of Forbes? [:D]

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:44:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Christopher Hitchens- The one that was voted one of Forbes top 25 most influential liberals ? Very much off topic, but I'm curious to know: who are Forbes? and what was the criteria that constituted the vote? He is absolutely nowhere near the top 25,000 most influential liberals, never mind the top 25. You've never heard of Forbes magazine? I know you guys don't how to talk American but you've never heard of Forbes? [:D] 'Fraid not, but in my defence I was watching a programme about Thomas Paine last night, quite interesting as it goes......so I am getting to grips with US politics.....slowly but surely, admittedly.......now there's an influential liberal!

maybemaybenot -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:46:56 AM)
Forbes Magazine, NG. He's # 14 on the list. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal.html Forbes Magazine is one of the leading financial magazines in the US, NG.

NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Forbes Magazine, NG. He's # 14 on the list. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal.html Forbes Magazine is one of the leading financial magazines in the US, NG. Ahhhh, I see, the 25 most influential liberals in the US media........ All I can say is you must be short of a few decent liberals over there.....

rulemylife -> RE: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News and (3/15/2009 7:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife But the bias is generally very subtle and due mostly to the fact reporters, as much as they may try, are human and cannot always separate their views from what they are reporting. Here is where I see the difference: There is a liberal media bias, as you stated. That is News Reporting. I don't care how tempted a news reporter is to inject their own personal view, it's wrong. On the part of any News Reporter. Now OTOH, Limbaugh, Coulter et al and Hitchens and Dawkins et al are not News Reporters. They are commentators and as such it is their job to give their opinion. I expect any commentator, from any side of an issue to come complete with their own bias or slant on a topic. I think many people have forgotten the difference or never known the difference with all the multi media sources out there currently. And often times people take the word of commentators as " news" when in fact it is an opinion on the news. Easy to do when those that call themselves newsreporters are compelled to be commentators also. mbmbn You miss my point. You stated that "I don't care how tempted a news reporter is to inject their own personal view, it's wrong." My point was this is not something that a reporter consciously does. They are trained to specifically not to interject their own viewpoints into their reports. Again, contrast that with Fox News which encourages the opposite.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875