O B A M A

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Of those that I've listened to, Savage might be the closest to your description. To me, the others, especially Limbaugh, are engaging the "conflict" of ideas. I don't expect the selfessness of altruism to be a factor in such a conflict (debate?). Everything your are and believe should be employed.

Good thing we can agree that Savage is a zenophobic hatemonger

Personally I don't even find him entertaining, and I like some pretty whack things.

To me, they seem to take their ideas seriously, and, to me, much of the ideas make sense. Perhaps I'm naive or just lack your intuitive powers to know that their ideas are simply a vehicle and do what they do simply as: "entertainers . . .ego . . .dollars first and foremost." How do you know this, and why is it important?

The fact that you recognize you lack my intuitive powers is a good indication that you are not at all naive.

I know this because Rush has nearly said as much himself, that his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors. This is marketing and sales after all and you don't hold premium radio and TV airtime unless you're generating advertisement revenue. This is Beck's appeal, he may in fact be an idiot, but he's a fresh idiot.

It's important because, well, you do the obvious math.

Entertainment makes truth more pallatable, ego is necessary, without the dollars there are no shows. But how does that diminish what they actually say and in what way does it prove that their ideas are not sincere?

No, entertainment makes "it" more entertaining, then we get to debate what the meaning of "it" is

I'm not going to argue that everything that comes from a pundit from either side is invalid simply because they have a conflict of interests. In fact, if they didn't stike a resonant chord here or there their messages would have no meaning and they woudn't ever find success.

That being said, they are, in my opinion, more than likely to be contrary simply because it triggers a response that people will pay attention to either because it's A) like candy or B) a train wreck you can't look away from. This supercedes their idiology.

Those that are very successful are able to ride the lightening, inflaming and exacerbating tension to tweak emotion while still providing enough substance (often fed through a little tube) to maintain a sense of validity.

Ultimately it's like a meal that you believe tastes great but has no nutritional value. You've been duped, and the sponsors have their air time.

BTW, I've seen more ugliness and hatefulness in these threads than heard on Limbaugh.

I've listened to Rush extensively for years and don't agree.

-spence