O B A M A

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself. So how do you feel about the rest of the media who make loads of money? Are they also part of THE consistent theme? Amazing how the most CONSISTENT criticism of the Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. crowd is that their in it for the money. Very little of actual engagement and debate about their IDEAS, which are, actually, their consistent theme.

I believe the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism refers to killing the bearer of BAD news not FALSE news. Rush's "Drive by Media", in his opinion, is full of strawmen, slander, and other untruths.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself.

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

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. 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? 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?

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

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.


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.


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.


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

-spence

Thanks for your lengthy, entertaining opinion, spiced with your usual finesse, panache, and cutting (yet still affable) wit. Unfortunately, the length does not make up for the brevity of substance. The closest you come to saying anything relevent is "Rush has nearly said as much himself . . .his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors." NEARLY is not quite close enough. And he did say it was his JOB. Again, doing his job does not, not even nearly, mean he is dishonest. Because he must attract viewers for his sponsor doesn't mean he doesn't fervently believe what he says to attract those viewers. Everybody in the electronic and most in the printed media has the JOB to attract an audience. Not many do it for altruistic reasons. So are they all duping us? So, in your opinion, Rush is merely an entertainer . . . a rather crude one at that. You haven't shown me that for you it is nothing more than opinion. So we can agree to disagree . . . unless you wish to dispute some of his ideas.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Unfortunately, the length does not make up for the brevity of substance. The closest you come to saying anything relevent is "Rush has nearly said as much himself . . .his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors." NEARLY is not quite close enough. And he did say it was his JOB. Again, doing his job does not, not even nearly, mean he is dishonest. Because he must attract viewers for his sponsor doesn't mean he doesn't fervently believe what he says to attract those viewers. Everybody in the electronic and most in the printed media has the JOB to attract an audience. Not many do it for altruistic reasons. So are they all duping us? So, in your opinion, Rush is merely an entertainer . . . a rather crude one at that. You haven't shown me that for you it is nothing more than opinion. So we can agree to disagree . . . unless you wish to dispute some of his ideas.

I don't have the time to write a paper disputing his ideas, he is a demagogue after all...you do agree at least that he's a demagogue don't you?

As for everybody in the media duping us...perhaps to some degree. Even the most objective news is still guilty of highlighting the negative over the positive because is sells better. When we talk about entertainment pundits they're just taking things to the extreme.

What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought. The Internet only exacerbates this...and it applies to all sides.

-spence