Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do not talk down to their listeners

[murdoch]

Nor does Michael Savage. I just listened to Limabugh's CPAC speech yesterday, and to a Glenn Beck show today. A conservative I know listens to Savage a lot and so I hear him when I'm with this guy.

They spend an hour very slowly going over conservative ideas, NOT talking down to their listeners or viewers and really treating them intelligently and going over the ideas being presented.

Al Franken in his book on Limbaugh (and others) praised some of Limbaugh's qualities and Franken basically said what I just said about Limbaugh.

Of course, that is just the presentation and so forth. The question is the content of those ideas. As someone born into the working class, as someone whose family and ancestor's country was negatively affected by imperialism (Ireland), I am against imperialism and against the exploitation of workers by the idle class rentiers. But that is beside the point.

Who out there presents progressive ideas as well as these people? I know all of them say and do crazy things, but I have to admire the high quality of their shows, even if what they are saying is garbage.

Democracy Now has interviews with Noam Chomsky sometimes, and that's the only thing I can think of right now. I mean, Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk and others get on TV and talk about what is going on in this or that part of the world, which is good, but I am talking about laying out for 15, 30, 45, 60 minutes on a constant basis the philosophy of progressives while respecting the intelligence of the audience.

This is one of the problems I have with DU over Free Republic. Free Republic says its bedrock is about conservatism. They allow people to post about the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party. DU says it is dedicated to a party, the Democrats, not an idea or philosophy. People supporting the Greens or Nader have been banned in the past.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. .

appetizer: :popcorn:

...while I wait for the pizza delivery.

[tabasco]

2. Yes, if you are willing to believe lies.

Do a fact check on the motherfuckers and get back to me.

[Avalux]

3. "Who out there presents progressive ideas as well as these people?"

:wtf:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[greenbriar]

4. IBTL

what would you like on your pizza?

[NYC_SKP]

5. You must be getting a different Michael Savage than I am on my radio.

When someone disagrees, Savage is merciless in his demeaning bashing of them.

Rush, I never seem to catch him taking a call, but don't listen that much.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Are you Rupert, or one of his Hellspawn?

And how the Hell did you get to 344 posts? :rofl:

[Lorien]

7. I've listened to them too. They don't have to "talk down" to their listeners

their listeners generally have IQs well under 100 and Beck, Limbaugh and Savage speak to them at their level. If their listeners had an average or above average intelligence then I would say that yes, they talk down to them.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

9. Oh brother... these people talk down to them by LYING to them.

and every progressive out there does a far better job than anyone on the right.

:eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

10. Thats funny in an odd way.

I have over 1000 post here, and I didn't know it was a democrats site and not a progressive site, I like lots of Green party and Nader ideas, and lots of democratic ideas.

Maybe its because I don't get in the weeds of policy as often as just muse on things I find interesting or funny. How or why I think people think the way they do, from my perspective.

But my reply is to say your point resonated with me. I think many times my post may sound arrogant or talking down, because I find so much humor, or state things from my point of view as statements. I am going to think on your comment of style and look at how I post to see what style of posting my comments fit in and see if I can learn from your observation.

[murdoch]

16. rules

This is what someone pointed me to when I said something positive about Nader once. Some people were banned in the past for supporting Nader.

Incidentally, I voted for Obama last year and have never voted Republican. But I have voted for Greens and the like before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[Quantess]

19. Exaggeration. You can say all the nice things you want about Nader,

but just don't say you will vote for him or any other Green party candidates, or encourage people to vote Green Party.

Everything else in that post is true. (Except, the part where you say you voted for Obama, I'm not fully convinced is true).

[murdoch]

25. I voted for Obama but

I also got signatures to that McKinney and the Greens would get on New York's presidential ballot. Which they did.

I only voted for Obama because I thought he would lose. If I knew he would have won, I would have voted for McKinney or Nader. I couldn't believe that 43% of whites would vote for Obama, I totally bought into the news stories about the Bradley effect. I still can't believe 43% of whites in the USA voted for Obama, even though I can't think of how much worse Bush could have left the country in his 2001-2009 reign, from killing a Chinese pilot in early 2001 (anyone remember that?) to 9/11 on through Iraq, the financial meltdown etc.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gabby garcia]

11. wow! you know a conservative?

that's amazing!
:sarcasm:

enjoy yer pie.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. Well, of course they don't "talk down"

to their listeners.

Their listeners are dimwits, without the slightest clue of what any of those mentioned are talking about, but they pick up buzz words and react. Their ability to conceptualize or synthesize any ideas or theories is just about nil, so whatever their heroes bleat is translated into whatever is already inside their terribly inferior listeners' heads. They can only deal with what they already believe.

It's really hard to "talk down" when no one can hear ........................

[TwilightZone]

13. Five years and you still don't understand DU?

It would seem that you're not trying very hard.

Here, try this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

DU is not exclusive to Democrats. Never has been and most certainly is not at present.

[murdoch]

18. I posted this above, but..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

[HeresyLives]

14. Yeah, see, that's the scary part.

That their listeners are on that same low level.

[gmoney]

15. Savage is such a joke to listen to...

he's one of those guys who thinks if he came up with an idea that everyone ELSE is having, they're all stealing it from him. Randi Rhodes did the same thing, of course... but apparently there's some tagline or something about "Fox Nation" which is OBVIOUSLY a lift of "Savage Nation" because nobody has ever put the word "Nation" after a name or something. Or someone did a list "6 things we can do to save America" while Savage had a list of "10 things we can do to save America" -- and I'm sure there's lists out there for any number between 2 and 100 if you look around.

He's touting some book of stories he wrote and designed himself... evidently he couldn't find a publisher, so he's selling it only on his site. I'm tempted to get it just because I'm guessing the design will look like the opening credits of "Se7en" or a MicroSoft Word default format.

[DS1]

17. A lot of the Nader people were also immense d-bags

[Lint Head]

21. How do you reconcile the fact that Limbaugh likes to go to

the Dominican Republic to have sex that is illegal in this country? Rumor has it that he is a pedophile.
Pedophiles tend to be Republican. It's just a statistical fact.http://www.armchairsubversive.org/ It's easily Googled.
I think pedophiles are criminals and refuse to listen to anything they have to say.
Savage condones torture and the killing of innocent human beings.
Anyone constantly listening to these vermin for any reason need serious psychological help.


:dem:

[Median Democrat]

22. I'll Bite, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. Talk Down To Their Listeners Constantly

Assuming you are open minded, and not trying to start a flame war, the problem with right wing media is that it does exactly the opposite of educating and informing its listeners. Rather much of it dedicated towards obscuring understanding of issues by relianing on labels and stereotypes that give the illusion of understanding. For example, the constant repetition of labels such as saying that Obama is socialist, facist, etc. Listen to the right wing, and you here this constant drone designed to evoke an emotional response. Now, do you feel smarter, more intelligent, or more understanding of Obama's policies?

Now, you may, because you have a certain stereotype of what constitutes socialism versus liberalism, and merely labeling Obama's policies "socialist" can give the listener the impression that they understand all they need to know about his various policies. However, the label acutally operates to obscure an honest intellectual debate on issues such as health care, the financial system or social security.

Look at their websites, and try to find any links to stories or articles where they actually propose a solution to any issues affecting the middle class. You say, "Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do not talk down to their listeners" and that you are "against imperialism and against the exploitation of workers by the idle class rentiers." Very well, where are their cogent solutions to the issues affecting the middle class.

It is easy to express and anger and outrage, and in so doing, this raw expression of emotion is probably easy to understand. However, it is exploitive, because it merely fans the rage, and finds a scapegoat, but never addresses the actual problem. This is why the Republicans in Congress for all their complaints about Obama's budget ended up heavily voting against the supposed alternative GOP budget. It is easy and exploitive to merely fan rage. The question is can they actually educate and provide insight to solutions to the issues facing the middle class.

Finally, in addition to the complete lack of real solutions offered by right wing media, the fact of the matter is that their representation of current facts are often just plain wrong. These factual inacurracies are well documented in media matters:

http://mediamatters.org/index

For example, here's Limbaugh today on Feminism:

"Can I redirect you to feminist truth number 24 -- undeniable truth of life number 24 -- written by me in the mid-80s? Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. It's proved practically every day in our modern culture."

Intelligent discussion?

[ellie]

43. Nice!

Very well said and it has been my experience as well. Last year, when gas prices were up over $4 a gallon, I attempted to explain to my right wing boss about Phil Gramm and the Commodities Modernization Act. As a Limbaugh listening "conservative," he dismissed me, very rudely, because all he was fed was emotion from Limbaugh, no facts, so he couldn't have a conversation about it with me. It's easy to get upset. It's harder to see both sides of an issue or be informed if your mind is closed.

[Canuckistanian]

23. They treat their listeners "intelligently"?

You've never listened to RW radio very often.

Yes, they speak s-l-o-w-l-y and explain their points of of view and in easy-to-understand language (so far, so good) but then they repeat it. Over and over and over again, the same points. Sometimes spoken a little differently, but nonetheless the same bloody points. After listening to them for a few hours (and I do), I feel as though I've been lashed about the head and neck with a wet noodle. OK, I GET IT, can we move on, please?

And then they're provided with a short, snappy soundbite as a conclusion - usually something pithy like "Obama hates America"

Actually, these days that's the ONLY conclusion they come up with.

Intelligent? No. That's the way you train an animal. Repetition, repetition, repetition. And then only reward them when they've got the message EXACTLY RIGHT.

[MisterP]

24. that's the thing: simple-minded ideologies can be explained simply

leftism/liberalism is genuinely both "scientific" and "humanist," striving for ethics, multiplicity, and thoroughness: conservatism appeals to fear, emotion shorn of reason or hesitation, facile "logic" that ignores that non-Americans are living beings who can feel pain, a militant defense of a single viewpoint, and "morality" unquestioningly based on what was current in the 1830s or 1910s

[Political Heretic]

26. Thom Hartmann. He's about the pinnacle of intelligent, informed, respectful, left radio.

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Yeah, Thom's even nice to the right wingers who appear on his show

He has far more patience with them than I would. Especially in the morning.

[crim son]

27. When you present outrageous ideas based on distorted "facts,"

and use them to rouse the ire of the listener, you are certainly talking down to them. When Beck wiped from his eyes patriotic crocodile tears the other day, he was acting i.e. he was assuming that his viewers are so stupid they're going to believe that he's the real deal. He's assuming his viewers are idiots, and so does Limbaugh and so does Savage. I find it interesting that you haven't been able to see that - no, actually I'm rather alarmed.

[Profprileasn]

28. Nice

to have other points of view. I agree. Beck goes over historical facts and ideas. Rush is okay. Don't like the way he talks about women sometimes. Don't know Mike Savage or Free Republic. Important to have other viewpoints put out there and not be attacked for them.

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. Two words: Thom Hartmann.

[madrchsod]

30. you mean when jim decided to purge his membership roles

a few years back when people started to question him about how the freerepublic was being run. i wonder where all the money goes when he does`t put a dime in to upgrading his software? free republic bans posters just like we do here.

no one is forcing you to read this site or to post on it..if you do`t like what is or is not posted here...well it`s a big internet out there i and think you`ll find a better home.

[cherish44]

31. "Take the bone out of your nose and call back..."

Famous Rushism to one of his callers. Yeah that's respectful.

[Kitty Herder]

33. They most certainly do talk down to their listeners.

They talk to them as if they were speaking to children.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

34. Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, do not talk down to their listeners!

That is too fucking funny! How the hell COULD those fascist assholes
be talked down to!?

[Warren DeMontague]

35. You are right. Beck, Savage, and Limbaugh talk to their listeners as if they are their equals.

Turd to Turd, as it were.

[Vinca]

36. Beat me to it and your analogy is much better than mine was. nt

[tekisui]

37. Puh-lease! The RW gasbags do nothing but talk down to their listeners.

They spew nothing but hate, lies and spin. They don't educate or lift up. They are the least educated and most vile voices on the airwaves.

If you have so much admiration for them, and freerepublic, join them. It's absurd to praise them here.

[xchrom]

38. so think about that -- whether they talk down to them or not --

you're still talking a very very small pool of intelligence.

that's the very problem with 'conservative' -- it isn't about new or inventiveness or making anything better.

and limbaugh, savage, hannity, et al certainly expresses the very best of all that poverty of ideas.

[Enthusiast]

39. I'll give Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck credit

for being effective propagandists for their listening audience and nothing more. This is their job and they do it well. They remain blow hard assholes.

[CBR]

40. Yeah Freepland is so great it purged people who

supported Rudy911. If DU followed there would have been a purge of Biden followers and other moderate candidate supporters. Remember they thought Duncan Hunter was the great GOP savior.

[creeksneakers2]

41. That's crazy. Rush's show revolves around him talking down

to his listeners.

Rush is cast as a genius professor who is always right. The show pretends the listeners are students who are learning from the "mighty MahaRushie." Limbaugh used to say, "Do not think. I will think for you." Now he says, "Don't doubt me" and "Don't try this at home." The listeners submit to Rush and follow along as instructed. They are a pack of brainwashed idiots who refuse to think when confronted with an opposing idea or fact. Its no wonder that he shows no respect for them.

Rush belittles anybody who disagrees with his pontifications. He has no concern for his listeners getting the real truth. Limbaugh lies without a second thought. He has no respect for his audience at all and he shows it throughout his broadcasts.

The other wingnut programs aren't as bad in this way but all the hosts hold themselves out as great sages when in fact they are failed DJs who have no idea what they are talking about.

[DailyGrind51]

42. Don't get me wrong, I listen to Thom Hartmann daily, but I lecture for a living,

and know that an audience will not be receptive to someone who talks over their heads, they want "plain talk" ala Ed Schultz, or, sadly, Rush Limbaugh.