Every once in a while, when I'm cooking or cleaning, I turn on my terrestrial radio and tune into the Thom Hartmann show.
WHY .. if he is a progressive talker, does he always seem to have conservative guests on the air?
I could just as easily turn on Michael Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh if I wanted to hear conservatives.
Does Hartmann not understand people are listening to his show so we DON'T have listen to the conservative talking points?
Hartmann's dialogue with the conservatives is usually tedious ... the same old talking points heard on Limbaugh and the rest, so I end up turning OFF Hartmann.
Frankly, I don't want to hear right-wingers yapping their little Hannity points when I've turned to a "progressive" talk show.
Why call it "progressive talk" if you can't hear progressive guests?
What's up with that?

Karina,
I think Thom wants to create a dialogue between Left/Right, Neo-Con/Liberal. He does a good job of interrogating the righties, especially those libertarian whackos. But I agree with you to some extent. I think he has too many right wingers on and not enough left wingers. I'd like to see him have Michael Parenti on, someone who can effectively debate about why capitalism is a bankrupt social system that is destroying the planet. I think Parenti could give Thom a run for his money.

"Talk with yourself and you'll hear what you wanna know" - Aerosmith

Does Thom just let us right-wing whack-a-doodles talk, or is it a dialoge/discussion/debate? I only ask since I do not live anywhere that gets Thom's show. If it is the latter, one of you (you or the con) is in danger of learning something.

Long before I tuned in Thom's show, I realized that the right's position on almost everything was just a Machivellian attempt to persude people that corporate crime is the only moral and economically feasible thing to do. These last few weeks my situation has made it too difficult to listen to Thom, I've had to adjust my life to protect myself from corporate swindlers. I'm not sure I want to listen again to some creep who I'd rather take a swing at. I miss shows like New Dimensions, but there are some great things to read .

Books: The Biology of Belief ----- Escape from fear or your body and mind will suffer
Periodicals: www.sentienttimes.org, What is Enlightenment? Magazine

All these talk about solutions; not spinning your wheels arguing against The Big Lie. I'm definately branching out.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: No election, No Peace,

NENP,
Yes, I too am branching out. I've started listening to New Dimensions again, and my reading is more spiritual than political. Sentient Times is a good paper, it has that all-too-rare balance between the political and the spiritual. We get it here in Arcata. What Is Enlightenment has a great website (wie.org).

Faredman, yes, Thom definitely lets them talk. I've no problem with that, although these types get more than enough time to spout their ideological drivel in the corporate controlled, so-called "mainstream" media. Thom does a good job of deconstructing their nonsense, revealing them to be the numb nuts they are. But he should have on communists and socialists and anarchists, as these folks have interesting and worthwhile ideas too, ones that would be less easy for Thom to refute.

I agree with the suggestion that Thom should have an on-air debate with Michael Parenti.

More generally: he could, once a week (like with "everything you know is wrong") debate someone from the "extreme" left for a 30-60 minute segment.

What a coincidence, memory, we get sentient times here in Eureka,too. (To everyone else, Eureka and Arcata are 6 miles apart). btw, when & where is New Dimensions here?

Science, metaphysics, and social justice all seem to be merging now. I started reading science books 44 years ago hoping this would happen. Lakeoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" hinted at it. The breadth of this unification leads me to believe the cons days are numbered.

Imagine that, we are neighbors.

Geographically anyhow.

NENP, New Dimensions is on 90.5 Sunday nights at 8:00. Yes, I've noticed how science seems to be becoming more open to metaphysics lately, what with the "New Physics" of people like Bohr and Wolfe and the Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields.

quote:

Faredman, yes, Thom definitely lets them talk. I've no problem with that, although these types get more than enough time to spout their ideological drivel in the corporate controlled, so-called "mainstream" media. Thom does a good job of deconstructing their nonsense, revealing them to be the numb nuts they are. But he should have on communists and socialists and anarchists, as these folks have interesting and worthwhile ideas too, ones that would be less easy for Thom to refute.

Outside of Talk Radio, the Wall Street Journal and one cable news channel, what "mainstream" media outlets do you deem conservative?

You may also be surprised to learn of a large liberterian streak in the real conservative movement that has some ties, in my view, to anarchy. Maybe we are not as far apart as we think. Although, how that line of social organizational theory ties into the collectivist ideologies of communism and socialism continues to elude me.

quote:

Outside of Talk Radio, the Wall Street Journal and one cable news channel, what "mainstream" media outlets do you deem conservative?

First of all, "talk radio" is enormously influential, and completely dominated by the conservatives. There is nothing close to balance there, and no evidence that this stateof affairs represents "what the people want." It is straightforward corporate propaganda, facilitated by that great "liberal" President Clinton's signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

PBS's Wall Street Week, its other show about Wall Street which features the entire WSJ editorial board with no liberals for balance; the John McLaughlin show, C-Span (the most frequent think-tank sponsored discussions are 95- 99% conservative, i.e., American Enterprise Institute, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Cato Institute, etc. I have YET to see them have the Institute for Policy Studies host a disussion, although they have had the Center for American Progress, about 1 - 2% of the time).

The Jim Lehrer News Hour is also totally dominated by conservatives, despite the superficial and rather transparent attempt to present the veneer of objectivity. FAIR did a study of that show as well as ABC's Nightline back in the late 1980s which conclusively proved this point. Sadly, nothing has changed on the show since then -- it remains corporate propaganda masquerading as public-minded, "objective' discourse. You can find the study at www.fair.org. Put "Jim Lehrer" into their search engine.

I'm not going to go into newspapers because most americans get their news from TV and radio. The network news shows are certainly not liberal, notwithstanding conservatives repeated insistence that they are. CBS's 60 Minutes might fairly be called liberal, but that is ONE show, and there are many hours of conservatives shows on TV and radio that overwhelm its influence. Same with PBS's "Now," which at 30 minutes and without Moyers is a pale reflection of the former state.

quote:

You may also be surprised to learn of a large liberterian streak in the real conservative movement that has some ties, in my view, to anarchy. Maybe we are not as far apart as we think. Although, how that line of social organizational theory ties into the collectivist ideologies of communism and socialism continues to elude me.

I'm not surprised to hear that, as I've heard it before. But in my view the similarities are superficial, and the differences profound. Look up "democratic socialism" on Wikipedia. It's considered a form of anarchism, and the article, if it hasn't been hacked, goes into the differences between anarchism and libertarianism. It also clarifies how anarchism relates to Marxist thought.

quote:

First of all, "talk radio" is enormously influential, and completely dominated by the conservatives. There is nothing close to balance there, and no evidence that this stateof affairs represents "what the people want."

Can listenrship be used as evidence of "what the people want"?

Check the dial. There are dozens of stations in my town - some talk, some news, many music. Get XM like I have, and you can choose from close to 100 commercial-free music channels - plus BBC, a few CNN's, at least one Public Radio station, and Air America (where I found Thom, btw). I suggest "the people" have chosen conservative as the dominant format for talk radio because it is found in so few other places - and it is what the people want.

What is on Public Radio/PBS outside the 4-8 hours per week that you cite as the corporate propaganda segments? Fresh Air, Radio Times, "The Sloane Sessions". Care to discuss the content of those programs?

I couldn't help noticing the conspicuous absence of any of the big 3 network news operations and cable news networks that do not begin with F. How are the ratings holding up on those outlets these days, anyway?

Also very convenient to just dismiss what could be the biggest bastion of liberalism in the media - newspapers. Why are newspapers dying, anyway? It could be consumer distaste for the product - which would be content as well as format.

I suggest it's 'the corporate monopolies' that have chosen the format, and the content... because it's what sells, with maximum profit for them 'attached'.

...and in those instances where this is not so obviously the case, it's a 'loss leader' for propaganda/'politrickle' 'PR' purposes... still furthering their bottom line.

Basic business domination strategy 101.

PBS is merely more insidious, as less obvious propaganda is mixed with more programming of actual quality and meaning...

quote:

Look up "democratic socialism" on Wikipedia. It's considered a form of anarchism

I think those who concurr with the ideas of democatic socialism should start thinking anarchitically, outside of big institutions like governement, but looking for any openings we can. On the Friday after election day, Bernie came on and said, "Run for dogcatcher!". I wanted to throw up. There are still some freedoms in America.

There was a batter in very early baseball, before Ty Cobb who hit .450. When asked how he did it, he said I hit them where they aint.

For example: A year ago, I was disgusted with how fundies were trying to take over America, but I grudgingly had to admit they had built quite an infrastructure and identity. Progressive Christians had to come up with a more positive, concrete structure for showing the compassionate side of Christ. Here is on thread where I discussed it.
http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=298&hl=

quote:

quote:
You may also be surprised to learn of a large liberterian streak in the real conservative movement that has some ties, in my view, to anarchy. Maybe we are not as far apart as we think. Although, how that line of social organizational theory ties into the collectivist ideologies of communism and socialism continues to elude me.


I'm not surprised to hear that, as I've heard it before. But in my view the similarities are superficial, and the differences profound. Look up "democratic socialism" on Wikipedia. It's considered a form of anarchism, and the article, if it hasn't been hacked, goes into the differences between anarchism and libertarianism. It also clarifies how anarchism relates to Marxist thought.

I would list theories of social structure in ascending order of government involvement, not from left to right or any of the standard sets of labels, as follows: Anarchist; Liberterian; America at its founding; something like the current US structure; the so-called third way of Western Europe; Socialism; and finally Communism. Wherever you think it puts me on this spectrum, I choose order of government involvement because I consider the individual sovereign - the ultimate authority, and government an intrusion on that sovereignty.

Socialism and Communism being at the high end is not based on the original theories, but on their real world implementation in the Soviet Union, China, for example.

I understand the model, that peopole in their natural state - not programmed from birth to be greedy (to borrow the rhetoric) will organize themselves and share equally in the bounty around them. I refer to the real world again, however. This model has worked well, by my view of history, only under very specific circumstances. It works best in relatively small, homogeneous groups with undeveloped economies - hunter-gatherer/early agrarian, pre-cash economies - where the only resource allocation question is who gets first dibs on the day's hunt, and the difference between the top and bottom would be small in any case.

This is where I am starting, but I will check out your suggested reading for some additional input.

I have also wondered about anarchy on a philosophical level, are people any freer under the group's agreed-upon restrictions on behavior than under a set of laws laid down by some form of representative government? I suppose so in the sense of how much consent the individual gives directly to the code of conduct, but as a practical matter . . .? I further assume that unanimous consent would have the natural effect of severly limiting the nature and number of such restrictions.

"I suggest it's 'the corporate monopolies' that have chosen the format, and the content... because it's what sells, with maximum profit for them 'attached'."

The question I cannot get past is: why is conservative the format "with maximum profit"? If people don't like what they hear, they will not listen to it, or at least not accept it. I had arrived at a number of conservative conclusions before I heard the name Rush Limbaugh. I listened not because I agree with him, but because he argeed with me.

I felt the tone of my post listing various liberal media outlets was a little angry. I was not angry at the attempt to explain a position - that is what we do here, but the underlying asumption that talk radio listeners were basically not engaged intellectually - that not only do we just click on Limbaugh or Hannity or Bennett or Batchelor or Elder and absorb whatever our leaders say; but that we are somehow programmed to click them on in the first place. It plays to the stereotype of "Liberal" thought that most people are not bright enough to make our own decisions.

The theory presented here as I understand it is that the evolution of conservative talk radio is something of a corprate conspiracy. I love a good conspiracy theory, honestly, but I have never accepted a conspiracy theory that, like this one, requires the complicity of those conspired against.

A challenge to Thomas Frank's Kansas tome

quote:

Class voting patterns are hard to sort out because income is only one determinant of social class. Education, religion, occupation, and residence all matter. In recent decades, education and income have come to work at cross-purposes. Among voters with the same level of education, those with more income are more Republican; among those with similar income, the more educated are more Democratic. When high education is coupled with less than extravagant income, as for example among college professors and social workers, the vote is overwhelmingly Democratic. High school dropouts who own real estate or fast food businesses probably go Republican by similar margins. But these are exceptions; in the mean, education and income go up together, and that correlation makes statistics a tricky business. It is easy to produce analyses that seem to measure education when they really measure income or vice versa.

link for the post above http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=151

quote:

Frank’s subject is, of course, the latter species of fraud. But he describes it in unvarnished language of the sort you would use to recount the everyday swindle against your elderly neighbors. A vote by Senator Sam Brownback to deregulate radio ownership was “a choice between protecting corporate profits and actually doing something about the open cultural sewer he has spent his career deploring.” More generally, rank-and-file religious conservatives have gotten “lower wages, more dangerous jobs, dirtier air, a new overlord class that comports itself like King Farouk—and, of course, a crap culture whose moral free fall continues without significant interference from the grandstanding Christers whom they send triumphantly back to Washington every couple of years.”

A reasoned rejoinder might assert that religious conservatism has indeed changed the culture or that outside forces have overpowered its best efforts. But Frank’s detractors make no such claims. The charge of condescension is normative rather than empirical; it presupposes that politics is an arena for the assertion of identity rather than a means of collective action. Results don’t matter, so no one has the right to judge other people’s voting choices.

The term “false consciousness” is a red herring. It is how the New Left of the late sixties described workers’ preference for higher wages over the promise of revolutionary salvation. The pragmatic working class had false consciousness, so a student vanguard took action in its place.

Frank stands with the pragmatists. He thinks wages matter; he rejects the elite that promises salvation. His politics is about results, in economics and in culture alike. The return on a retirement fund matters more than the faith of its sponsor.

Too Frank?

quote:

but the underlying asumption that talk radio listeners were basically not engaged intellectually - that not only do we just click on Limbaugh or Hannity or Bennett or Batchelor or Elder and absorb whatever our leaders say; but that we are somehow programmed to click them on in the first place. It plays to the stereotype of "Liberal" thought that most people are not bright enough to make our own decisions.

Faredman, nobody thinks you can't make decisions. However if you make decisions based on the lies and distortions espoused by those that you said agreed with you, they're probably wrong decisions. But a lot of pleasure comes from making decisions that are against something, even imaginary, instead of for something. BTW you might want to keep in mind that they're all just entertainers...and you know the Three Stooges didn't really poke each other in the eyes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: douglaslee,

quote:

I suggest it's 'the corporate monopolies' that have chosen the format, and the content... because it's what sells, with maximum profit for them 'attached'."

The question I cannot get past is: why is conservative the format "with maximum profit"? If people don't like what they hear, they will not listen to it, or at least not accept it. I had arrived at a number of conservative conclusions before I heard the name Rush Limbaugh. I listened not because I agree with him, but because he argeed with me.

I don't accept the premise that the conservative format is the one with maximum profit. If you can provide some evidence for this, I'll consider it. The rise of right-wing radio followed the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications bill, when Clear Channel bought up 1200 radio stations and started putting conservative talk show hosts on all over the country. I heard a woman on C-Span not long ago who claimed to have done better in the ratings than Limbaugh, and yet she was having a hard time getting her show spread to other stations. On TV, the Phil Donahue show had the highest rating of any show of that kind on CNBC and it was pulled in 2002 for political reasons, i.e., because NBC was too scared to host a show that frequently had anti-war guests on it during a time when it looked like a war was coming. In other words, his show was pulled for blatantly political reasons. The notion that right-wing radio is a reflection of what the people want is pure conservative dogma, trotted out again and again, with no evidence ever provided. Air America has made some inroads in restoring balance, but I don't think it is anywhere near balanced yet. Oh, that woman's name was Randi Rhodes, I believe. A simple, common sense question for you conservatives who think everyone wants to listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly, et al. If that is so, why is the country electorally divided roughly in half for the last couple presidential elections? It doesn't make sense that half the country votes for Gore and Kerry, and also prefers to listen to people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

Trying to belittle the point by calling it it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't further anything. The fact remains that half the country is liberal, and that is not reflected in the domination of the airwaves by right-wing radio. Hence, your assumption that market forces always reflect the will of the most people is simply conservative dogma.

ya gee we would not want an any opposing opinions or anything like that would we. you libs are such hipocrits. you scream and yell about freedom of speech and then declare that people like Rush or Lars Larson must be silenced

quote:

Originally posted by Astaroth:
ya gee we would not want an any opposing opinions or anything like that would we. you libs are such hipocrits. you scream and yell about freedom of speech and then declare that people like Rush or Lars Larson must be silenced

Who's saying Rush must be silenced? Not me. I'm simply saying that the domination of talk radio by right wingers doesn't reflect the listeners' choice, it reflects the consolidation of media ownership by large companies that have an interest in promoting a right wing agenda. There is simply ZERO evidence that Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly et al represent the thinking of 95% of the radio listeners in this country, yet they seem to get about 95% of the air time.