Are we media zombies?

[ThisIsMe]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

 

[Pogo]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

 

[EL Rich]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't touch the news in the morning until I've had some coffee and at least 20 minutes of cartoon mirth.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

Actually, you point out something that should frighten all of us.

You are correct, that there is big money at play here. If I remember correctly a few years back, I was listening to rush, and he said something very profound. He said that all talk radio people were there simply to attract people so they would listen to the commercials and sponsors, or something to that effect.

Basically, he was saying that he was there to get people to listen to that program, and thereby get exposed to the ads they would run.

Radio talent try to drive ratings to attract bigger sponsors, which will possibly bring more revenue for said sponsors, so these radio personalities will broadcast whatever it is they think their audience wants in order to keep them hooked on the show. Again, why I think not all of these people actually believe in everything they talk about, but do so to drive those numbers.

It's kind of like Greta van sustren. I didn't follow her, but wasn't she a fox Republican, and then switched to MSNBC, and then became more centrist, or left leaning? If so, that would be a prime example of how they follow the money, and not necessarily what they believe.

 

[Pogo]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

Truth --- I can't imagine listening to "talk radio" AT ALL regardless what time it is. I have satellite radio in the car too and I travel a lot and it's absolutely NEVER set on that shit. I dunno to me that's totally pissing away one's time and farting in one's own psychic Cheerios. I really don't need some yahoo trying to tell me what to think as if I can't figure it out myself.

My radio will be set on comedy, or sports, or some documentary, or jazz or bluegrass or something like that. The only purpose I could see for tuning to talk radio would be if I had to drive through the night and needed something to keep me awake by pissing me off.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't touch the news in the morning until I've had some coffee and at least 20 minutes of cartoon mirth.

Lol, probably a good idea. A good cup of coffee can make the day just a little bit brighter [emoji16]

 

[Pogo]

Actually, you point out something that should frighten all of us.

You are correct, that there is big money at play here. If I remember correctly a few years back, I was listening to rush, and he said something very profound. He said that all talk radio people were there simply to attract people so they would listen to the commercials and sponsors, or something to that effect.

Basically, he was saying that he was there to get people to listen to that program, and thereby get exposed to the ads they would run.

That's what ALL commercial broadcasting does. Talk, music, sports, anything.

Said one Clear Channel executive to one of his Program Directors -- "Do you know the definition of 'programming'? Programming is the shit we run between commercials".

That's the price of commercial media. Lowest common denominator diarrhea.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

Actually, you point out something that should frighten all of us.

You are correct, that there is big money at play here. If I remember correctly a few years back, I was listening to rush, and he said something very profound. He said that all talk radio people were there simply to attract people so they would listen to the commercials and sponsors, or something to that effect.

Basically, he was saying that he was there to get people to listen to that program, and thereby get exposed to the ads they would run.

Radio talent try to drive ratings to attract bigger sponsors, which will possibly bring more revenue for said sponsors, so these radio personalities will broadcast whatever it is they think their audience wants in order to keep them hooked on the show. Again, why I think not all of these people actually believe in everything they talk about, but do so to drive those numbers.

It's kind of like Greta van sustren. I didn't follow her, but wasn't she a fox Republican, and then switched to MSNBC, and then became more centrist, or left leaning? If so, that would be a prime example of how they follow the money, and not necessarily what they believe.

Like Megan she joined the Dark Side, and her career is over.

 

[Pogo]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

 

[Pogo]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

 

[EL Rich]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Yes and they rely on both underwriters (paid advertising) and individual donations/sponsorships (listeners) to “keep the lights on”. That seems to be the same equation other than the public funding, no? And despite the claims of some, their funding comes mostly from the first two.

 

[Pogo]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Yes and they rely on both underwriters (paid advertising) and individual donations/sponsorships (listeners) to “keep the lights on”. That seems to be the same equation other than the public funding, no? And despite the claims of some, their funding comes mostly from the first two.

Nope. Their funding comes mainly from listener/viewer donations.

Underwriting is not "paid advertising". It's paid but it's under strict rules, e.g. it can't use a "call to action" verb or exhort the viewer/listener to buy its product. That's exactly why the blurbs always say "more information is available at..." in the passive voice, and never says "for more info GO TO ...." which is a call to action. So that's still a different animal. Underwriting and public funding are a collective drop in the bucket of a station's budget. .

By far the vast majority comes from public donations. And zero from advertising.

 

[Pogo]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Turning the mind OFF so that it's nice and hypnotized and malleable sells deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant. Fake wrestling sells deodorant. Naked people walking around on an island sells deodorant.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Solution: Everybody vote for the Libertarian Candidate, even if you don't agree with them, to get them to enough votes for federal funding to force in a third party.

It can be done.

 

[Thinker101]

Great post. The electorate is being led by the nose by people just trying to separate them from their money. All news agencies are businesses trying to make as much profit by attracting as many viewers/listeners as they can (sorry NPR and PBS, this means you too!) They believe in making money more than any ideas they may present. I too wonder if the tempature would go down if we spoke to our neighbors instead of watching talking heads or listening to radio/podcast hosts who are for sale. I choose to believe it would.

NPR and PBS don't make "profit". That would be illegal. That is in fact what frees them from the Lowest Common Denominator bullshit game.

Nonsense. They are subsidized by their fans, and present the news as their contributing fans demand.

That's not "profit". "Profit" would be generating revenue by selling commercials. They don't do that; they can't do that; they don't want to do that; and if they ever did do that it would be completely illegal.

PERIOD.

This gets to the whole motivation of broadcasting. A commercial broadcaster runs sports or talk or hiphop not because they believe in sports or talk or hiphop but because they believe sports or talk or hiphop will grab them X amount of audience, which they can then point to an advertiser and tell them they will "deliver" that audience. A noncommercial broadcaster runs news or jazz or a documentary because it's worthy of broadcast.

Again --- this is the price of whoring out the airwaves.

My mother (92) is quite enamored of their BBC presentations. She does not, however, contribute so much as a thin dime to them.

Then she has that in common with as a general rule 90% of the audience.

Profit is irrelevant. That fact that they are not profitable does not reflect on the lack of veracity of their news presentations.

Sooooo first you're claiming they milk "profit" and then when you're called on that you retreat to "it's irrelevant".

They're "not profitable" because they're non-profit. That's what nonprofit MEANS; that you operate for some other purpose than profit. In this case it means you're using the people's airwaves to provide a public service and not to line your own pockets.

And as far as news presentations, presuming we're talking NPR here, they're the only radio that does any real news presentation, because news is expensive to do and never "profitable" when it's done objectively. That's why you don't see commercial networks doing news. There wouldn't be enough money in it for them to milk.

That's also why your local TV Fraction News will lead with a story about some fire or sinkhole or traffic collision somewhere you never heard of, instead of what your city council is doing, because that kind of shit draws gawkers. Again --- all about the money. It's also why when that legendary conservative William F. Buckley had his discussion show it had to run on PBS ---- because Buckley incited thought, and thought doesn't sell deodorant. Stupid sitcoms sell deodorant.

Non-profit means they're not profitable? WTF, don't tell the Catholic Church.....dumbass.

 

[fncceo]

Just shoot us in the head.