Friday, July 08, 2005
They'll let anyone talk on the radio
Case in point number 1:
Just the other day I heard a local radio talk show host expound on why he hates blogs, and the term blogosphere (I'll not challenge that second statement - I think the term blogosphere is both pompous and overblown, and gives the impression that if it were not there, the atmosphere would collapse). The crux of his primary argument was why anyone 'Would care to hear the political opinions of some guy in his basement."
Pardon me, but does this not also describe the very callers you are always entreating to call your station. What makes their opinion more important that the blogger, the mere fact they were able to get past your screener? In my opinion, the blogger's opinion is just as valid as your callers, and for that matter, yours. Being on the radio doesn't make your opinion more valid. Furthermore, if I read someone's blog, I don't have to listen to you cut off and censor the opinions of those that don't fit your mindset, a trait that all radio talk show hosts share. I think your dislike is more motivated by the fact that unfettered opinion and commentary threatens your livelihood.
Case in point number 2:
I was listening to my alternative rock station this morning. Its a fun little station - a lot of the music I really dig, though there is also quite a bit of stuff that comes off as incoherent noise. Maybe Marty is right, and my kids are gonna love it.
I digress. The morning hosts were talking about the London bombing, and one of the hosts talked about the reasons it occurred. He summed up his argument with he following paraphrased statement (it helps to picture Tom Cruise talking to Matt Lauer while reading this):
"You need to do the research. I went online and found the facts: terrorism increases when a Republican is in office. Modern terrorism began with Carter, I'll admit it, but it really increased under Reagan - Iran Contra, Beirut. Same with the George Bushes. But with Clinton, we had eight years, with pretty much nothing. There was the World Trade Center bombing, Oklahoma City, but nothing else."
Say what? Maybe this DJ better do some more research before giving us political facts. Seems he forgot the Munich Olympics massacre in 1972 or the Rome Airport hijacking in 1973, which had a far higher body count and are the real beginnings of modern terrorism. In contrast, not any of the hostages in Iran were killed during the Carter administration.
and as for Clinton's presidency being terrorist-free, that is a huge falsehood. The two he named were two of the highest profile attacks in the history of terrorism. He also neglects the Tokyo Subway attack, the increase in suicide bombings in Israel, the killings of tourists in Egypt in 1997, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the Kobar Tower bombings, the Kenyan Embassy bombings, etc. I'd go as far to say that the Rwandan genocide was largely a terrorist action, and that also happened under Clinton.
Terrorism is not tied to the political ideology of the U.S. President. World terrorism has been steadily on the rise since the 1960's. It is the modus operandi for any radical group that want to take physical action to draw attention to their cause and to influence the public. I'll grant that media coverage of terrorism has increased since Bush took office. That's because daily terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan directly affects Americans and American families. If there were no troops in either country, and the same level of terrorism was occurring, it would only get at most a brief 10 second blurb on the newscasts.
Case in point number 3:
I turned back to conservative talk radio. A caller was expressing her relief that the morning host had gotten back from a week's vacation. She expressed her disappointment at the 'liberal lefty' who hosted in his absence, and how she and her friends almost decided to stop listening to the station.
How petty is that? They know this is a guest host. They can't tolerate listening to someone who has a different political opinion for a week? I try to listen to both sides, as much as I can, even if I vehemently disagree with their position. How else do you understand where someone is coming from? From your half-formed perceptions and conclusions?
I find it also appalling in that I would say last week's host was not liberal. He was pretty much in the middle on most issues, and was more open to listening to people's opinions and starting a dialogue than the ordinary host. But center of the road is extremist to that listener. I wonder what she'd think of Al Franken.
To cap it all of, when the host assured her he wasn't planning on leaving, she responded: "We'll pray."
...uhm. Okay.
------------------------------------------------