A reply to critics, including Jason Lewis, of Eric’s Bachmann story
February 28th, 2007 – 5:13 PM by D.J. TiceEsteemed colleague and co-blogger Eric Black has come in for some rough criticism of his reporting on U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s mysterious statement about Iran’s plans in Iraq.
 Eric, to be sure, can take care of himself. But one line of attack betrays such a naïve misunderstanding of how journalists do their work that I feel I should speak up, if only in my capacity as a political news editor.
Many Bachmann defenders – notably talk radio host Jason Lewis on Friday, Monday and Tuesday – have decried the fact that ardent and more or less full-time Bachmann critics tipped Eric to the statement Bachmann made in a recorded interview with the St. Cloud Times.
They also complain that the statement was two weeks old when Eric wrote about it and insist that he should be satisfied with Bachmann’s vague clarification of what she meant, which does little to explain what she said.
Above all, though, Lewis & Co. suggest that there is something discreditable about a journalist pursuing a story that is being peddled by people with an obvious political axe to grind. (Here’s a link to audio of Lewis’ recent programs. The Bachmann/Black portions start in the file labeled 2/23 -5 p.)
One wonders how such people think watchdog journalism happens. Seldom do politicians phone the newspaper to call our attention to their own misdeeds or missteps. Only rarely do the political or ideological allies of a politician, administration or legislative majority shine a light on instances of corruption or incompetence among their friends and standard bearers.
Sometimes, it’s true, journalists launch investigations entirely on their own. But most of the time, watchdog journalism starts with a tip from someone who has a grievance (political or personal) with the target of the inquiry. Incompetence and mischief in high places would almost NEVER come to light if reporters and editors were too pure to check out such leads to see if they are true and newsworthy.
Let me move from abstraction to real world examples.
 I easily recall three fairly prominent stories I had some involvement with in the past year that were a bit hard on Democrats and that began with tips from their political foes:
- A story about former state Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson’s statement (weeks old at the time) that Minnesota Supreme Court Justices had assured him they wouldn’t overturn the state’s marriage laws. The statement was recorded and made public by a pastor displeased by Johnson’s opposition to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and unions. The Star Tribune kept demanding straight answers from Johnson despite his attempts to get away with vague clarifications that didn’t clarify.
- A story about former legislator and attorney general candidate Matt Entenza’s private investigation of Mike Hatch. The story, unsourced, was first told in 2005 by Republican blogger Michael Brodkorb on his blog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed. The Star Tribune later received additional information from an anonymous source who did not want to see Entenza become attorney general. The paper kept demanding specific answers from Entenza and Hatch, to the point where Hatch and his allies got mad at us and filed a News Council complaint (which went nowhere).
- A number of stories about congressional candidate (now U.S. Rep.) Keith Ellison dealing with past traffic and parking tickets, campaign finance filing failures and other things. Critics and opponents of Ellison brought these matters to the newspaper’s attention.
According to the logic of Eric’s critics the newspaper should have ignored all these stories, since they had been “planted†by enemies of the politicians involved. That didn’t happen. There are times when the source of a tip does cause the newspaper to steer clear of a story – usually when a source tries to attach an unreasonable condition to use of the information. But such cases are rare.
118 Responses to "A reply to critics, including Jason Lewis, of Eric’s Bachmann story"
The Bachmann story was politically biased. I knew that by the unflattering photo of Michele which was originally posted. It was quickly changed to the outdoor shot after complaints.
The Strib has always used the photo of her looking over her eyeglasses when they want to attack her.
Indeed, a photo of Michele standing above a draft with her skirt swirling about, ala Marilyn Monroe, or reclining suggestively in a barn ala Rita Hayworth, or in her election night evening gown–choose your poison, any one would convince me that the paper is getting more even handed in its reporting of our 6th district vixen.
You and Black think YOU’VE got problems with the Jason Lewis crowd?
I’m one of the contributors to DumpBachmann, like most of the contributors I’m a patriotic married male heterosexual who loves his country–and Lewis repeatedly described us to the Twin Cities radio audience as a bunch of “angry lesbians,” “radical militant lesbians” who “hate America, hate the western tradition, and hate capitalism.” What a jackass, as is anyone who trusts him to tell them the truth.
It’s not that Lewis and his audience don’t *understand* how journalists get tipped off to stories–it’s that they don’t *care,* they don’t care about reality. They live to smear; their careers are built on feeding the anger and paranoia of their audience, regardless of the facts. It’s a propanganda program, like almost all conservative radio since Rush. Since when do those guys care about checking their information or getting the facts right and presenting them to the public truthfully?
Oh that “logic” had me laughing out loud DTSI.
I’m not so sure “naive” or “misunderstanding” has anything to do with it DJ. I’d say a calculated ‘attack the messenger’ campaign. That’s what the rw propaganda machine always does.
I have to give credit to Eric for changing the photo. I think he knew I had a good point.
Let me see Dora. Your last post claimed that DTSI had his head up his*** yet you claim the rw propaganda machine attacks the messenger. Hypocrite thy name is Dora.
No jon, I agreed with DTSI that he knows about having a head up an arse since he’s the one that said the Iraq Study Group had their collective heads there. You really should post this comment in the right thread which would demonstrate the correct order of the comments. Typical of you rw’ers to misrepresent.
Jason Lewis called both I and Karl Bremer insane. He also said the site was liberal democrats – and he knows very well that I’ve been involved with Log Cabin Republicans. In fact, I was a guest on his show in that capacity.
I don’t think newspapers should just take tips, and do no additional investigation. Instead, good journalists, take tips, and research further. In this case, that’s what Eric Black did. Lewis made the claims that Black never got a statement from Bachmann before running his story. The reason for that was because her office refused to talk to him about this story.
This is what Lewis said about Dump Bachmann:
“This story was nothing more than a plant by a website run by a bunch of angry lesbians and radical pacifists called Dump Michele Bachmann. In fact I know one of the people that heads up Dump Michele Bachmann – and this woman is so obscessed with her sexuality – to her own detriment by the way – that she’s lost all sanity. I know some of the people who are involved with Dump Michele Bachmann that give it aid and comfort if not directly involved – like idiots down in Stillwater by the name of Bremer who is a pacifist, just a lunatic, they hate America, they hate Bachmann, they hate western tradition, they hate capitalism.”
At Dump Michele Bachmann, we’ve documented Bachmann’s bizarre statements and behaviors for years. It’s good that she’s finally getting the spotlight she deserves.
Eva,
It must be an oversite on Jason Lewis’s part, but be forgot to add “anti-Christian” when referring to Dump Bachmann .
dare2sayit.com says:
It must be an oversite on Jason Lewis’s part, but be forgot to add “anti-Christian†when referring to Dump Bachmann .
Oh DTSI aren’t you just too precious for words. I guess every site needs it nutters and it’s nice to see that TBQ is no exception to the rule.
So tell me Dare (if I may be so bold as to call you by your first name) is it tiring running around to different threads accusing everyone under the sun of being “anti-Christian”? Don’t your fingers get tired of typing that phrase over and over or do you have some sort of keyboard macro that just spits it out by using some key combination? At any rate, keep up the good work and keep an eye peeled for all those terrible “anti-Christians” out there that are trying to take over your church.
Thanks Doug.
I heard Jason Lewis had gone after me by name Friday and Monday, so I called him and asked that if he is going to publicly impugn my integrity, he have the decency to offer me a chance to come on the show and defned myself. He replied that he was under no obligation to do so, but would try to in future because we know each other. He also said he didn’t believe he had impugned my integrity.
Then I listened to the tape of the show. He portrayed me as ‘on my knees” before the anti-Bachmann “lesbians” and America-haters, taking dictation from them. I’m quoting from memory, but I’m pretty sure he said that all who consider themselves journalists should be ashamed because of what I had done.
Not sure what he would have said if he had wanted to impugn my integrity.
He also defended Bachmann’s statements as accurate and something of which people all over Washington are aware.
Yikes. I thought I remembered Jason being smarter and more intellectually honest when he was here the first time. I was torn between ignoring the whole thing, and writing a post about it, so thanks again Doug for providing this opportunity for me to relay this without having to base a whole thread on it.
counter-common sense,
Thanks for your concern. By all means, be so bold!
Eric Black says:
Yikes. I thought I remembered Jason being smarter and more intellectually honest when he was here the first time.
This shouldn’t really come as any surprise. Something seems to happen to those of the conservative persuasion once they reach the airwaves and their adoring fans; common sense and rational are always the first casualties of this new union. I guess that it wouldn’t be good for ratings if Lewis attempted to come off as a reasonable person that welcomed both sides to the table. Instead he went for the red meat, quick buck and intellectually lazy route.
I was torn between ignoring the whole thing, and writing a post about it,…
I for one am glad that you took the high road and didn’t start directly addressing him in posts. It never plays out well and ends up making you look as small as he. Good on you Eric.
counter-common sense,
I would like to see you and Ann Coulter in a debate. She would tear you to shreads like she recently did to liberal global warming activist nut Daryll Hannah.
By the way, it’s great to have Jason Lewis back on the air in Minnesota. Things must be going well for him because they are increasing his time slot in March. The tax rally in April will be great and I’m sure there will be a huge turnout.
Welcome back Jason!
Jason Lewis should grow up.
He is adult age.
He is a fifteen year old, mouth-wise.
Give him the dunce hat he is due, then move on.
Eric Black: “I heard Jason Lewis had gone after me by name Friday and Monday, so I called him and asked that if he is going to publicly impugn my integrity, he have the decency to offer me a chance to come on the show and defned myself.”
Why would you go on his show to defend yourself? That’s his home turf; the only people who will be listening will be guys who call your paper the Red Star–you think you’re gonna win them over by giving off good vibes? His listeners aren’t going to hold him accountable for telling lies about you or your paper or anyone else; they *come* Lewis for conservative lies, that’s why the man has a career.
I can’t believe you don’t already know that, Mr. Black. Didn’t you ever listen to any of that Rush Limbaugh knockoff c#*p they put on Twin Cities radio? The truth is the first casualty–you should know from when you guested on Hewitt.
If you want to get into it with guys like that, you’ll find yourself in a p***ing contest with a skunk and his tens of thousands of listener skunks. These guys have the same respect for truth and fair play as SA men.
Maybe you could file a complaint about Lewis’ remarks with the Minnesota News Council, that place is getting pretty dusty these days. But Lewis would probably just laugh it off, even if did somehow come into their jurisdiction. You’re talking about a man with no character, remember.
BUT–now if you took his RADIO STATION to the Minnesota News Council, for allowing him to smear you–now THAT might be an avenue…
I would bet Michele Bachmann is so shrecked that people are holding her to a standard she’s never been held to before – truthfulness and justification – that she would not even go onto a three-corner broadcast.
Her cohort Jason to bias the game; Eric Black to flesh out the Bachmann “insights,” and the Bachmann, herself and in person, testifying; but not in her more comfortable Pastor Mac sense and venue.
Jason Lewis is wrong on this. It’s very simple. On the point, that is, that it’s wrong to use a story peddled by people with a political axe to grind. That’s ridiculous.
His point that Bachmann was saying something accurate has a tiny thread of potential substance in it, if Michelle B. was trying to say something about Iran’s intentions for the Shiite portions of Iraq. But really, I have no idea what she was trying to describe. Nor do I have any idea about Iran’s intentions for portions of Iraq.
(Like I said a few days ago, even looking at it form their perspective, I can’t see what Iran gets out of a terrorist enclave next door. They’re a perfectly fine terrorist enclave all on their own. They don’t need the space and they’d rather have control.)
I see DTSI is gracing us with his non-hateful (since he told me it was unintelligent of me to label it as hateful) rhetoric again. Right, no gratuitious insults in these posts.
Smart and intellectually honest are not ways I would describe rw talk radio. But I can see why DTSI adores Jason Lewis with his over the top ranting like that.
Bill P. is wrong (as usual, lately) on what I assume to be his serial descriptions of conservative radio in general.
I don’t listen to Jason Lewis; this is a bad side of him. Especially if Eric B is characterizing his show accurately and that’s what Eric Black tends to do.
But when Bill P. talks about all of local conservative radio the way he does – they don’t care about truth; all the hosts want to do is feed the ignorance and paranoia of people like me – I say you, sir are an ignora-
No wait, I don’t say that. That’s his job. I say, will Bill P ever realize that he weakens his argument and his brain by refusing ever to acknowledge the possibility of substance in these many millions of people he claims to despise? These “jackasses” who might dare to take Jason Lewis and others seriously at times?
“2) An eagerness to acknowledge and engage, rather than ignore, the best facts and arguments on the “other side†of any given dispute…”
Smart and generally intellectually honest are exactly the way I would describe quite a bit of conservative radio. Strange, isn’t it. Especially given that I see almost none of that in the left’s radio offerings.
Of course the conservative issues I see as important don’t seem important to you. So I guess you see them as screens for the real agenda of lying to oppose your issues. Sad, really.
Way to go, free-speech liberals. I am sure you are all for the Fairness Doctrine too, as long as it only applies to conservatives. The day the strib, cnn, nytimes and other rags have to counter with a conservative angle will never occur, will it?
I don’t listen to any radio but if people are listening to it, so be it- supply and demand.
I see Paul S is picking right up where he left off. Yeah, KSFO, those “wacky DJ’s” are so smart and intellectually honest, that’s why Melanie Morgan was chastised, on air in the middle of her broadcast, by the program director. Rush Limbaugh, yeah, he’s another one. And of course Glenn Beck, Mr. Integrity there. I see them as scumbags who will say anything without regard for the truth.
I listen to Jason Lewis sometimes. In this case, he had no interest in telling the truth.
Some of the people who write for Dump Bachmann are gay – and some are straight. That has no relevance to what is on the site.
I don’t find it insulting that Lewis called me “lesbian.” I do find it an insult to be called “radical”, “insane” and to be called a democrat.
And Eric, I think you got the gist of what Jason said about you. At least he didn’t call you insane. He called both Karl Bremer and I insane.
Eric, The best thing to do with people like Lewis is to laugh them off. The worst is to go on their shows. Your integrity is best defended here and in the paper by the work you do, not in his mud wrestling ring.
You can’t laugh these guys off, CharlieQ. These talk radio chimps elect presidents, senators, congressman, state legislators–you can’t laugh ‘em off, as much as you might like to.
That’s hundreds and hundreds of radio markets around the country you’re talking about, all on the conservative message, all at once, hours after hour, all day, all around the country. About thirty-four per cent of the voters (tens of millions) put their faith in the garbage they spew– precisely because it doesn’t play by established rules of journalism. They don’t source stories, check facts, they practice ad hominem attack, present partisan political talking points as if they were independent thinking.
That’s not journalism or reporting, it’s Dr. Goebbels at his finest. And there are millions of listeners who put their faith in that junk, and cast their vote on the basis of it. Not because it’s responsible reporting, but because it appeals to their own biases and feeds their anger.
Can’t afford to ignore something as powerful as that, even if the people who practice it are contemptible, know-nothing jokes. Lewis and his ilk are liars, but that doesn’t mean they’re not powerful.
The one thing I’ll say for Jason Lewis is he takes my calls – and always has. When I called in after he trashed me and Dump Bachmann on his show, he was interested in baiting me more than in having a conversation. When I’ve called in at other times, he’s been willing to have a conversation. I do think that it’s worth calling in to these shows (and the more you do so, the better you get at it). There is a demographic that listens to talk radio (and only talk radio) for news. That’s true on both the left – and the right.
Jason regularly goes after the Star Tribune. Other frequent targets are DFL Don, the WDFL, Governor Gore (Pawlenty), Paul Douglas (forget Jason’s name for him).
Eva–
You are letting your Republicanism get to you.
Jason Lewis takes your calls–great, how chivalrous–and then the other day he gets on the radio and defames you before his radio audience as an “insane lesbian.”
And he can’t think of anything to say in defense of Michele Bachmann’s wildly inappropriate disclosure of an Iraq partition plan that she now refuses to discuss with anyone. So what does he do? He lies to his audience about the people who broke the story to the Star Tribune–he described us to his audience as “radical” “militant lesbians”, which you and I both know is a lie. And then he lies about Eric Black and the Star Tribune doing our bidding, which you and I know is another lie. We’ve sent them plenty of documented anti-Bachmann stuff before, quotes out of her own mouth, bullet-proof sources–the Strib spiked it, for whatever reason.
Lewis is an irresponsible a$$; you know that as well as I do, first-hand.
The demographic that only listens to talk radio for their news is not a demographic I’d be interesting in conversing with–left or right. Not interested in calling in to any of the shows either. It’s all for shock value. And it’s too hysterical, and by that I don’t mean funny.
Eric/Doug
Your being biased towards Bachmann is expected! Not exactly a surprise. What will push me over the edge is if you continue to follow covering your story from the tips of those begrudging Michele Bachmann! They have been emboldened by your using them as a primary source, that they are now offering more suggestions to you on their web site for how to conduct your “journalism”. I’ll be interested to see how you continue. Surprise me and do something against your inner leanings:)
“Emboldened?”
Oh my god, now what are they equating us with?
Paul–the blog was not Eric Black’s “primary source” for the Bachmann story. The “primary source” for the Bachmann story was: an interview given out by Michele Bachmann. He wouldn’t have printed the “Bachmann reveals secret Iraq partition plan” if the only source was a blog. This is the Star Tribune, not conservative talk radio.
Get it straight, big fella.
I do hope that Jason Lewis hasn’t said anything about the story of Al Gore’s power bills. I don’t listen to the show, and his website doesn’t have any sort of searchable archives.
Anybody know about that? It would be too bad if he jumped on a story pushed by Gore’s political foes…
dare2sayit.com says:
I would like to see you and Ann Coulter in a debate. She would tear you to shreads like she recently did to liberal global warming activist nut Daryll Hannah.
I would have no interest in attempting to engage in debate with such an angry, right-wing sociopath as Coulter. I believe she’s already done a fine job in discrediting herself and should be confined to the outer margins of political discussion for all the nonsensical rhetoric with which she’s expelled so much CO2.
Eric, Jason Lewis and the rest of the Republican noise machine are going to screech at you no matter what you do. Ignore them and just continue to call ‘em as you see ‘em. If you screw up on the key facts, that’s another matter. But if you don’t — and so far, you haven’t — then blow them off.
MR says:
I do hope that Jason Lewis hasn’t said anything about the story of Al Gore’s power bills. [...] It would be too bad if he jumped on a story pushed by Gore’s political foes…
What utter rubbish. Olbermann has already thoroughly debunked this non-story pushed by the likes of those at the AEI. And for what…because Gore had the nerve to *gasp* receive an Oscar for a documentary…the scoundrel! Yes, the bleating and hand-wringing of those on the right would truly be an amusing site to behold if it weren’t such a sad commentary on the Rovian tactics that the GOPers continue to employ.
“Gore’s political foes” – What an interesting term since Gore hasn’t run for an elected office in over 6 years. No, Gore’s only political “sin” here is the same as Clinton’s or Kerry’s — that they had the audacity to actually run for an elected office as a Democrat. And, according to the modus operandi of the right, they must be continually attacked, dismissed and berated to the grave for their transgressions…especially Clinton since he had the unmitigated nerve to win…twice!
Is it worth pointing out that the talk radio set describe themselves as entertainers, not journalists? As such, aren’t facts laregely irrelevant? The beauty of such a system is that they entertain their audience by saying whatever they like, while taking potshots based on an alleged lack of ‘objectivity.’ Its the old ‘do what I say, not what I do’ thing. The true irony is when they start calling people hypocrites.
bsimon, you disappoint me there.
Dora, I see you’re picking up where you never left off.
yeah, bsimon, it’s an artful dodge to say that. Just like Coulter’s apologists say she’s a satirist. Still doesn’t excuse that they present their “entertainment” as facts coupled with hate filled screeds against whomever they disagree with.
Dora, remember several months go when we were on the verge of getting along?
It gets derailed when I don’t step toward your totalistic view of conservatives. Your views, say, that all conservative radio hosts are exactly the same, they are all taking their marching orders from some mysterious Wizard of Radio Hosts somewhere, and all listeners get all their news from these people.
It’s kinda funny when you realize that you keep accusing conservatives of being simplistic in their thinking.
Some day, if you ever have the courage to do it, and I’m not optimistic, you should listen to one of the Saturday morning local-guy radio shows on 1280; at least one of them features a couple of the guys from Powerline, so I’m suggesting here that you do something alien to your nature. It might be liberating.
And I mean listen, not lie in wait to pounce on something you can construe as verification of your worldview.
But just listening isn’t the suggestion. Call. You can always get through, in my experience – that’s an indicator of how all-powerful and far-reaching this pathetic little station is. (I’ve called a couple times; I don’t listen unless I’m out in the vehicle and lately the vehicle’s radio isn’t working so it’s been weeks).
Make sure you know their argument and your counter-argument. Try to hide your hatred and simply make the argument. See what happens.
On most of those shows, whenever they have a Democrat on, and I mean a politician of some sort taking part in a discussion, it usually sounds to my ears that said Democrat is both treated with respect and actually sounds like he/she is having a pretty good time.
Of course I’m a deluded theocrat so what the hell do I know.
Yep Paul, I’m still here slapping down the rw talking points, misrepresentations, and bogus claims.
Bill, Dora, Eva -
Evidently, one host says something stupid/mean = all your opinions about all of conservative radio and all its listeners are proven.
You all weren’t science majors, were you?
Paul S writes “bsimon, you disappoint me there.”
How so?
I don’t listen to Jason much – really enjoyed him when we was here previously, but he has become a lot more strident and frankly uninteresting. He used to take the time to explain the intellectual underpinnings of conservative thought, which I always found useful. This time around he’s a lot more of a bomb-thrower and it’s troublesome.
Eric, you have no need to apologize for the article. If it’s accurate, and I haven’t seen any evidence that it isn’t, then you provided a service.
My hope is that Bachmann learns from this experience. She is in a position of great responsibility and she has to be responsible. If she can’t do that, then Eva Young, Bill P. et al. are right and she should go.
I see you didn’t refute the rw gas bags that I mentioned as examples of not being “smart and intellectually honest”. Your analysis of “my view” in your typical slick condescending manner is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. Not gonna play Paul.
Heh, yeah, only one host Paul just like Laura Bush says that the only one bomb a day in Baghdad gets all the news.
Paul S. says:
bsimon, you disappoint me there.
Disappoints how? Whenever any of the conservative talk-show hosts get caught in a lie or their special brand of hate speech they always fall back on the “we’re just entertainers” excuse. Limbaugh, Savage, Morgan et al have thrown out that line as an excuse for the lack of accountability for their actions.
Reminds me a lot of when a pro sports player gets caught in some unsavory misdeed. When they were looked upon favorably and asking fans to come watch them play their “part of the community”, but when it comes to their misdeed then their “just entertainers that shouldn’t be looked upon as role models”.
b –
Just in what seems to falling for one of the simplistic descriptions of conservative radio. The people I tend to listen to, they don’t call themselves ‘entertainers and not journalists.’ They take themselves seriously.
counter-coulter says “Disappoints how? Whenever any of the conservative talk-show hosts get caught in a lie or their special brand of hate speech they always fall back on the “we’re just entertainers†excuse.”
More to the point, I deliberately made my observation without claiming that this behavior is exclusive to conservative talk show hosts.
Last for the time being:
I don’t expect ever to achieve any kind of concession from my stout debate opponents on the argument I make along these lines. That isn’t really the point.
The point has more to do with the idea that there people reading and not posting.
bsimon says:
More to the point, I deliberately made my observation without claiming that this behavior is exclusive to conservative talk show hosts.
Noted. Although I cannot for the life of me think of a non-conservative talk-show host that has had a need to employ such statement to backpeddle away from some untruhful or hateful statement. I don’t deny that it’s possible, but i just can’t think of any. Whereas it’s rather easy to find such statements from the conservative group.
Paul says
“I don’t expect ever to achieve any kind of concession from my stout debate opponents on the argument I make along these lines. That isn’t really the point.”
I will concede that my statement paints with a pretty broad brush. I don’t doubt that there are talk radio hosts who do take their roles seriously and debate the other side without resorting to lies or disingenuous arguments. However, I think there are enough of the other kind that my statement is as accurate as any stereotype can be.
Does Jason Lewis have to take any kind of a drug test to keep his talk show on the air?
Does anyone know the answer to that?
DTSI,
Wasn’t Coulter born a boy? Have you seen the adams apple on him/her?
Bachmann needs to answer her critics and you cry babies need a bottle.
b – I didn’t mean to include you in that statement about my stout opponents. You also are stout though. Stout in a real sense. But you’re not my opponent. Two people debating are not automatically opponents.
The problem with dismissing an entire group – conservative radio hosts – based on the attitudes and acts of some, even if they’re a majority, is that prevents you from seeking out and considering the arguments of the best of them. As in that Prime Directive #2 I quoted.
Paul S writes:
“I don’t expect ever to achieve any kind of concession from my stout debate opponents on the argument I make along these lines.”
Nor should you. The points you are trying to make in defense of conservative talk radio are silly, and some are just false, and your “response” to critics of talk radio is laced with ad hominem accusations and strawmen.
How would you expect to convince thinking people with arguments like those, Paul S.?
You dismiss as a possibility that anyone could listen to conservative talk radio for years (as I have, for example) and conclude that it is propaganda, ad hominem attacks, strawmen, all that garbage presented as political commentary. You seem to believe that Lewis’ smear was an isolated incident, atypical of conservative talk radio hosts.
I’m sorry, Paul, but none of the pro-CTR points you’re presenting here are tenable; in some cases they’re an outright denial of patent reality.
For example: for years, maybe twenty years, Rush and his fans have made the argument that he is an “entertainer” and not a “journalist” when he is called out on the fact that a lot of what he reports on his show is simply unsourced c&#p. On the other hand, he claims to be a journalist and he knows that millions of his listeners place more faith in what he reports than they do in reports by journalists. They rely on it as if it were news and not the Jay Leno monologue, and Rush knows that this is so.
So he wants it both ways, and he gets it both ways, because his listeners are not emotionally prepared to acknowledge that the two views of what he does are mutually exclusive–ie, he’s talking b$11s on this subject, as he is on others.
You have the same blinders on when it comes to talk radio. Your notion that conservative talk radio is “smart and intellectually honest†is just laughable; it can’t be, if it regulary employs the rotten argumentation tactics I’ve listed in this comment.
But I can’t stop you from loving it or from insulting people here, so– bring ‘em on.
Since when does Jason Lewis matter?
The only people who listen to him agree with him before he opens his mouth- there is about as much critical thinking going on in the heads of his listeners as takes place in a flock of sheep.
Ryan-
I listen to him, Baaaah.
He’s right on. BAAAH.
Dora -
Insults and sneering aimed at my sincerity. Hm.
I didn’t refute your examples? Dora, I’m going to let you answer that point on your own. I can’t make my hands do the motions.
Say something serious. Like, address why the presence of some good hosts doesn’t make the overriding damage of the bad ones worth the cost.
Or why, to go a little further into it, the impact of the damaging hosts is such that modern conservative politics is defined by their vileness alone and not by any of the decent stuff.
It’s a difficult argument to make, I can see as I write it. That must be why it’s hard to concede there are some decent modern conservative hosts and pundits.
But then that leaves you with another difficult argument, that there are zero, or at least none to speak of. In most contexts, traditonally, liberals have not been fond of statements like “everything is this” “there are no exceptions.”
So that all explains the insults, probably. Insults are one thing. But insults based on absolutely nothing, no real cause, are just strange.
I love the fact that we have Rush and Jason Lewis calling a spade a spade. I understand it is wrong and unpopular in this pc world.
I love the fact that they drive you dems (and a lot of reps) crazy. The truth hurts.
I love that they are 10 steps ahead of most self-serving politicians.
It’s great.
It’s amusing watching the left go banana’s over radio personalities like Jason Lewis. I think the frustration comes from the fact that liberals have failed miserably in talk radio, mainly because you need facts to back up your claims. Since liberals deal more with feelings than facts, they have a tough time.
Oh, and I love the constant defense put up by the left, that the left wing MSM isn’t slanted to the left. Essentially what this blog is about, also what the “objectivity in journalism” blog was about.
I’m going to start an enemies of the U.S. list, please feel free to add on….
1- MSM
2- NEA
come on, help me out…..
Bill -
Do you hear me making an argument that none exist like you describe? That Limbaugh is great? Sometimes I think I shall go mad.
I’m not saying, very obviously, that it’s impossible for someone to conclude like you do about conservative radio. How would I argue that? There you are. You exist.
I’m disagreeing with your conclusion.
I’m suggesting that you either don’t listen as much or as widely as you say; or that you don’t listen with anything approaching an open mind.
I would guess you approach the task with no assumption at all that the issues CTR hosts say are improtant to them actually are important to them: personal personsibility, say, to pick one. Or goings-on in Europe.
And I’m suggesting to any readers here that they spend a good long time listening for themselves, or reading for themselves. Some they’ll find hateful, maybe, some not.
If they find DJ Tice pretty reasonable, they’ll probably be able to find some CTR hosts that don’t make them hurl.
Good acronym, though, Bill.
Jeffs you may be alone in listening to him.
Seriously, look at the ratings. KTLK is in a free-fall. At this rate smooth jazz will be back before summer. Without the ClearChannel cash behind it, the station would be playing Kenny G right now.
jeffs
Take it easy. They do consider themselves patriots, those groups you mention.
The 10% or so of the former left that has left the left to any extent has done so based on rejecting a way of thinking and arguing that transcends the specifics of any issue.
Ann Althouse and Eric Alterman are currently having a dust-up that relates. Here, AH lets herself express her strength of feeling on it.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/02/eric-alterman-contemplates-whether-he.html
Jeffs-
You sound like a neo-con… dont leave off the neo-con enemy dejour. What is it now? “Evil-doers” or “Islamo-facists” or “those who hate freedom.” No, wait I have been watching the news, I got it… it is Iran.
My guess is that you are in the Bachmann crowd, so dont forget gays.
jeffs says:
I’m going to start an enemies of the U.S. list, please feel free to add on….
1- MSM
2- NEA
3- DFL
1- MSM
2- NEA
3- DFL
4- ACLU
To its credit the Strib today published a very interesting piece by Anne Applebaum.
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1031052.html
This is a good example of the kind of issue – Islam in Europe; the dysfunctional ways secular Europe has handled the issue – that the conservative end of the spectrum in the US has been talking about for years. It’s a serious topic.
Or maybe I’m just letting my racism, ignorance and paranoia be flattered and stoked by a ranting pundit. Although Anne Applebaum doesn’t fit the type. So I guess I’m okay.
Paul S.
Thanks for the link. I’m glad the Strib decided to print this because if it came from me, Dora would be leading the charge to label me a racist.
Why is Eric Black – or the source of his tip – part of the discussion? That would only be pertinent if anyone could deny that Michele Bachmann gave her original interview.
Are certain factions trying to distract people from the real story?
Michele Bachmann is the story. She created the story. She needs to explain the story, and I hope that Eric holds her feet to the fire until she does.
Do any of the bloggers here actually think that she should simply NOT EXPLAIN what she said?
She is my Representative, and I deserve an answer other than some yapping about being misconstrued. She was not misconstrued. She was spewing verbal vomit, and I want an explanation.
So does the St. Cloud Times and the West Central Tribune. She is ignoring her constituents at her peril.
I don’t agree with the enemies list thing, though.
A better way of stating the problem, I think, is that so many people can’t conceive of why someone actually might consider the groups you list as being profoundly mistaken on anything.
I agree, Sharon. Said it somewhere above already.
Paul S. wrote:
Do you hear me making an argument that none exist like you describe? That Limbaugh is great? Sometimes I think I shall go mad.
You just set up another strawman, Paul. Not too impressive–the Limbaugh comment was aimed at his claim that he is merely an entertainer, at Coulter’s claim that she is a merely a satirist. Discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Not everything I say about CTR is aimed at you personally, Paul. You seem to refer to yourself a lot in your own posts.
“I’m suggesting that you either don’t listen as much or as widely as you say”
“I would guess you approach the task with no assumption at all that the…”
Guesses about me, how I think, what’s wrong with me, pretending I called you names I never called you. What is all this self-dramatizing, “drama queen” stuff in your posts, Paul S? This is all about me or Dora or bsimon and you. I criticize CTR for relying on ad hominem attacks and straw men, and respond by trying to defend it with ad hominem attacks and strawmen.
No wonder you believe so much of CTR is “smart and intellectually honest.” You can’t see anything wrong with those tactics; you practice them yourself. You’re incapable of holding CTR hosts accountable for practicing them daily.
What’s amazing is: your blindspot isn’t limited to seeing flaws in conservative talk radio. You also have a blindspot when it comes to seeing the obvious logical flaws in your own arguments–and you carry on as if you believe that no one else can spot those flaw–in a kind of imaginary splendid isolation.
There, Paul S., I finally wrote about you, all about you. A whole post, just about you, and what’s wrong with your thinking after all those posts you wrote about what’s wrong with me and my thinking. Are you happy, now, wearing your tiara of self-referential self-dramatization?
As for me, I remain unhappy; conservative talk radio host Jason Lewis has used his radio show to describe me to the crowd as a member of a group of “radical militant lesbians who hate America.” I am only one of his latest victims; one of many.
Maybe, Paul, you can call in to one of your “smart, intellectually honest” conservative talk radio hosts and get them to give as much air time to rebutting Lewis’s lies as Lewis did to promoting them.
I don’t understand the first part of what you said, Bill. Not even close.
In the comment I responded to, you were insisting that Limbaugh does so call himself an entertainer rather than a journalist. Fine. Good. I’ll take your word for it. It’s not a specific I’d challenged.
My point was and is: that ostensible reality about Rush doesn’t address my argument that it’s not true of all of them, and untrue of many of them. It’s a very, very simple point.
Bill, you make blanket arguments that “almost all” CTR relies on hominem attacks and straw men. (I’ve never see you agree to a single excepton, by the way.) It’s nothing but propaganda. And then you label “jackasses” any people who would consider listening seriously to Jason Lewis (and by extension any of the kind). Jackasses who are not emotionally mature enough to recognize what you do.
This is just picking out a few things from this thread, Bill.
Finally, you rise in indignation when someone replies that it’s kind of a jackass, simplistic argument in itself.
My observations of why we arrive at different conclusions about CTR are not ad hominem attacks, Bill. They’re hypotheses I stand by. Anyone who takes up the challenge to honestly explore this large world we’re talking about can make up their own minds.
The fact that you evidently believe conservative pundits, radio or otherwise, never take each other to task for failings of intellectual integrity is a bit of evidence in favor of those guesses of mine about you and CTR.
So basically Paul your argument is that sure there are alot of bad conservative talk show hosts but there are some good ones too and those good ones should over-ride all the bad ones. Perhaps. Unfortunately those bad ones have a very loud megaphone. The loudest ones are the ones that define how others are viewed. That’s nothing new. And you’ll note that when I said I don’t listen to talk radio I said I don’t listen to the left or the right because of the hysteria and shock value fostered by them. You label liberals and then criticize them b/c you say they label conservatives. It’s an old story with you. Just like your posts are laced with sneers and insults and then you feign outrage when it’s directed back at you. Please do continue to tell me what I think and how I feel b/c you just demonstrate the arrogance you accuse others of.
Paul–
You’re right; you didn’t understand the point about Limbaugh.
I think this is relatively easily to settle, for the sake of those reading along. The following questions are addressed to Paul S, who is here to defend conservative talk radio as a valid source of news and political information.
Do conservative talk radio hosts (CTR hosts)
–regularly engage in ad hominem attacks?
–make sweeping generalizations?
–put strawman arguments in the mouths of their opponents? (regularly misstate their opponents’ positions.)
–make patently false statements about their opponents (eg, charging that “liberals hate America?”)
–practice intellectual dishonesty?
What are the names of some of the CRT hosts that don’t employ these tactics?
I know you’re not willing to defend Rush Limbaugh and Jason Lewis, I think you made that clear.
Remember, we’re looking for CTR hosts who would never engage in those kind of tactics, because they’re intellectually dishonest, not to mention deeply unethical.
Jason Lewis has an audience. He gave me an opportunity to talk to his audience for an hour when he had the show on 1500 AM. I appreciated that. I somehow doubt he’d offer me that sort of opportunity again, but you never know. I’ve called in on a variety of topics – and do regularly call in – and challenge him, when he gay baits on his show. The important thing isn’t persuading Lewis – but rather, persuading his audience. Conservative isn’t synonymous with bigot. In fact, it always drives me nuts to read Michele Bachmann referred to as “conservative”. She is theocratic, not conservative.
In my opinion, talk radio does allow people to call in and dispute the host. I do that on ocassion with Lewis.
In terms of reporting, I think the Strib, MPR, etc. have do real reporting – and Jason Lewis – who is just talk-entertainment – not hard news. The problem is his audience gets their news pretty much just Jason Lewis.
It’s also worth pointing out that Mitch Berg and Ed Morrisey (normally huge Bachmann apologists) on the Northern Alliance Radio Network were unhappy with Bachmann’s statement.
What was Jason Lewis complaining about? That Eric Black wrote a story about Michelle Bachmann that accurately quoted what she said about the partitioning of Iraq? And that is supposed to be somehow a story “planted” by Dump Bachmann?
Isn’t the “Big Question” here how a Congresswoman continues to evade responding publicly to how she came to possess this information and how she gets a pass by claiming to have been “misconstrued”?
What a pair of nuts to draw too== Bachman and Limbaugh
Eva -
Exactly. Unless otu take it back, you’ve just sided with the argument I’m trying to make on many of these questions.
Dora –
I have very no idea what the ratio is between terrible and worthwhile in conservative talk radio. Given that a lot of people in any endeavor aren’t very good at what they do, and given that a certain harshness is part of the style, or is perceived to be, there are undoubtedly a lot of bad ones, and bad in that way.
But the essential worth of conservative talk radio is basic topic is not the real topic. It’s the essential worth of conservative ideas.
In judging the worth of those ideas, it’s dishonest, and counterpoductive to your own argument and to the whole process to focus only on the worst purveyors of those ideas (or your caricatures of those purveyors), justifying it by pretending that they’re all that exists, or certainly all that are worth considering.
Which is what happens here; demonization of talk radio is a short cut to mocking and delegitimizing the listeners.
I don’t label liberals “and then” get outraged when liberals label conservatives. I label some liberals as lablers, caricaturists, intellectually dishonest, addicted to outrage, and so on.
I guess you see those as insults. I see them as observations based on evidence.
In this case, for evidence, I’m suggesting that readers simply thoroughly check out the conservative talk show world on their own. And the conservative idea world, more basically.
It seems that Eva Young has done that and beheld some non-darkness.
You’re definitely right, this whole issue is an old story with me. Let’s see, do you have any old stories of your own?
Bill -
Wonderful. Thank you. The notion that I would slink away from those question is just fantastic.
I’m going to eat now.
Sorry about the typos in the last entry.
Questions. Plural. Damme.
“But the essential worth of conservative talk radio is basic topic is not the real topic. It’s the essential worth of conservative ideas.”
Well yes Paul, that’s what you want to turn the discussion toward. But that’s not the topic that was being discussed. That’s your strawman. So knock yourself out knocking it down but don’t for a moment think that my comments about talk radio and in particular those gasbags I named are a proxy for all conservative ideas or apply to all conservatives. You are the one who has continually made that charge based on nothing more than your own belief that the two are intertwined. And you conveniently disregard that I included left and right in my dislike of talk radio. So by your logic I must also be judging the worth of liberal ideas and all liberal listeners based on my dislike of Air America and my refusal to listen to them. And that’s where your premise collapses.
Paul – I just don’t like to pigeon hole people. Jason’s audience is mostly economic conservatives – but they buy into the theocratic nonsense – because that’s the only side of the argument that is raised on the show.
Paul S–
I didn’t understand this:
“Wonderful. Thank you. The notion that I would slink away from those question is just fantastic.”
What notion? I never said you’d “slink away,” do you realize you’re living out the stereotype of “CRT listener as paranoid” when you attribute strawman position like that to me? I figured you already have an answer handy, the way you’ve been puffing these guys. I want to know, so I can listen to some of them and hear the CTR guys who are practicing “intellectual honesty” every day over the radio.
I’d like to know: who are the CTR hosts who never engage in ad hominem attack, strawman arguments, all that stuff?
I never thought you’d slink away; you wouldn’t pass up a chance to advertise your favorites.
The way WTLK gasbag Jason Lewis yaps on the air, one would think he was invincible. But that’s not what the voters of the 2nd Congressional District in Colorado told Lewis in the 1990 election, when Republican Lewis got his a$$ handed to him by incumbent Democratic congressman and Marine Corps veteran David Skaggs.
Lewis polled a whopping 39.3% in that election, versus Skaggs’ 60.6%. Not very impressive, “Mr. Right.†In fact, if the voters were telling Lewis anything, it was that he was “Mr. Wrong.â€
Lewis’ election results were so unimpressive, I thought it might be interesting to see how he stands up to some of our own losing candidates in Minnesota.
Lewis spewed plenty of venom toward 2nd CD DFL candidate Coleen Rowley in last year’s election. But guess what? Rowley outpolled Lewis with a vote percentage of 40%!
Patty Wetterling, who Lewis would say lost in a landslide to his sweetheart Michele Bachmann with 42% of the vote, also whipped Lewis handily.
Mike Hatch, who was Public Enemy #1 in Lewis’ eyes, trounced Lewis in the votes department with 46% in the gubernatorial race last year.
Lewis barely outpolled Republican Mark Kennedy, who was the poster boy for losers in 2006 with a final count of 38%. Same with DFLer Wendy Wilde, who ran a quixotic campaign against the popular Jim Ramstad in the 3rd CD and managed to garner 35% of the vote. And two-time loser Rod Grams, who pulled down 34.4% against the indomitable Jim Oberstar.
So the next time Jason Lewis starts calling people names, let’s remember who the REAL loser is.
Bill, I wonder what happened to Paul S? I was looking forward to his answers to your questions. Since that “notion” of slinking away was his maybe he was actually saying, in that backhanded way of his, that it was “fantastic” that he thought of it and that’s what he was going to do. I acknowledge that I could be wrong about my reading of his comment. And I do hope he doesn’t see that as an insult, it’s just an observation based on the evidence.
Hopefully he will take up the challenge and reply honestly since you have said you’re willing to listen to them even though he has already said he doesn’t think you’re capable of listening with an open mind. Maybe if he gave you his guidance on how he listens to the left with an open mind he’d be more accepting of your ability to do so. But that’s just a hypothesis and I could very well be wrong about that too.
Paul S. will come back, Dora. He is probably out looking for a conservative talk radio host who doesn’t employ ad hominem attacks; like Diogenes with his lamp.
I believe in him–he is not the kind to accept a challenge and then slink away; I never thought that. He has recommended conservative talk radio host to me before, but they turned out to be mere variations on the Limbaugh approach and talking the same b&11s–the ad hominem, the straw men, the smears, all that stuff.
Let’s see what he comes up with. I really would like hear the responsible, intellectually honest conservative talk radio host: it would be kind of like finding Dr. Livingstone in the jungle.
Eva -
I don’t dodge. I don’t disregard points.
If you don’t see me answering something and wish I would, ask me again.
You might have noticed that in this specific thread, I’m simultaneously debating several people. There are a lot of points that get raised. You can’t answer them all.
So: you say you feel the same about left radio as right radio. And, you claim to make no connection between conservative radio (and the ‘rw propaganda machine’) and teh conidtion of cosnervatism. Here’s my answer.
First, I do not 100% accept that you disrespect Rhandi Rhodes (sp?) as much as Rush Limbaugh for the way they conduct their respective shows.
I suspect if we sat down and listened to a liberal radio show, you would not be constantly aghast at the unfair characterizations, dishonest arguments, and so on.
The reason I suspect that is because you wouldn’t recognize them as they zip by. They’d just be saying what you believe and say.
More centrally, though: you seem to view it as important and devastating to my argument that you claim to make no connection between sick conservative radio and the condition of conservatism today.
So, what? You actually respect the majority of today’s conservatives?
You actually respect the arguments that were and are out there for why we had to at least consider the Iraq war? It’s just that we don’t find those argumens on radio or the rest of the RW propaganda machine you mention?
Or you believe (as you sure seem to) that most of today’s conservatives are deluded and/or morally twisted; but there’s no connection between that condition and radio and the propaganda machine? It’s just a coincidence?
I suppose that’s conceptually possible. I don’t see where it leads substantively.
Maybe what you’re thinking is that you’re allowing for the existence of conservatives who agree with you and always have on W, and the war, and so on. They do exist. I don’t think it’s who we’re talking about.
In spite of doubts about the war and W, the percentage of conservatives who didn’t and don’t at least understand the arguments for the war were and still are a small minority.
I think the topic is the mainstream, typical-worldview Republican and conservative. The very large group of people, for example, who still did vote Republican in 2006.
As for my absence: I’m just trying to relax a bit. It’s a snow day.
Bill, if you checked them out and found them all variations on Limbaugh, you’ve proven my view of how you listen.
You rarely if ever approach opposing arguments here with an eager, probing willingness to understand the perspective. And here you’re in public. Why would I expect you to act differently in your own home or car?
Oh, and Dora, here’s Bill, from above:
Eva:
“It’s not that Lewis and his audience don’t *understand* how journalists get tipped off to stories–it’s that they don’t *care,* they don’t care about reality. They live to smear; their careers are built on feeding the anger and paranoia of their audience, regardless of the facts. It’s a propanganda program, like almost all conservative radio since Rush. Since when do those guys care about checking their information or getting the facts right and presenting them to the public truthfully?”
So I’m supposed to find no attached smear of today’s conservatives in the way Bill P. talks about conservative radio there, and in other posts. That’s absurd when I do that. It’s me making the connection.
I disagree.
As for Bill’s questions, I’m gonna wait a bit. It’ll be easy and fun. I have work to do; that’s dessert.
I’ll just say: if you’re looking for good examples of at least some of Bill’s list –
- ad hominem attacks
– sweeping generalizations
– putting strawman arguments in the mouths of their opponents? (misstated opponents’ positions)
– patently false statements about opponents
– intellectual dishonesty
… you could check out the first couple paragraphs in today’s N Coleman column.
“First, I do not 100% accept that you disrespect Rhandi Rhodes (sp?) as much as Rush Limbaugh for the way they conduct their respective shows.”
The answer is of course in your own words. “I suppose that’s conceptually possible. I don’t see where it leads substantively.” The rest of your post is still based on your premise “But the essential worth of conservative talk radio is basic topic is not the real topic. It’s the essential worth of conservative ideas.†And it’s still not relevant to my original comments about talk radio that you took issue with. I reject your premise.
Oh I see Paul, it’s you making a “connection”. It’s true in your mind so it must therefore be an absolute truth. I disagree. Perhaps what you perceive as a “smear” is Bill’s observation based on the evidence.
And you know pointing out what’s in today’s N Coleman column is irrelevant to Bill’s list about talk radio. But since you are trying very hard to move the discussion of talk radio to the worth of conservative ideas I can see why you would throw that in there.
D -
I think we had an e-world misread or miswrite there.
“It’s me making the connection” was me paraphrasing your view of me. You said (I believe) that I’m the one making the connection between radio and conservatives, that you folks weren’t doing that.
Moving on. You said –
“Perhaps what you perceive as a “smear†is Bill’s observation based on the evidence.”
The smear in question is the paragraph in which Bills says conservative radio – almost all of it, he says, and I believe he says he’s never heard of an exception – doesn’t care about the truth.
CTR cares only about feeding the anger and paranoia of – here it is – its audience.
So he’s making a connection. Between radio and its audience. To, that is, at least a part of the conservative world.
He’s saying radio helps mold it.
Finally. We’re passed that pothole. Slamming conservative radio is a wing of the overall task of slamming conservatives.
It actually amazes me that we have to waste time on that dispute, and double-amazes me that during the course of the debate part of what happens is accusations back that I’m diverting attention from this and that.
So. Is it an improtant part of the conservative world he’s slamming there? An important part in Bill’s reality, that is?
I think it’s real important to him.
It’s very, very frequent – I believe, based on memory – that arguments presented to him on any isssue are dismissed as the rantings of the right wing propaganda machine, including radio.
He seems to think that’s about all there is over on the right, in terms creating ideas. A propaganda machine anchored by radio.
Feeding ideas to the conservative world.
And that’s the connection, as you say.
Conservatives float around ia sea of angry, paranoid lies. Of the sort created by radio.
Moving on. You say the connection he’s making is an observation from evidence, as I said about my own things.
I say he’s making a connection based on dishonest smears much of the time – dishonest on both ends, the radio and the audience.
Okay.
Lots of writing, Paul S– no names.
How about giving me one name to start?
I seem to recall you’re a fan of Dennis Prager’s is that right? He one of the guys you think is “smart, intellectually honest?
If you don’t answer soon, this thread will disappear of the front page of the Big Question, and we’ll be forced to hijack a future thread on another subject to discuss your revelations. I don’t want to do that. I’m not defending liberal columnists or liberal talk radio, you’re defending CTR hosts.
Let’s have some names of CTR hosts who are “intellectually honest”–no ad hominems, strawmen, smears. I’ll check ‘em out and see if you’re speaking true; they post articles to their web pages. It will be easy to check.
Less pontificating about me and others, and more names.
Lots of writing indeed. Lots of parsing. You were paraphrasing my view of you Paul? That’s a good try but since you were talking about yourself in no way can I read it that way from your actual words. And since the majority of your post to me is really all about Bill I have nothing more to add since Bill responded above.
Bill, I’d say disappearing from the front page may be the point.
You know what’s funny, Dora? It’s not just Paul S–this week I challenged Craig Westover of the Pioneer Press to try and defend Bachmann without resorting to ad hominem attack against her critics–and he tried, he really did–but he just couldn’t do it! He couldn’t defend Bachmann without saying something about how I was not to be trusted.
It was kind of amazing to see, because the reason I wrote in was say that it was wrong of Craig to use his newspaper column–as it is wrong for Jason Lewis to use his radio show–to smear private citizens who disagree with their assessment of Bachmann. To make false, misleading statements about them in the print and broadcast media in order to discredit them in the eyes of the public.
These guys can’t see what’s wrong with ad hominem attacks, smears, the straw man arguments, the sweeping generalizations–all that is permissable, even desirable, when practiced by CTR guys. And then you get people like Paul S, who won’t even acknowledge that that’s standard operating procedure for the guys he listens to.
Okay, it’s one o’clock in the morning Paul S. Your last post promising to give the names of the “intellectually honest” CTR hosts was at 3:30pm. Come on, you said it was gonna be easy.
I’m forced to put you down as no-show for this evening. You shouldn’t let your mouth write checks your intellectual honesty can’t cash.
Bill says: “And then you get people like Paul S, who won’t even acknowledge that that’s standard operating procedure for the guys he listens to.”
To use his own words again with one change:
“I suspect if we sat down and listened to a conservative [changed from liberal] radio show, you would not be constantly aghast at the unfair characterizations, dishonest arguments, and so on.
The reason I suspect that is because you wouldn’t recognize them as they zip by. They’d just be saying what you believe and say.” [emphasis mine]
He of course would vehemently deny that and start pontificating about my motivations, thoughts, and feelings and how they lead me to hate all conservative ideas and conservatives and probably throw in that he knows how liberals think b/c he used to be one himself. All of which distract from the point.
IMO, in all his listening he has picked up the talk radio schtick quite well and has intellectualized it.
My mother had a name for people who pontificate on largely irrelevant points to the topic of discussion–pompous a**. My father had a less genteel name that I couldn’t post here but he used to work in a steel mill so his language was much more, shall we say, colorful.
Dora–
I agree with most of what you say, but I still think Paul S will be back with those names he promised.
But I also think he is trying to “run down the clock”–so that by the time he posts the name, this thread will move off the Big Question web page, precluding any extended criticism of the CTR hosts he lists.
Not an intellectually honest strategy by Paul S, but quite sophisticated. He finds time to write in and promise that he’s going to write in again, but he can’t find the time to write in with what he promised to write in about.
He’s always got time for a quick critique of his opponent’s character, but he’s not leaving much time for a meaningful discussion of the facts he promised, but still hasn’t brought to the table. Still waiting for the “intellectually honest” CTR hosts…tick, tick, tick…
You could always try Kersten’s blog Bill, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s over there.
“You were paraphrasing my view of you Paul? That’s a good try but since you were talking about yourself in no way can I read it that way from your actual words.â€
I think Dora called me a liar there. That’s weird.
And on such a small point. What a clumsy, self-revealing thing to say. Is there any self-control in Dora?
Of course, she thinks everyone who disagrees with her is lying about something or other. I just have to keep believing that if we ever met, and she got to know me, she’d realize what a bizarre notion it is and feel like a total idiot, and we’d have a beer and laugh and it’d be over. Oh well. Probably never happen.
But it is good to know, for sure, that she has absolutely no respect for anything I say. Even something as trivial as that, where I just offered up a little bland clarification.
I’ll have to incorporate that into decisions on how worthwhile she is, in terms of spending energy.
Anyway.
On the question at hand, I’m just sort of marinating in the possibilities that might pop out of this all too familiar situation, where we have a tiny group of sneering intellectual bullies all lathered up waiting for someone to “name names.â€
Is it possible they don’t pick up the odor? Are they that oblivious to, if nothing else, style?
Being intellectual bullies instead of actual bullies, there’s no reason to let them dictate anything at all, let alone a schedule of one’s day, or certainly of writing, not when they’ve removed themselves so decidedly and sneerily from the audience.
Oh, it’s a temptation, to name some names. I know there will be more sneers if I never do.
Then again, there will be more sneers if I do. So if it’s avoidng sneers I’m after, I’ll be disappointed.
A clarification: the “intellectual” in “intellectual bully” refers to their only available tactic, and is not intended as an endorsement of their actual capaciites.
Do conservative radio hosts commit the sins the one called Bill lists so excitedly?
Some do too much; some do not as much; a few do almost never.
Almost all of them at least occasionally touch on points and issues that go largely unexamined in the enemy-laden worlds of Bill and Dora.
That’s the easy answer.
â€Who! Who!â€
Sorry. Consider them all pre-sneered. If there are any readers left, go check them out for yourselves. Take a while. On 1280, you’ll find hosts ranging from virulent to thoughtful, and each host will vary on a given day.
(Me, I’ve listened some to Air America, and I’ve never heard thoughtful; but that’s my take.)
This is an especially strong suggestion if you ever wonder, to pick one, exactly what is going on in Germany and Britain and France when it comes to nurturing the ugliest forms of radical Islam; and what that mean not just for the future of Europe, but for us, too.
If that seems like an important issue to you, you should understand that the people Bill and Dora call worthless have been discussing it for years.
Why would they call worthless people who have the courage to address this thorniest of thorny topics?
They don’t like the topic, I guess.
Mom was right again.
You really were breathlessly waiting, weren’t you, Dora?
There’s a woman in Britain named Melanie Phillips. She’s been a jounralist for a lon gtime; won somethign called the “Orwell prize” in 1996. She’s written for the Times, the Observer, the Daily Mail.
Here’s her web site -
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
Recently she’s written a controversial book called “Londonistan;” in it she describes the denial of British political and journalistic cultures regarding the threat of radical Islam, and those cultures’ addiction to anti-Americanism and especially anti-Israel sentiments.
She focuses especially on the myopia of British (and all European) “progressives,” the people who have counseled inclusiveness and granted moral authority to the most radical Islamic preachers, since questioning Islam is not allowed; whereas of course suppressing any serious Christian impact on society is an ongoing task.
Bill and Dora are the American cousins of the most harmful European “progressives.”
Oh, and Dora: your mom said something about a “pompous a**?”
She sounds nice. Granted, it’s not a particularly original or inventive term, but hey, we’re talking about your mom, and genetics has meaning in both directions.
But it does remind me of an uncle of mine who would muse about a certain sort of person he would encounter. Boy, would repeating that here involve the use of asterisks! But it seems kind of cheap.
Again all the writing with little relevance to the actual topic. I’m sure it was immensely satisfying to enlighten us about your thought process as to why you would or wouldn’t answer the question that you previously stated would be an “easy and fun dessert” for you, but one has to ask, who cares?
So, let me get this straight, according to the “connections” in your mind my comment about talk radio really was about conservative ideas and all conservatives. And now in this latest series of posts you incrementally expand upon my intellectual and moral failings and reach the conclusion that I am an anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro radical Islam “progressive” (nice touch on using the word “progressive” as a slur). That’s quite a feat of mental jujitsu Paul. Although perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps you reached that conclusion b/c I don’t step toward your totalistic view of liberals.
It certainly isn’t possible that you just fail to conceive that you might be profoundly mistaken on anything. After all, as I’ve learned from you and others that describes liberals. But to paraphrase you, I have to believe that if we ever met, and you got to know me, you’d realize what a bizarre notion it is and feel like a total idiot. Or perhaps that view only applies in one direction because you are totally sure your demonization is correct.
But what is the most interesting aspect of all of your posts taken as a whole is that you are unwittingly validating Bill’s list about CTR hosts. I suppose it’s conceptually possible it’s just a coincidence. But my observation is that the preponderance of the evidence in your posts demonstrates otherwise.
Oh, and Paul, it’s so nice to know you’d never stoop to taking a cheap shot or anything like that. I’m sure your uncle would be proud of you.
But perhaps I can look forward to you deciding that it’s not worth your time to consider spending your energy on me? Can there possibly be something you forgot to add? Maybe you’d like to include the rest of my family in your next critique. Can you imagine what my grown sons must be like? I’m sure you could consult your Ouija Board and fill us in about your “connections” b/c as you point out “genetics has meaning in both directions.”
I’m waiting breathlessly for your response Paul.
I skimmed through it, Paul S., looking for names of the “intellectually honest” CTR hosts. I didn’t see any.
Still waiting, two days later.
If it helps to hurry things along, you should know that I’m not bothering to read you on the subject of what’s wrong with liberals or your other pontificating until you come up with the names you promised. I’ll go back and read over the stuff, once you produce what you promised two days ago. I really am curious to see what you come up with, or fail to come up with. If you fail to come up with an “intellectually honest” CTR host–the issue will be taken as decided, and we will be left to form our own opinions about your intellectual honesty and powers of judgment.
Okay–
It’s late in the evening of March 4th, the gauntlet was thrown down and the challenge accepted by Paul S on March 1st. I think that Paul S has had enough time to produce his list of “intellectually honest” conservative talk radio hosts that he said he could produce. He has failed to do so.
Too bad, he said that it was going to be “easy and fun” to name CTR hosts who don’t engage in ad hominem attack, straw man arguments, smears of their opponents, etc.
Not one name, in all this time, even though he’s still writing in regularly to this blog.
For me, that closes Paul S’s case. I really thought he would try to offer at least one example of an “intellectually honest” CTR host, after agreeing to do so.
I really did want to know if such a person existed; I made that clear in earlier postings. It would have been a breath of fresh air. Instead, I will be able to tell people that I challenged a CTR fan to give me the name of an intellectually honest CTR host, he accepted, and four days later he couldn’t come up with one name.
But maybe nom Paul S understands why I and many other people dismiss CTR as “propaganda”–because he has presumably, surveyed the CTR field and failed to find an “intellectually honest” CTR host (after telling us there were plenty out there.)
And Paul S has now modified his views on the integrity of CTR: instead of claiming that there are plenty of “intellectually honest” CTR hosts, he has now concluded the following:
Paul S.: “Do conservative radio hosts commit the sins the one called Bill lists so excitedly?
Some do too much; some do not as much; a few do almost never.”
Or, to put it another way–all the CTR hosts that Paul S knows of engage in intellectually dishonest practices (ad hominem, straw man arguments, smears, etc) at least some of the time. This is a far cry from what Paul S initially claimed for CTR. And what Paul S says now tends to prove my charge, and the charge of many others: that what CTR hosts practice is intellectually dishonest propaganda.
So we will leave it at that, until Paul S comes up with what he said he’d have no trouble coming up with: the name of an intellectualy honest CTR host.
If you ever think of even one, let me know, Paul S. As a matter of fact, you would be doing everyone on the blog a public service if you could name the lesser offenders–the CTR hosts who “almost never” practice ad hominem attacks, smears, strawman arguments, etc.
Feel free to chime in with those names any time you like. But I think that one thing you have proven here is–you were wrong when you claimed that it would be “easy and fun” for a defender of CTR to come up with the name of an “intellectually honest conservative talk radio host.” It seems to be a very, very hard thing to do, even for a CTR fan like you.
Okay Bill, I’ll bite.
Let’s start with understanding a few things – your own use of “intellectually honest” is more than a little bit of a straw man. Without giving specific examples of what you consider ad hominem, for example, you’ve effectively erected a bar that Paul S. could never climb. Just about every person I’ve ever known about has used some intellectually dishonest techniques in arguing a case. About the only example of someone I can think of who never did is Jesus Christ.
Having said that, here’s how I see the ones whose shows I hear:
Rush is a blowhard, but that’s central to his persona. To my ears his model is H. L. Mencken. Does he use some dodgy tactics? Sure. But he also does explain how he’s arrived at his conclusions and he has been historically willing to put those who oppose him on the air, although his screeners seem to find the most incoherent lefties available.
I like Hugh Hewitt – he’s open about his partisanship and he’s more of a strategic thinker. He also puts a lot of interesting guests on his show, including some who don’t agree with him, like Erwin Chemerinsky. He also talks a surprising amount about Minnesota politics, considering he has a national audience. T-Paw and James Lileks are on his air a lot.
Jason Lewis was much better in his earlier stint in the Twin Cities. He seems angrier and less willing to listen now.
Michael Medved regularly features people who disagree with him. He’s very bright and I’ve learned some things from him that I didn’t know. That’s good.
Sean Hannity does get good guests, but he doesn’t ask them tough questions. Meanwhile, his opinions are pretty predictable and perfunctory.
Laura Ingraham is a bit on the snarky side, and I disagree with her on a few things. Snark has its uses, however.
Bob Davis is irritating. I think his producer Kodiak is more amusing than he is.
I greatly enjoy Soucheray. His show does have its political moments, but he’s really operating in a different arena.
Michael Savage is a menace.
I haven’t heard enough from William Bennett, Dave Thompson, Dan Conry or Dennis Prager to really have a strong opinion on any of them.
Thanks for at least trying. More than Paul S was willing to do.
Your disclaimer at the top of your answer, is the real answer to the question. As I pointed out before, Paul S was writing an intellectual honesty check that his brain couldn’t cash–he was agreeing to deliver something no one could deliver–”intellectually honest CTR hosts.”
At least you are up front about how that’s not possible. I’ve listened to many of the people on your list, not all: (Rush, Lewis, Hewitt, Medved,Soucheray,Bennett and Prager.)Mencken would be horrified to think that Limbaugh was his philosophical descendant. (And then he would laugh like hell.)
Who would you say is, the best, the very best, in terms of practicing intellectual honesty–minimum ad hominems, etc. If there is someone out there in CTR who even vaguely fits the description, I want to know.
Because I am a person who is convinced that CTR is wildly successful propaganda, I am very interested in discussing this subject–here–with people who listen in local radio markets. It is plain to me that a lot of people who write in to the Big Q rely on CTR for their information and sometimes even their arguments.
Though a liberal, I do not listen to “liberal talk radio”–since the little I’ve heard of it seems to be based on the CTR “propaganda” format (including intellectual dishonesty), I have no higher expectations of it than I do of CTR, and I do not need people to reassure me of political priniciples I already believe in.
It probably is possible to run a talk radio program with out all the practices complained of–but the market for such a program is very small. On NPR, Ray Suarez hosts a program called “Talk of the Nation” and foregoes the ad hominem, the straw man, etc.
But I think conservatives would find the program dull for that very reason. My theory is that they go to CTR because it is propaganda, because it feeds their hatred of all things liberal, etc.
Who would you say is, the best, the very best, CTR host in terms of practicing intellectual honesty–minimum ad hominems, etc.?
Bill P asks:
Who would you say is, the best, the very best, CTR host in terms of practicing intellectual honesty–minimum ad hominems, etc.?
***
Bill, I think you’re begging the question with your premise, which is another favorite debating tactic, and one that some people might argue is a smidge intellectually dishonest.
I also think you don’t understand conservatives nearly as well as you think you do. You’ve apparently bought into the notion that conservatives need have their hatreds fed and that is why talk radio is popular. I’m pretty certain that you understand that this is a straw man argument, too.
I would stipulate this any time – nearly every liberal that I know well is a good person who really means well. I’d be willing to wager that you are, too. The problem with good people who mean well is this: when good people who mean well gather together and try to solve problems the good people who mean well perceive to be the fault of those who may not mean so well, or who are simply contrarians, the good people who mean well often behave in ways that are not so good.
By the way, I agree that Mencken would be horrified at the comparison, but I meant the comparison more as a matter of style than of substance.
Mark the S–
Well here we are off the main page, the absolute no man’s land, nobody’s going to read this except you or me.
So I can tell you straight up: I wasn’t begging the question, or twisting the knife or whatever you want to call it. You started off by telling me that there weren’t any CTR hosts who didn’t engage in the intellectually dishonest stuff, right? Then you went on to rate them.
So I, totally straight faced, asked you this–not a “debate tactic”, but because I really want to know your opinion:
Who would you say is, the best, the very best, CTR host in terms of practicing intellectual honesty–minimum ad hominems, etc.?
Not begging the question, just want to know. But you don’t want to say, and neither does Paul S. I don’t know why not; but you seem to think I’m trying to “trick you.” I’m not, I’m just curious about what passes for classy, civil, responsible conduct with defenders of CTR.
“You’ve apparently bought into the notion that conservatives need have their hatreds fed and that is why talk radio is popular.”
You got that right, I sincerely believe that. If that’s not true, why would they regularly listen to CTR host who supply them a steady feed of ad hominem attacks, smears, lies about how “liberals hate America,” etc.? Why would someone be interested in dishonesty like that, if it’s not to feed his anger and his weird need to find neighbors to hate?
“I’m pretty certain that you understand that this is a straw man argument, too.”
That’s the part you got wrong. I don’t see it as a strong man argument at all, I see it as a major problem in American politics–hundreds and hundreds of radio stations feeding this stuff to rank and file conservatives, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, now decade after decade. “Political commentary” that actually embraces intellectual dishonesty and creating a climate of permanent anger, outrage and paranoia in its listeners.
That’s why I keep on comparing it to Goebbels. I really think it’s dangerous; it’s not a strawman argument at all.
And I know that “good people who mean well” sometimes screw things up–but what’s the alternative, electing or hanging out with “bad people who don’t mean well?”
Thanks for continuing this. I will read your next answer, and then move on to the “front page.” I don’t want to continue a debate that no one else is reading.
You’re welcome, Bill. We can disagree but I appreciate your civility. And I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. A few thoughts:
I listen to CTR when I’m driving around in my car, but that’s it. For me, I don’t hear anger, outrage and paranoia as much as I hear people who have a particular weltanschauung that differs, in varying degrees, from the perspective that is on offer elsewhere in the mass media. I understand that you might hear those things, but that is because of the worldview you bring to the party. Still, the Goebbels comparison is, ultimately, silly. Goebbels was an agent of the Nazi party and of the state, which were interchangeable. Rush Limbaugh is a syndicated broadcaster. He has the ability to influence public opinion, but his listenership is, at best, less than 10% of the population. And nearly every time Limbaugh says something that people find objectionable, he gets shouted at, and sometimes down. Hewitt, Medved, etc. have even less influence than Limbaugh. And way more people listen to the country station in town and/or KQRS in this town than listen to KTLK, KSTP or “the Patriot.”
Further, Goebbels was part of an apparatus that also had the ability to break into your house and take you away if you disagreed with it. If Bush et al. really had the intention of having built something like the Nazi apparatus, he had a wonderful opportunity in 2001-2002. 9/11 was considerably more heinous than the Reichstag fire. But here we are, chatting away in our little corner, with no concerns whatsoever about the repercussions of our discussion.
Now, here’s why I think your argument is a straw man. I know lots of people who listen to CTR; they simply aren’t permanently angry, or even all that outraged. Nor are they especially paranoid. The problem with your claims, in my view, is that they simply don’t square with what are observable realities.
I also think that it’s an observable reality that liberals do not hate America. I have a dear friend I’ve known for well over 30 years (I’m in my early 40s, by the way) who has been sending me MoveOn.org stuff for years. He has an Air America sticker proudly affixed to his Prius and he gives me grief about my Detroit metal at every opportunity. I know he doesn’t hate America – he’s as fine a person as I’ve ever known. However, he and I don’t agree on anything political. There’s a pretty severe conflict of visions between liberals and conservatives regarding what America represents and what its proper role is, to say nothing of the overall role of the government.
There are only a limited number of people in this country who care as much about politics as you and I do. There are Kossacks and Freepers, but their influence is limited. Ultimately, that’s a good thing.
Briefly, as the your question about the alternative to “good people who mean well”; well, my alternative is a government and a social order that has limited but clearly understandable rules, enforced by the state where necessary but in most cases enforced by social norms and mores. I don’t have any interest in controlling people’s behavior, as long as it doesn’t impinge on mine. In other words, as long as I can impose a smoking ban in my own home, I don’t see any compelling reason for the state to enforce one in a tavern if the owner is willing to allow smoking. I can simply go elsewhere.
As for what constitutes “classy, civil and responsible conduct,” that’s a different question. I think my original answer gives you a hint to my views on this – I prefer those who explain rather than those who rant. That’s why I despise Michael Savage. The ones I like I like for different reasons. I haven’t heard much of him, but from what I have heard, I’d say Dennis Prager is the most civil guy. I think Medved is pretty civil, too. The rest like to mix it up and brawl, to varying degrees. And that’s okay – that’s what we do here.
See you around, good sir.
Mts
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)