The Wizard of Beck. David Brooks on the Influence and Power of Right Wing Talkers. (1 Viewer)

[DangBeast]

So, should Beck and Limbaugh be silenced, or should people be able to reason for themselves and recognize idiocy when they see it?

I think David Brooks is a slick charachter who works very hard to come across as thoughtful and balanced. He comes across as a voice of reason and logic and centrism on domestic affairs but he's also an apologist for liberal interventionism.

He often speaketh with forked tongue himself but he's much more sophisticated.

I thought this is america? You can watch sex on TV, and after 12 oclock on certain televsion stations, its no hold barred on cursing and even nudity. But we cannot have the choice to listen to whomever we want to on the radio? Noone is forced to listen to Rush, Beck or Michael Savage. If you do not like what they say, then do not listen. This is America, and they have the right to free speech just as we do, and to silence them, is to piss on the our founding fathers who built this country and instated the right that we all have the right for free speech. It's part of what our soldiers die for, its part of why we are most hated, because we are aloud to say whatever the hell we want to. If you let the government silence Conservative talk, then its only a matter of time before we are all silenced.

 

[DangBeast]

Also you call it idiocy, but if you listened to Air America, I would definatly call it idiocy. Just because someone is Right wing, or Left wing, it doesn't make them any less of a person, or any less smart. Just means they do not agree with what you do, and that doesn't make them 'not' smart.

 

[blackadder]

I thought this is america? You can watch sex on TV, and after 12 oclock on certain televsion stations, its no hold barred on cursing and even nudity. But we cannot have the choice to listen to whomever we want to on the radio? Noone is forced to listen to Rush, Beck or Michael Savage. If you do not like what they say, then do not listen. This is America, and they have the right to free speech just as we do, and to silence them, is to piss on the our founding fathers who built this country and instated the right that we all have the right for free speech. It's part of what our soldiers die for, its part of why we are most hated, because we are aloud to say whatever the hell we want to. If you let the government silence Conservative talk, then its only a matter of time before we are all silenced.

I'm not saying silence them. I'm saying let people say what they want and reveal themselves.

I more concerned that people can't see through the charades.

 

[cdogg]

If were talking about the level of perceived power these people have by those in high places of a political party, there is a huge difference. Nobody on the left seeks out agreements or support from Olbermann or Air America (as McCain did with Limbaugh) and nobody on the right thinks that Al Sharpton's base is a threat to turn elections away from their favor.

The same can not be said to be true when you turn those tables around.

Yes it can.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Well, if they have such power, then what do you want to do about it?

I would assume that would be the next step.

I hear a lot of gnashing of teeth about pundits but I like to look at problems from all angles. If we had politics and media that weren't so infantile, if people had better information and willingness to think, then they would be able to see these people for the demogogues and attention whores that they are.

But pretty much a majority of the nation is now susceptible to their drivel. That's the story, to me. Not that we have morons and demogogues who get air time, or that the government and media lie. It's that the public is such an easy mark for it. Fix that and the pundits would have to find a new line of work, like used car salesmen or televagelists or con man.

Man your really on a role today. I think I admitted i agree with the author and dont think they have much real world influence on the population at large. That the power they actually get is from the mis-perception of politicians, who assume they wave more power than they actually do.

I understand you like to use replies as a step to ge t on your soap box and so ill leave the last two paragraphs out of my response cause they are irrelevant to our discussion.

But where do you get off thinking the next logical step in my thought process from thinking they have an undue influence on politicians is that I want to outlaw talk radio?

How about they can keep spouting the **** they want to speak, within reason, and people like David Brooks can continue to hammer home the reality that these people are not as influential and powerful as those in power have perceived them to be. And hopefully it will slowly change the mind set of those politicians and we will move discourse to a better place

 

[blackadder]

Also you call it idiocy, but if you listened to Air America, I would definatly call it idiocy. Just because someone is Right wing, or Left wing, it doesn't make them any less of a person, or any less smart. Just means they do not agree with what you do, and that doesn't make them 'not' smart.

On the right and the left, as aired for "Infotainment" and ratings, the quality of discourse is dismal.

But you find people running around repeating these talking points.

Sean Hannity.

Do you hate America?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Yes it can.

Welp, you convinced me.

 

[Flipx99]

As for your czar thing. You sound as ridiculous as Limbaugh. The concept of czars(or that which serves the same function) has been around since FDR and Obama's number isnt unprecedented. Bush had 34 people either directly named czars or indirectly serving the same function with only a different title name. This uproar of czars is one of the silliest things to be leveled at Obama yet.

It is starting to seem like anytime someone criticizes Obama, a leftie responds with, "well Bush was almost as bad."

 

[DangBeast]

I'm not saying silence them. I'm saying let people say what they want and reveal themselves.

I more concerned that people can't see through the charades.

What charaded? That is what they believe. they say what they believe dude. How do you know what they say is not right? Obviously you don't agree with them, so you get your information somewhere else. Well, what if 'somewhere else' is just as wrong as they are?

I am a conservative, so I choose is get my information not only from Rush, beck and Savage, but from fox news and other internet sites. This doesn't mean that I do not listen to the other side, and what they have to say. Yes sometimes I think it sounds ridiculus, but I never call it 'leftist charades'. You have no clue if what they say is wrong or right, so you cannot put that on them. They are entertainers. They make money doing what not alot of people in this world can do. People will listen to whomever they want, whether or not they can see through the "charades" or not, is thier problem.

For instance, I like Rush Limbaugh, and I think that Keither Olberman is full of frickin ****. That doesn't mean that I am going to run around trying to tell people not to believe in what he says.

We can agree to disagree all day on our politics, but I understand what you are saying, and I hope you understand where I am coming from.

 

[DangBeast]

Do you hate America?

What the hell are you talking about? What in anything that i've said would give you that idea?

 

[Flipx99]

people like David Brooks can continue to hammer home the reality that these people are not as influential and powerful as those in power have perceived them to be. And hopefully it will slowly change the mind set of those politicians and we will move discourse to a better place

It seems like David Brooks has a lot of influence. I wonder if he really does? Do you think it would be a conflict of interest for David Brooks to provide an analysis on the influence of David Brooks?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It is starting to seem like anytime someone criticizes Obama, a leftie responds with, "well Bush was almost as bad."

I dont think Bush's czars were bad and I dont Reagans were, nor do I think Obama's are. What i think is idiotic is pretending that what Obama is doing with czars is so unprecedented and scary. My point in illustrating the number of Bush's czar was to indicate just how NOT unprecedented this is. It had nothing to do with whether I approve or disapprove of the practice.

 

[blackadder]

Man your really on a role today. I think I admitted i agree with the author and dont think they have much real world influence on the population at large. That the power they actually get is from the mis-perception of politicians, who assume they wave more power than they actually do.

I understand you like to use replies as a step to ge t on your soap box and so ill leave the last two paragraphs out of my response cause they are irrelevant to our discussion.

But where do you get off thinking the next logical step in my thought process from thinking they have an undue influence on politicians is that I want to outlaw talk radio?

How about they can keep spouting the **** they want to speak, within reason, and people like David Brooks can continue to hammer home the reality that these people are not as influential and powerful as those in power have perceived them to be. And hopefully it will slowly change the mind set of those politicians and we will move discourse to a better place

I just don't know what you wanted to do about it other than have a discussion about the "destructive power of right wing radio".

OK. The discussion is on and my opinion is most of the pundits are destructive because they are there to generate heat, not light. And they exploit people's emotional repsonses for ratings and advertising dollars.

And we are easily exploited because of the infantile level at which political discourse sits from the system as a whole.

But I sense you just wanted to focus on right wing radio rather than why right wing radio can even find traction. Yes, it's garbage.

Are you not looking to have time on the soapbox about the power of right wing talkers?

 

[BIG E]

As for your czar thing. You sound as ridiculous as Limbaugh. The concept of czars(or that which serves the same function) has been around since FDR and Obama's number isnt unprecedented. Bush had 34 people either directly named czars or indirectly serving the same function with only a different title name. This uproar of czars is one of the silliest things to be leveled at Obama yet.

He doubled the number of Czars that Bush had. They are not being properly vetted is the problem. They name them Czars instead of secretaries so they can bypass the senate confirmation hearings.

If he wishes to continue to appoint people without the prober vetting, then he will continue to give his pundits cannon fodder.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It seems like David Brooks has a lot of influence. I wonder if he really does? Do you think it would be a conflict of interest for David Brooks to provide an analysis on the influence of David Brooks?

Thats your perception, mines a little different. The rest of your post doesnt make much sense or seem to even serve a point.