...have to deal with that problem.” -- Trent Lott.

Very interesting read in the NY Times today. I got it linked from C&L, but the Times story is better overall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15immig.html?ex=1339560000&en=8cbf5 4f3cc157012&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In the recent past, the White House has called on conservative talk radio for strategy and message alignment meetings. Now this?

Seems to me, we've a growing disconnect here that just might be good for all of us really. If, this administration and those upper eschalon powerful people have indeed gone too far, it could trigger a movement, common to all Americans, toward reestablishing some base line rules of engagement where general democracy is concerned.

Also, I find that an interesting affirmation about the power talk radio, in general, holds. I've not seen that expressed very often.

It is interesting that in the professional circles that I spend much of my time in, it would be taboo to talk about or quote from political talk radio shows. Yet, people are obviously listening, and the hosts of these shows are making an impact.

Because these shows need to get ratings to attract advertisers and therefore stay on the air, the hosts are going to express themselves in and push the discussion towards viewpoints and methods that will evoke a strong emotional reaction from the audience. I'm not completely certain of what the long-term consequences are of political strategy being shaped by what gets good ratings on the radio.

IT's Taboo for many I interact with as well. This same taboo is not quite as potent where NPR is concerned though, do you notice that?

I've heard "AM radio politics", "And those whacko blogs" spoken, but not the same for NPR.

I guess it's good that "talk radio" is running America", because Congress certainly doesn't seem to be capable of doing the job.

What Trent Lott is really saying is that when talk radio tells the American people the truth, they turn on Congress and Congress doesn't like the public getting too smart.

The problem at the moment is that some, for whatever nutty reason they had, wanted to ram the amnesty bill through before the public knew what was happening. Fortunately, talk radio wised everyone up in time. For now at least.

Deane_johnson writes:

Congress doesn't like the public getting too smart.


That's what I've always said about talk radio. Sorry but Rush and the gang and anyone who says they are telling us the truth are simply full of crap.

>>>"Sorry but Rush and the gang and anyone who says they are telling us the truth are simply full of crap."

What has Rush ever said that was untruthful? I've asked this question before and never got an answer. I never will.

Rush said drug using pinkos belong up the river. he isn't up the river yet is he? until he sends himself up the river, he's full of crap.

Skep, with a reach like that, you proved my point. Thank you.

My America is too strong and vital to be touched by any fool on talk radio. Sorry about yours.

> My America is too strong and vital to be touched by
> any fool on talk radio. Sorry about yours.

Given the dearth of real investigative reporting in today's media plus the blurring of fact and opinion that seems to occur on television, on the radio, on the Internet, and in people's thinking, I think that this "strong and vital" America is just a nice fantasy. To slighlty mangle a quote from Jello Biafra: "I wish America were strong and vital, but think again and be prepared..."

I normally don't take Sean Hannity very seriously. However today he was on a lengthy monologue about attempts by politicians and organizations like thinkprogress.org to impose restrictions on the content of (presumably politically-themed) talk radio. He stated that this would be a serious threat to the First Ammendment rights of broadcasters and participants and said that he believed that some politicians are uncomfortable with any venue that opens them to criticism by the general public. I couldn't help but wonder, what if Hannity is right about this one?

There are many related questions that I think are important. For instance,

1) What methods might be used to limit the content of talk radio?

2) Would these methods have side effects that impact other radio programming that presents issues from a specific philosophical or ideological viewpoint? (Examples of such programming include religious brodacasts that talk about current events and some volunteer-produced programs on community and university radio stations.)

3) If there are enough politicians who want to stifle criticism, would these politicians also go after websites and organizations that hold critical views? If so, how would they do it?

DA said>>>>>
Skep, with a reach like that, you proved my point. Thank you.

OMFG it looks like DA hasn't changed one bit. Shown the truth she folds like a cheap card table.......
COME ON NOW!

First ( Actually, for those that are counting, it's about 498th ) it's talk radio. Next up: Internet blogs and message boards.

Ahem.