Can Highly Paid Talk-Show Hosts be Trusted?

Great Debates
1

Here goes my first post:

I often listen to talk-shows (mostly on radio) and find find them very entertaining. But, I often find myself wallowing in disbelief at the utter nonsense that spews forth from those golden microphones.

As an example, listening to “Doctor” Michael Savage - who has a Ph.D in nutritional ethnomedicine - lambast the conclusions of genuine, honest scientists working on climate change as if he were himself an expert, I begin to wonder if he actually believes what he is saying. I’ve heard him say that “we’re going into a global cooling phase” as if it were fact. Of course, one can easily tease out a cooling trend from the graphs by carefully picking a record hot starting year to form the trend line, but doing so is pure deception if done knowingly. A “man of science” such as Savage should know better. Well, maybe he has other evidence for this statement, but I’ve yet to hear anything less dubious from him.

But really, I think he does know better. I think that many, if not most, talk-show hosts like Limbaugh and Savage know that they often fudge the facts to make a point.

That’s not actually my point, however. Rather, I have come to the understanding that, when a person’s accumulation of wealth is entangled with his or her opinions on one side of a controversy, such a person will not likely be willing to fairly consider the other side of the controversy.

Take a look at the talk-show market: There are several big names each competing for fans; if one commentator, say Glenn Beck, were to genuinely depart from the conservative dogmas, the other commentators would tear him into little pieces, and poor Beck would loose ratings - which equals income. So, if Beck values his wallet, he won’t allow himself to give equal consideration to liberal ideas, for if he did, he would probably come to agree with some of them.

Most of my friends and family claim that they “trust” Rush Limbaugh’s analysis of the issues. I ask them, “how can a man who is getting paid $400,000,000 for giving his conservative opinions be open-minded with regard to competing, liberal opinions?” They don’t answer. “Doesn’t that much money influence his judgement even a wee bit?” Again, no coherent answer.

But you get my point. Question is, do you agree that money and fame corrupt the minds and/or stated opinions of our beloved commentators, especially the mega-rich ones?

2

I never thought it was in doubt.

It doesn’t take long listening to them to recognize that they’re taking positions that buttress their usual listener base and inflame their “opponents” into listening to them in spite of their hatred.

They’re professional trolls, paid handsomely to make people hate them for ratings and advertising dollars. Nothing more, nothing less. Rush Limbaugh would become an avowed socialist tomorrow if he thought he could get better ratings.

3

It’s very surprising how many intelligent and honest people I’ve met who don’t see what is so plain. I’m hoping those types will chime in, though this might be the wrong forum to find them.

4

Selling confirmation bias is extremely profitable.

Sadly enough, there just isn’t much market share for talk shows that give an impartial analysis that have a possibility of challenging the listener’s most cherished beliefs. They want a host that will reliably whisper (or even shout) sweet nothings into their ear about how “Our political ideology is good, the other side is wholly and completely evil.”

5

There’s no money in consensus, to make big money you need clear binary choices and get the vested interests on one side to back you.

Extends to Capitol Hill as well, whatever one party thinks the other thinks the opposite, thus maxing out the lobbyist opportunities.

6

I think a lot of talk radio listeners don’t care if the host doesn’t consider both sides. They really just want to hear someone echo their own beliefs.

7

I think cracked.com summed it up nicely(#2 on the list):

8

Or tell them how to explain their beliefs better than they can themselves.

9

You have explained this better than I could have myself. You could be a talk show host. For the “highly paid” part you’re going to need to increase your audience.

10

It depends on how much of the host’s success is because of the line they take and how much is because of how entertaining the host is. When Limbaugh started it probably seemed unlikely that one could make tens of millions of dollars per year talking conservative politics at midday on AM stations. He is probably a good enough entertainer to be succesful whatever his politics are. The audience for liberal talk may not be as big and pandering to it may not be as lucrative, but a person could make a decent living at it if he was good enough. Olberman, Maddow, Stewart and their ilk make a very good living pandering to liberals. I think the cognitive dissonance would be too great for one to be succesfull spouting opinions you know to be untrue. Plus the mainstream media loves conservatives who go off the reservation. Kathleen Parker criticizes Sarah Palin, and all of a sudden she has a Pulitzer Prize and a show on CNN. There would be plenty of money out there if a prominent talk show host went liberal.

11

Just extracting this from what is otherwise not all that impressive a statement - I’ve never watched Maddow, and I don’t watch Olbermann regularly enough, but when Stewart panders, he’s a lot less entertaining, simply because pandering is lazy. Further, I’m not sure that you could call what he does aimed specifically at liberals - mostly his show is about uncovering absurdities and hypocrisies of politics and the mainstream media by pointing out frequent self-contradictions. Fox News just happens to be (as was Bush43) a rich source of this material. Stewart’s already gone after Obama (tricky, because he makes relatively few gaffes) and Biden (easy, because he makes lots), and will, I expect, continue to do so.

12

I read that two days before & contemplated putting it up, then something happened & I forgot about it. Thanks!

13

I’d say that most people trying to influence the public have some kind of agenda. Whether it’s to generate rev or increase their power (politicians, industry), people are inclined to continuing to hold fast to their preconceptions if only because the opposite is uncomfortable.

How many ELF members would stop burning Hummer dealerships if it were proven that those cars actually have less of an adverse impact on the environment?

How many hawks would suddenly advocate disarmament or fullscale withdrawal into Fortress America ™ if faced with incontrovertable evidence that it would result in worldwide peace?

How many IMF protesters/anarchists/trust fund babies would suddenly go to work for the World Bank if they opened their books and showed all the good they were doing OCONUS?

Or, put another way, how many GD or Pit posters have changed their minds about anything, even when crushed in debate? People get married to their beliefs. Rush, Keith O., et al just capitalize on it (literally).

14

I know that is not in the context of the whole of your post, but it’s an interesting assertion nonetheless.

What seems to be true in my (somewhat personal) experience with cognitive dissonance is that we humans have a remarkable capacity for self-deception (no surprise to anyone), which manifests itself most clearly in people who, for the most part, deliberately ignore information which challenges their worldview and/or cardinal beliefs.

Limbaugh a priori** rejected the notion anthropogenic climate change because he had first decided that God would never allow mankind to ruin His creation. Rush assumed a conclusion before he even began a study of the science. Now, to me, that kind of reasoning is dishonest, not in the least because one must on some level ignore the competing evidence in order to hold fast to the conclusion, thus deceiving oneself.

I think that’s how one would go about scrubbing dissonant ideas from his or her mind - and I should know, as I used to do this during my high school days whenever someone challenged my conservative mindset. I felt completely honest and vindicated all the while I was telling lies to myself in an attempt to preserve what my subconscious mind must have surmised was a socially profitable orientation. It wasn’t until I no longer saw any profit in holding to fallacious belief that I allowed myself to consider that I might be wrong.

15

The Master snerk speaks.

16

That clip reminded me of the movie Thank You for Smoking.It’s a business that requires “flexible morals,” for sure.

On the bright side, at least Rush (along with the others) is creating new prosperity through the economic activity his show generates. Maybe that’s how he justifies it.

17

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse.

18

Jon Stewart uses irony, which is absent on the extremes of the political spectrum. Maddow is frightfully smart. She is the left’s answer to William Buckley or George Will (though a bit more emotionally engaged). Most of the other talking heads, especially on the right, just think it’s OK to make shit
up. No rigor, no consistency, no fairness, just make up what ever it takes to support your position; e.g., death panels and the effect of the Jones Act on the oil spill.

Beck I really don’t understand. Whether you agree with him or not, how can people not see that he is a raving lunatic?

19

Of course Limbaugh does this. Everyone ignores evidence that they are wrong and overweights evidence that they are right. Especially in the area of politics because the political beliefs are signalling mechanisms more than they are true attempts at approximating reality. It would be impossible for anyone to become enough of an expert on every issue, so we employ mental heuristics to make the flood of information manageable. No one in this discussion listens to everything Limbaugh says and then goes out and does their own research to disprove him. He is on the wrong team so what he says is automatically suspect. The question is whether Limbaugh, Maddow, et al are sincere in their beliefs. When Limbaugh was a broke disc jockey trying to break into talk radio he was espousing the same viewpoint he is now that he is a rich and famous journalist. This would argue for the sincerity of his beliefs. Dismissing someone’s opinions because he gets paid for them is a way of having to avoid actually finding arguements to counter them. It is just a way to say Shut up to people who disagree with you.

20

No, it argues for his belief in the marketability of his beliefs.