Or are they just saying what they they think their audience wants to hear?
Classic case in point, if a Republican gets caught up in a sex scandal, it amounts to little more than a personal failing and is best dealt with privately. But if a Democrat is caught in flagrante, the moral well-being of the entire nation is at stake.
Personally, I believe that if Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and the others of their ilk felt they could make as much money pandering to the left as they do to the right, they would instantly start sporting Che shirts and extolling the virtues of Marx and Lenin.
Any thoughts on this?
It probably depends on the talker in question. Some may get talking points from actual Republican operatives; I don’t know. I doubt they all do. I think each talker deserves his own debate ‘trial.’
A classic case has more teeth if it’s a specific case, and you can point to where right-wing talkers defended a Republican. Or a specific case where a Democrat with his pants down meant that the left-wing agenda is wrong. Or several of those cases. And cases where left-wing talkers were not hypocritical (although that’s not strictly necessary, as you don’t assert that left-wing talkers aren’t guilty, or do believe their own schtick).
I’ll through the whole lot of them all in together. From Limbaugh to Michael Moore.
The more controversial and over the top they can be the more they stay in the spotlight. And that makes them more money. It’s easy to throw out a bunch of one-side crap to get face time (see Coulter). It’s much harder to take an un-biased truth seeking approach because 1) It’s a lot of hard work, and 2) It won’t make you controversial/taked about (see Tim Russert).
Always kind of wondered this myself and something I have mentioned to friends on occasion.
My impression of people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh is that they are by no means stupid. As such I just cannot reconcile some of their rhetoric. Does Coulter REALLY think liberals are all traitors?
I cannot think they genuinely hold the views they espouse and merely do so to sell books. They are getting rich being as divisive as possible.
That said I then wonder if you keep saying something enough you start to fool yourself and actually believe your own bullshit.
My opinion is they are in it for the money and while they are almost certainly far right on the political spectrum I doubt they can possibly actually believe half the bullshit they spew. They only do so because it keeps them in the spotlight and keeps them wealthy.
According to Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity pulled him aside and said something to the effect of “Can you believe people think we mean all of this stuff? It’s a show!” (paraphrasing)
I dunno. Rush seemed like an intelligent, fun sort of guy. Nowadays he just seems angry. He is no fun to listen too.
If his job is to draw in listeners, I suppose he would be his old fun bouncy self. Since he has become bitter in his on-air persona, I suppose that means he really feels that way.
David Vitter, who is still in the Senate, and Eliot Spitzer who was forced out of the governorship after committing basically the same offense. Fox News and the other RW talkers devoted a tenth, if even that, of the attention to Vitter that they did to Spitzer and tended to be more sympathetic toward the Senator, again casting it as little more than a personal failing.
Yeah, I saw that. Olbermann was talking about his time at Fox and said that “some of those people” would just as easily do the same schtick for the left if the money was there. Then he made the comment about Hannity saying “can you believe people think we’re serious? It’s just television.”
I’ve also heard through a few degrees of separation that Rush Limbaugh is largely schtick. Apparently he’s a lot different off the air than on. Not that he isn’t really a conservative, but he’s not as much of one as he pretends to be.
I think Bill O’Reilly actually is as he presents himself – a raging egomaniac, self-righteous, often religiose buffoon. Nothing is being concealed there. That hilariously bad novel he wrote, Those Who Trespass, is embarrassingly revealing. It’s a testament to his ego that the novel (such as it is) features not just one, but two Mary Sues.
I’m undecided as to whether Glenn Beck’s Howard Beal act is just theater, or whether he’s actaully mentally ill. I think might be the latter.
Coulter is an obvious troll, but probably really is as far right as she seems.
Of course, they’re all just roles played by Fred Savage.
It’s pretty much the same from the right and the left: If one of the loyal opposition gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar, it’s a shock and an affront to the nation’s morality. But if one of your own guys gets caught, well, “so what; they ALL do it!”
A New York Times story a couple of weeks ago made it seem like his act is at least partially theater.
It quotes him as saying, "I’m a rodeo clown, It takes great skill” and "I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”
I don’t think it’s equivalent with sex. The left does not attack Republican philanderers as “immoral” or anything, as long as it involves consenting adults. They only light them up if they’re hypocritical about it. Larry Craig, for instance, was not attacked for being gay, but for bashing gays publicly at the same time he was secretly cruising men’s rooms.
Right, right - which is why Bill Clinton was so universally attacked by the Left for his sexual harassment.
Regards,
Shodan
What sexual harrassment? Cite that he sexually harrassed anybody?
Well, there was the whole Paula Jones thing. It wasn’t all Gennifer and Monica.
Except that the judge said he didn’t sexually harrass Paula Jones, so that doesn’t count as a cite.
Your “cite” does not describe harassment of any kind.
You mean Judge Wright? Hers wasn’t the last word on the issue and Clinton eventually settled.
In any case, the whole thing was kinda ridiculous and slimy and certainly not worth a massive impeachment circus.
Yes. Your premise as emphasized is bogus.
Her word WAS the last word. Clinton didn’t settle because the case had any merit. The judge basically said that even if everything PJ alleged was true, it STILL was not enough to constitute sexual harrassment. So without even contesting a single factual allegation, Bill Clinton still did not harrass Paula Jones.