Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
"These guys on the opinion pages in the last couple of weeks haven't seemed to me to be interested in learning, or listening; they've been interested only in presenting single sides of grotesquely complicated questions as if theirs were the only real and complete answers. It solves nothing. It can at most persuade other people to speak shrilly and reject alternative points of view; at its least harmful I guess it's fun and stimulating for the writers. That last sentence means that what we've seen so far this year out of what are purported to be our most concerned and active students is at worst propaganda, and at best masturbation. I'd love just once to see a "Student" political column by someone who wasn't all-fired sure he was right."
Which all sounds great, except of course "explaining" the news really means editorializing, infusing the actual events of the day with the host's own opinions. And here is where the real controversy starts, because these opinions are, as just one person's opinions, exempt from strict journalistic standards of truthfulness, probity, etc., and yet they are often delivered by the talk-radio host not as opinions but as revealed truths, truths intentionally ignored or [b]suppressed by a "mainstream press" that's "biased" in favor of liberal interests. This is, at any rate, the rhetorical template for Rush Limbaugh's program, on which most syndicated and large-market political talk radio is modeled, from ABC's Sean Hannity and Talk Radio Network's Laura Ingraham to G. G. Liddy, Rusty Humphries, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Dennis Prager, and, in many respects, Mr. John Ziegler.
Who wrote this?
Tee hee bwa haha
He's talking about people like YOU ex lax.
Comment