22 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
In impressive study, July 23, 2008
This review is from: Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America?s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives (Paperback)
I've been trying to figure out the right wing these days. I've been reading a lot about its history, its roots, motives. One of the right's favorite fairy tales is of the "left bias" of the media. So I've been reading up on that and ran across this volume.
I didn't think I'd be that impressed with it. But first and foremost, I credit the authors with HONESTY. And that's something I don't often find on the right. For instance, they admit that Limbaugh--as much as I despise his hate language and utter nonsense--is good at what he does: radio. (Indeed, it reminds me of an argument I've had with some righties who argue that Air America's not doing so well business-wise is an indication of the strength of the left. I've argued that that's nonsense. My politics notwithstanding, I don't listen to Air America much at all. First, I don't listen to commercial radio at all unless I have NO alternative. Second, I don't want to hear, between shows worth listening to, infomercials on liberal cause investing and health food. Third, like my brother said, I don't want to trade a rignt wing rant for a left wing rant--and some of Air America's fair is rather preachy left wing stuff. I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you.)
The book starts with Don Imus. That I thought was a little of a mistake. Imus is clearly a "shock jock" more than a political commentator. But he made the news because of his suspension after a blatantly racist comment. The authors ask legitmate questions, e.g., why was he suspended for as short a time as he was. But the proceed into the Top Ten Shock Jocks and #1 is Rush Limbaugh. So they may have put a little more emphasis on him.
They admit, though, that, like him or not (I don't.), Limbaugh is good at what he does. In fact, in a section on him, they comment that Limbaugh was apparently put off at one point because his guests distracted him from what he's good at. In short, he might have a slight sense of ethics, even if it is completely narcissistic.
The others include o'leilly, Laura Ingragam, Sean Hannity. Most are pretty harmless; the authors conclude that they largely "preach to the choir." (My biggest objection, in spite of their lack of balance, is that most are LIARS, expecially o'leilly.) There are some who are particularly caustic, such as Micheal [Wiener] Savage. In fact, while he may be "good" at what he does, I'm surprised he's still on the air. Not only does he lie to a degree that would make a middle school bully blush, he's more racist and abrasive than Imus ever was!
The book then proceeds to the immigration bill which they contend the right wing shock jocks were instrumental in defeating, then into the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by Reagan. (If you're old enough, and have any background at all in the media, you may remember that the FCC used to require "balance," i.e., you weren't supposed to have a one-sided view at the expense of the others). Interesting that the same right wing shock jocks were lobbying against the fairness doctrine. I can't imagine why...
Interspersed with the test was interviews of various radio "personalities" right and left wing alike. Some denied the rightward shift. Many--like the text--gave the devil his due in asserting that some of the shock jocks are good at what they do. They gave you a lot to think about.
Then there's a whole worthwhile section on alternatives and suggestions as to what to do and who to contact to curb some of the hate language.
There's an important chapter in the book entitled "Air Wars and Conservative Dominance." It reminded me of a statement in a book I reviewed here quite a while ago by Todd Gitlin--I think it was "Media Unlimited." He stated, matter of fact, that radio has a right wing dominance and always will because, in effect, they're much more "us vs. them" oriented, and that sells radio.
Despite the claim of some of those interviewed for the book--Limbaugh and o'leilly and some others declined--that there is NOT a right wing bias, I think it's obvious that there is. Everything about the book, the top ten especially, indicate that. There are things we can do about it, e.g., finding alternatives, challenging some of the rhetoric--which is how Imus got the boot after his racist tirade. I think it's necessary that we keep in perspective the "preaching to the choir" element of talk radio. (I have an aunt who has a radio glued to the local station on which Limbaugh preaches each day, and a father in law who reads o'leilly's books religiously, yet would be freaked if he ever tuned onto o'leilly's radio or television missions! I'm not going to change either of them.)
I think the book is important becuase it describes what "we" are up against in this rhetorical battle. And I've argued for some years that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be reinstated. The authors and those interviewed don't think that's likely. But it puts many elements of talk radio into a PERSPECTIVE, and that's what we all need to consider.
Other related volumes you might want to consider on similar topics are:
Attack Poodles: The Looting of the News in a Time of Terror, by James Wolcott
Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen
Then tune in or log onto the many alternatives the authors mention in the text.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Eye-Opening Study, July 8, 2008
This review is from: Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America?s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives (Paperback)
I grew up in Ohio in a generally-conservative city where the people are not malicious, not purposefully wishing to crush the views of others, but have solid views on taxes, guns, and God. On the radio, Limbaugh is followed by Dr. Laura, is followed by Glenn Beck. You have to pick up Hannity from the next city over. When I listen to these "shock jocks" (ok maybe not Dr. Laura) today, I still think about how they are impacting my home city. I hear the half truths, major logical leaps, and hateful words that come out of El Rushbo's mouth and I'm baffled by the lack of outrage, by the lack of outcry. Sometimes I listen to see how far the man will go.
Thus the need for "Shock Jocks". This book is a handy, compact guide to these offenders and their offenses. It details statements by conservative radio talkers that surprise and inform even me, someone who knows full well what these (mostly) guys are capable of. When I find myself, someone who regularly reads Ann Coulter, surprised by the things that conservative talkers have said, I know this book is timely and a must-read for media critics and those who strive for a healthy democracy.
Most importantly, Shock Jocks highlights the reality that these talkers are distributing loads of news and (mis)information to a very large base of support. We cannot turn away and just say they are evil or that their listeners are sheep. We have to hold them accountable and fight against their missteps. This book will open people's eyes and act as a catalyst for change in the way we view shock jocks and how they spread their message of hate.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Tempest in a teapot, June 25, 2009
This review is from: Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America?s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives (Paperback)
America is changing, and not for the more beautiful, there's no way around that. In keeping with the general coarsening of the culture, a certain subculture that would have been totally relegated to the lunatic fringe mere decades ago has in recent years cropped up and managed to take over and stake out significant media turf and visibility. But of course that's all by comparison to a fundamentally different America, back in a day when a schoolkid's worst transgressions on campus might have been shooting spitballs or being late for class, rather than drug dealing, rape or murder, and his most dreaded punishment might have been a half hour of after school detention rather than half a lifetime in the joint.
I'm speaking here, of course, of the subculture of what has come to be known as "Wingnut AM radio," also including Fox News type "entertainment," right wing rant literature, the whole package, today consumed as the exclusive intellectual fare of a steadily dwindling but significant and important segment of the American general population. As is author O'Connor, who seems to think this intransigently dissident cultural hairball in our national gut is the greatest threat to America today. And perhaps it is, yet O'Connor's own decidedly leftist biases can't be disregarded in assessing his book, which comes down passionately hard on the right-wing crowd. To O'Connor's credit, his assessment, though somewhat alarmistly harsh, is fairer, more balanced, more responsible and more honest than most of the rhetoric currently bloviating in from the Right, yet it's still the kind of talk that, like that from the Right, more or less turns the Middle ground where most Americans actually live into a no-man's-land. To O'Connor, Right Wing talkers rarely talk; they inevitably "spew;" that sort of thing.
It is for the general despoliation of that sociopolitical middle ground that the deafening tub-thumping of both extremes probably equally deserves a kick in the pants from the rest of us. Like, if you can't shut up, at least turn the volume down, clean up your act and start making sense. Making sense, however, is not what got the Right into occupancy of the cultural baby-spot they enjoy today, any more than is overestimating the intelligence of the American public, and all of this sociocultural background noise is probably going to get worse before it ever gets better. To O'Connor's credit, his coverage of his difficult subject matter is fairly comprehensive, presenting lots of data and a reasonably complete picture with minimal self-serving hype or hysteria. For the great majority of Americans who don't watch or listen to this stuff, it's a pretty good crash course that can't solve the problem, but can shed enough light on it to spare you having to sit through it all at first hand yourself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
