Customer Reviews

Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America?s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The fact that this "so-called" author blogs for The Huffington Post, and is in cahoots with the Sierra Club should tell you all you need to know about this sorry attempt at writing a book. Progressive??? Regressive is more like it. The only thing this book is good for is target practice.

I learned alot about several of these "Top Ten" shock jocks, reading the individual chapters on names like Rush L, Sean H., Michael S., et. al.
The pro and con statements are quite objective, which means they should be a refreshing change from the kind of agenda jargon you'll hear from these "Shock Jocks".
The "worst offenders" get a good amount of space, and the facts are often compelling. Although, calling these folks "liars" is strange, when you're trying to point out how they don't stay in the gray area very long. In my viewership of O'Reilly, for example, I can't recall one single instance where I thought he was lying - I could see where he jumped to conclusions or exaggerated.
I disagreed with his assessment of Michael Savage. I find him often insensitive and prone to self-serving anecdotes, but he never ceases to amaze me with his dramatic, rabbinical style, very clearly outlining why he feels a certain way. He is perhaps the most patriotic of all the hosts.
The summation of Mark Levin , "The Great One", was actually very humourous. As intelligent and articulate as this man is, there's something strange about his constant reference to the Conservative hosts who, in a sense, set the stage for him.
A less successful study is of Sean Hannity. His obsessiveness is not fully explored...but so many people find it appealing. Gotta sort that one out. The writers say he has a resonant voice...to me it's a high-pitched monotone; maybe when he makes his mid-50s it'll drop an octave: he'll never have the voicebox of a Limbaugh or a Savage. I wish they had delved into the imagined fax basket with the monthly list of quotable quotes to be bludgeoned into our subconscious, even when guys like Tom Kean, straighten out his myopic take on issues like the supposed Sudan offer of Bin Laden on that "silver platter". But no, it just doesn't *feel* right to defer to the 9/11 Commission findings.
A very interesting section is on the Fairness Doctrine. Does Sean or Rush really understand why it became such an important issue? Do they understand that it all comes down to "the screener", who anyone with an IQ over 40 understands is there to support a show which allows the Host to sound all-knowing and in command?
I recall one show where the screener apparently messed up and a very well-informed woman simply asked Rush, "What do you mean 'liberal'?". I couldn't believe his absolute inability at that time to give a solid answer. Wasn't on the menu for the day, I guess. Can't have a customer ask for meatloaf and gravy when it's not on the lunch special menu. Well, maybe some of the gravy got on the thing.
Would have been cool to have at least a footnote mention of prepetual Conservative Talk Show Host Trainee Steve Marlsberg. He's a Middle East expert, is capable of bolting the listener to his/her recliner while he wins debate after debate on the many challenges facing Israel (a presumptive superhip screener doesn't hurt); he's got a strong Sports Journalist background, which he rarely references. Unlike Hannity, he *doesn't* know the weight of the water bucket he hauls for the GOP.
Further, there's no information about how these jocks are possibly the biggest pro-trust concern in the country: TV versions of their radio shows; book versions of the TV versions of their radio shows; in person appearance versions of the book versions of their TV versions......hey, maybe there's a spot for me?
(Yes, the humble cottage industry is now a villa, yacht, and private jet industry - for them only).
I'll have Tonya Reiman on *two* days a week, and I won't make her sit like a statue. Bill...y'hear?

Just how harmful is "hate radio?" Some of us are entertained by it, others outraged by the outright lies, the half-truths and the somersaults of rationality - and still others derive their political awareness, ideas and opinions from, the likes of Billy Cunningham, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, among many others of the (self-described as) right-wing, god-fearing, gay-hating, gun-toting variety. As the results of last November's elections demonstrated, the views purveyed by the likes of these broadcast personalities are marginal, and becoming moreso. But - given their clear intent, which is to inflame - is what they have to say harmful?

I'm not asking - nor is Rory O'Connor, the author of "Shock Jocks" - whether such commentators have a right to say what they say (clearly, they do, under the terms of our Constitution) - rather, I'm asking - are they right to say the things they do? Morally? And do they bear any moral responsibility when - as a result of their inflammatory rhetoric - people do bad things?

This question has been on my mind since a terrible incident occurred last summer in Tennessee, which I heard about while on vacation in neighboring Kentucky.

I was in Kentucky when I heard a news report about a gunman bursting into a church in Tennessee and murdering two people when firing blindly into a crowd gathered to attend a children's service. The news report failed to mention the Church's denominational affiliation, but as I learned afterward, it was a congregation of Unitarian believers. The story that emerged months after the incident was that Jim Adkisson, a 58-year old out-of-work truck driver had killed two people and wounded six others (he subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole). Adkisson pulled a sawed-off shotgun from a guitar case and fired three deadly blasts into the Church's congregation while it was watching a Sunday morning children's performance of the musical "Annie." Members of the audience of about 200 subdued him. Adkisson said that he targeted the church because of its liberal open-door policies, its acceptance of gays (the Unitarian Universalist church promotes progressive social causes including advocacy of women and gay rights) and that he fully expected to keep shooting until responding officers killed him. Found in Adkisson's home during a police search were titles by a host of right-wing radio "shock jocks:" Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by talk show host Sean Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly. Adkisson also cited radio personality Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America." The book takes aim at

"liberals [who are] snooty, snobby know-it-alls, who have gotten angrier and angrier in recent years and who think they're not only smarter, but also better, than everyone else, especially everyone else who lives in a 'red state' - a population they see as hopelessly dumb and pathetically religious"

Writing in the right-wing website NewsMax.com, right-wing activist Neal Bootz questions,

"Why do leftist hate talk radio so? Because they're so damned bad at it, that's why. There is not one successful, money-making, listened-to talk radio show in the entire nation that is hosted by a leftist. Not one. I've gone into the reasons for the leftist failure at talk radio before - and I'm not here to completely rehash that question now. Suffice it to say that leftists wilt in the face of fact and logic ... and talk radio callers kill them with it." Well, if you're a talk radio fan you need to know just how the left intends to destroy their nemesis. They can't succeed in the talk radio arena, so it must be destroyed. Basically, they have two game plans. Plan A is to use the regulatory police power of government to harass talk radio into submission. Plan B is to attack on the basis of political correctness."

Reading Rory O'Connor's "Shock Jocks, Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America's Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives" has been an education. While the amount of damage done by this sad squadron of hate- and fear-mongers is considerable (being very good at their jobs, having poisoned public debate in this country and probably driven more than a lone, deranged gunman to acts of violence), it seems as though Americans are ready to emerge from a period in their country's life characterized by intolerance and inferiority. I heartily recommend Mr. O'Connor's book to anyone interested in the impact of the mass media on civil society and to the forms and uses of propaganda in setting the parameters of public discourse.

It's hard to imagine a need for this book. It covers no new ground and would conceivably be of use to someone completely unfamiliar with the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly axis and its imitators, but such a person can find more penetrating studies elsewhere. It is a comprehensive survey, albeit shallow, and thus two stars instead of one.

This is an unmitigated pile of "bleep." (CENSORED BY PROGRESSIVES) Dont't waste your time, your money, or your mental health by reading it-unless of course you buy into all of this tripe. Oh, I forgot, I am not supposed to use words like gabage, BLEEP, tripe, etc., etc. Come and get me "Brown Shirts" I am waiting.

This is the kind of book that would appeal to those who believe the Constitution is a "living" document that can periodically have its meaning and intent altered and changed. It would appeal to those who believe that principles, rightness or wrongness,(is that a word?) free speech, and morality are all relative.

And by the way who defines all of this so-called hate? And further, even if there was an unassailable way to define hate, what are any of you "progressives," read liberal and/or democrats, afraid of? Do your ears tingle and your eyes smart, your stomach churn and your brow flush when someone is exercising their First Amendmant right of free speech or living a conservative life? Do you have the right to live in a world were the H word is never mentioned or repeated or where never a hushed epithet was expressed? I think not!!! And even if by some chicanery or outright bullying and intimidation you should get your Hate laws passed, what good will it do? You cannot control thoughts, actions, or pens.

And what or whom will be banned next-authors that don't tow the line? Those word smiths that violate "proper speek"? Publishers of controversy? Who will be the high priests of verbage? Shades of Orwell and Revelation!! God help this confused world.

In a nutshell it seems a case could be made that those who would enjoy this book are those that already are indulging in a form of hate. Maybe a law should be made to ban this printed hate speech!!!!!!