Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ObamaCare Script

In genuine patriotic spirit, I tuned into four AM talk shows today, but in banal conservative rhetoric, I heard the same Obamacare paranoia script from each show.  The order of memorization by repetition was:
  • Glenn Beck
  • Rush Limbaugh
  • Mark Levin
  • Janet Parshall
By the time Mark's show aired, there were odd 'deja vu' phrases coming out of the radio.  Now there's only so many news items in any given day, but this isn't CNN Headline news so I'd expect some variety.  Instead, each show spent an hour repeating the previous show's sound bites.  The most repeated stereotype was:
  1. Obamacare kills with death panels
  2. Obamacare penalizes providers
  3. Obamacare drives out private insurers
The problem with hearing the same thing for four hours by four different sources is it a) gets boring and b) becomes conspicuous.  I started wondering if News Corp owned every radio station that broadcasts talk radio on AM channels from WV to IL.  That seemed unlikely but the conspicuous repitition made the shows sound like the very kind of State Media that Limbaugh claims NPR spouts out. 

By the fourth hour, I had gotten tired of being treated like a listener with amnesia, switched to music, and hoped on a plane.  I decided to finally read last Friday's copy of the Wall Street Journal that the Hyatt had slipped under my door, and in the Opinion section I started reading the very sound bites that all these shows had airedle.  That article was quoting the same sound bites that all four shows had aired today and the same talking points about single-payer but it was doing it via a paper that had been printed three days before the shows aired.  It was like reading a script for each of these shows.

The article was Obama and Permanent Campaign, by Karl Rove.  Please, Republicans; be more original.  Originality is memorable too.  And Rove's political strategies lost your majority.


Aug. 21st, 2009 08:53 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
One tall-tell sign of someone thinking less of your thinking is their prefacing excuse from condescension.

Since you believe this "ilk" read from a script ... well, that may just mean that you aren't observant. Beliefs are fickle like that. So is watching a medium, in this case mass media, accuse the object of loathe with the same beliefs as you ascribe to them. So Jon Stewart in your case. It's simplest (and obvious) to say that a critical observer who watches the Daily Show or the Oreilly Factor always doubts the claims made. aka. don't necessarily believe everything on TV -- even from "newscasters" who generally have a similar belief system as your own.

I'm one of those individualistic idiots who likes to see the evidence for himself and make his own conclusions. I can assume that you, however, believe everything that Jon implies, and that's a rather conformist position to be in.
Aug. 21st, 2009 10:01 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
Hey now. I didn't accuse you of anything of the sort. If you're having a bad day I get it, but I haven't said anything condescending. I said that you're observant and that I was therefore surprised that you hadn't noticed something. It was by way of an introduction to the topic, I didn't say you're an imbecile.
And I can't really "believe" in the Daily Show. Any more than I "believe" in Saturday Night Live. Both make fun of everyone, so it would be difficult to find an overarching political sentiment, since they're satirists not pundits.
My key point was that you have said in the past that your awareness of popular culture is recent and not, as it was for most of us, something you've been practicing from childhood. You therefore may not have known that O'Reilly was on "A Current Affair" or that Limbaugh was a shock-jock DJ in the 80s. Thus, you may not have had that information to determine their relative bias and likelihood of presenting information as-is and without an eye towards their commercial success.
I'm not assuming anything about their character. I'm working from their past performances. I take umbridge to the idea that I am somehow not processing your truth and are instead mocking reality out of some left wing knee-jerk reaction. I said nothing that was an implication of a bad act, I stated facts. Frankly, to say that someone who's on Fox News is somehow incapable of being part of Big Corp. Media is a *belief*. So I'm not the one holding fast to a contradictory assertion in the face of direct evidence.
I like to think that our previous interactions and my journal taken in total demonstrate that I have very few sacred cows, that I am not in the habit of mocking you, and that I gather my information from a variety of sources to determine their validity for myself. Which is exactly why I know what I know of the "ilk" we're discussing. News never exists in a vacuum, there's always a bias, even with an eye-witness. I don't "loathe" any of these guys, I simply would prefer to not receive my news from people who have destroyed their credibility so frequently in the past as this "ilk" has.
If you felt insulted, that was not my intention. I was aiming, perhaps, for playful. There are no snakes in this jar, just a few ideas. If this is a touchy subject for you then I am truly curious why.
Aug. 21st, 2009 10:08 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
And that should be umbrage, not umbridge. Damn Harry Potter.