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. 25th, 2009 05:38 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
This is called reverse psychology. I'm not mad, so why do you infer that? If person A claims person B is insulted, then person B claims that person A inferred the insult, and around and around we go in a perennial problem well known in psychology (and arguments). I can only say that the toe being stepped on was an inference that I don't talk to Republicans but only talk *about* Republicans. THAT's disingenuous. The actual statements evidently need clarification.

"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. . . "

This is me clearly doubting an assumption based on no evidence. Just because someone admits their bias doesn't mean that, whatever their conclusion, it is invalid. This really presses people to be dishonest or at least censor their words. The irony (of injustice) is that you appealed to the same reality although specific to newcasters: "News never exists in a vacuum, there's always a bias, even with an eye-witness." Newscasters are just a subset of humans. I think we'd agree that we should confront and be honest about these biases, but I'm saying that people who admit them shouldn't be arrested for thought-crime.

Please, Republicans; be more original."

Are you disputing that Rove was the political strategist in the Bush administration? Or that the radio shows weren't using Rove's talking points?

"The point was to challenge beliefs. it's really just an exercise in openness. The reason I have a copy of Ann Coulter is, as a friend of mine once called it, to avoid "cognitive atrophy".

This was taken as causal when it's meant as a correlation. I'm saying exposure to opposing views stimulates dialog and compromise. Is sounds like it was mistaken as me saying reading Coulter *causes* open mindedness, which is absurd. I'd never relate cognitive and social abilities directly to a book list.

"Coulter and media darlings isn't the point. The point was understanding who listens to them in a kind of political yin-yang."

This is my failed attempt to express the former.

"I've no interest debating what Limbaugh says but was only interested in where his sources came from and why people believe him."

There are two parts to this and it's probably the root of the misunderstanding. I'm claiming an "interest" in a) conservative talk radio all having the same script and b) conservatives basing their anti-healthcare arguments on the same script. Note again there's no causality. The claim wasn't made that all Republicans believe everything Limbaugh says. I'd have had to insert a few more universal quantifiers to even come near that conclusion.

So I've clarified what I was saying with the quotes you cite as grounds for some baseless conclusions about conservatives. I find this just as insulting as answering your question:

"But since he was probably high as a kite on illegally obtained vicadin at the time, do you really want to count yourself in his camp?"

with "You think I count myself in his camp??"

This kind of rhetoric can easily become literal and confusing. I could have misunderstood your question (and I hope that I did not). The beginning of your first reply was an admission to confusion, and I always find the source of those to be both the writers' and readers'. For example, you claimed "I can't really "believe" in the Daily Show." This raised a fundamentally philosophic disagreement from the get-go between us. You could call on that "suspension of belief" concept but doing say makes your arguments inconsistent. Earlier you gave testimony from Jon,

"The Daily Show did a video montage ... But none of this is new, even the Daily Show treats it like a regular feature rather than a one-off 'hey isn't that weird' sort of thing."