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 05:39 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
So do you disbelieve the video montage? That montage, if it's the same one I saw, would have to be believed in order for the conclusion to be justified:

"They ARE Big Corp Media,"

I guess you could play around with language and say the Daily Show isn't "believed" but their video montage is "believed" but I consider them the same, aka. it's a trusted source giving verifiable testimony, where trust and verify are based on belief. It seems some of this belief spilled over to personal sources of information, because for some reason you come to your own defense:

"I gather my information from a variety of sources to determine their validity for myself."

The insult here is that this is the very thing I had done in the OP! Are you saying that I should have talked to a bunch of conservatives and then determined where the source of talk radio came from? Perhaps their audience would recall all the sources but the OP was about a relationship between a random sampling of talk radio and newspaper. It wasn't an experiment and isn't making any claim about listeners. Maybe that's the part I need to emphasize. The OP was about the relationship between the radio hosts and their sources for talking points.

And I'm going to be belligerent about the OP's intent. Were you right about my cultural naivety? Sure; point well taken. As for the rest, you can read into those original words whatever the hell you want, but I was its author.

"Your justification was understanding, my statement was that it's impossible to understand the audience by understanding the speaker."

This was not a conclusion. If you're claiming, "The point was understanding who listens to [conservative talk radio]" is the origin of that conclusion, then it's wrong. Understanding who listens to [talk radio] makes no claims about a) what listeners believe or b) all Republicans listen to conservative talk radio. YOU have inferred those baseless conclusions!

"you accused me of being blind for thinking O'Reilly is disingenuous,"

Where the hell did I say that?! If it's this one -- "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" -- then that was meant as a friendly "you and I are these critical observers". Instead you mistook it as an insult. This is why I think language cannot fully convey what we mean, but I didn't mean what you read. Whose responsible for clarifying? If the reader blames the writer and the writer blames the reader, then we're spinning wheels. I can only clarify what I meant, and I've tried to do that in every response.

To invoke relativity again, what I meant was that the particle and the observer are both affecting each other, and therefore there's no objective way of knowing everything about their interaction. Same for this interaction; hence the misunderstandings.
Aug. 25th, 2009 10:51 pm (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
The quotes are all there, from your own posts. Yeah, I didn't author them, I knew that. This is bordering on sophomoric, you're choosing to make it my fault that you can't say what you mean. If you weren't talking about the listeners, you shouldn't have brought them up. I've given reason for almost everything I've said, you've chosen to just deny everything you said. Cheap trick, no matter what you said it's not your fault.
And you keep beating that drum about me "believing" in the Daily Show. I gave two other examples in my OP alone for why Limbaugh and others are full of shit. And yet you keep going back to my 'Church Of The Daily Show'. It was ONE example out of THREE. You have yet to even address their previous careers or their political histories. I invoked them directly. Why do you keep taking ONE reference to The Daily Show completely out of context and ascribing to me a regard for the Daily Show that I have never been demonstrated to have? Cheap trick, I'm from another church therefore I must be wrong.
Finally, your exact words were "Since you believe this "ilk" read from a script ... well, that may just mean that you aren't observant. . . accuse the object of loathe -sic- with the same beliefs as you ascribe to them." Word for word you are stating that I loathe O'Reilly and Hanity, et al, and that my 'belief' that they're working from a script is born of a lack of observation. And yet, your OP was ABOUT how they're seeming to be working from a script. There's no way to miss-read that, you're saying I'm somehow hallucinating a pattern that isn't there even though you have seen it. Hell of a claim to make given that you knew LESS about these people and their career histories than I at the time. Again, cheap trick, I'm wrong and you're right even if we agree.
I'm not replying to this anymore, you're too wrapped up in it for whatever reason, and you're debating like someone who just needs the other guy to be wrong rather than settling on "Interesting opinion" or "Oh, I didn't know that, maybe they are working from a script like it seemed" and leaving it at that. But you didn't do that, you told me I'm blind, ignorant, loathing and a zealot of the "belief" of Daily Show. I don't know why you so desperately want me to have completely and totally misunderstood every syllable of what you wrote. And then dismissing the whole bloody mess by saying that language is fickle. If you really were meditating on this I think you need to meditate harder.
Aug. 26th, 2009 01:34 am (UTC)
Re: You didn't know?
"Why do you keep taking ONE reference to "them" completely out of context and ascribing to me a regard for the Republicans that I have never been demonstrated to have?"

"well, that may just mean that you aren't observant" was directly born from "I don't mean to say that youre not observant or anything. ... *I* always thought they were fairly obvious about doing it." and a response title "You didn't know?" That's like the preacher implying guilt, "Well it's not for me to say and you've got to ask God about that ... but *I* wouldn't do it." If you genuinely didn't mean that as the preacher would have meant it, then I apologize.

And I already apologized for the original response being on a bad day. We're human.