Originally Posted by LeroyI never said bombastic - I said content over presentation. In other words, reducing issues so that they can be discussed in relatively simplistic terms rather than the complicated issues that the are... generally speaking. And those simplistic terms tend to lend themselves to right-wing politics.
CNN's first priority is to make money (via ratings thus advertising). So the want their news to be as entertaining as possible... a Crossfire-esque show does little or nothing to really explore issues because its primary focus is to use current events to sell advertising time. To get into real explanations require time.
To use Eric Alterman's example - someone on the right MIGHT say people are poor because because they are lazy. And if you frame the conversation within a "poor = lazy" perspective, you aren't even allowed room to delve into social and economic reasons, (such as, how mobility between economic levels is extremely difficult, etc). And you won't have a real liberal or leftist debating the issues, you'll have a moderate like Carville or Colmes, who know how to make an argument entertaining....
It's all about how the conversation is framed -its more entertaining to argue about "poor = lazy" than it is to discuss economic theory, even though the latter is more of a reality.
That's why a real academic conservative, like William F. Buckley, has never been on Fox or MSNBC. Here's a guy who is obviously intellegent, but does not work in the 30 second sound bite format. It takes time to argue with him because he knows his stuff and can make some pretty strong arguments.... and that's not entertaining enough for commercial television.
And yes, I have listened to Limbaugh extensively, and his intelligence is evident in his use of radio and his in use of rhetoric, not in his ability to dissect political issues.
You know, I saw WFB on Fox News a couple weeks ago, on the largely useless Hannity and Colmes program. I love WFB, but you are very correct when you say he isn't suited to the TV format. Not now, anyway, at his advanced age, God bless 'im.
Anyway, and I mean this sincerely, what is your definition of liberal? Last time I watched Crossfire, they were discussing tax cuts. Carville, in that reedy voice of his, was appealing to the audience: "They wanna give money to me! TO ME! Ha! I don't need it!" etc. To me, that was a very simple left-wing argument. Not a complicated handling of the issue of taxes at all, but a tactic to make the audience agree with him. I don't think this is unique to any wing of American politics, though.
But, if Carville is a moderate... well, I just don't have your frame of reference here.
Originally Posted by asteroidboy(Insert Screed Here)
If you're going to flame me like that, please confine it to a PM. You've accused me of racism twice now in this thread, and are beginning to attribute beliefs to me that I clearly do not hold. I reply here only to keep the record straight, lest my silence be confused for acquiesence. Once more: I do not hate black people.
"May God bless our country and all who defend her."
Actually, now that you mention it, I think a war criminal is several stages worse than a racist. That's putting a guy on the level of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milosevic. Same level? No. Same category? Yeah.