Who's more dangerous? Fundy Religious Preachers or Hate Radio-show hosts?

[mtnsnake]

I'm really not sure who's the more dangerous of these two groups of preachers, but for now my vote goes to the hate-mongering slobs that pollute the radio airwaves all over the planet with their non-stop venom. I could never understand how they're allowed to spew the nonsense they do and get away with it for so many years. At least we now have an answer, thank goodness, in Air America...and now it's just a matter of time before we catch up in the propaganda airwaves department by spewing the truth as a good alternative.

OTOH, how do you counter the Religious Fanatical Right, though, without always coming off as looking anti-religion & alienating half the country? Are these "preachers" just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than hate radio talk-show hosts because of this reason? It's almost like they're untouchable.

(edited in thread title for clarity)

[etherealtruth]

1. I can't vote...

I think of them all as one big scary evil blob.

[Mabus]

2. They are, but...

I think the radio reaches more people and the constant mantra of it has infested (what is left of) their brains.

[etherealtruth]

3. Who is listening...

is it the right wing fundies?
Those are the only ones I've evr encountered who listen ... but I understand that's probably anecdotal.

[Mabus]

6. I've driven through the vast land mass of the bewildered

and the AM stations were the ones with the best reception. They were also filled with Hate Radio shows like Limbaugh, Savage, etc. Halfway through North Dakota, while I was flipping through the channels trying to find anything that wasn't country or talk, I was reminded of when I lived near Hutchinson, Kansas and worked on a farm. The cab of the tractor had a radio but the only stations I could pick up were the Paul Harvey stations.

What I thought then, and the reason I voted for the radioheads today, was because RWradio is honing in a base that believes itself to be moral more than religious. When I lived near Hutchinson there were a lot of farmers who identified themselves as Christian but not necessarily religious. What the talkingheads do is to use language that appeals to the moral everyday Christian guy but also plays very well on the fundies' veiwpoint. They kill two birds with one stone.

A lot of people in the midwest listen to what's available and the constant drumbeat sets in. Plus, the talk radio stations are more likely (at least in my area) to be sports in the morning, followed by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. and then sports. The message becomes part of their day. I know one of my brothers became a dittohead during the 90's because he was on the road a lot, he listened to sports radio and it usually lead into talk radio. Rather than lose a station, he'd keep it on and was slowly brainwashed. He's back to (what passes as) normal (for him).

BTW, during the late 80's, when I was driving through Wyoming about 2-3 in the morning, I figured out why so many people believed in a god. It was because the only stations I could pick up were the religious ones. It was a miracle. :crazy: In the middle of nowhere I got a fire and brimstone sermon that helped keep me awake to my final stop.

[etherealtruth]

8. You made me think ...

... this is why i come to the DU. i believe you are right. Thanks

[Mabus]

11. Same here.

I came to talk with others and learn. I don't know. My evidence is just as antecdotal as yours. Believe me, I've given it a lot of thought as I am surrounded by a GOP stronghold. I've just noticed time and time again that guys I've talked to who listen to sports radio also tend to listen to Limbaugh. This seems mostly because they don't like a lot of the music that's being played so they turn on sports radio which is something they care about. Locally they will listen to the radio for news on the KC Chiefs, the KC Royals or the Jayhawks. Once the "local" sports is done they switch to or wait for Rush and O'Reilly time. Sure, some of them laugh about what is said but they also get a lot of their views from there. Remember, first impressions are important and if they hear about political news from the idiots first it is what they are more likely to remember. In the end, I can talk sports with them but I don't like talking politics. I've only run into a handful of other liberals who are as addicted to sports as I am. I've missed political meetings, lectures and events because it interfered with Jayhawk basketball.

[mtnsnake]

12. Mabus, I'm interested in the same things when it comes to that

That is, I find it interesting to try and figure out what makes people tick when it comes to our friends and acquaintances...re: the people you know who listen to talk radio and why. Your analogy with sports and hate radio got me thinking.

I've got this one friend who makes his living in coaching sports. He also loves Rush Limbaugh and Bush. He's on the road all the time, driving all over, so he does have to spend tons of time listening to the radio. Funny thing is, he has no interest in listening to sports or sports shows, so he basically only listens to talk radio. Interestingly, he's a Canadian working in this country and as much as he praises our government here, he bashes the hell out of his own country (for being too liberal, of course). Having a political discussion is all but futile with him because he's a poor listener and always interrupts, so whenever we get "arguing", I always end up telling him, "Thank goodness your're not a US citizen, so you can't vote here."

It's funny how people like this can lend their ear to someone like Limbaugh for hours on end, but do you ever notice what poor listeners these same people are when it comes to listening to what someone else has to say with whom they are conversing with one on one? You can't get two words out of your mouth before they cut in.

[Mabus]

17. Which makes sense

because the GOP and a lot of its supporters act like we're playing a game. The "our team is better than your team" or "us against them" themes have served them well. Even my converted dittohead brother still tends to talk in terms of sports analogies when we talk politics. Even the media uses sports themed-talk when addressing politics. "It's a horse race," "coming to the last stretch," "its neck and neck," etc. I remember seasons sitting at Allen Fieldhouse watching my beloved Hawks when there were plenty of seats. When Larry Brown became coach and the basketball team started winning the fieldhouse became packed. Why? Because people like "winners" and the more teams win the more vocal and obnoxious their fans become. So, for me, it is so disheartening to hear news personalities (not reporters) say things like the Republicans have a handle on this issue or they are showing strong leadership while ignoring what the Democrats say and only casting Dems as weak. Why go for the weak team (or the underdogs) when you can go with the (election-tainted, gerrimandered) winners? Despite the great sports quote "Its not how you win or lose, it's how you play the game that matters," the media wants clear winners, they don't care about the issues.

Why was the media allowed to portray Wellstone's funeral as a "political rally" and not a tribute like it actually was. otoh, this past month they turned Terri Schiavo into a series of republican "political rallies" and not call them on it? We should have jumped up then, pushed for the pundits like Tucker Carlson to eat his words. It's like when Tucker said he'd eat his shoe if Hill's book sold over a million copies. What happened? She and Paul Begala let him off the hook by bringing him a shoe shaped cake. If it had been a Democrat that had made the same vow the RW media would have been all over it. We've let them skate too long. The GOP is always spouting off about accountability and we need to give it to them in spades.

Here's to DeLay being exposed (in spite of the media). :toast:

I don't know though. I'm still learning and ranting. Someday maybe one of us will come up with an answer.

[mtnsnake]

7. Nope, it's not just the right wing fundies who are listening to hate radio

At least not with the ones who I know listen to it. In fact, most of the idiots who I know that listen to hate radio couldn't care less about church or religion, let alone fundamentalist religion.

You bring up some good food for thought, though. I wonder how many right wing fundies subscribe to hate radio and I also wonder about the vice versa....that is, I wonder how many hate radio listeners subscribe to the followings of the fundamentalist preachers. I wouldn't be surprised if for the most part they are two separate groups of people, and not so much intertwined as some people think.

[Selatius]

4. Where are the corporatists who put money before people first?

It is these guys, the guys who operate in the shadows, who are fronting the money for these think tanks and peddling influence with politicians. Limbaugh is a tool who is used to drive a wedge into the populace over gay marriage and abortion, while they attempt to destroy everything in their way in the pursuit of more power and more profit. It is concentrated power they want both economic and political. Their hunger for it is endless.

[bryant69]

5. I think its the Talk Radio hadns down

But I also think that both feed off each other. It's impossible to know for sure, but I don't know how poisenous the religious right would be if they weren't feeding of a daily diet of radio hosts telling them how persucuted they are and how hateful liberals are.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Fla Dem]

9. RW Talk Radio on message, on point 24/7...only show n town.

Only get 2 news talk stations in NE Fla area where I live. Both carry Limpbrain, thenone does Hannity and the other savage. Thin more than the hard line RWers listen, as they are the only stations that carry national/local news and weather. They reduce all issues to lowest common denominator so even moderates agree.

[Mabus]

10. Countering the religious fanatics

I think you're off to a good start when you start referring to people like Dobson as the "radical religious fanatics." We need to really use the language and not let them frame the issues. As you can probably tell I've been reading Lakoff and I'm converted. Language is very powerful.

The right decided to frame Terri Schiavo as the "Culture of Life," but it was all about the right to die with dignity. When they framed it as a "Culture of Life" it is hard to be anti-"Culture of Life" and argue effectively. Fortunately, it appears the majority of Americans saw it totally different, most Americans saw it as a personal decision and became resentful of government intervention. They did the same thing with the Iraqi invasion. Instead of calling it what it is, a cluster-f**k or boondoggle, they right framed it as part of the war on terrorism and the sheeple bought it. They bought it because the American public is so ignorant of what is going on in the world.

What we need to do is to frame issues so that to be against them sounds bad. To do this, we need leaders who are willing to take stands and be firm about them. It's a war of words.

[mtnsnake]

13. My biggest pet peeve is that our Democratic spokesmen

are way behind the times when it comes to framing issues in our favor and not theirs.

We need to make a list, go down it one by one, and make every issue that's currently perceived as a negative into one that's a positive, just by wording it differently. All it does it take the right rhetoric, or "framing" as you say. Too many times our leaders are so intellectual that they forget that not everyone else is just like they are. Things need to be simplified and meanings need to be changed around so that even the simple-minded in this country can understand.

[Mabus]

15. How true

I get so frustrated sometimes. Last year I was talking to my congressman at one of the NAACP's Juneteenth events. The conversation got around to voting and then the 2000 election. I mentioned Palast and he said "who?" Turns out he didn't know about felon scrubbing in Florida. I about cried. Sometimes it seems they get so caught up in what the pundits are saying that they've lost touch with reality.

I really recommend Lakoff, the government's "media propaganda" materials and consortiumnews.com's "Perception Management" articles. They've really opened my eyes. I use Lakoff as my "I Ching." I read a few passages everyday and then watch television and read the papers to see how it is being used. It is very weird sometimes but I still make those calls to CNN to complain about the language used in their "stories" and news events. I was calling everyday last fall complaining about the spin "will this HELP Bush" or "will this HURT Kerry" they used on stories. I told them that the constant repetition of the words "help" and "Bush" in the same sentences were creating a positive image. While, using negative words like "hurt" and "Kerry" in the same sentences promoted a negative image. Why? because positive words were used in describing Bush more often then when talking about Kerry. I didn't think it was fair and I let them know.

I agree this needs to be a part of our dialogue if we are going to make any inroads with the average Joe in America.

[Mabus]

19. Let's start with "Democratic Blue"

On the old "Star Trek" you were definitely marked for death if you were wearing red or were a minority. Interestingly enough, that was at a time when "red" was assoicated with the Democratic party and not the Republican party.

According to the following the paradigm shift of "red" and "blue" happened in 2000. We need to capitalize on our assigned color "blue" and use to remind people that it was the color of the American patriots as opposed to the treasonous red coats. "Democratic Blue" = patriotic (freedom fighters) :patriot: while "Republican Red" is like the fires of hell :evilfrown: . How's that for a start.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=415905

"We refer to the red states and the blue states so regularly now that the association seems long established. But only the 2000 presidential election established the linkage of blue with Democrats and red with Republicans. In earlier years, the television networks and magazine maps had reversed the association. In 1984 rival networks associated red with Democrats and blue with Republicans. The Reagan sweep of that year was called 'Lake Reagan' in one context.

In many ways the link goes against tradition. Red has long stood for the left and one has to suspect that the first usage of it to represent Republicans was inspired by an effort to seem non prejudicial.

The end of the cold war made red baiting and pinko artifacts of a time past; the critical mark of the change may have come when the old red baiter, Richard Nixon, visited 'Red' China.

On the other hand, blue was the color of the Union army uniforms, by contrast to gray, and has a historical link to the party of Lincoln. But in the Revolutionary war blue was the color of the Continental army uniform: red that of the British, of course."

[derby378]

23. Did someone say "Culture of Life?"

I got a bumper sticker you might want to buy...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3969238247

Enjoy!

[Mabus]

29. While that bumpersticker is true

Lakoff makes a good argument for framing the issues/dialogue in a positive manner because it is more effective. For example, BushCo proposed the "Clean Air Initiative," knowing that critics of it would paint them as anti-clean air.

The term "Culture of Life" is their way of combatting the "Dying with Dignity" framework. I mean, who doesn't want to die with dignity? So, instead of attacking the "Dying with Dignity" they've changed the frame of the overall argument. That way they could start using disabled people, people who weren't in a PVS and recovered from comas and basically perverted their message/theme/framework with lies. What we need to do is combat them but not using their words and terms but coming up with our own.

The right has effectively used the terms "family," "values," etc. We need to reach the masses by concentrating on using that same ideology and frame it our way to get our message out. Instead of "Culture of Life" how using an overall framework about "Preserving Families." From that we can emphasize the value of acting locally and independent of overreaching government mandates. A good concentration on the image of the family (whether it is a hetro, divorced, gay or lesbian) gives most people the impression that we want to strengthen families.

Am I making sense?

[Fleshdancer]

14. It comes down to the supporters.

I think the religious fanatical right is more dangerous because the followers seem to commit more acts of domestic terror than the idiots sitting around listening to sexual harassers and drug users posing as legitimate political commentators.

freepers like to threaten people like Michael Shiavo or maybe protest an abortion clinic, but its the fanatics who seem to do more of the home made bombs through clinic windows or murdering doctors, etc. It saddens me to think of the horrors people have done and will do in the name of god or allah. You can't really say that as much when it comes to political differences...unless you count pie throwing.

[ltfranklin]

16. In all practical aspects...

I'm not entirely sure there's much difference between the two in most cases...heck, these days, many fundy religious preachers have their own radio shows as well. And the talk show hosts are preaching at fundy prayer meetings.

[Johonny]

18. Are these two

now sort of merging into one. The hate media has since the election come full out and covered itself in the right wing religous groups. They're talking points are now a single voice (not they were ever far off).

[Mabus]

20. The fundies jumped on the political band wagon with Pat Robertson

He got the list of fundies when he was doing his moral majority crusade. He gave the list to the GOP for fundraising. I'd say they've been in bed (and committing incest) for years now. It is just because of the internet that we are more aware of it now.

[Johonny]

21. Not only the internet

but the last election. The election results were spun as a sign of the power of the "moral" voters. (even though the polls I saw showed Iraqi war and terrorist the number 1 vote getter). Since the election the moral crusaders have been out and in the open more than ever on hate TV. The hate radio has also been quick to come out front with their backing. The spin of the last election has allowed the curtain to come down, and it's actually helped liberals IMO.

[solinvictus]

22. Radio, and here's why..

I've noticed a trend over the past 12-13 years since the popularity of Rush began to spike. People listen to opinion-driven radio programs and refer to them as "news". I've heard people refer to Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others as news programs, meaning they believed they were receiving information, not entertainment, from listening. Keep in mind, I'm a former Rushbot and used to listen almost daily from about 1990-93, but I never remotely considered his views to be unbiased. Rush's ceaseless vitriol over the Clintons lost me.

I consider neo-con talk radio a greater threat because of the zombie-like mentality of its listening audience. If Rush, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, and others continually heap slander upon us, I fear the shooting may start. According to them, we are evil, we hate America and our soldiers, we work daily for the collapse of Western Civilization, we despise religion and want to impose a Soviet style of rule on America, and we corrupt the youth with our viewpoints in academia. At some point, I fear there will be a catalyst that turns this cold civil war into a hot one and the Freepers will attempt their inquisition. The hard right seems to believe that we're all tatooed Birkenstock clad hippy pacifists with multiple piercings. They believe we won't fight back if necessary. They are mistaken.

[seabeyond]

24. that is a tough one, but i voted mouth pieces because

they are conditioning the average joe, like my father and brother. the fundies are a much smaller number than what we believe. they yell so loud, we feel like there are many, but there are not. where as the mouths go out the airwaves and lies, lies so dems cant get message out, create them in something they are not, and lie about what the people are buying into. and so many watch their show.

they create such an atmosphere there cannot be reasoned conversation

[seabeyond]

25. that is a tough one, but i voted mouth pieces because

they are conditioning the average joe, like my father and brother. the fundies are a much smaller number than what we believe. they yell so loud, we feel like there are many, but there are not. where as the mouths go out the airwaves and lies, lies so dems cant get message out, create them in something they are not, and lie about what the people are buying into. and so many watch their show.

they create such an atmosphere there cannot be reasoned conversation

[MiniMe]

26. Unfortunately, the talking idiots (talk show hosts) are the only

Unfortunately, the talking idiots (talk show hosts) are the only place some of these right wing fundies get their information from.

[More Than A Feeling]

27. Can we get a "both mangled and killed" option here?

I don't listen to either.

[entanglement]

28. Hate radio talk-hosts

Their 'hate-space' is much bigger. People of Color, immigrants, gays, poor people, the homeless, liberals, ... the list goes on