Believe Only the First Thing You Hear
David Kaye
inaccurate things, such as cell phones causing explosioins in gas
stations, I recommend taking the title of this piece to heart:
"Believe Only the First Thing You Hear".
Many, if not most, folks operate this way. It may be endemic to the
nature of the brain, where the earliest memory on a particular subject
takes "root" and other related ideas attach themselves to that root.
Or not. I'm not sure. It might also be that human nature is such
that we don't like to admit being wrong about something. So, if the
first thing we learned is wrong, we may be inclined to cling to it,
even in the stark contrast of real facts that prove us totally wrong.
This is likely why religion is so strong and so hard to shake, unless
the person themself has had a traumatic experience that has shaken
their belief to its roots and then uprooted the whole thing. Most
people "get religion" before they're even old enough to reason. Thus,
because religion is placed there at such an early age, we assume that
(like having arms and legs and whatnot) that it therefore MUST be
correct because it came with the kit.
Or politics. How many of us know people who vote a certain way
because their family always has?
I bring this up because I don't believe that discussion on talkradio
or in the public forum has much ability to change people's minds on
fundamental things.
Is Michael Savage going to win any of us over who don't already
believe in the things he espouses? Are Randi Rhodes or Rachel Maddow
going to get any converts?
These extremes make the KGO modus operandus appear to be even more
genius than we give it credit for: By having moderate talkshow hosts
with reasonable opinions, KGO is likely getting listeners who wouldn't
listen to the other guys.
Michael Savage has ratings, sure, but his syndicator, TRN, hasn't had
anything positive to say about his show in 1 1/2 years. I guess he's
not such a barn burner anymore. The thing about embers and flames is
that the flames burn themselves out in the short term. I'm not so
sure that he has won many converts. People may have been listening
for the same reason I have: his style.
So, does talkradio really change anything?
leansto...@democrat.com
<snip mode used>
Rachel Maddow's show is very analytical, with a bit of entertainment
tossed in. It's like a hip version of NPR I could see it converting
the great unwashed (neocons). Blind them with logic! What you don't
get from Rachel is the hard sell. Contrast that with wingnut radio,
where if you don't believe what the host believes, you are deemed a
kool-aid drinker, or told to go choke on a sausage.
Regarding religion, you left out the born-agains.
Robert Campbell
How many born-agains do have that model from deep in their upbringing? I
don't claim to know, but they may not disprove the point.
<Kelly>
> So, does talkradio really change anything?
Not if you simply view it as entertainment.
<Kelly>
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> Regarding religion, you left out the born-agains.
"The born-agains" have what to do with what, exactly?
Robert Campbell
just cling to paradigms they assimilated at an early age. And I wondered
out loud if that was so. I've heard of cultural settings in this country
where being born again was a regular rite of passage or coming of age
ceremony, or a natural reversion from a life of dissolution or "sin,"
which belongs to the same paradigm.
<Kelly>
I've never heard of any such thing - and I'm a born-again Christian.
Do you have a reference for this claim?
David Kaye
>
> Not if you simply view it as entertainment.
Unless we can use something from a talkshow to benefit our lives, it
is de facto entertainment whether we wish to admit it or not. In
other words, entertainment is any input into our senses that is not
used for the purpose of our survival.
That's my definition, anyway, and I can't see any reason to refute it
as a definition. The definition certainly turns a lot of sacred cows
on their heads, such as the importance of TV news, for example.
<Kelly>
Okay...You asked "so, does talkradio really change anything", I
answered "Not if you simply view it as entertainment" -
"entertainment" is how you, in the past, have classified talk-radio.
Ergo, I don't see how something that is entertainment can really be an
instrument of change for anything other than entertainment.
Did you miss my meaning or think I was being facetious?
Phil Keller
I don't see how something that is entertainment can really be an
> instrument of change for anything other than entertainment.
>
"Uncle Tom's Cabin"?
"The Octopus""
"The Jungle"?
Phil
<Kelly>
Was the root purpose for those works entertainment? I don't think
so. I also don't think that they were released in order to sell
diamond jewelry or Sleep Number Beds.
David Kaye
> "Uncle Tom's Cabin"?
> "The Octopus""
> "The Jungle"?
What did they change?
Phil Keller
They are all first rate entertainment.
Phil
Phil Keller
You really don't know?
Phil
David Kaye
> > What did they change?
>
> You really don't know?
>
> Phil
No, I don't. I've never heard any of them quoted in regard to any
societal change. I've heard people talk about "How to Win Friends And
Influence People", "Up the Organization", "The Peter Principle", and
the Bible cited as agents of social change, but not those.
David Kaye
> >> "The Octopus""
In fact, it's funny you should mention "The Octopus" because I'm sure
many people *think* it changed the way government dealt with
monopolies, but the SP remained an extremely powerful force in
California for decades later -- in fact even until today. The land
the new UCSF biotech campus is built upon is Catellus property.
Catellus is the more recent name given to the SP land holding
company. That property has been in SP hands since 1860. Today it is
the largest parcel under development in the continental USA.
Now, some might say that "The Octopus" led to the break-up of the
Standard Oil Trust, but that wasn't necessarily such a good thing.
John D. Rockefeller made most of his money *after* the breakup than
before, because he continued to hold big shares in all the splintered
SO companies, which became even larger than the original trust
itself.
So, I can't say I believe "The Octopus" was an agent for social
change. But it *was* an entertaining read.
Phil Keller
you were a talk show host up north, but I am not going to waste my time
knocking down your endless supply of straw men.
You begin with "many people think" and add an easily disputed point you
have manufactured and display your "brilliance" by refuting your own
proposition. Lastly a little tidbit of information which seems to have
something to do with the subject but does not.
Who are the "some who say"? It is you David.
What you often do is a vastly more sophisticated version of what Chuckie
does. You are not on the radio any more, you are no longer a high school
debater. Write me when you want to exchange ideas. Kill file me if you
just want to start an argument.
Phil