Whose talk show hosts are crazier? Who knows?

Dave Kopel's column on Randi Rhodes certainly makes her sound like a charter member of the tinfoil hat brigade:

The Air America network, which provides much of the programming on KKZN-AM (760) ended its relationship last week with hostess Randi Rhodes. Rhodes had recently been suspended from Air America for her humor presentation at a San Francisco nightclub, in which she called Hillary Clinton a "big f---ing whore" and Geraldine Ferraro "David Duke in drag" and "a f---ing whore." Such wit!

But no sooner had Air America dumped her than Clear Channel hired her. So Rhodes is now back on 760, in the 1-4 p.m. weekday slot. Clear Channel's decision is not entirely consistent with the theory that Clear Channel is dedicated to a right-wing agenda. Indeed, the fact that Clear Channel has made 760 into a "progressive" talk station, with lots of Air America programming, demonstrates what has always been obvious to the nonparanoid: Clear Channel's objective is to make money, and Clear Channel will do so with whatever mix of programming and hosts will bring in the largest audiences, and hence the largest advertising revenue.

It is unfortunate, though, that Rhodes is back on the local airwaves. She caters to hatred and nutty conspiratorialists. For example, a promotion for her show claimed "The difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected." After the 2004 election, she spent lots of time trying to promote her theory that John Kerry had actually won in Ohio.

Last October, Rhodes speculated that the fires in Southern California might have been deliberately set by Blackwater. The year before, she publicized a supermarket tabloid article claiming that Laura Bush had moved out of the White House because George Bush was having an affair with Condoleezza Rice. She also claimed that Israel was committing "genocide" in Lebanon.

My no-doubt-regrettable tendency when reading things like this, however, is to guess that all heavily political talk radio show hosts are crazy conspiracy theorists, and assume that Randi Rhodes probably isn't much different from her counterparts on the right.

The problem is, I have no evidence for this. And I'm not going to acquire any, because doing so would force me to actually listen to Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh for an extended period of time.

I am thus immune from, not to say monumentally disinterested in, that stock staple of political journalism: "Look what a whack job/evil bastard one of my opponents is!" The quotes have to have them advocating genocide and denying the Civil War before I am ready to believe, without further evidence, that they are especially evil. This can make the task of reading political blogs slightly wearying.

Comments

Rhodes seems to be a lunatic, but I often wonder whether or not such people are only playing to their audiences' lunacy. Rhodes may be laughing her ass off all the way to bank.

Posted by Yancey Ward | April 20, 2008 11:55 AM

I can offer testimony as to Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Hugh Hewitt. None are crazy conspiracy theorists.

Posted by Blackadder | April 20, 2008 12:06 PM

"is to guess that all heavily political talk radio show hosts are crazy conspiracy theorists"--MM

Can we get an operating, in the context of this post, definition of "conspiracy theorists"?

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 12:09 PM

This is one of those Magic Eye moments, when a bunch of little blobs of information that never made sense before come into focus, and the whole picture makes sense. All through school and long after, our government has tried to convince me that the "Civil War" happened. Much of the "evidence" consisted of pictures that were a funny color. The people in them wore uniforms different than in today's army, and lots of guys had beards. I'd also seen people in the same uniforms gathered on "battlefields" in a State park, but I never thought about it. Now I understand how the State has been lying to me all this time. My next task is to find out why.

Posted by Bambi | April 20, 2008 12:53 PM

How could I be so stupid? I just posted the truth from my own computer, with my email address appended. I've leaving right now, and I'll never return here or see my family again, but they'll probably find me anyway. I just had to warn the rest of you not to make the same mistake.

Megan, if I were you I'd leave now.

Posted by Bambi | April 20, 2008 12:57 PM

Randi Rhodes and Rush limbaugh are both talk show hosts; Jeremiah Wright and Pope Benedict XVI are both preachers. The comparisons are equally inapt and inept.

Posted by Ed Reid | April 20, 2008 1:09 PM

Kopels very first sentence was inaccurate.

Most of the stations programming is either local (2 hosts - 7 total hrs per weekday), or from other syndicators (Randi, Ed Schultz, Bill Press).

I'm no big fan of Randi. My impression is that you are right - she is no more "out there" than most Right Wing hosts.

Also there is plenty of evidence of wide scale voter disenfranchisement in Ohio in 2004.

Kopel is affiliated with the "libertarian" "Independence Institute" ... not exactly an objective or reputable source of information.

Posted by Rich | April 20, 2008 1:28 PM

"My no-doubt-regrettable tendency when reading things like this, however, is to...assume that Randi Rhodes probably isn't much different from her counterparts on the right."

That's true only in a tautological sense--i.e., if you define "her counterparts on the right" to be the (proper) subset of right-wing talk show hosts who are crazy conspiracy theorists. They do exist, but they're not representative of nationally syndicated right-wing talk shows like Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, and O'Reilly (who is not nearly as far to the right as he's reputed to be).

Michael Savage and Mark Levin are pretty bad (a blessing in disguise, since the decisions by KVI and KTTH to air them in the 18:00-21:00 slot drove me over to KIRO, leading to my discovery of the apolitical and immensely entertaining TBTL), but I think they're more loudmouthed jerks than conspiracy theorists.

Not every left-wing show is like Rhodes' show*, though. For example, Dave Ross in Seattle has always struck me as fairly reasonable. But the left-wing shows do seem to be more out there on average than the right-wing ones. This could just be a function of the fact that there's a Republican in the White House, but since there wasn't much in the way of left-wing talk radio during the Clinton administration, we don't have any historical data to test that hypothesis.

*As described above--I only have about twenty minutes of first-hand exposure to her show.

Posted by Brandon Berg | April 20, 2008 1:30 PM

Yeah, Jeremiah Wright was never a Nazi.

Posted by dearieme | April 20, 2008 1:31 PM

Though, to be fair, I think that the Nazi jibe at the present Pope falls into the category of "accurate but untrue".

Posted by dearieme | April 20, 2008 1:34 PM

The party not in power is the crazy one. The party in power is the evil one. Disempowerment causes insanity, power corrupts.

Posted by secret asian man | April 20, 2008 1:35 PM

I think that there are essentially two types of radio talk show hosts: the paranoid and the well-read (some can be both). Hosting a talk show cannot be easy if you only want to discuss real issues: it must take a lot of time to read up on them: for every hour on the air, you must need to dedicate a few hours to reading newspapers, blogs, position papers, etc. However, if you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist, you can spout all kinds of nonsense, without having to necessarily back up your assertions with facts.

If you are not a conspiracy theorist, and you aren't well read, how the heck are you going to do a talk show?

Posted by GMR | April 20, 2008 2:26 PM

I've spent the last week engaged in a running argument with a guy who claims to be a liberal talk-show host. His rhetoric and utter lack of facts are almost indistinguishable from the rhetoric and utter lack of facts of right-wing talk show hosts. If this exchange is in any way representative of other talk show hosts (and I suspect it is), then you can't simply explain the hysteria of left and right-wing talk radio by just chalking it up to a drive for ratings.

I would tend to agree with GMR's assessment: talk show hosts are either paranoid or well-read. Unfortunately, it seems like the paranoid are the predominant.

FWIW, the exchange I'm referring to is here:

http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-is-what-makes-me-laugh.html

You'll see that the guy's entire point is to convince me that libertarianism is responsible for all the evil in the world. As evidence for this, he attacks a caricature of libertarianism that has no basis in anything resembling libertarianism. Let's just say that he wouldn't pass for "well-read" under any circumstance.

Posted by Mark | April 20, 2008 2:50 PM

Why would we be expecting credibility from 'talk show hosts' when we don't expect/demand it from our other forms of Media??

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 4:23 PM

In the 90's, right wing radio hosts accused the Clintons of everything including murder, working for the USSR, and drug trafficking. Just a reminder to those in this thread saying Limbaugh and others shouldn't be insulted with being compared with Rhodes.

Posted by mad6798j | April 20, 2008 4:27 PM

Via: New York Times:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 4:43 PM

The Right Wing's talk show hosts are crazier. Next question.

Posted by ed | April 20, 2008 7:14 PM

Thanks for your analysis, ed.

Posted by Occam's Beard | April 20, 2008 8:16 PM

No problem OB. Megan seemed stumped and asked, so I figured I'd help her out since I knew the answer.

Do the questions get harder as we go along?

Posted by ed | April 20, 2008 9:29 PM

Megan,

Randi Rhodes is not insane. She makes very salient points sometimes. I believe some of my friend David Kopel's citations of her were instances where she was trying to be funny; they just came across as crazy ravings.

Her problem is that she's abrasive and impatient. Even to callers who agree with her, she'll jump on them for differences in semantics. I remember the time she had Ralph Nader on - Nader, very politely, told her exactly what was wrong with her interviewing style - and the conversation ended abruptly.

Posted by Tom Walls | April 20, 2008 11:16 PM

Ed,

No, they don't get more difficult, but you are expected to show your work.

Posted by heedless | April 20, 2008 11:31 PM

They do exist, but they're not representative of nationally syndicated right-wing talk shows like Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, and O'Reilly

...who have all, at one time or another, spun insane conspiracy theories. As counterexamples they're not particularly helpful against MM's thesis, here.

Posted by Chet | April 21, 2008 12:37 AM

To believe that vicious hate-filled political talk radio is not fundamentally a right-wing phenomenon is to be culturally illiterate. It's like thinking that mass marches on Washington or scathing political documentaries are not fundamentally a left-wing phenomenon. You could think that, if you had never lived in America or paid any attention to what was happening in politics or the media, or if you were deciding to be deliberately obtuse.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 21, 2008 1:22 AM

To believe that vicious hate-filled political talk radio is not fundamentally a right-wing phenomenon is to be culturally illiterate.

If I may belabor the obvious a bit, one could be linguistically illiterate and still quite able to form an accurate opinion about talk radio - of whatever political persuasion. After all, one doesn't have to be able to read to listen to talk radio, one merely has to be able to understand what is being said.

Having listened to left-wing talk radio occasionally, though infrequently, I must say that, if wacky conspiracy-mongering is a staple of the form, I must have been fortunate enough to tune in on off days. Left-wing talk radio is, in my admittedly limited exposure to same, fairly dreary stuff, but it's staple coin seems, to me, to be witless ad hominem insults rather than raving paranoia. YMMV.

As to "hate," on left-wing talk radio, I get the impression that left-wing talkers probably do actually hate the objects of their considerable ire, but their communicative gifts are generally inadequate to the job of really putting full-throated hate across. They talk nasty, but the talk has the quality of kindergartners calling one another "poopy-pants" or "booger-eater." As Mark Twain memorably said of an attempt at profanity on the part of his wife, "You know the words, my dear, but you lack the music."

As to right-wing talk radio, the only host with a significant national audience I would classify as "hate-filled" is Michael Savage. He seems to be the right-wing equivalent of what the left-talkers would like, but fail, to be.

Mark Levin is more whiny/smarmy than vicious, but just about equally unlistenable.

I couldn't stand to listen to either of these guys long enough to have any informed opinion about whether or not they traffic in conspiracy theories. Perhaps they do, but it will take more than the the assertions of the likes of Brooksfoe to make a case I would buy.

O'Reilly is a self-important blowhard who I believe spent most of his life trying to become a Walter Cronkite-type news anchor/god only to find, when he seemed within striking distance of this goal, that the job had been rendered obsolete by larger forces in the culture. I think this has left him a bit bitter and snappish. But, while he is certainly overfull of himself, his general tone is one of scorn and contempt rather than hate. As for conspricy-mongering, I haven't heard any, but I listen to him almost not at all. Again, if links or cites can be provided, I'm open to persuasion on this point, but I suspect I'll wait quite a while for any such to be forthcoming.

Sean Hannity is, in my opinion, bland and watery. He's right wing, but he's so predictable as to be soporific. Hardly a hater and no conspiracy nut either. Might be more interesting if he was.

Rush Limbaugh is a sort of right-wing class clown/Snarkmaster General. Hate is not his schtick.

I listen to Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Miller fairly frequently, though I do so almost exclusively while driving, so my acquaintance with their work is considerable, but not encyclopedic. I catch maybe two or three hours a week of all of them combined. None can be remotely described as "haters."

Medved is inclined a bit toward mockery and the occasional insult.

All are openly scornful of, or wearily inured to, conspiracy-obsessed callers. Medved even has a regular feature called 'Conspiracy Day' during which he solicits such cranks preferentially and much amusement typically ensues.

To characterize the vast majority of right-wing talk radio as based on hate, one either has to not actually listen to it, and thus get all of one's alleged knowledge of the subject from fellow travelers' tales, or one must have that odd mental aperception, common on the left, that leaves its sufferers unable to distinguish disagreement from "hate." Call it a politically-linked learning disability, perhaps, analogous to colorblindness or dyslexia.

Posted by Dick Eagleson | April 21, 2008 8:06 AM

"one must have that odd mental aperception, common on the left, that leaves its sufferers unable to distinguish disagreement from "hate." "

It's hilarity like this that keeps me coming back, over and over again.

Posted by mickslam | April 21, 2008 9:15 AM

Dick Eagleson, are you the same guy who posts under the name Manly McLionheart? Or are you Brad O'Patriot? John Straighthammer? William Mightybear? Rock Fighterpilot? I always get you guys confused.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 21, 2008 11:47 AM

Ed,

No, they don't get more difficult, but you are expected to show your work.

This is like saying that I need to show my work to defend a Heliocentric Solar System. Or evolution.

But if them's the rules, so be it:

Bill O'Reilly believes that a falafel is an appropriate sex toy in a shower.

Next question.

Posted by ed | April 21, 2008 11:58 AM

I have sent a letter to the Mr. John Temple/Editor of The Rocky Mountain News regarding Mr. Kopels' damaging and erroneous column in which he is inventing facts that otherwise do not exist.

I am awaiting a response from both Mr. Kopel and Mr. Temple.

While people are certainly entitled to their opinions they are not entitled to their own FACTS.

Sincerely,
Randi Rhodes

Mr. Kopel

You have made me the subject of your most recent column. Your column is not only damaging to me but is wholly without fact even on the most basic most easily learned pieces of information.

While you have the right to your own opinions you do not have the right to your own facts.

For the record:

I have not been hired by Clear Channel.

I was not terminated because of any stand up comedy I've done.

I have been hired by Nova M Radio.

I am heard on many Clear Channel affiliates.

Clear Channel does not have a political agenda and I have happily worked for Clear Channel for the past 9 years.

The incident you attribute to my termination had nothing to do with my contract termination at Air America.

I was doing stand up in a night club in San Francisco on a Saturday night. The two sentences you attribute to me were part of a 20 minute set in which I also skewered MYSELF as well as other public figures of both parties who were in the news at that time.

Air America had an Affiliate Sales Representative IN the audience in San Francisco, who wrote me a THANK YOU NOTE post performance.

The Chairman of the Board of Air America also wrote me a THANK YOU NOTE post performance.

During the two weeks PRIOR to my San Francisco appearance, Air America had been asking me to amend my IN PLACE, IN FORCE contract. Only after 2 weeks of trying to get me to open up my contract without success did Air America decide to hold me out for public ridicule and scorn.

Air America took the position that without a contract amendment they would hold me off the air "indefinitely".

After the damaging behavior that Air America chose to engage in, they offered me more money to stay, as well as a concession that they had damaged my reputation and a willingness to pay damages to me.

Air America’s press release stated that they denounce stand up comedy that uses strong language. They have chosen to "replace" me with stand up comics who use strong language.

Air America's unwavering position both pre and post San Francisco was amend your contract. My unwavering position was NO thanks.

IN ADDITION TO THESE FACTS I WISH FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT

I do not LIE on the air.

I do not engage in conspiracy theories. .

The US Constitution does not provide for The US Supreme Court to choose our President.

Your “retelling” of MY comments regarding Lebanon where a recitation of a letter written by the former Prime Minister of Lebanon to President Bush.

The debacle of Ohio in 2004 has been widely reported. There are many books you can read on the subject or if you wish you may review the case of Moss v Bush.

It is my professional opinion that these numbers are fraudulent.
—STATISTICIAN RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS, PHD, IN REFERENCE TO OHIO’S 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE COUNT, FROM HIS DEPOSITION IN THE MOSS V. BUSH LAWSUIT, WHICH REACHED THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

I wore the country's uniform proudly and would do so again.

I work entirely too hard in service to my listeners to allow you to dismiss my tireless efforts at fact checking and my abilities as a Talk Show Host with your little pen.

What you wrote was a poorly researched ill informed SCREED rather than an opinion piece informed by facts.

You would have served your readers in a much more meaningful manner if you simply made a phone call to me and asked some basic questions surrounding my joining another Radio Company or where the quotes you take out of context actually FIT into my thousands of hours of radio shows.

Your readers should not have to read bad information in a newspaper quite so often. Leaving your reader to do your job (finding the facts) is the height of arrogance and might I say LAZINESS.

If you as a writer depend on free speech even when you are yelling at the top of your lungs things that are patently false and damaging to me then you should have a statue of me on your dashboard. I defend your right to be wrong although to think I will not defend myself would be yet another mistake on your part.

On the subject of politicians doing radio may I say that while I genuinely revere Mario Cuomo's thoughtfulness as well as Gary Harts incredible mind and courage know this: I am not a politician anymore than they are radio talk show hosts.

Obviously you place yourself above your reader’s right to know the truth.

However, having now worked in the Denver market I caution you that the citizens of Denver are much too smart not to know this column was written based on your disagreement with my success and inability to explain or accept it.

A copy of the foregoing has been sent to your Editor Mr. John Temple for his review.

Thanks

Randi

Posted by Randi Rhodes | April 21, 2008 12:10 PM

Good to see Randi here, especially considering that I've got a whole category just about her. In the present case, while I reflexively somewhat doubt her side of any story she tells, I have to side with her because Megan has shown time and again an unwillingness to research some of the things she discusses.

As for Michael Medved, he's certainly not a "crazy conspiracy theorist". More of an establishment hack. Details at my name's link.

Posted by Medved info | April 21, 2008 2:23 PM

The major difference between Ms. Rhodes and the other on-air personalities is this: Randi operates with a constant presence of investigative journalism backing any story she covers.

She tells her audience daily not to trust her assertions (or anyone else's!).

Nobody else does this in talk radio, either on the Right or the Left.

As for the Ohio vote, Randi questioned the outcome of this race for very real reasons.

The head of Diebold (manufacturer of electronic voting machines)was a player in Ohio state politics at the time. He made the statement that "Bush would win at all costs".

Counties in Ohio that only had 1800 registered voters turned in 3000+ votes for Bush. This isn't open to conjecture. It happened.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan wrote a best-selling book about it.

Brass tacks: you can listen to a bunch of people spouting BS about something they heard, or you can do your own research and know what's up. Your decision.

Posted by Mark | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM

Dick Eagleson, are you the same guy who posts under the name Manly McLionheart? Or are you Brad O'Patriot? John Straighthammer? William Mightybear? Rock Fighterpilot? I always get you guys confused.

Nope. Just me. Happy to clear that up.

Posted by Dick Eagleson | April 21, 2008 4:31 PM

Hey Randi, except for the inaccurate part about who hired you (Nova M vs. Clear Channel), Kopel has printed a thoroughly accurate picture about you. In fact, he left out the fact that you have told "kill Bush" jokes on the air! The "Fredo" joke from May 2004 could have landed you in prison if they wanted to truly enforce the law about advocating the assassination of the President. You and Ann Coulter could share the same jail cell.

And yes, you lie and you spout moonbat conspiracy theories on the air. This stolen-election drivel has about as much credibility as the story about the moon landing being faked. Bush won. Kerry lost. That is the truth. That is the fact.

"Patently false and damaging" statements? Boo hoo hoo. If you don't like the criticism, go back to that pub and drown your sorrows in another six-pack, and try to stay away from the steps this time. And stay away from Christmas trees while you're at it.

You're awaiting a response from Temple and Kopel? Maybe they'll tell you to go Cheney yourself, just like you told Dennis Praeger. By the way, Lars Larson rules Portland! Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Posted by Scott | April 23, 2008 12:05 AM

"I wore the country's uniform proudly..." WHAT A HOOT! RANDI RHODES WENT AWOL. check out Brian Lambs CSPAN INTERVIEW. Search Randi Rhodes at wikipedia- click discusssion.(CSPAN interview). She served only 2 years-than left. She has lied many times fooling her audience into believing she served 6 years in the USAF. (Larry King transcripts May 12,2006. She said she served 6 years.) Randi Rhodes is a sick patalogical liar, don't let her intimidate you.
And she has lied about being "AWARDED MOST OUTSTANDING WOMAN IN THE AIR FORCE" NEVER HAPPENED. She received an "outstanding in maintence" plaque. This is the loon who fell down outside a bar, calls her boss (MARK Green) and tells him she was beaten up and mugged. But she never called the cops, and there are no witnesses!She had to fess up to her BS story on THE AIR.
I heard the show where she blamed Blackwater for starting the Calif. fires. Google-"my life as co host with shock jock Perry Stone" read entire article. Who's the whore? Randi SPIN-RANDI-SPIN

Posted by Kevin | April 23, 2008 2:06 AM

Randi Rhodes said- She doesn't lie on her show. She lies within the first 2 seconds. She is not "The most listened Progressive Radio talk show host." And if she gives "Talking Radio" as her source..."Talking Radio" is a liberal blog where about fourteen of their readers voted her the number one progressive talk show host.
She also said she doesn't engage in conspiracy theories. Check out "White Rose Society" archives-March 12, 2008 Friday. Not only did she blame Blackwater for the California wildfires, she also blamed them for breeching Clintons and Obamas passport records.
I check out-My life as co host with shock jock Perry Stone" Not only is Randi Rhodes a whore she is a backstabbing whore.

Posted by Sean Johnson | May 2, 2008 3:33 PM

Correction "WHITE ROSE SOCIETY ARCHIVES"
MARCH 21, 2008 FRIDAY

Posted by SEAN JOHNSON | May 2, 2008 3:37 PM