My drive listening to conservative talk radio

[cookiemdough]

So I was traveling yesterday and listening to the Patriot channel on XM. Basically I learned that they say the exact same things libs do about the other side. Their talking points about the media are the EXACT same as ours just targeting different news orgs. They are giving people advice on how to handle their crazy uneducated liberal aunt lamenting about Trump over Thanksgiving...sounds familiar. So I can see how it happens. In addition there was a lot of OMG re liberals think the world is going to end, why are they so dramatic?? Same stuff we said when Pres Obama was elected when we questioned why cons were even thinking he will wholesale implement socialism?!?! The country will be fine. They say we should give Trump a chance. Same thing we said about Pres Obama.

So not so different overall. With the exception of the caller that said he wished he could hang Clinton from a tree but unfortunately they can't do that anymore.

[Miss Phryne Fisher]

You deserve a drink for that.

[froggy76]

God bless you for doing that. It is helpful to really stop and listen to the other side. I've posted here before about how I am now checking Fox News everyday. It's a frustrating exercise, but helps me understand why people see things the way they do. Do I think they're biased? Of course! But can I really claim they are less biased than HuffPost or MSNBC? I'm not sure. Most of what we say about the other side really can be thrown right back at us.

[thebulldog]

we listen to Fox news constantly for this purpose, i truly want to hear the "other side" and opposing viewpoints.

one thing i am forcing myself to remember is that when Romney or McCain ran against Obama, they were NOTHING like Trump. Nothing. so when the anti-Obama folks were the all "the sky is falling" and getting guns and food and water it was based on something else. Trump's statements are unlike anything we have ever seen.

[cookiemdough]

I have to say the talk show host I was listening to sounded really reasonable. He wasn't inflammatory like a Hannity or oreilly. So if people are tuning into those calmer individuals I can see how those who voted for trump don't feel like it was a vote for hate. Also the surprise of a trump win helps bolster their views that the left-leaning media is biased and unwilling to do well-rounded coverage. I don't agree, however it is not far-fetched in comparison to some of the arguments we traditionally hear.

[andwhat]

I guess the reason I always thought #45 was going to win is because I listen to and read many different viewpoints. Or I hear them at work. It is also why I think nothing will change. Because just like liberal media skews a light on those they like, conservative media does the same. So while we may all think Bannon is the anti-Christ and it is being convered non-stop, that subject isn't even being covered. Just that he is an economic nationalist or whatever and that doesn't sound so bad. Same for the downplaying of things that Clinton did or has done. And I can't really think of any news source that covered both candidates with the same brush.

[sunshine608]

Nov 23, 2016 10:57:26 GMT -5 andwhat said:

I guess the reason I always thought #45 was going to win is because I listen to and read many different viewpoints. Or I hear them at work. It is also why I think nothing will change. Because just like liberal media skews a light on those they like, conservative media does the same. So while we may all think Bannon is the anti-Christ and it is being convered non-stop, that subject isn't even being covered. Just that he is an economic nationalist or whatever and that doesn't sound so bad. Same for the downplaying of things that Clinton did or has done. And I can't really think of any news source that covered both candidates with the same brush.

This got me too- I listed to one particular Conservative host (Erik Erickson) mainly b/c that station gives the best traffic, but he became an Never Trump person so it lulled me even more. At times I have to turn from him b/c he gets into the putting people down arena which is what really turns me off. 

Sometimes I catch some of the other ones and their constant put-downs (libtard, and Limbaugh's uneducated voters) just get me so angry. 


ETA: Erik Erickson had to increase his family's security b/c of the death threats he got from not backing Trump so whoever else his listeners follow must have riled them up. 

[wawa]

Nov 23, 2016 10:51:26 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I have to say the talk show host I was listening to sounded really reasonable. He wasn't inflammatory like a Hannity or oreilly. So if people are tuning into those calmer individuals I can see how those who voted for trump don't feel like it was a vote for hate. Also the surprise of a trump win helps bolster their views that the left-leaning media is biased and unwilling to do well-rounded coverage. I don't agree, however it is not far-fetched in comparison to some of the arguments we traditionally hear.

do you ever listen to WBAL?  (I am remembering that you're in PG, yes?)

MH does, so I end up hearing it often.  Not that those guys are all typical talk radio.

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2016 10:48:24 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

we listen to Fox news constantly for this purpose, i truly want to hear the "other side" and opposing viewpoints.

one thing i am forcing myself to remember is that when Romney or McCain ran against Obama, they were NOTHING like Trump. Nothing. so when the anti-Obama folks were the all "the sky is falling" and getting guns and food and water it was based on something else. Trump's statements are unlike anything we have ever seen.

Yep. I'm going with "What is being black?" for $1,000, Alex.

I remember 2008. Yes, Obama was in favor of the Democratic position on gun control, but he never made gun control a major issue of the campaign. He focused on healthcare and economic recovery. His opponents turned it into OMG SOCIALIST WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS! I remember my stepdad complaining about the cost of ammunition because demand went WAAAAAAAY up after Obama was elected, even though he never talked about taking people's guns. He clearly became more invested in gun control after Sandy Hook, but that still stalled out because of Congress. And even then, the positions he favored did not amount to taking everyone's guns. That was a fear not based in fact, but drummed up by the NRA and other conservative activists who were playing on the fears of a black man in charge.

I am not reading into what Donald Trump has said or extrapolating. I am not even listening to what progressive or liberal interest groups are saying about him. I am evaluating him solely on his actions and words.

He admitted on camera to grabbing women by the pussy. A dozen women have since accused him of sexual assault.

His foundation just admitted to self-dealing, and we don't even know the depths of it.

He is refusing to cut ties with his businesses, and we already have reports about him having conversations with foreign leaders about those businesses.

He called Mexicans rapists.

He has consistently insulted women based on their looks.

He verbally attacks anyone who dares question or disagree with him.

He said he would create a registry for Muslims.

He said women who get abortions should be punished.

He has demonstrated he does not understand the danger of nuclear weapons.

He has stated he would bring back waterboarding.

His former campaign manager has eerie ties to Russia.

He has praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

He has destroyed thousands of documents during discovery in various lawsuits.

He just settled a massive fraud case for $25 million.

He appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist.

He appointed someone who says fear of Muslims is rational as his National Security Advisor.

He has broken with presidential custom and severely limited press access.

I could go on. That's just what I could think of off the top of my head. The fact that he walked back some of this stuff in the NYT interview doesn't give me hope. It just further confirms that he has no actual plans or ideas.

And this is how I know I'm living in a post-factual world. The fear of Obama that was largely drummed up by conservative commentators and activists was nothing like the fear of Trump that is based on his own actions and words.

But I know that would just be chalked up to my "liberal bias" by someone who supports Donald Trump. I have no idea how to get someone like that to understand the difference between this and between Obama winning in 2008 or 2012 between this and Bush winning in 2000 and 2004. They are not the same. This is not normal.

(Sorry to word vomit. Thanks for the report, cookiemdough!)

[cookiemdough]

Nov 23, 2016 11:04:05 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Nov 23, 2016 10:48:24 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

we listen to Fox news constantly for this purpose, i truly want to hear the "other side" and opposing viewpoints.

one thing i am forcing myself to remember is that when Romney or McCain ran against Obama, they were NOTHING like Trump. Nothing. so when the anti-Obama folks were the all "the sky is falling" and getting guns and food and water it was based on something else. Trump's statements are unlike anything we have ever seen.

Yep. I'm going with "What is being black?" for $1,000, Alex.

I remember 2008. Yes, Obama was in favor of the Democratic position on gun control, but he never made gun control a major issue of the campaign. He focused on healthcare and economic recovery. His opponents turned it into OMG SOCIALIST WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS! I remember my stepdad complaining about the cost of ammunition because demand went WAAAAAAAY up after Obama was elected, even though he never talked about taking people's guns. He clearly became more invested in gun control after Sandy Hook, but that still stalled out because of Congress. And even then, the positions he favored did not amount to taking everyone's guns. That was a fear not based in fact, but drummed up by the NRA and other conservative activists who were playing on the fears of a black man in charge.

I am not reading into what Donald Trump has said or extrapolating. I am not even listening to what progressive or liberal interest groups are saying about him. I am evaluating him solely on his actions and words.

He admitted on camera to grabbing women by the pussy. A dozen women have since accused him of sexual assault.

His foundation just admitted to self-dealing, and we don't even know the depths of it.

He is refusing to cut ties with his businesses, and we already have reports about him having conversations with foreign leaders about those businesses.

He called Mexicans rapists.

He has consistently insulted women based on their looks.

He verbally attacks anyone who dares question or disagree with him.

He said he would create a registry for Muslims.

He said women who get abortions should be punished.

He has demonstrated he does not understand the danger of nuclear weapons.

He has stated he would bring back waterboarding.

His former campaign manager has eerie ties to Russia.

He has praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

He has destroyed thousands of documents during discovery in various lawsuits.

He just settled a massive fraud case for $25 million.

He appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist.

He appointed someone who says fear of Muslims is rational as his National Security Advisor.

He has broken with presidential custom and severely limited press access.

I could go on. That's just what I could think of off the top of my head. The fact that he walked back some of this stuff in the NYT interview doesn't give me hope. It just further confirms that he has no actual plans or ideas.

And this is how I know I'm living in a post-factual world. The fear of Obama that was largely drummed up by conservative commentators and activists was nothing like the fear of Trump that is based on his own actions and words.

But I know that would just be chalked up to my "liberal bias" by someone who supports Donald Trump. I have no idea how to get someone like that to understand the difference between this and between Obama winning in 2008 or 2012 between this and Bush winning in 2000 and 2004. They are not the same. This is not normal.

(Sorry to word vomit. Thanks for the report, cookiemdough!)

Those things are absolutely true but they aren't being covered on these stations, or at least not to that extent. So if that is what you listen to, then you arent getting that view. I don't go on Patriot like ever, but routinely listen to MSNBC. I am not sure I can fault people for doing the same thing I do just because it is not my station of choice. However, Despite what radio station you listen to it doesn't absolve people from doing research...so that part I don't excuse.

[andwhat]

I get what you are saying @angryharpy and I am there with you. But I also understand that those are not everyone's priorities, if they are a priority at all. And just like you have your list, I have mine, and though our lists led to both of us voting for the same candidate (almost didn't), I get that others have a different list. Am I cool with that, not really. But I also know that I can't make everyone think like me.

[Deleted]

cookiemdough , since the election I have basically stuck to Washington Post, New York Times, and NPR (both radio and website). But yeah, I know that there are people who consider them just "liberal propaganda." People like my dad. Those are the people I don't know how to reach.

I just don't know what to do when we can't agree on basic facts.

[lahoagie]

Nov 23, 2016 11:04:05 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Nov 23, 2016 10:48:24 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

we listen to Fox news constantly for this purpose, i truly want to hear the "other side" and opposing viewpoints.

one thing i am forcing myself to remember is that when Romney or McCain ran against Obama, they were NOTHING like Trump. Nothing. so when the anti-Obama folks were the all "the sky is falling" and getting guns and food and water it was based on something else. Trump's statements are unlike anything we have ever seen.

Yep. I'm going with "What is being black?" for $1,000, Alex.

I remember 2008. Yes, Obama was in favor of the Democratic position on gun control, but he never made gun control a major issue of the campaign. He focused on healthcare and economic recovery. His opponents turned it into OMG SOCIALIST WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS! I remember my stepdad complaining about the cost of ammunition because demand went WAAAAAAAY up after Obama was elected, even though he never talked about taking people's guns. He clearly became more invested in gun control after Sandy Hook, but that still stalled out because of Congress. And even then, the positions he favored did not amount to taking everyone's guns. That was a fear not based in fact, but drummed up by the NRA and other conservative activists who were playing on the fears of a black man in charge.

I am not reading into what Donald Trump has said or extrapolating. I am not even listening to what progressive or liberal interest groups are saying about him. I am evaluating him solely on his actions and words.

He admitted on camera to grabbing women by the pussy. A dozen women have since accused him of sexual assault.

His foundation just admitted to self-dealing, and we don't even know the depths of it.

He is refusing to cut ties with his businesses, and we already have reports about him having conversations with foreign leaders about those businesses.

He called Mexicans rapists.

He has consistently insulted women based on their looks.

He verbally attacks anyone who dares question or disagree with him.

He said he would create a registry for Muslims.

He said women who get abortions should be punished.

He has demonstrated he does not understand the danger of nuclear weapons.

He has stated he would bring back waterboarding.

His former campaign manager has eerie ties to Russia.

He has praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

He has destroyed thousands of documents during discovery in various lawsuits.

He just settled a massive fraud case for $25 million.

He appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist.

He appointed someone who says fear of Muslims is rational as his National Security Advisor.

He has broken with presidential custom and severely limited press access.

I could go on. That's just what I could think of off the top of my head. The fact that he walked back some of this stuff in the NYT interview doesn't give me hope. It just further confirms that he has no actual plans or ideas.

And this is how I know I'm living in a post-factual world. The fear of Obama that was largely drummed up by conservative commentators and activists was nothing like the fear of Trump that is based on his own actions and words.

But I know that would just be chalked up to my "liberal bias" by someone who supports Donald Trump. I have no idea how to get someone like that to understand the difference between this and between Obama winning in 2008 or 2012 between this and Bush winning in 2000 and 2004. They are not the same. This is not normal.

(Sorry to word vomit. Thanks for the report, cookiemdough !)

They had that TMZ guy on my radio station a couple mornings ago and he was saying how we have demonized Trump and I wanted to call and go over that EXACT list of things that trump has said and done that makes me hate him and ask him how that is "demonizing" him.

[cookiemdough]

Nov 23, 2016 11:22:29 GMT -5 lahoagie said:

Nov 23, 2016 11:04:05 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Yep. I'm going with "What is being black?" for $1,000, Alex.

I remember 2008. Yes, Obama was in favor of the Democratic position on gun control, but he never made gun control a major issue of the campaign. He focused on healthcare and economic recovery. His opponents turned it into OMG SOCIALIST WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS! I remember my stepdad complaining about the cost of ammunition because demand went WAAAAAAAY up after Obama was elected, even though he never talked about taking people's guns. He clearly became more invested in gun control after Sandy Hook, but that still stalled out because of Congress. And even then, the positions he favored did not amount to taking everyone's guns. That was a fear not based in fact, but drummed up by the NRA and other conservative activists who were playing on the fears of a black man in charge.

I am not reading into what Donald Trump has said or extrapolating. I am not even listening to what progressive or liberal interest groups are saying about him. I am evaluating him solely on his actions and words.

He admitted on camera to grabbing women by the pussy. A dozen women have since accused him of sexual assault.

His foundation just admitted to self-dealing, and we don't even know the depths of it.

He is refusing to cut ties with his businesses, and we already have reports about him having conversations with foreign leaders about those businesses.

He called Mexicans rapists.

He has consistently insulted women based on their looks.

He verbally attacks anyone who dares question or disagree with him.

He said he would create a registry for Muslims.

He said women who get abortions should be punished.

He has demonstrated he does not understand the danger of nuclear weapons.

He has stated he would bring back waterboarding.

His former campaign manager has eerie ties to Russia.

He has praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

He has destroyed thousands of documents during discovery in various lawsuits.

He just settled a massive fraud case for $25 million.

He appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist.

He appointed someone who says fear of Muslims is rational as his National Security Advisor.

He has broken with presidential custom and severely limited press access.

I could go on. That's just what I could think of off the top of my head. The fact that he walked back some of this stuff in the NYT interview doesn't give me hope. It just further confirms that he has no actual plans or ideas.

And this is how I know I'm living in a post-factual world. The fear of Obama that was largely drummed up by conservative commentators and activists was nothing like the fear of Trump that is based on his own actions and words.

But I know that would just be chalked up to my "liberal bias" by someone who supports Donald Trump. I have no idea how to get someone like that to understand the difference between this and between Obama winning in 2008 or 2012 between this and Bush winning in 2000 and 2004. They are not the same. This is not normal.

(Sorry to word vomit. Thanks for the report, cookiemdough !)

They had that TMZ guy on my radio station a couple mornings ago and he was saying how we have demonized Trump and I wanted to call and go over that EXACT list of things that trump has said and done that makes me hate him and ask him how that is "demonizing" him.

Right, but how did you know about those things? I know I didn't see trump say much of that stuff live. I saw clips of it on repeat from stations that I watch.

[cookiemdough]

Nov 23, 2016 11:17:36 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

cookiemdough , since the election I have basically stuck to Washington Post, New York Times, and NPR (both radio and website). But yeah, I know that there are people who consider them just "liberal propaganda." People like my dad. Those are the people I don't know how to reach.

I just don't know what to do when we can't agree on basic facts.

For me the only thing that was really scary from listening is the lack of disavowal of comments said by callers. When the one guy made the comment over lynching Clinton, the host just glided over it and acknowledge some other thing the caller said was a good point. That infuriated me because the host didn't call that out and say "reasonable people don't think or say these things"!!!! That being said the inability to call out things is on both sides so...I don't know.

[was5]

I do think it's important to listen to the other side, but I have a hard time doing it. Thanks cookiemdough, for reporting back.

I get frustrated with both sides, though. I started watching MSNBC regularly during the primaries. Let's be honest, they really do have a liberal bias. They might be reporting "facts", but they decide what facts they want to focus on based on what they think is important. And, as much as I like Rachel Maddow, I could totally see why she would turn off conservatives. She presents things in a, duh, can you believe this, sort of way, with lots of eye rolling and sighing. I do give MSNBC credit for having a conservative person on their morning show. That gives them a little more legitimacy in my book.

[andwhat]

I really can't listen was5, that is why I read. But I also cannot watch CNN anymore and I never could watch MSNBC. I do read and listen to a lot of NPR, which I guess is considered liberal, but they sure have a lot of conservative callers. And I read WaPo, but that is my local paper, and Al-Jazeera.

[leeba25]

Similarly, I've been lurking on a more mixed (Rs and Ds) political board, and I'm noticing similar. I'm seeing, for example, that since I don't know who those posters are, and which way they lean, I can read a particular post and really not know who or what they're taliking about. The talking points are often similar. I see this on FB too. And I want to do what a PP did above - we are scared because there are real things to be scared about, whereas they were scared in 08 because Obama is black. My bias on that ain't go anywhere: I'm right, they're dummies. (And look - the past 8 years agrees with me. The 2nd amendment is still there!)

Then there's the goddamn gaslighting. Holy shit that. I saw in one thread yesterday (on this other, more mixed board), a conservative person posted these two comments in the same thread, one right after another:

first this one about people being scared about Trump:

Yeah- um, actually- I'm on the Trump "Get A Grip" squad. There's literally nothing to be "scared" of. Ya'll need to wind down.

then, literally the next reply, he wrote this in response to someone discussing Clinton's plans for the 2nd amendment and potential restrictions: 

Restricted? They'd be gone. They'd be gone in six months. We are one supreme court justice away from tyranny. We just dodged nothing short of armageddon for the individual liberty of all mankind. Very few people grasp the importance of this victory for all of us

It's like there's no middle ground anymore. 

[was5]

Nov 23, 2016 11:54:27 GMT -5 andwhat said:

I really can't listen was5 , that is why I read. But I also cannot watch CNN anymore and I never could watch MSNBC. I do read and listen to a lot of NPR, which I guess is considered liberal, but they sure have a lot of conservative callers. And I read WaPo, but that is my local paper, and Al-Jazeera.

NPR used to be my go-to in the car until we got a new car with Sirius. I have found myself going back to NPR more often during the past couple of weeks. I know they are known for being liberal, but they seem to do the best job of getting beyond the surface (where major network and local news stops) without being inflammatory or sensationalist.

[rubytue]

I use to listen to conservative talk radio on my commute on the principle of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

I had to give it up shortly after the 2004 election. D.C. rush hour + that was not helping my stress level. Kudos to you!

[bex]

Nov 23, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -5 was5 said:

I do think it's important to listen to the other side, but I have a hard time doing it. Thanks cookiemdough , for reporting back.

I get frustrated with both sides, though. I started watching MSNBC regularly during the primaries. Let's be honest, they really do have a liberal bias. They might be reporting "facts", but they decide what facts they want to focus on based on what they think is important. And, as much as I like Rachel Maddow, I could totally see why she would turn off conservatives. She presents things in a, duh, can you believe this, sort of way, with lots of eye rolling and sighing. I do give MSNBC credit for having a conservative person on their morning show. That gives them a little more legitimacy in my book.

MSNBC is very biased.  But I also look at Maddow almost like an opinion show. She talks about some news story and then gives her opinion on it. I would never watch her just for the news. I watch to hear her take/opinion on the news.  

I actually think Chris Matthews is surprisingly unbiased.  I only really started watching him maybe in August? Maybe early September? And he would sometimes go all in on Trump, and some nights he was just hammering away at Clinton and the Dems.  

The problem with the 24 hours news channels is that they CANT just report the news all the time. That would be boring. It's not going to be 24 hours of World News Tonight or NBC Nightly News.  It's going to be "so this happened, here's our spin."   At least that's my take on both FoxNews and MSNBC. 

CNN...who knows, lol. 


And I'm kind of okay with that bias - it is what is - but I don't use those channels as my primary news sources.  If I was only watching MSNBC, then my perspective on things would be even farther to the left than it is, probably, lol.  But I can see if someone only watches FoxNews, their perspective on just about everything is going be drastically different from mine. 

Like @angryharpy said, part of the problem is that we can't agree on the same facts.  and that's an issue. 

[andwhat]

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is"

Equal opportunity criticizer

[andwhat]

Nov 23, 2016 12:55:41 GMT -5 1234FIF! said:

I regularly read newspapers out of NC, Tenn and Georgia, the wapo, the nyt, the wsj, the chicago, seattle, LA and detroit papers, the guardian, bloomberg, time, newsweek, the atlantic, bbc, theroot, the grio, buzzfeed news, propublica, reveal, cnn, the new yorker, the economist, businessweek

I started reading the GOP blog ESF shared here before he moved camp.

ON Sundays I listen to the re-airs of the morning shows on CSPAN

That isn't fair.

[cville]

So interesting. I do this on occasion to feel more informed as well, but haven't had the stomach for it since the election. Ugh.

[mrshandy]

Since the election, I've been sticking to NPR and the WaPost mostly. I do feel like NPR does a good job of keeping things even. I can't take CNN, MSNBC and the like anymore. I can't watch clips of Cheetohead yet without becoming so angry.

All of the major news outlets are trash with most of America. They are part of the liberal biased media.

I'm not even sure where I would find conservative radio in the DC area. LOL. But whenever I get angry at the radio, I usually give the middle finger to it. I feel like it would be permanently placed next to my radio. Probably not the best idea.

[atexan]

You're a better woman than I. I would have crashed my car.

I try to read R news sites and blogs sometimes, when i can stomach it, but I mostly listen to NPR.

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2016 14:03:01 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

Since the election, I've been sticking to NPR and the WaPost mostly. I do feel like NPR does a good job of keeping things even.

Plus, those voices. We could be in the middle of nuclear war, and the dulcet tones of David Greene and Audie Cornish would keep me calm.

[SallyJ]

Thanks for sharing. That was interesting.

I don't watch news anymore because of the interrupting and sensationalism. I read my mews mostly, but also listen to NPR. I try to balance what I read, but lately I'm not very good at it. I like podcasts for opinion on news.

Anyone have a a rec for a conservative podcast, similar to NPR Code Switch or Keepin it 1600?

[starlily]

I used to listen to a conservative talk radio show (John & Ken if you're in SoCal) on my drive home, but had to stop earlier this year. The hate and misogyny had reached out of control proportions and it started stressing me out too much. I'm a little curious as to what they're saying now that their guy won, but I don't think I could stand it.

[josieposy]

I'm pretty much over cable news unless there is a huge breaking story going on. I read or listen to a lot of the ones already mentioned. And the one channel I religiously watch for large political events is CSPAN. And then I tweet the CSPAN guys because often times they tweet back.