Must read article on how rw talk radio works. Interesting nugget about swiftboating.

[beachmom]

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046

Secrets of Talk Radio

The former news director of WTMJ reveals how talk show hosts like Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner work to get us angry.

...

One of the things that makes a talk show host good – especially hosts of the caliber of Sykes – is that his or her arguments seem so solid. You fundamentally disagree with the host, yet can’t refute the argument because it sounds so airtight. The host has built a strong case with lots of supporting facts.

Generally speaking, though, those facts have been selectively chosen because they support the host’s preconceived opinion, or can be interpreted to seem as if they do. In their frustration, some talk show critics accuse hosts of fabricating facts. Wrong. Hosts do gather evidence, but in a way that modifies the old Joe Friday maxim: “Just the facts that I can use to make my case, ma’am.”

Hint: The more talk show hosts squawk about something – the louder their voice, the greater their emotion, the more effusive their arguments – the more they’re worried about the issue. For example, talk show hosts eagerly participated in the 2004 Swift Boating of John Kerry because they really feared he was going to win. This is a common talk show tactic: If you lack compelling arguments in favor of your candidate or point of view, attack the other side. These attacks often rely on two key rhetorical devices, which I call You Know What Would Happen If and The Preemptive Strike.

Using the first strategy, a host will describe something a liberal has said or done that conservatives disagree with, but for which the liberal has not been widely criticized, and then say, “You know what would happen if a conservative had said (or done) that? He (or she) would have been filleted by the ‘liberal media.’ ” This is particularly effective because it’s a two-fer, simultaneously reinforcing the notion that conservatives are victims and that “liberals” are the enemy.

The second strategy, The Preemptive Strike, is used when a host knows that news reflecting poorly on conservative dogma is about to break or become more widespread. When news of the alleged massacre at Haditha first trickled out in the summer of 2006, not even Iraq War chest-thumper Charlie Sykes would defend the U.S. Marines accused of killing innocent civilians in the Iraqi village. So he spent lots of air time criticizing how the “mainstream media” was sure to sensationalize the story in the coming weeks. Charlie would kill the messengers before any message had even been delivered.

[karynnj]

1. Nice article

It is amzing seeing these things - which ring true in print. I cam't believe how many times I heard the first strategy this year.

"Using the first strategy, a host will describe something a liberal has said or done that conservatives disagree with, but for which the liberal has not been widely criticized, and then say, “You know what would happen if a conservative had said (or done) that? He (or she) would have been filleted by the ‘liberal media.’ ” This is particularly effective because it’s a two-fer, simultaneously reinforcing the notion that conservatives are victims and that “liberals” are the enemy."

The comments on Kerry are very interesting. My guess is that in a strange way they likely would have loved their candidate having two such great hero stories from Vietnam - and been more impressed than our far left which values war heroes less. It likely fits their values better than the McCain POW story. Both of Kerry's two prestigious awards almost fit 1940s type movie images - and could like McCain's made for TV POW movie made between 2004 and 2007 (not sure when) - have easily been made into a movie.

It likely annoyed them that we had the tall, strong, athletic (4 sports vs their cheerleader) pilot (vs their TANG pilot who lost flying privileges), who could ride horses, motorcycles, and bikes (without falling) and who was likely the better hunter. Note that ALL of these are their values - and none of these were the reasons we supported him. He beat Bush on their values (and we know he slaughtered Bush on ours)

[MonteLukast]

2. Exactly. It's not about "liberal" or "conservative"; it's all about the host.

Really-- the callers are just props, barely even straight men. There's no conversation, let alone debate, going on there.

The difference, of course, is that OUR hosts actually engage in debate-- but still deliver zingers and punk idiots with the best of 'em.

You are morally debase. You brain stem! --Jay Marvin

[BlueIris]

3. "Just the facts that I can use to make my case, ma'am."

Pretty much sums it up. Not a trend limited to RW talk show hosts, either.