Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #451495 in Books
• Published on: 2008-06-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 226 pages

Review

Customer Reviews

In impressive study
I've been trying to figure out the right wing these days. I've been reading a lot about its history, its roots, motives. One of the right's favorite fairy tales is of the "left bias" of the media. So I've been reading up on that and ran across this volume.

I didn't think I'd be that impressed with it. But first and foremost, I credit the authors with HONESTY. And that's something I don't often find on the right. For instance, they admit that Limbaugh--as much as I despise his hate language and utter nonsense--is good at what he does: radio. (Indeed, it reminds me of an argument I've had with some righties who argue that Air America's not doing so well business-wise is an indication of the strength of the left. I've argued that that's nonsense. My politics notwithstanding, I don't listen to Air America much at all. First, I don't listen to commercial radio at all unless I have NO alternative. Second, I don't want to hear, between shows worth listening to, infomercials on liberal cause investing and health food. Third, like my brother said, I don't want to trade a rignt wing rant for a left wing rant--and some of Air America's fair is rather preachy left wing stuff. I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you.)

The book starts with Don Imus. That I thought was a little of a mistake. Imus is clearly a "shock jock" more than a political commentator. But he made the news because of his suspension after a blatantly racist comment. The authors ask legitmate questions, e.g., why was he suspended for as short a time as he was. But the proceed into the Top Ten Shock Jocks and #1 is Rush Limbaugh. So they may have put a little more emphasis on him.

They admit, though, that, like him or not (I don't.), Limbaugh is good at what he does. In fact, in a section on him, they comment that Limbaugh was apparently put off at one point because his guests distracted him from what he's good at. In short, he might have a slight sense of ethics, even if it is completely narcissistic.

The others include o'leilly, Laura Ingragam, Sean Hannity. Most are pretty harmless; the authors conclude that they largely "preach to the choir." (My biggest objection, in spite of their lack of balance, is that most are LIARS, expecially o'leilly.) There are some who are particularly caustic, such as Micheal [Wiener] Savage. In fact, while he may be "good" at what he does, I'm surprised he's still on the air. Not only does he lie to a degree that would make a middle school bully blush, he's more racist and abrasive than Imus ever was!

The book then proceeds to the immigration bill which they contend the right wing shock jocks were instrumental in defeating, then into the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by Reagan. (If you're old enough, and have any background at all in the media, you may remember that the FCC used to require "balance," i.e., you weren't supposed to have a one-sided view at the expense of the others). Interesting that the same right wing shock jocks were lobbying against the fairness doctrine. I can't imagine why...

Interspersed with the test was interviews of various radio "personalities" right and left wing alike. Some denied the rightward shift. Many--like the text--gave the devil his due in asserting that some of the shock jocks are good at what they do. They gave you a lot to think about.

Then there's a whole worthwhile section on alternatives and suggestions as to what to do and who to contact to curb some of the hate language.

There's an important chapter in the book entitled "Air Wars and Conservative Dominance." It reminded me of a statement in a book I reviewed here quite a while ago by Todd Gitlin--I think it was "Media Unlimited." He stated, matter of fact, that radio has a right wing dominance and always will because, in effect, they're much more "us vs. them" oriented, and that sells radio.

Despite the claim of some of those interviewed for the book--Limbaugh and o'leilly and some others declined--that there is NOT a right wing bias, I think it's obvious that there is. Everything about the book, the top ten especially, indicate that. There are things we can do about it, e.g., finding alternatives, challenging some of the rhetoric--which is how Imus got the boot after his racist tirade. I think it's necessary that we keep in perspective the "preaching to the choir" element of talk radio. (I have an aunt who has a radio glued to the local station on which Limbaugh preaches each day, and a father in law who reads o'leilly's books religiously, yet would be freaked if he ever tuned onto o'leilly's radio or television missions! I'm not going to change either of them.)

I think the book is important becuase it describes what "we" are up against in this rhetorical battle. And I've argued for some years that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be reinstated. The authors and those interviewed don't think that's likely. But it puts many elements of talk radio into a PERSPECTIVE, and that's what we all need to consider.

Other related volumes you might want to consider on similar topics are:

Attack Poodles: The Looting of the News in a Time of Terror, by James Wolcott

Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen

Then tune in or log onto the many alternatives the authors mention in the text.

An Eye-Opening Study
I grew up in Ohio in a generally-conservative city where the people are not malicious, not purposefully wishing to crush the views of others, but have solid views on taxes, guns, and God. On the radio, Limbaugh is followed by Dr. Laura, is followed by Glenn Beck. You have to pick up Hannity from the next city over. When I listen to these "shock jocks" (ok maybe not Dr. Laura) today, I still think about how they are impacting my home city. I hear the half truths, major logical leaps, and hateful words that come out of El Rushbo's mouth and I'm baffled by the lack of outrage, by the lack of outcry. Sometimes I listen to see how far the man will go.

Thus the need for "Shock Jocks". This book is a handy, compact guide to these offenders and their offenses. It details statements by conservative radio talkers that surprise and inform even me, someone who knows full well what these (mostly) guys are capable of. When I find myself, someone who regularly reads Ann Coulter, surprised by the things that conservative talkers have said, I know this book is timely and a must-read for media critics and those who strive for a healthy democracy.

Most importantly, Shock Jocks highlights the reality that these talkers are distributing loads of news and (mis)information to a very large base of support. We cannot turn away and just say they are evil or that their listeners are sheep. We have to hold them accountable and fight against their missteps. This book will open people's eyes and act as a catalyst for change in the way we view shock jocks and how they spread their message of hate.

nothing new here
It's hard to imagine a need for this book. It covers no new ground and would conceivably be of use to someone completely unfamiliar with the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly axis and its imitators, but such a person can find more penetrating studies elsewhere. It is a comprehensive survey, albeit shallow, and thus two stars instead of one.