Ed Schulz just pissed me off.

[kag]

He got a call from someone in Florida. The guy was a little long-winded, but besides that very respectful, and even complimentary of Ed. He said he agreed that corporations are out of control and he called congress critters "prostitutes," so it was clear he wasn't some right-wing radical.

However, the opinion he expressed was that unions are greedy and are part of the problem.

Now, I don't agree with him. Quite the opposite. I don't belong to a union and never have, but I think they are imperative and I support them--always. Especially teachers unions. I think our public school teachers are one of the last things keeping us from become a true third world country. They are underpaid and under appreciated, and constantly under attack from the right. So no, I don't agree with the caller, but what Ed did next thoroughly pissed me off.

He let the guy have the last word, and then went to a break. But when he came back to do one little teaser before the news, he said (and I paraphrase) "So according to {so and so} in Florida, unions are the big problem. If we just get rid of the unions then everything will be fine. Poverty will go away, we'll end the wars, etc. He thinks we just have to get rid of the unions and all will be well."

My jaw hit the floor. That wasn't at all what the guy was saying, and I think Ed did us all a great disservice to characterize the caller's opinion that way. If we truly want to make real change for the better, we cannot make enemies of everyone who doesn't completely and precisely agree with us on everything. I have no problem with constructive debates, but what Ed did was precisely what we all complain about FOX doing.

We cannot stoop to their level! If we do, our cause is lost.

[bluestateguy]

1. Building straw men is what radio talk show hosts do

And not just the conservatives either.

[gateley]

2. Ed does that sometimes -- so does Randi Rhodes. It makes

my blood boil. Instead of listening to what the person is saying, the moment they realize this person has a differing opinion they get defensive and totally twist the message. We'll never win over anyone by behaving that way.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. I like Randi, but she has a bad habit of talking over people.

And not letting them get a word in edgewise to make a point.

[cui bono]

8. I sent him an email once about that when he was just on radio

and got back a super snarky reply.

He and Randi just don't like anyone to disagree with them and their shackles go up when they do. Neither can have a reasonable and intelligent debate. All they do is try to turn things around so they can be "right" and usually end up not really understanding the callers point because as soon as they heard that they disagree they shut down.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. But you assume that they're actually trying to "win over" anyone. They're not...

Randi has said many times that she is an entertainer. They all are. I don't much think they care which party's in control. It's all pretty much entertainment for them, and it pays the bills. :hi:

[gateley]

17. Yeah, on one hand they have to be the "Liberal Rush" - to do the

entertaining and get ratings, but in both their cases, I believe THEY believe, so that's what disappoints me (unlike Rush who I think just goes for the outrage). And we NEED to win people over.

[Jumping John]

3. Well I am glad you do not watch Fox News. nt

[kag]

6. I'd rather eat my arm. n/t

[Township75]

5. That is why I can't listen to those people.

If you are good at your job, you don't need to create straw man to go after. It makes him appear shallow on information and developing arguements.

[kag]

7. Precisely, Town.

I know he's one of "ours" but he does stuff like that a lot. This time was just possibly the most blatant I've ever heard.

And I know, as someone else mentioned, Randi does it too. I don't listen to her anymore, mostly just because she's never on when I'm in the car, which is about the only time I listen to the radio.

I wish they could see that they are doing the same thing that we all complain about when Fox does it.

We don't need "friends" like that.

[Township75]

28. Definitely don't need "friends" like that.

And I think your comment about being one of "ours" is why it is dangerous.

That stuff will be fine with the partisians, but there are not enough left wing partisians to win an election. The swing voters will hear that and be turned off and think the left's leaders are a bunch of dipshits. In that sense, people need to realize that being one of "ours" means you can do a shit load of damage to the cause...I think people like Ed, Randi, and a few others actually do harm to our cause, because independents hear them make those types of arguements and associate the left with deception.

[unionworks]

9. unrecced

Ed is thefriend of working people. He was right to say what he did, "greedy unions" is the right wing meme. No need to tolerate it here, it will get plenty of airtime on the right wing noise machine.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Interviews are not Ed's forte. He almost always neglects the followup.

[Enrique]

11. i have a word for that type of show

I call it "dumb". I listen to Democracy Now, which doesn't do any of that dumb stuff. :bounce:

[bvar22]

12. Media People who live On the Edge...

..are going to Piss everyone Off Once in a While.
If not, then they aren't On the Cutting Edge.

I heard the segment you are referring to.
THAT caller HAD the Talking Points DOWN PAT,
and his call WAS a focused attack on Public Unions.

He disguised his attack on Public Unions with a preface of congenial agreement in general with Ed.
That is just a Good Marketing subterfuge,
but don't be fooled by the tinsel.
There are schools that teach people HOW to do this.
Ed is a Media Professional who recognized this attack for what it was,
and Called It.

I've have listened occasionally to Big Ed since he was broadcasting out of Bismark in the early 2000s.
He is too much of a "Centrist" and "Party before Principle" media personality for my taste,
but I liked his "Red Meat eating, Gun Toting, Two Fisted Democrat" shtick.
While it doesn't appeal to me, I thought it was good for Liberals in general
who had been successfully stereotyped as Latte Drinking, Effeminate, wimps by the Conservative Media.
Ed gave more people permission to vote "Democrat" since 2000 than anyone else I can think of.

Like I said above, I heard that segment,
and I don't believe ED was being unfair.
He NAILED that caller for what he was.


YMMV

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[kag]

14. Wow. I totally disagree, bvar.

Whether the caller was sincere or not is irrelevant. He spoke in a very unassuming and nonjudgmental manner. If you want to interpret that as somehow sneaky or manipulative I guess that's your business. But taken at face value (which I don't always do, but unlike you I didn't find his "talking points" to be slick or manipulative), he was simply disagreeing with Ed on a single point, and was ready and willing to back up his argument.

I'm quite certain you think I'm naive. I'm not. If someone had called in to Fox and behaved in a similar manner (spoke endearingly, but disagreed with the host) I might have expected something like what Ed dished out. By doing what he did, Ed is sinking to the level of the basest and most intolerant of the right wing.

And I feel very comfortable in assuming that most of the people who listen to Ed (or Rush or Randi or Glenn or whoever...) simply take things at face value. Now, obviously there are certain dangers in doing that, but if we "interpret" everything we hear in a manner which suits our own political interests, then there is simply no way to have reasonable debate.

Now, I know that there are those people who really don't WANT reasonable debate, but I choose to believe that we have to start somewhere. Our politicians are so busy not talking to each other that almost nothing gets done in Washington anymore. I blame the right. But I also blame people like Ed for turning what could have been an instructive debate (sincere or not) into a straw man argument that only served to shut down debate, not move things forward.

Just my opinion. You are, obviously, entitled to your own.

[bvar22]

18. The problem is that after the cordialities,

...the Premise offered for the "debate" is that greedy UNIONS are the problem.
I don't care how congenially and respectfully that premise is offered,
I am not interested in that debate.
I reject the premise outright.
Once that premise is accepted as legitimate grounds for "debate",
everything else simply reinforces the premise.

Like I said above, there are schools and courses where you can learn HOW to do this.
It is a simple Sales Gimmick that has been used for a long time,
and Professional Talk Show Hosts have seen it all before.
Limbaugh used to call them "Seminar Callers".

Ed called him on it.
Good for Ed.

[kag]

23. I get it. I understand.

But if everyone thought as you do, no one would ever even TRY to defend the other side...Ed's side, OUR side. Ed didn't even try to defend OUR point of view. He just mocked the caller and left it at that. You claim he "called him on it." He did nothing of the kind. His only response to the guy was rude, demeaning and insulting.

I despise that Rush, et al routinely do that (even thought I don't listen to it).

I get it that it can be a gimmick. But not everyone is going to get it. All they hear is a fairly nice guy trying to make a point, and Ed treating him like he's dirt. How is that constructive?

I would also submit that you're jaded. I know the radio shows hire companies to train people to call in and ask questions, but I also know they sometimes take legitimate calls. I know this because I have, once or twice, called in myself. And I'm NOT a ringer. And hopefully Ed, Thom, Rachel, and the good guys are not as guilty of hiring the Seminar Callers. I like to think that if you're smart, like Thom and Rachel, you can defend your position to anyone, trained or otherwise.

I guess I just don't understand why you think it's a good idea to belittle someone on the air. How can that possibly help our cause?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

15. Funnily enough, people who rail against unions normally do think that way.

Ed wasn't wrong. You should hear the morons here in Oklahoma talking about evil unions. It's ridiculous. The anti union crowds want you to forget that we have safe workplaces, 8 hour days, overtime, vacation time, sick leave, insurance and pensions because of unions. Those business owners would never have given that stuff up if it weren't for unions. Oklahoma certainly has gone down hill since we became a right to work state.
Duckie

[nini]

16. "However, the opinion he expressed was that unions are greedy and are part of the problem."

If he said unions were greedy then what Ed said is perfectly ok -actually you should be applauding that.

If the caller was no longer on the phone due to the break etc.. then so be it.

[mmonk]

19. I'm with Ed. Why put up with a lie?

[Union Scribe]

21. +1

[TheKentuckian]

20. Anti-union bluster should be given about the same credence as unicorns in tea cups

riding the rings of Saturn as the root of our ills.

According to you he let the guy ramble on as well as get the final word, that would seem more than fair.

[arbusto_baboso]

22. You make a mistake in assuming Schulz is a progressive.

He used to make his living as a right-wing media blowhard. He converetd, but I've doubted the sincerity of his conversion since Day One.

It might be wise if others did too.

[kag]

24. Okay, I give up.

I thoroughly disagree with all of you who are submitting that being rude and dismissive is a good policy when confronted with someone of the opposite opinion.

As I said in my OP. I am a great supporter of unions. I always will be. I know their not greedy. I know the guy was wrong. But he wasn't rude, like Ed was.

My gut reaction to Ed was astonishment that he could be so condescending and insulting. I wasn't thinking, "Hey, way to go Ed for being so nasty to that nice guy! You sure put HIM in his place!" My first reaction was, "Why don't you just TELL the guy why unions are anything but greedy? Why don't you argue with him?"

We can listen to each other all day long, but if we don't at least try to get others on our side, we are lost. And if we intentionally run them off, then we are doomed.

I truly hope none of you has a radio show.

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Union Scribe]

26. Why are you so hung up on this?

Unless you were the caller, what is it to you? You take this one instance and act like it's the death knell of hope for a more liberal tomorrow. "we are doomed," really? Because sometimes people with dumb opinions get blown off? There isn't enough time, and not enough words, in today's climate to patiently teach everyone with wrong ideas.

[kag]

29. Because it's one thing to "not help" our cause...

But it's quite another to go out of your way (Ed's way) to hurt our cause. Ed didn't JUST dismiss the guy. He completely mischaracterized what the guy said. Ed was LYING. Just like Rush does. He didn't just blow the guy off. He lied about what the guy said when he was no longer there to defend his opinion.

And as someone else noted up-thread, if we stoop to "their" tactics, we're only hurting ourselves. It's like the OWS infiltrators who break windows and cause trouble. OWS disowns those people. Now, I'm not saying we should "disown" Ed. But we should NOT condone what he did by cheering him on.

We need people to join us, not lump us in with the right wing radicals as too extreme.

And, by the way, I didn't say we are "doomed" because of what Ed did. I said (in slightly different words) that we are "doomed" if we allow extreme elements in our movement to dictate the tone and message that we're trying to put out to the moderates and independents who aren't sure about our motives or our cause.

[Puglover]

25. You're very concerned.

Check.

[HuckleB]

27. The reality is that even Ed is an entertainer.

The argument is the entertainment, and it must be fomented. True conversational discussion is not allowed.