As most of you probably know, Rush Limbaugh has a term of endearment for the people who agree with him without even thinking about it. He calls them Dittoheads. They say, “ditto” and agree with him, because what he is saying rings a bell.
Years ago I had some experience with this when a coworker insisted on listening to Rush when we were sharing the same workspace. She was a mother of three and had a husband who had a job and had help caring for her kids while she worked. In retrospect, my pain in listening with her had some benefit to both of us as I will attempt to explain...
One day, Rush was going on about how he hated that welfare moms were getting a free ride and told a story about a woman he thought was taking advantage of the situation. I asked her if she agreed with him and she said, “yes, absolutely.”
I then pointed out that he was making the argument that women who’s husbands have abandoned them with children to take care of and who can’t work and care for their kids at the same time should not get any help with the rent so they are kicked out of their homes to struggle on the streets and serve as a grim reminder to other women not to get into their situation.
She said, “No, he is not saying that at all.” At that point he said that he hoped that these women would be kicked out in the street to serve as a reminder to other women. She then said that he was only explaining a philosophy that she totally agreed with and that he was not really advocating doing what he was saying. I asked her if that were possible, and then gave up on the argument.
She continued to listen to this despicable hate monger, but whenever he said something really odious I would look at her to suggest, “do you really agree with that?” She started seeing Rush in a different light but she still found his show compelling. She started to be uncomfortable listening to Rush when I was around, and she would turn the radio off when he said something offensive. It would have been nice if Air America was on back then so that we could have some balance in the air time. They have done a real service by showing that liberal talk radio really has a place on the dial.
I was always proud of the fact that we had the fairness doctrine in the media when I was growing up. A documentary by William F. Buckly Jr. on the wonders of the industrial revolution and the great contributions of the steel barons would always be followed by a liberal historian that would provide a remarkably conflicting account of the same time period, and credit the rise of investigative journalism and the unions for our relatively pleasant living environment rather than the profitable manipulation of the emerging markets.
The odd thing about it is that there is really a difference in the approach between conservative talk radio and liberal talk radio. The last thing someone like Al Franken would want is someone who says, “ditto” to what he said without even thinking about it. In liberal talk radio there is usually an attempt to challenge the listeners to think for themselves. The goal is often to make the listener uncomfortable with the presentation of two conflicting points of view and to get the listener to come to a logical conclusion that the listener chooses in line with their beliefs and not just the presenters view, no matter where it is on the spectrum. My inlaws say that we should be aware that we are being lied to too and it is not just Fox news that lies. I asked for examples, but the argument did not really go anywhere from there.
In retrospect, I don’t think my critical analysis of multiple news sources really compares with watching Fox news and nodding absentmindedly. I suppose I will have to live with the burden that my education has made me think about things differently than some of my relatives. I try to keep myself grounded and not assume that my inlaws are always being fed garbage, but in retrospect, I am glad I had the opportunity to provide a critical evaluation of Rush for my coworker years ago, even if it was just with a well timed look and an unspoken question. Without having the fairness doctrine, I think there is a risk that too many specious arguments can be taken in by people without critical thought on what they are being told. I suppose that was Reagan’s goal in the first place when he eliminated the fairness doctrine. I don’t think we would be hurt by hearing the counter-arguments to our political commentary. People on the left already do that. Fox news would feel threatened, though, to air opposing views, and I think that would generally be a good thing.
It may be difficult to reintroduce some version of the fairness doctrine. I liked having it when it was around, so I think it is worthy of discussion. What do you think?