One this, the anniversary of 9/11, it should be typed this type of rhetoric can propel planes into buildings -KWC

    Apologies, but I mostly avoid pointing fingers during this edition. I’m trying to avoid contributing to what I am writing about.
    I’m sure you’re familiar with Limbaugh and Howard Stern. I’m not claiming they were/are the same politically. But their means, their schtick, their rhetorical tool kit is/was shock-based. Father Coughlin was another, from a more distant time.
    The dominance of shock jock-ism comes and goes. Problem is shock only works so long. It burns out. Even if one became president.
    I am reminded of an old Model T that slowly putputputs off to the side of the road, hopefully. Sometimes it never makes it to the side of the road, especially if there’s a narcissist at the wheel who doesn’t care. The Model T blocks the road and other cars slam into each other trying to avoid the obstruction: especially those following too closely.
    This is not some anti-Trump rant. The political shock jock has been around for a long time. While not strictly right wing, certainly the right had the jump on the current version of trend in the past few decades. On the other side, before that, Alan Berg comes to mind.
    Seems we go through historical stretches of time where some of the worst shock jock scum rises to the top, then inevitably sinks because it can’t sustain itself. But when it starts it becomes a lower the bar lower than low competition. Politicians and pundits compete to say the next even more outrageous thing, make up or amplify bigger, more nasty lies, call people nastier names.
    That’s unsustainable.
    I admit, on my DVR; at this moment, I have yet to watch the debate itself. To me debates have become like conventions. I don’t watch them because they’re beyond annoying. Substance has become far less important than bigger and more explosive fireworks, and fireworks bore me. All showmanship. If one dare call it that.
    This from someone who was an entertainer. though not in the political sense. IMO, we don’t need entertainment-focused politicians or political pundits.
    I was watching the analysis, which I enjoy because I find analysis challenging: even if I agree with most of it there’s always some that I consider unfair, too skewed and certainly the framing misses facts. 2 examples come to mind: the “very fine people” comment and “deplorables.” If the speaker doesn’t mention the full quote, like qualifiers (some people rather than all) they may be intentionally trying to deceive the listener.
    I’m sure there were at least a few fine people in Charlottesville caught up among the Nazis and Klan members. I have no idea how many. Just like there certainly were BLM-ers at Floyd protests who were peaceful. But such framing dumps common sense and turns the counter claims into lies. Same situation: Hillary never said all MAGAs were “deplorable.” The real discussion should have about how many. Instead people skip over that, basically either they’re ignorant or flat out lying.
    Yes, by the time this goes online, to print, I probably will have watched at least some of it, but I can’t over emphasize how the current state of debate disgusts me. IMO, it’s generally NOT debate, too often, at best, less than clever name calling. If your response to this is to go right to who does it more you’re not only missing my point, your contributing to the problem.
    On this; the anniversary of 9/11, it should be typed this type of rhetoric can propel planes into buildings. So I just typed that.
    I am sincerely, at least for my ever shortening lifetime, hoping to see the death of the shock jock phenomena, whether it be radio, TV or especially politics.
    And maybe someday “my honorable opponent” will return. I have said in the past I very well might vote for a person who says that and acts as if they mean it.
    The shock jock thing is just so worn out, so disgusting and so harmful.

     Not all columns are posted on alternate sites. If you feel you have missed one please go to endofthenet.org

                                    -30-

    “Inspection” is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 50 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2024
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions.
All Rights Reserved.