What purpose do pundits with extreme political views serve?

Radicals on any side of any argument can allow more moderate participants seem more reasonable by comparison. Knowing that there are actual crazies out there sometimes makes people more willing to reach a compromise that might be beneficial for all. Of course, that’s not an objectively good or bad thing – but it’s a way to demonstrate the reasonableness of your argument.

They fan the flames of fear and stupidity and polarize the populace. (And add milions to the coffers of their sponsors.)

I don’t understand why they are given air time except for the spectacle.

They make a shitload of money for Rupert Murdoch. That’s really what it’s all about.

They’re entertainment, meant to make themselves and the people they work for filthy rich (which they do well).

Unfortunately the masses of public are more and more confusing political opinions as actual news.

@tedd – I would argue that’s more than unfortunate – it’s dangerous, potentially.

It serves their purpose: to preach, pontificate, provoke. O’Reilly’s rant repulsed me.

Somebody’s gotta do it.
If the middle of the road politcal view had more gravity,no one would pay attention to the extreme. ;)

Their purpose is to criticize politics and politicians. However, a few, like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly take things too far by subverting the public from the real issues and using it as a soundboard for their own faulty morality and/or destructive agenda.

I can only speculate on who you think the extremist was. Few people consider their own position on any particular issue to be extreme. It is always the other guy that is extreme. So we call them names, extremist, racist, bigot, whatever to shut down debate. And of course everyone becomes even more entrenched in their own particular point of view. Interesting how the extremists are always on the other side.

@Jaxk I purposely avoided naming names or singling out any particular side. I linked the clip I did because it is what made me wonder about this whole idea. I would however, be surprised to hear that the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity do not consider themselves extreme conservatives.

@SuperMouse

I know you tried but the question as stated made your view fairly obvious. And I doubt that either of those two consider themselves extremists. In fact it is the left’s constant whining about those guys that make them appear extreme rather than their actual positions. Ask yourself how far left someone has to be before you would consider them extreme. Bill Ayers, Carl Marx, Alan Colmes, Janeane Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, the list is endless. As I said, it’s always the other guy.

@Jaxk

You can’t divorce the arguments of “those guys” as at least a contributory factor to their extremism. Personally, I view extremism as an assertion regarding an argument claiming to be an absolute, unassailable truth, or a statement that appears to be an assertion of this sort. Of course, there are extremists on all sides, and @SuperMouse‘s opinion on whose extremist is better isn’t required to address the question.

@Jaxk I do not see at all how my position seemed obvious based on the question I posted. In the context of the rest of my posts on Fluther my position would seem rather obvious, but based on this question alone? I think not. Any assumption you might make based on this post alone would be, as you said, speculation. I agree wholeheartedly with @iamthemob this isn’t a question about “whose extremist is better” it is about the purpose extremists of any stripe serve in our political discourse. The fact is that the vast majority of voters probably have views that lie somewhere between those of Rush Limbaugh and the staff of Air America.

@SuperMouse

You may be right and I gave you credit for trying to be as neutral as possible. But the ‘pundits’ comment steers me towards my conclusion. O’Reilly would be considered a ‘pundit’ the ladies of the view, not so much.

I know that many times I’ve tried to make a completely neutral statement but in retrospect, I can see where my opinion bled through. I also know that I’m not immune to misreading the opinion of others either. And I have to disagree somewhat with your issue about extremists since it seems important to know what an extremist is. We have fundamental disagreements in our ideology and our view of government. Those differences don’t make the opposition extreme. Our personal point of view decides who is extreme. Even if we are extreme ourselves.

@iamthemob

I think we may be getting to the heart of the matter. You said “or a statement that appears to be an assertion of this sort”. That would put our personal perspective right at the heart of the issue. Frankly I think this whole issue that we have a battle of the extremists is simply wrong. What we have is a battle between small or large federal government. Calling people extremists is merely a way to discount thier arguments. If I can label you an extremist, then anything you say, is no longer credible. You’re merely a trouble maker.

If you assume that either Joy or Bill are extremist, you can immediately ignore their point (regardless of any facts). It is this constant name calling that drives us further apart since we never really hear what the other side is saying. Afterall, they are extremists.

So I guess my answer to the original question would be: It’s not the brand of pundits that is at fault, it is the constant labeling that drives us apart.

@Jaxk

Unfortunately, I don’t think the whole issue can be attributed to a simple small government/big government dichotomy. You claim that calling someone an extremist is simply a way to discount their arguments, but it the arguments are inflammatory and potentially harmful, then you’re right to do so.

I ignore much of what Bill O’Reilly says because I think that he is a shock jock – and potentially an extremist if we consider potential influence – in the sense that he takes the reasonable and true and makes it absurd or loud. That was the issue in the video. He stated that Americans were against building the “mosque” because it was inappropriate because ”Muslims killed us on 9/11”. The problem, of course, is that he’s arguing the wisdom of putting the community center there but he’s using terms like mosque (to ensure a connection between the religion and the insensitivity) and throwing out extremely offensive and inflammatory statements like that. He’s not concerned with the community center, or what the American people want…he’s using, in essence, propaganda to potentially increase anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. I wouldn’t be as suspicious if he also hadn’t advocated Muslim profiling (not Afghani, or Saudi, or Iraqi, but Muslim) at airports.

I think it’s necessary for us to call a spade a spade – saying Muslims killed us on 9/11 is anti-Muslim rhetoric, and it’s offensive and one should only attribute the argument to a fringe political pundit. Of course, it’s true that they were Muslim. But it wasn’t Muslims, it was al Qaeda, and the timing that he was saying this was so carefully selected.

In the end, Barbara Walters was the one looking good and sounding reasonable as she reprimanded all three of them and chastised O’Reilly for saying what he had. Again, this is why I do think this sort of “crazy talk” can be beneficial, as after seeing that, everyone got a more clear idea of what the “truth” of the whole situation was.

@iamthemob

Of course it significant who gets to be the judge on what is ‘harmful’. And of course he’s using the word Mosque since that is the part that’s offensive. And if 70% of America agrees that it’s inappropriate, that can’t be called extreme. Frankly, I would rather he’d used Muslim Radicals or some other such term, since the term he used merely made everyone avoid the issue. Which was that 70% thought the Mosque was a bad idea. That whole point got glossed over.

The whole idea of profiling has gotten so out of control it’s ridiculous. If your looking for a member of the IRA, you’d pay closer attention to an Irishman than a Frenchman. The whole idea of frisking an old lady just to be politically correct is laughable.

I don’t really see the crazy talk. You took offense to the ‘Muslim’ when it should have been “Muslim extremist’. That makes O’Reilly an extremist and crazy talk. It would seem a bit more would be in order to make that assertion but since this is all personal interpretation, we can do as we please.

There are always people who seem to gravitate to leadership positions based on how radical they are. I don’t see it as serving the system so much as being a natural phenomenon.

To me, it’s no worse than the radicals who believe they can’t personally affect the system, therefore do nothing but complain, rather than actively work for change.

@Jaxk

It was offensive because the reason why 70% of Americans thought the center was inappropriate because, in many ways, it was people like O’Reilly who keep fanning the flame and making it a big deal, framing the issue as the terrorists are putting up a mosque as a traditional sign of victory, and making many people thing it was offensive to have something there.

What’s also glossed over is the fact that Whoopi was asking why 70% of Americans thought it was offensive, when 70 Muslim families were killed in the attack, and O’Reilly responded with the statement.

That’s my main problem. (1) we only know his statements on the statistics in this sense. (2) the overwhelming majority of people in Manhattan polled want the center…and as a Manhattan resident, I’d be happy to have the rest of America leave us alone on this one…we’re the ones that are healing.

What I’m really taking offense at is that the issue is whether it’s wise to build a community center to educate the community on the life of Islam, after there was a significant backlash against Muslims and Arabs following the attacks, in order to start building bridges…and people like Bill O’Reilly are consistently keeping the flames alive. This isn’t about an accidental choice of words – this is about the fact that this has been transformed into an issues through maneuvers like this.

O’Reilly is a smart man who knows the business, and knows what he was doing. I have enough respect for his work to admit that. They were trying to get at the reason why 70% think it’s a bad idea – and it’s because O’Reilly keeps saying things like “Muslims killed us on 9/11. This is disrespectful.”

We obviously see this differently. I think you give O’Reilly way too much credit for being able to manipulate the views of 70% of America. And realistically there is no backlash against Muslims. A short spike in 2002, but it’s gone. Jews are much more likely to be the victims by about 10–1.

“I’d be happy to have the rest of America leave us alone on this one…we’re the ones that are healing.”

No chance. We were all affected and we’re all healing.

@Jaxk

We may indeed see things differently – but not maybe as much as you think. I wouldn’t attribute all of the 70% to O’Reilly – I said people like him, and statements like the one that he made. He’s not the cause, but he’s an influence, and he knows how to use it.

And of course, we never got the source of the poll, the methodology of it, and the question asked. ;-)

@iamthemob

It was a CNN poll. Done in August.

@Jaxk – Thanks! That was a useful link (it would have been great if O’Reilly had said that).

Here was the question and the results:

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site
in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?
Aug. 6–10
2010
Favor 29%
Oppose 68%
No opinion 3%

Polls are of course influenced by the neutrality of the question as well as the information it contains. There are three significantly biasing influences: (1) they refer to it as a mosque, (2) there isn’t any information regarding the purpose of the community center, and (3) it asks for the respondent to favor or oppose it. Although there is a percentage of no opinion, the question would influence people to choose a side or the other side – and to favor or oppose it. Opposing it could very well be due to concerns that, in the current environment, it would be attacked – not because they shouldn’t. It also doesn’t give us any information about the level they favor or oppose, and how much they knew before answering. There is no information regarding the make-up of the sample, or how it was chosen – the overwhelming majority of the sample of conservative and 65+ people opposed, a majority of liberals favored, and a smaller majority of non-whites opposed – and there’s no information about anyone under the age of 35. If the sample was biased one way or another in it’s makeup, that affects the outcome. Finally – the sample was based on 1000 people. When you break that down, it can bias the outcome even more.

I’m not trying to harp – but when people rest on polls to claim “what Americans think” they are making a dangerous claim, and the sample better be rock solid. Otherwise, they’re essentially using lies (as the claim is untrue without substantial support) to convince people they’re right.

@iamthemob

Actually there was a replay of the O’Reilly segment on the View, just a little while ago and the CNN poll was mentioned. And it is a Mosque. The community center portion is not the debate, the mosque is. Any mention of the purpose would have been an enormous bias since that is totally opinion. And of course it asks for an up or down vote.

Legitimate polls have proven themselves to be representative. CNN opinion dynamics has a solid reputation and is quoted by liberals and conservatives alike. I think you’re grasping at straws.

There is a difference between quoting a poll and stating “70% of Americans think x.” That’s my problem. Not grasping at straws – this poll is interesting, but it is neither (1) representative at that level, nor (2) revealing about the reasoning of the debate. When pundits say things like this, on either side, they want us to refrain from looking into the issue, rather than asking us to think. That’s my problem.

@iamthemob

I’m having trouble finding common ground here. But that’s OK since the difference of opinion is interesting. Quite often the results of these polls are used to debate why. If you recall, what started the debate on the View was discussion of why Obama’s poll numbers were dropping. The Mosque issue was in reference to that question. In other words the Obama poll was used to look into the issue rather than to avoid it.