Yes, but the problem is if you rely on a limited amount of talk radio (or any news medium) for accuracy, sticking with one or two of your favorites, then you need to realize that you can and might be being deceived by them on occasion. Like I've said before, I like to go through a variety of sources for a story, because each one of them has a nugget of information that wasn't in the other one and each news source tends to put their own spin on things. Or they get it wrong and you need the other news sources to provide the right information--the most recent example here on the thread being the Neil Armstrong vs Neil Young confusion.
If I didn't know any better and I relied strictly on Rush Limbaugh, I'd have thought that you need to take a birth control pill each time you have ***... and despite that recent upheaval in the news, there ARE people that still believe that! I was talking to a guy here at our Post (die-hard Republican, just for the record), and he honestly had no idea that it's a day-a-pill device taken for years on end, and that oral contraception can take three to four months to become effective. And even then, it's not 100%--it can still result in as many as ten pregnancies out of every 100 women that take it due to human error or interactions with other medicines, like antibiotics. Also, this guy didn't know that there are medical reasons to take it, at which point I had to explain my PMDD, the anxiety/stress and the hospitalizations that my condition has resulted in, etc. and further explain the other conditions that women are beset with (http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/m ... raception/
Even then in the face of medical facts, he looked at me with skepticism... because these facts didn't come from the mouth of Rush, just from some random woman off the street. (And, yes, I'm still pissed off that for some twisted reason, morons think that the birth control = promiscuity and therefore you're a **** by default, even if (like me) you've never had ***. Ignorance at its finest, I swear.
That's the danger in relying on certain sources of information, too. A person on television or on the radio gives an air of legitimacy to things that they might not know diddly-squat about, but people believe them just because they're "on the air." Therefore, there's no reason to question or double-check what they're saying! What's great is that now, we have the world at our fingertips thanks to the internet. It used to be that you had newspapers delivering you the news (or their version of it) and THAT was your information, that was your reality, and that was the "truth" they were telling you. Because, of course, if it was a lie, why would they go through the trouble of writing and printing it, right?
And therein lies the challenge--you need
that comparison/contrast factor and you need to listen to both sides of an argument. The more sources that you have speaking into your ear, the more aware you're going to be about who is "spinning" their story the strongest. And who is out to twist public consciousness in the process. When MSNBC posted a story about Rebecca Black and showed a diagram of her exposed brain (63% of her exposed brain asks, “Which seat can I take?” while 25% rambles, “Fun, fun, think about fun!”, 3% percent points out “Yesterday was Thursday,” another 3% notices that “Tomorrow is Saturday” and another 3% tells her, “Sunday comes afterwards."), oh, I went off (http://standupjokeoff.newsvine.com/_new ... -continues
). And that, too, still rankles--that was a very public attempt to manipulate hate towards a child.
Now, listening to Dwight Schultz do his program is educational and informative, but it's only ONE step in learning about the issues that he brings up. He quotes people and adds on his own view to those quotes, and it's important to learn who those people are, what sources he's quoting from, what context that quote was taken in, and how it applies to the conversation at hand and the topic in general... or doesn't. More knowledge is essential to making that decision. We can't rely on every single word he says as gospel. For a very minor example, in Novi, he said that Red Ryder and his horse stepped out of the book at the beginning of the episode, but it seems it was Red Ryder and Little Beaver who did, and the horse came later-- http://fantrans.blogspot.com/
). Does that tidbit of data matter? Not at all, but it's an example of general human fallibility--just another reminder not to take everything as solid fact when you consume it.
On the "authority" level, someone could try to discredit Dwight's qualifications for speaking to an audience by saying, "Oh, but he's 'just' an actor who does cartoon voices, right?"...but if you know anything about the man, you know that he's had a lifelong interest in conservative politics and is a walking computer of information on a variety of subjects. Personally, I'd put his years of layman's education up against some four-year political science student in a heartbeat. That was the same kind of public skepticism that met Reagan, who the opposition tried to dismiss as "just an actor"... then he became a governor... then President...
Oh, I AM going on today, ain't I?