For anyone to listen to what is being said these days on TV and radio and take it in as anything close to objective...well you'd have to be homer.

For example: KO speaks his own brand of truth to power. His questions to people of like mind are just like Sean Hannity's in that the question begs a specific type of answer that coincides with a point of view implicit in the question. He (and Hannity) does not ask a question to discover the answer or gain some new perspective but rather to confirm his own opinion or point of view. This brings very little value to anyone interested in learning the truth of an issue but is of high value to the "homers" of a certain perspective. In an objective sense as it relates to any issue it's very unproductive...it's frickin' useless and it's almost everywhere.

Igmond50 wrote:For anyone to listen to what is being said these days on TV and radio and take it in as anything close to objective...well you'd have to be homer.

Wait, are you implying something about the sexual orientation of KO or SH or the people who listen to them?  

And if so, what about Chris Matthews with that whole "this thrill going up my leg" thing.  I mean that is kind of way out there.

So, in your opinion, should these political commentators (not actual journalists), not ask questions?  Should they just espouse their political viewpoints and not ask someone to debate them so that issues can be discussed?  Just wondering.  When the Fairness Doctrine is imposed and we only get to hear people like KO, will all those lefties stop asking questions then?

paleocon wrote:

Igmond50 wrote:For anyone to listen to what is being said these days on TV and radio and take it in as anything close to objective...well you'd have to be homer.

Wait, are you implying something about the sexual orientation of KO or SH or the people who listen to them?  

And if so, what about Chris Matthews with that whole "this thrill going up my leg" thing.  I mean that is kind of way out there.

Ohhhh.  You said "Homer."  I thought you said something else.  Never mind.

paleocon wrote:

paleocon wrote:

Igmond50 wrote:For anyone to listen to what is being said these days on TV and radio and take it in as anything close to objective...well you'd have to be homer.

Wait, are you implying something about the sexual orientation of KO or SH or the people who listen to them?  

And if so, what about Chris Matthews with that whole "this thrill going up my leg" thing.  I mean that is kind of way out there.

Ohhhh.  You said "Homer."  I thought you said something else.  Never mind.

No, it was the Liberal condescending attitude coming through.  Anyone who is a conservative is not much brighter than Homer Simpson.  Funny how that Homer thing shows up in a rant on objectivity.  Apparently provided to give us an insight into what the Liberal mindset means by objective discussion.

It would be sooo much easier if they put that condescending stuff in all caps or something.

Just exactly what is a homer?  Is that a baseball player?  Is it a homing device?  Is it someone selling homes?  Is it Bart's daddy?  Is it a greek philosopher and poet?  Is it a city in Alaska?  What???

SoldiersMum wrote:Just exactly what is a homer?  Is that a baseball player?  Is it a homing device?  Is it someone selling homes?  Is it Bart's daddy?  Is it a greek philosopher and poet?  Is it a city in Alaska?  What???

I use the term homer to describe a person who roots for a specific perspective and has choosen to close themselves off to any other. In the news talk business (TV or Radio) it is happening with greater frequency for liberals and conservatives. I tried to make that point by including KO and Hannity in the comment. Overall there is little real value...it's predictable and pretty damn boring.

I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine anymore than I favor a TV or radio personality who shuts out opposing perspectives.

FYI: Homer is more commonly used in sports to identify a fan or broadcaster who can find no wrong with their team or its players...until of course the player goes to another team or the team leaves town.

For example, as a homer I might say The Detroit Red Wings could kick the shit out of any team of backwoods inbred hucksters  - despite knowing that backwoods inbred hucksters have the automatic weaponry to make it a close fight.

Igmond50 wrote:

SoldiersMum wrote:Just exactly what is a homer?  Is that a baseball player?  Is it a homing device?  Is it someone selling homes?  Is it Bart's daddy?  Is it a greek philosopher and poet?  Is it a city in Alaska?  What???

I use the term homer to describe a person who roots for a specific perspective and has choosen to close themselves off to any other. In the news talk business (TV or Radio) it is happening with greater frequency for liberals and conservatives. I tried to make that point by including KO and Hannity in the comment. Overall there is little real value...it's predictable and pretty damn boring.

I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine anymore than I favor a TV or radio personality who shuts out opposing perspectives.

That is really ironic.  That is EXACTLY how I would describe the term "IGMOND" that I use in similar circumstances.  

Example:  "Only a real IGMOND would support 'The Fairness Doctrine.'"  

What an odd coincidence.

paleocon wrote:

Igmond50 wrote:

SoldiersMum wrote:Just exactly what is a homer?  Is that a baseball player?  Is it a homing device?  Is it someone selling homes?  Is it Bart's daddy?  Is it a greek philosopher and poet?  Is it a city in Alaska?  What???

I use the term homer to describe a person who roots for a specific perspective and has choosen to close themselves off to any other. In the news talk business (TV or Radio) it is happening with greater frequency for liberals and conservatives. I tried to make that point by including KO and Hannity in the comment. Overall there is little real value...it's predictable and pretty damn boring.

I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine anymore than I favor a TV or radio personality who shuts out opposing perspectives.

That is really ironic.  That is EXACTLY how I would describe the term "IGMOND" that I use in similar circumstances.  

Example:  "Only a real IGMOND would support 'The Fairness Doctrine.'"  

What an odd coincidence.

You do that too?  What a coincidence!