Generally speaking, political talk shows are little more than entertainment venues whose level of intellect rarely rises above confirmation bias and too often descends into the pits of blatant propaganda.
Talk shows present news and then provide commentary, in the form of a unique perspective prepared and crafted to be consumed by a specific audience in such a way that the audience feels more educated then those who do not listen to the show. The audience then becomes addicted to the show, craving the offered perspective and distrusting any other news or commentary until they have heard “the take” from the show. Once this level of discipleship is secured, it is all too easy for the show to begin directing the thought process of their audience and convincing the audience that anyone with a different perspective then what is peddled on the show is unintelligent, willfully uneducated, or blatantly misrepresentative. The final result is often the abandonment of individual reason, thoughtful and personal consideration of facts and evidence, and disregard for the value of unique perspectives and experiences.
Whether intended or unintended, this is often the reality for political talk shows across the political spectrum. Whether it’s the Late Show or Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow or Michael Savage, an over reliance on these venues for developing our political opinions and ideology robs us of intellect and reason.
In contrast to the political talk show approach is the intellectual and journalistic approach, the approach that suggests the best arguments are those directed at the unconverted or disbelieving, designed to promote understanding and acceptance, and crafted to promote ideas to a broad audience so they can become actionable ideas and not just complaints from the peanut gallery. The greatest strength of this approach is that it necessitates experiencing different perspectives and exploring opposing viewpoints in order to best understand how to craft effective arguments.
-The Millennial Federalist