Sincere Debaters vs. Talking Point Carriers
Posted: Tuesday, October 14, 2008
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
There are basically two types of media pundits and commentators who exist on the various sides of the political spectrum -- sincere debaters and talking point carriers. These are the people who are often seen on TV, heard on the radio, and read in print, offering their opinions of current affairs. But there's marked difference between the two sorts that can easily be identified.
Talking point carriers, on the other hand, have a fixed opinion. They will use whatever verbal gymnastics that are necessary to forge ahead with their agenda. They have pre-programmed themselves to move in a given direction -- logic and common sense are never obstacles in their path. They seek out only the facts that reinforce their preconceived notions, conveniently ignoring or explaining away those that do not. They will continue to argue their point even after being proved wrong. They add to the growing coarseness of our culture.
This Article has been viewed 358 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)Short, but concise. I couldn't agree more with this. If this article were to be expanded, we might learn something about why talking point has usurped the role of debate. Debates used to be long, drawn out affairs. Now we have one-and-a-half hour prime time cable television and radio slots that all but preclude any possibility of more than Tom Brockaw's "two minutes." As well, the candidates are on jets within the hour of the conclusion of a televised debate, off to another state, or campaign headquarters.
Big sigh. Things just don't work as they were once intended.
Terry you said it all right here in your statement "They seek out only the facts that reinforce their preconceived notions, conveniently ignoring or explaining away those that do not." Your entire article speaks to it and I concur exactly. Yes the fact or truth does not change because one wishes it too. I offer this example as something I have been writing to for years now. I only ask you with complete respect for you, if you are of the opinion that usury is sin? I did not say legal, I said sin? If so why is it never addressed as the fact it is by any of these so called leaders or even supporters of these leaders? Can one who professes if it is sin look the other way? can they make excuses or as you say IGNORING. Does it matter and does it not impact people? So in reality the real facts and truth is in what they have done or failed to do and no one to few ever address it, fact. I have not had one ever explain how they can accept it. Best regards,Robert, it all depends how you define usury. If you mean simply charging a reasonable interest rate on loaned money, it say it not a sin. In Jesus' telling of the parable of the talents, the Master chided the foolish servant for not at least earning usury (that exact word in the KJV) on the money he was put in charge of. If usury was bad, why would Jesus encourage people to partake of it?Now, if what you mean by usury to charge exorbitant interest rates, I agree that it is a sin. An example would be a credit card company charging 21% on people's balances.Yes Terry and that is my point. I knew you would understand that. In what context it is used. So how do these leaders justify supporting or ignoring laws that allow this "sin" , usury, as we know it and by the way 21% is a very low rate these days, try 34.9% or higher. So my perplexity for those who profess to believe is how do we as believers allow it? That is the point I just do not understand? When it is a sin no levels of tolerance is acceptable for a believer and in my opinion we should not support anyone who supports sin or we participate in allowing it. We must stand against it. Yet as you write people will try to justify it as acceptable, no choice, the lessor of evils. No evil is lessor to me or acceptable as a follower. It is what it is and needs to be addressed by those who profess the same belief. Thanks for the excellent reply.Of course, the government also tolerates other sins like abortion and same-sex marriage.Yes you are correct in that government tolerates those sins. However, it is my opinion that is because, not right, but because of personal interpretation that those are not sins, which of itself lends to contention or confusion even among clergy. Therefore neutrality by politicians. However, I find no contention or confusion in usury. Good after thought.
Terry, I agree with Gregory Lewis' statement, this is a concise and informative article on your topic. I enjoy your writing as you write about things I would not necessarily seek out to read because it isn't usually interesting. Your style makes it interesting to me and you may help increase my IQ! *laughing* Keep it up, okay? I need all the help I can get. Great article!Avis, thank you so much. I don't believe I've ever received such a delightful compliment. You made my day!
Examples: Talking point carrier = Rush Limbaugh; Sincere Debater = Bill O'Reilly. May be! ~mogama~
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.