Quoted from flynnibus:Here's a simple indicator... if the show is a single person just monologuing about things - it's not going to be a good source of anything except a platform.
The monologue delivery is used because it provides a single stream of uncontested content. The narrative can be laid out and traversed without having to defend or face opposition. The hand picked 'guests' whose role it is to reiterate and support the narrative are just a tool to support the narrative being laid out - they aren't an actual open dialogue of other views.
When they do it on TV/Radio you only have their interpretation of the information they are supposedly citing. You don't see the actual sources - at best only things in snipets. You have no immediate way to check their sources. They use this to their advantage to pass distortion or selective interpretation as credible sources.
And when it's a real slant... there is no obligation to be objective... and they use repetition and filtered perspective to pump ideas. They rely on horrible logic and argument techniques and just beat people into believing it's a rational way to support the conclusions or challenges pushed. The one way broadcast model uses this lack of accuracy checking to their advantage to move right past 'close enough' facts to build larger ideas and conclusions based on that.
It's no coincidence in the format these talking heads use for their show. It's all part of the toolset.
Doesn't matter if it's left leaning or right... It's a downright manipulative, horrible format to get information from.
I would give to 2 + thumbs up here. I wish I could write as eloquently as you do and still get the point across.