I love Ed Schultz, but a little of him goes a long way.

[Empowerer]

I think Schultz is great and I agree with most of what he says, but I frankly am tired of being yelled at by him night after night after night as he demands that the president do this or Congress do that, etc.

First of all, he's preaching to the choir. I sincerely doubt that many people watch his show who don't already agree with him, so his nightly diatribes have little effect other than to just gin up people who feel the way he does anyway.

Second, I am about through with talk show hosts - whether I agree with them or not - being given an hour or more every day to yell at me like real-life Howard Beales. It's lazy journalism and it's a waste of time.

Schultz is not the only one who does this. But compared with left-leaning cable show hosts, he doesn't bring much to the equation. Keith Olbermann makes many of the same points, but he does it with humor. Rachel Maddow whose calm, rational, deeply intelligent and knowledgeable approach is not only unparalleled on cable, it likely is very effective in attracting people who don't necessarily agree with her to listen to and perhaps learn from the points she makes. But Schultz brings neither humor nor any depth of insight to his show. He just talks about what he thinks and yells about what HE wants people to say or do.

Stopppppp!!!

Just saying . . .

[gokira]

1. he

just indirectly challenged Obama for 2012

[vaberella]

2. Amen. I agree he goes a bit OTT at times...actually most of the time.

But he's a populist---so.

[FrenchieCat]

4. He is a "populist" how? Cause he "talks" about it?

Is that really enough? Shouldn't he mobilize his listeners to contact their congressfolks,
and even show up at their offices? Does he ever really do that? :shrug:

[Empowerer]

8. No - he mobilizes his listeners to text HIM with their opinion about simple-minded questions

[vaberella]

11. Yeah...he does this now. n/t

[vaberella]

9. Well..early when he started the show...yeah he did.

Now...he just says Obama should do it. He's become a bit like some of the DUers here who think Obama has authority to do what he wants and there is no division of power. Or that Obama has the power to shut the well with just a thought. I admit this. I have no idea when he diverged so much---because early when the show first started he was very pro attacking Congress.

[monmouth]

3. Ed makes me think of what Tweety will be like when Tweety grows up..LOL...n/t

[Uzybone]

10. LOL

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Different approaches reach different people. I have no issues with how he delivers his message.

For the most part, those on the left are a bit too soft on the messages, thinking that reason and intellect will win the day. Not in this culture, it won't - at least not as the only method. If he can manage to keep this TV-anesthetized, intellectually lazy, apathetic public awake for at least the time he is speaking to them, then great.

[Empowerer]

15. I don't think the problem is that the left is too soft , but that we use intellectually lazy methods

for reaching our base. We think that because the right wing thrives on the screaming demagoguery of their commentators, we should turn our commentators into mirror images.

What good actually comes from hour after hour of cable news time being used to scream at our audience? I believe it's a waste of time and it treats our base as if they are drooling idiots incapable of processing rational information.

I think this time would be much better used by providing clear, substantive information. What's wrong with covering the news and presenting rational discussion? I'll bet the people you demean as "TV-anesthetized, intellectually lazy, apathetic public" are much more intelligent than you give them credit for. And I'll bet they'll stay awake for intelligent information just as well as you or I would. They don't need to be treated like morons.

[Cleita]

6. Ed is Ed and Rachel is Rachel. They couldn't become each other.

I'm liking Ed a lot more than I did when he first came on the scene. As far as being a champion of labor, he is the only one who is behind the working class every day and in every way. So if he gets passionate about it so much the better. I just hope it doesn't raise his blood pressure to dangerous levels.

[Empowerer]

7. What does being "behind the working class every day and every way" mean?

Ed Schultz is not a union organizer. He's a talk show host who gets paid a boatload of money to go on television and yell. I have yet to see any evidence that his nightly diatribes have done one whit to advance the interests of real working people. And even if they have, they don't need to take place night after night. That's what I mean about a little going a long way.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Hell, so many in the "working class" vote Republicans......

till I don't even know what "working class" even means anymore! :shrug:
Hell, I'm working class, and Big Ed tends to get on my nerves.

[Cleita]

14. Ed's one hundred percent behind unions and you couldn't

find a better advocate. But in this matter he seems to be like Dennis Kucinich, a lone voice for what is wrong with this country. I'm glad I worked in the days when we had labor laws that were enforced and strong unions. I wouldn't want to work in todays job market. Being overworked and underpaid isn't the good life IMHO.

[Empowerer]

21. Sitting in a television studio yelling at an audience who already agrees with you does little to

improve the lives of any working person.

[Cleita]

27. Well, it's so much better just having Rush, Sean and Billo instead talking about

those lazy poor people sucking up welfare or those immigrant children using our facilities :sarcasm: and no one talking about the concerns of working poor people. I'm happy someone talks about these issues. You seem to not have to worry about hourly wages, health insurance, and other things that concern working people or you wouldn't be so smug.

[Empowerer]

35. You are assuming that the only way to counter those people is to do exactly what they're doing

I disagree. Let them sit over on Fox News yelling their lies to their audience. I would rather the folks on our side not adopt those tactics but instead present intelligent information and perspectives that, in my view, would be considerably more effective in countering them than nightly diatribes could ever be.

And I don't need you to lecture me on what I have to worry about or the issues I care about. I feel just as strongly about all of these things as anybody - I just don't think it's productive to sit around yelling at each other about them. And I don't believe that Ed Schultz, regardless how genuinely he feels about these issues, is particularly effective in advancing the cause of working people by fussing night after night about it. Frankly, I think his show is becoming much more about Ed Schultz than the people he is supposedly "representing."

There's far too much, "what I wanna know is . . ." and "what I wanna hear is . . . " and "I demand that you . . ." and "blah blah blah blah . . . do you agree with me on that?"

[Cleita]

38. We don't have a free media. The media is owned by four or five very large

corporations who like to use it for propaganda. They allow a few dissident voices like Ed, Keith and Rachel on to have the appearance of fair and balanced. If those three people were allowed to do the programming for a real news format on MSNBC, you would find what is on the air quite different than the news actors that are doing the news on the earlier shows. NBC, which is owned by GE isn't going to let it happen.

[Cleita]

17. He does better than the other radio and TV hosts in getting the concerns

of the working person on the air. He may not be a union organizer but he gets the union people on the air when he can, especially during the big congressional health care sell out. I guess he should be poor to be credible according to you. Ed also is a businessman, just like Thom Hartmann and the other lefties in the media are. They are making money and I'm fine with it because I don't want to lose their voice because they couldn't earn enough to survive.

[Empowerer]

18. I have no problem with presenting the concerns of working people - I guess I'd just rather actually

hear from the working people themselves rather than listen to Ed scream and yell about what the working people need and want.

[Cleita]

24. Ed started out as a sportscaster and worked his way to where he is now.

I don't know how you don't consider these occupations jobs, which is what working class is unless you are top management and he's not. It's not like he's sitting around the pool waiting for his dividend check to come in. Also, all those guys on TV that spout RW talking points like Rush/Billo/Sean all belong to a union just like Ed does or they couldn't get on the air. So they are hypocrites too. At least Ed isn't. And if you want to see working people themselves talk, you have a better chance of seeing them as guests on Ed's show than elsewhere.

[Empowerer]

26. I think you're missing my point

But we'll just have to agree to disagree . . .

[Cleita]

28. No I get your point. n/t

[muffin1]

13. I like Ed, too.

I love that he's a HUGH liberal, but he doesn't fit the mold. Most 'far left' liberals resemble Dennis Kucinich (not a slam - I love him, too), or Alan Colmes. Ed is a big ol' strapping fisherman, hunter, and sportsman, and LIBERAL.

Give 'em hell, Ed!

[Billy Burnett]

16. The 40 minute hour is an ideal dose of Ed.

The 3 hr radio show is hard to take, but, the MSM needs more like Ed.

[Empowerer]

20. I think the MSM needs more news coverage and less Eds

I don't like that when I come home at night, I HAVE to get on the computer to get my news. I wish there were some place I could turn to on the television - since I can't always sit down at the computer - and get some actual news - not everyone and his brother's "analysis" of the news. Between 4 p.m. and 1 a.m. on these shows, there's hardly 5 minutes of actual news reporting but 9 hours of people giving THEIR opinion of the news. It's a marathon narcissistic, bloviating talkathon by people who are being paid just to run their mouths. It's very tiring.

[Cleita]

33. News coverage would be wonderful, but for that you will have to get

into a time machine and go back to the sixties. A few years ago, we didn't even have Keith, Rachel or Ed. There was Tweety but he was strictly a right wing brown nose. We have a long way to get back to real news coverage as you would like it. In the meantime be grateful that we even have a few bones to chew on like these hosts and that we have computers that haven't been turned into propaganda outlets yet.

[maxsolomon]

19. i think he sounds like Rush Limbaugh

literally SOUNDS like him. not content.

[1776Forever]

22. Just saying... I really think Ed is passionate! I like passionate! He is what he is!

I think he is dedicated to his beliefs and he does get a little "bold" at times but so what? He is really giving himself 100% to his values and I don't always agree with him but I respect him!

I for one am glad he is on radio and TV! I have sent him many e-mails that he has referenced on air and there are few hosts that do that! Go Ed!

[Empowerer]

29. I like passionate, too. But I don't need to see someone get passionate every night on television

in order to advance my beliefs. And, as I said, he's preaching to the choir.

[Phx_Dem]

23. I agree. More of a conversational tone and less intensity would be good.

[AmericaIsGreat]

25. Like Schultz too, but issue is not with the yelling

It's with the content of the yelling (with respect to this leak). He and others keep repeating this point that the government can work some kind of magic with this whole situation and just isn't true. The concept that they can seize BP is also untrue, and wouldn't even make sense. The gov't has been consulting Exxon, Shell, and others, and they all say "we'd be doing the same thing BP is." That's the scary part, but the truth is the government is not equipped to do anything about the actual gusher; simple as that. Now, if the argument is that that is a problem, I'm with you, but the truth of the current situation remains.

[Empowerer]

30. I agree with you.

[Cleita]

37. We don't have the will to seize BP, but we can.

If FDR were President it would already be done. All that is needed is to tell BP, that we are seizing their assets including their engineers. If they don't like it, we will arrest their EOs and put them on trial for criminal negligence. We can invite the Norwegians or others to come in and operate things under the authority of the Navy. We will tell BP that they can have their assets back once every penny of the damage has been paid for. We can use the proceeds from the sale of oil to start paying for it. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can return their assets to them. However, from what I've been reading, they don't really have any assets. They rent and subcontract almost all of their operations. All they have in money, much of it subsidized by the taxpayer.

[polichick]

31. imo Ed is great - he makes it impossible for the powers that be to ignore the message...

He's a champion for the middle class and Americans as a society.

GO BIG EDDIE!

[Empowerer]

36. You think the only way for "the powers that be" to get the message is to hear it from Ed Schultz?

I think you've bought into the hype.

[polichick]

40. LOL - I didn't say "the only way" - you must really feel threatened by what he says. nt

[Puglover]

32. When I have had enough of

a TV personality. I turn the TV off.

FWIW I like Ed. His "polls" are abit lame. But he really championed the health care issue. That went a long way with me.

[Cleita]

34. A very smart thing to do.

Right now Tweety just came on and the TV is going off.

[Sherman A1]

39. I gave up on all the talk shows as they are all pretty much

self serving. It's not news, just opinions about news.

[WCGreen]

41. Rachel Maddow is the only one worth listening to or watching...