Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sometimes, the temptation to take a symbol, or even a term of disparagement, and turn it against one’s opponents, particularly when those opponents specialize in smug condescension, is difficult to resist. So Dave Carter didn’t bother trying. Resistance takes too much energy anyway, and he’d rather use that energy having fun and chatting with his fellow deplorables. The idea of Radio Deplorable is to shine a spotlight on the people and places that those in the NYC-DC-LA vortex neither understand nor like very much.
Whether it is a chat with an author or commentator, a mechanic, a pastor, an interesting stranger at a truck stop, or just random thoughts from the host, the animating perspectives of this podcast will emanate from the folks that the condescending class claims to look out for, but who rarely miss an opportunity to sneer at and belittle. Years ago, Bill Buckley said that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard. At Radio Deplorable, we will, in a sense, go treasure hunting in the phone book.
Subscribe to The Dave Carter Show in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Published in: Podcasts
I am impressed. I have only mastered listening to podcasts.
I used to spend hours in the production studio back when I was hosting a radio show. It was a labor of love (and mischief). Mixing the podcast is an entirely different set of tasks from a technical stand point (apps vs. carts and reel-to-reel), but the fun is still there. This was a blast to prepare and I’m looking forward to doing more.
Wow — I’m kinda stuck on that “lickity split” thing there. I haven’t heard that in quite a while.
YES!! That’s what I thought, too! This is going to be fun listening to you again, Dave! And I love D.C. and all her superb ideas!
Great podcast. DC speaks as eloquently as she writes.
Who did that version of Peter Gunn?
What a heartening, thought provoking podcast.
Dave, I hope you and D.C. get together to do this again soon.
I’d be interested to hear you and D.C. talk about what can be done to facilitate a reconciliation between men and women, and what you think we should read or do to recover our cultural memory.
I’m thinking, if we get back to a worldview that recognizes there is such a thing as objective truth, the media will have to return to it as well.
I like that D.C. said that the truth is that we are witnessing a war on men not on women.
Re # 37
I must have missed D.C. saying that, but we are.
Re:#38
I take that back. We’re not witnessing a war on men or women. The attacks have been on any pattern of behavior that facilitates the process of young, poor and middle class people forming themselves into permanently committed, naturally potentially fertile, couples, and raising their children together in trust, peace and cooperation.
For more than 50 years, the war has been on ordinary marriage. Take something as small as this new thing of not congratulating young people who announce they’ve decided to get married. What does that assume?
This might be a more complete an answer.
Hello @davecarter – East coast secular liberal here, straight from the swamp of Washington, DC. I listened to your first episode with great interest. I feel the most important thing I can do right now is try to understand my fellow Americans of different political persuasions and to engage on the issues where we disagree.
Regarding @dcmcallister’s criticisms of the Women’s March – maybe for some participants it was just a chance to blow off steam or act out, as she says. But I know that plenty of women have experienced sexual assault or been systematically underpaid, and they feel the new administration is a further threat to them. Everyone’s story is different, and many people feel legitimately aggrieved. Same goes for Black Lives Matter.
I was also concerned by DC’s comment that media outlets should be more competitive with each other and let the cream rise to the top. I believe this is what’s been driving hyper-partisanship—news outlets report the angle tailored to their customer base, and the audience chooses whichever sources best fit their preconceived notions. Disagreement over simple facts and the belief that only the other side has an “agenda” is splitting this country.
Name-calling and personal attacks from either liberals or conservatives are completely counterproductive and unnecessary. I’m interested in having a dialogue on the issues, if anyone’s interested in engaging. Maybe we’ll find we have more common ground than we realized.
Thanks
Great show & guest!
Welcome to Ricochet, @dice!
My wife and I met D.C. at the Charlotte Meetup in April of . . . when was that? 2013? 2014?
Anyway, it only took one conversation with her to recognize a woman with a passionate intellect who expresses herself in a prose that makes one slack-jawed in awe. You might think I’m easily impressed, but I’m not.
D.C. is sorely missed at Ricochet, but knowing she is still out there fighting the good fight in other arenas is fabulous.
If any of you Ricochetti get a chance to meet her in person, watch out . . . those eyes of hers can pierce their way right through you.
@dice, I’m sorry I haven’t replied until now. Did I mention that my freight schedule sometimes takes a sadistic turn? I’ve been behind the wheel all day and spent over an hour, while already fatigued, trying desperately to find a truck stop or rest area that wasn’t already full so I could park for the night. I’m finally stopped but need desperately to rest. I’m hoping to be home tomorrow night, at which point I’ll retreat to my little study and happily respond. Thanking you in advance for your patience. And welcome aboard!
DC’s commentary shouldnt concern you, she’s perfectly generous in her opinions, what should be concerning is those who advocate violence, like the moonbat David Harbour.
News outlets competing isnt driving them to be democrat propagandists. Thats just who they are – in the old days – the media recognized their personal bias and attempted to be fair. (for the most part – that’s why outrages like Dan Rather “Fake but accurate” scandal stand out so starkly – it was an aberration) The Bush re-election drove the media to the cliff of sanity, the Trump campaign pushed them over the edge. The media gave up its moral high ground, the “Unbiased Objective Coverage” con, in order to defeat Trump, and he won anyhow. It just highlights their own impotence, that they could sell their souls and be left with nothing.
Well said overall — and the bolded section is exactly how I see it. Thanks.
@dice, I appreciate your patience while my work scheduled kicked me across the map. If you’ll look at your comments above, you’ll see that I inserted my responses parenthetically, in italics, in the body of your text. Seemed easier that way than composing a separate essay. I did mention the possibility of you writing a post on the topic, as I’m pretty sure other members would want to engage in a thoughtful dialogue, as you suggest.
@dice, you may wish to review @katebraestrup earlier posts and comments on how most on Ricochet try to communicate with progressives (I don’t use the word liberal anymore) that state their positions accurately. There can be dialogue here.
Wow, Dave — nice replies throughout. I appreciate that you took the time for this — really really excellent: measured, strong, polite and clear.
@davecarter – Thanks for the thorough reply. Your point about how I framed my post — overcoming disagreement rather than embracing agreement first — is well taken.
I won’t pretend to have answers to all your points. I’m not an apologist for the Clintons or their personal behavior, for instance.
We agree on the fallacy of assuming monolithic group opinions among women, black people, union members, etc. I think there’s a human need to neatly group things into categories and feel uncomfortable with outliers. Historically disadvantaged groups try to maintain cohesion as a sign of strength, but you’re right that individual voices are often drowned out. I’m not sure there’s an easy solution, but people should be aware and feel comfortable speaking out.
Regarding media partisanship, I hope we can get back to identifying one or more media institutions that a majority of Americans trust and view as a public good, not driven by profit motive. Maybe that’s a pipe dream, but we need to try. I found this chart of media brands interesting: http://boingboing.net/2016/12/14/an-attempt-to-chart-new-source.html. Maybe you’ll disagree with the distribution, but perhaps this could be a starting point for more conversation.
Thanks for the invitation to write a full post. For now I’ll give it a think. I look forward to your podcast. It’ll be good to take a break from pundits and hear perspectives of real people.
@occupantcdn – I hear what you’re saying. For what it’s worth, the journalists and editors I know, like the majority of them, are simply trying to report the day’s story, not fit it into a broader political narrative.
Social media over the past decade has allowed us as media consumers to filter based on our own biases. So the media no longer feel the need to acknowledge their own personal bias given their segmented audiences.
Do you think we can ever get back to having a few media institutions that most Americans would trust and consider a public good?
@dice:
If I may but in. You’re chart is an interesting concept, but wrong. Looking for points of agreement, “InfoWars” is in the right spot.
Everything in the grey circle in the center of the chart should be on the border 2 categories to the left. (CNN as well)
Fox, RedState, DailyCaller, Brietbart all should be 1 spot to the left.
Vox should not be considered a news source. (not because of their bias – but they’re just factually wrong so often)
The journalism at FOX, is really good, they report facts as they are and lets viewers digest it before they provide ‘analysis’ I think they clearly define reporting from opinion – a line that’s unclear at CNN, and ignored at NBC/ABC.
Huffy, MSNBC, Slate all belong near the bottom left.
Where do I get my news?
TV: BNN, CNN (In short doses – the stupidity starts to burn my eyes), FOX (I economized and canceled several months ago – mostly because of the repetitive prime time line up) CTV, Global.
Web: Drudge, Google News, Instapundit, DailyCaller, Brietbart NewsBusters
Dead2me: NYT, (and most other big city major papers) Yahoo News, CBC, facebook(on probation)
I think alot of news business got into trouble thinking that facts are ubiquitous, and tired to differentiate themselves by providing analysis. I think we have realized that the world is not swimming in facts, and the news people should get back to providing news. and leave the commentary for desert, and not the meal.
Yes, but those institutions will have to earn the trust. For example, what would CNN have todo?
When have they ever acknowledged their personal biases? Not very many and not very often — in fact they deny that they are mostly leftists.
Completely self serving and pathetic. The whole thing is skewed much more to the left.
NPR in the middle? This is a bald faced lie.
What’s BNN? And CTV?
I think the chart is not so accurate, in that it’s clear pushing a liberal agenda by putting liberal outlets in the “mainstream.”
Here’s the chart, so it’s easier for everyone to reference:
I’ve seen this around Facebook a lot over the past few months.
On the idea of news outlets being non biased, most of you will be better versed than I on this, but newspapers used to be biased, right? Or maybe I’m just thinking of my area. Joecephus Daniels used the News and Observer of Raleigh, NC to advance the Democrat ideas. A close friend of FDR, he used his paper to push the dems agenda.
I dont know any journalists or editors, but on many national issues, I dont believe they can honestly believe that anymore.
Last summer, the NYT editorialized that stopping Trump was so important, that they should give up objectivity and balance. I think I lot of the media silently agreed with this sentiment and had long been acting on it.
Social Media doesnt change the media’s obligations to its consumers. There is always a certain of the audience that is only catching 1 report or episode. Its too much to expect an audience to find balance in the body of work. The modern audience is too fragmented for that to be a reasonable expectation.
Hope you’re finding these discussions interesting – due to the word count restrictions, I often dont have space to be as verbose in disagreement as I would be verbally. I worry that sometimes this can come across as condescending or rude. I have no intention of being either of those – 3 words left.
Have anice day!
http://www.bnn.ca/
http://www.ctvnews.ca/
http://globalnews.ca/
These channels are Canadian news networks. BNN is Business News Network, roughly equal to CNBC (but less stock picking and cheer leading)
CTV and global are Canadian broadcast networks, like NBC or FOX. CTV has a cable news channel, and global does not.