ern on the part of some politicians, journalists, and critics is that talk radio hosts are gaining political power. Since many of these talk-show hosts are considered by critics to be rude at best and demagogic in some cases, they are seen as a general coarsening of the political discourse and as dangerous because they can influence so many people with questionable information and ideas. Yet, some groups found an opportunity in the same set of facts:
These fervent spiels, in which we heard America slinging, stinging, cajoling, annoying, persuading, finally transformed the social dialogue. . . Listeners tend to be white, male and hep to conservative ideas just the audience the Republicans wanted to mobilize (Corliss and Dickerson 23).
The issue was raised to a new level in 1995 when President Clinton made a speech in Minneapolis and made a reference to the new talk show media, noting that many use their shows "to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. [Such people] spread hate, they leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. . . . It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior" (Buckley 70). For the listeners of these shows, though, talk radio is an opportunity to hear the truth denied them by the traditional media. It also offers them the chance to voice their own opinions, increasingly important for people who believe no one, least of all their government, is listening to them:
Those thousands can and do talk back. The call in format of many radio shows is a rare democratic ideal in practice, penetrating political cynicism and apathy, and giving a broad spectrum of listeners the chance to put their opinions into the debate (Chou PG).
Howard Stern has also been seen as a major element in the coarsening of broadcasting and public discourse. His show has a political element, as wi...