Galloway has every right to cut off whomever he likes. In this case he jumped to the natural conclusion that the caller was anti-Jewish. Even if the neo-cons were started by a group of Jewish people it simply doesn't make sense to say that it's Jewish. I've made this point before, but Economics and capitalism as a specific science was pretty much defined by a Scottish man called Adam Smith - does this mean that all capitalists are Scottish? Of course not...
I am sorry if it was long. My point is in there though.
I feel Gallloway did not hear him out. It feels to me that Galloway is getting so comfortable in his ring that he can simply cut out people who may bring good points the the table by saying it is racist and not hearing it further. I am prone to see those kinds of things, living in America, from both sitting on a high horse and seeing racisim.
I do not listen to George Galloway anymore live because he uses the mute button so much and cuts them off. I can tell. I can hear it. I listen to radio DJs and other debates taking place and there is no side of a conversation that takes place in a fair environment where both participants are not granted equal dignity to that environment. Meaning, if George can hush someone's volume out and speak over them, then the other person can as well. But of course, powers like this are really unecissary when you know what in the hell you are talking about.
George Galloway may have every "right" to cut anyone off as he likes....But that does not mean it is right.
I do believe the kind of caller who talked to Galloway is the wrong kind of caller to talk to his show at that time. They need to go out for tea or something. But I also believe that this kind of person, who if would have made a good impression, would have made an extremly good call for both sides. I believe there was a serious lack of miscommunication, and understanding.....As well as jumping to conclusions and unecissary infringment of debate conversation that took place there. I hope George learns well from this call. It is just not how you treat people, to say the least.
But if you take into account the comparison I made with 'All capitalists being Scottish' the rest of the argument is moot. He cut the guy off at the root of his incorrect argument.
There are many people who are neo-cons who've never even met a Jewish person and who also probably don't even realise they are neo-cons. It's not a racial thing, it's a human condition - that of being a bastard usually...
More than anything else......Telly costs, it costs to develop, produce and broadcast shows, quite a bit in fact, and if anyone wants to plug books or websites then let them buy the right to do so.
GG may have jumped the gun slightly but it's his show and as I have defended the right also on his radio show you sometime have to press the "disconnect" button for reasons that might not be apparent to viewers.
Further....I love George Carlin and think his stand up is up there with Bill Hicks and others but nowhere in that stint does anything he says back up your point. He says "fuck all religions" and "look, the government is screwing you." In fact the clip backs up GG's cutting off off the guy...his opinion was he was an asshole and he told him so!
But if you take into account the comparison I made with 'All capitalists being Scottish' the rest of the argument is moot. He cut the guy off at the root of his incorrect argument.
There are many people who are neo-cons who've never even met a Jewish person and who also probably don't even realise they are neo-cons. It's not a racial thing, it's a human condition - that of being a bastard usually...
Maybe the guy misspoke. It may have not been good to cut him off there if, in the end, George was able to stomp his stupid face into the ground or show him why his logic is no good. George can do better than cutting people off like that.
I would rather brand the wicked than set them free. And this is why it may bother me so much about dumping callers like this and some others........No one is learning anything good when you terminate a call like that.
More than anything else......Telly costs, it costs to develop, produce and broadcast shows, quite a bit in fact, and if anyone wants to plug books or websites then let them buy the right to do so.
GG may have jumped the gun slightly but it's his show and as I have defended the right also on his radio show you sometime have to press the "disconnect" button for reasons that might not be apparent to viewers.
Further....I love George Carlin and think his stand up is up there with Bill Hicks and others but nowhere in that stint does anything he says back up your point. He says "fuck all religions" and "look, the government is screwing you." In fact the clip backs up GG's cutting off off the guy...his opinion was he was an asshole and he told him so!
Are you suggesting cost is the reason or part of the reason why it is justified Galloway cut him off?
The reason why someone presses the disconnection button should always be apparent to me, if I am the viewer. Otherwise, how do know what is going on or why something happened? I do not like it otherwise. It must be sad for those who regard authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.
I posted the George Carlin video in reference to Faceless's mention of Rights. It starts at about 4 minutes and 40 seconds. He is talking about the idea in general and gives an example of religion, since that is what he is good at. But the points still stands, regardless of Carlin's mention of religion. The religion segment and mentions in that video is hardly why I posted it.
I think cobweb is making the point that the guy used the show to advertise a book and his website... but why should he get free advertising when the show costs money to make and broadcast?
I'm suggesting if I produced a telly programme I wouldn't give out free advertising..which is what this guy was indulging in...so screw him.
You aren't privvy to the full conversation that was ABOUT to be broadcast as all so called live shows have a roughly 5 second delay on the incoming stuff from phone in's to prevent obscenities or slanderous comments from being broadcast. So if the guy had said something truly awful you'll never hear it whether you like it or not!
...and again I think the whole George Carlin right thing backs up GG's ability to cut off who he likes when he likes it. A caller might have a right to phone in and say what he wants and GG has the right to cut them off when ever he feels like it. He can choose to listen to them or not..that's his right.
I think cobweb is making the point that the guy used the show to advertise a book and his website... but why should he get free advertising when the show costs money to make and broadcast?
Sir,
Free advertising or whatever it is labeled.....It is the cost of "freely" taking callers to any show that you take on. Anyone can call up and advertise anything! Websites. Information. People. Ideas. Books. Locations. You name it and it can probably be advertised. Are you suggesting now perhaps he should be charged for being able to share such information? I am hoping not.
I'm suggesting if I produced a telly programme I wouldn't give out free advertising..which is what this guy was indulging in...so screw him.
You aren't privvy to the full conversation that was ABOUT to be broadcast as all so called live shows have a roughly 5 second delay on the incoming stuff from phone in's to prevent obscenities or slanderous comments from being broadcast. So if the guy had said something truly awful you'll never hear it whether you like it or not!
...and again I think the whole George Carlin right thing backs up GG's ability to cut off who he likes when he likes it. A caller might have a right to phone in and say what he wants and GG has the right to cut them off when ever he feels like it. He can choose to listen to them or not..that's his right.
Every person who calls George Galloway advertises something: Opinions. Facts. Stances. Points of view. I find that, in fact, to hide behind the excuse of denying a person based on advertisement as the reason you bumped them usually means there are ulterior motives behind why you actually dismissed the caller. Mainly because we already should know that everyone legally advertises. Moreover, rather than take that caller down to the peg he belongs, the host really just leaves him where he is and bewildereds the viewers and leaves them to think as they would about the odd sittution they have just witnessed. Who knows what that would be!?
I am not prvvy to those 5 seconds or whatever it is that someone hears before me. However, George Galloway has not had problem with painting a picture for the viewers specifically with each caller before. Again, I would rather he brand the wicked than set them free.
How can you think that the whole Carlin thing I posted backs up Galloway's point when Carlin clearly says, "Folks, I hate to spoil your fun, but there is no such things as rights! We made them up....Like...".....And he goes on. How can that back up Galloway having the "right" to disconnect that caller? Wouldnt you say that is more chalked up to Galloway's Freewill more than his Right?
Free advertising or whatever it is labeled.....It is the cost of "freely" taking callers to any show that you take on. Anyone can call up and advertise anything! Websites. Information. People. Ideas. Books. Locations. You name it and it can probably be advertised. Are you suggesting now perhaps he should be charged for being able to share such information? I am hoping not.
The important consideration is profit. If anyone were to try and use their posting privilege (because technically that's what it is, you have no 'right' to say anything) in order to make money here then that wouldn't be acceptable. Just because you open the doors it doesn't mean you must allow people to run amok ...
Free advertising or whatever it is labeled.....It is the cost of "freely" taking callers to any show that you take on. Anyone can call up and advertise anything! Websites. Information. People. Ideas. Books. Locations. You name it and it can probably be advertised. Are you suggesting now perhaps he should be charged for being able to share such information? I am hoping not.
The important consideration is profit. If anyone were to try and use their posting privilege (because technically that's what it is, you have no 'right' to say anything) in order to make money here then that wouldn't be acceptable. Just because you open the doors it doesn't mean you must allow people to run amok ...
People can come through the door. It does not mean they will run amok at all. And if they do, then you know they will only be there long enough to show why they came in the first place.
What you just said to me faceless is, "The important consideration is profit." Do you hear yourself?!
Never in my whole life will profit EVER be more impotant than people. Profit does not even have any comparison to people. I cannot even believe you just said that. People is what we are taking about and their infringment of "rights" and now we are dragging on into "profit" considerations. Are you fucking kidding me?
If anyone was trying to use their posting priviledge for disgusting advertisement, you would be the first to catch him. You are very on top of your game here and in real life. That is evident. The caller may have been advertising his website, but it is no different than anyone else advertising anything else in the world they wish to refer to.
In my mind, advertisment does not work simply because you do not have anything to charge him with as far as advertisment costs when they are knowingly incurred by the due process of the radio/TV program.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
