Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fox0566
I don't listen to Medved any more. He provides a ghastly disproportionate amount of time and opportunity for invited liberals and radicals on his radio show. I can't stomach it any more.

He books articulate, educated, soft-spoken leaders of radical protest groups on his show all the time. Recently he schmoozed with the moral-equivalency author of an "Islam is a religion of peace" type of book for most of his program.

Instead of the usual radio interview/discussion time of a segment or two, he gives them an hour, sometimes more, to deseminate veiled or un-veiled anti-America, anti-war or anti-Bush propaganda.

Now I realize Medved likes to debate the enemy at length, and he's pretty good at it. But the crafty enemy guests don't care one whit what poor Michael is saying in rebuttal, all they want to do is get their messages out......and let me tell you, some of these messages make a great deal of sense to the uneducated who get sucked in. That's why these radicals are leaders, they're smooth-talkers and know how to snare converts. Michael gives them their golden opportunities.

Medved probably thinks he's being "fair and balanced", but he's naive to think his show is not being used by the left.

His show is dreadfully boring, to boot. He's one of those droners. I doubt if his show has exceptional ratings.

BTW, I've read Medved's past books on Hollywood and the Left. They were absolutely excellent and strongly conservative.

However on the other hand, his bland left-coast show leads me to believe he backs off a little when it comes to live radio. IMO, his program remains on the air because he doesn't make too many waves, he appears "fair", plus lefties, radicals and commies are always welcome to participate at length in his studio.

His media mogul bosses may like this totally cozy scenario.

Leni

93 posted on 01/14/2006 7:56:52 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: MinuteGal
What I love about Medved is that he gives a chance for the far-left to demonstrate just how groundless and detached from reality they truly are. He's a former liberal himself, and he's very respectful of other people's beliefs and attitudes. On the film boards I attend, bringing up his name means a volley of insults directed at him, he'll be called a bigot, a homophobe, etc., when he's nothing of the sort. He is indeed very sympathetic to gays, siding with them on the Basic Instinct controversy, and devoting at least two pages in Hollywood Versus America attacking those who claim there's a Gay Mafia working behind the scenes in Hollywood, and is very careful to note that some of the best, life-affirming movies have been made by gay film makers (for instance, James Ivory's films). He also named An Lee's The Wedding Banquet, one of the best films of 1994.

My main problem with him is, that while he can be a very witty writer, his film reviews seem to hurried, and he doesn't devote enough space explaining why he has taken a particular position on a film, leaving him open to the type of potshots he frequently takes from the far left. He does that much better in his longer essays.

99 posted on 01/14/2006 2:12:20 PM PST by RightWingAtheist ("Why thank you Mr.Obama, I'm proud to be a Darwinist!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson