[middie]

You are certainly correct in one sense. Your thesis is a true analogy to radio listeners believing hucksters like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingrham, and the rest of the cast of thousands who, at one moment repeat what you say in your post and then, in their crass commercial posture ask us to have faith in their assurance that the product du jour is the best, the brightest, the---(fill in the blank). Similarly, their ''personal'' endorsement (vis-a'-vis the product merely buying time for an ad) is intended to convince you upon your total faith in their trustworthiness.

Thus, when the product or service is later found to fail, injure users, or any similar factual establishment that your consumer's faith was misplaced, it is not merely rhetorical to ask: Does that failure justify the listener's future doubt when the talking head is repeating yet another assurance of a fact relating to public policy, political integrity or the purported truthfulness of one person, himself (herself) or another? And, with regard to the future faith of the listener when still another product or service is hawked by the host, what level of trust is reasonable for the listener to have for that product specifically and all representations, assurances and interpretive conclusions as a universal matter?

[hiredhand]

Now THAT is a very good point! Whenever I hear the talk show host "plugging" for a mattress, or some health suppliment, I can only think of ONE thing (whether I'm correct or not!).

...and that one thing is -

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Credibility is extremely valuable, and should be more closely guarded by those who claim to be the "voice of liberty".

Unfortunately, for the most part this doesn't seem to be the case!

[capt. norm]

That's some pretty heavy navel-gazing. You need to get out more (or lighten up on the refreshments).

[Thickman]

What?