Name-calling during public discourse in the media. . . can it be productive?

T

todd

New member
If you have listened to political talk radio recently, chances are you've heard one or more hosts, on air, engage in name-calling. And then the host might hang up on the caller. But I digress. . . how would you assess the following statement? Kindly give a reason for your answer.

"Calling another person a moron does not lead to a productive exchange of ideas."

(for reference, this statement was made by Mike Godwin in a recent magazine interview. I'm not setting up Mike Godwin as an authority figure. I'm not appealing to him as an authority, and I haven't read his writings but for a recent magazine interview.)

Oh, -- and as for my answer -- I agree with the statement because name-calling is what a bully sixth-grader does to a fourth-grader. I don't know why certain political talk-show hosts do it to callers.

P.S. As for those who might counter, "Well, if the shoe fits. . . " I've already heard that answer and it's a non-sequitur. It doesn't address the question.

Thank you and take care. = )
 
I know think that most of the big broadcasters are interested in the productive exchange of ideas. They are interested in inflammatory entertainment, in the same vein as Jerry Springer. This type of entertainment is what sells and what boost their ratings.

The only program, that I know anyway, that seems interested in thoughtful exchange of ideas is the PBS Newhour. Tim Russert was a huge loss in this field.
 
Name calling, along with any other personal attack, slander or smear campaign is unproductive in any debate or serious conversation, regardless of one's politics.

It is the last bastion of someone losing the argument.
 
Back
Top