Saturday, July 22, 2006

Pam Furr II

Dave of the11thhour writes about his impressions of an exchange between radio talk show host Pam Furr, and one of her callers earlier this week. Whether by coincidence or by "intelligent design" we both ended up listening to the same program. I listen to Pam Furr Monday, through Friday, and find her program to be the most interesting program on the local radio scene during the time slot her program occupies. Yet Dave relates almost exactly the same impression which I came away with from an earlier exchange Pam Furr had with another caller several months ago.

One thing I will not do is approach any critique of Pam Furr through Ad Hominem attacks. Such an attack is unwarranted. Also in all fairness to Pam Furr she is paid to "bring in the listeners" by generating interesting and controversial on air exchanges. That isn't a easy task to accomplish without stepping on someone's feelings. She's bound to offend some of her listeners including me.

The fact is listeners to talk radio programs can not assume that conservative radio host are actually as conservative as they sound, nor should we assume that some of the few liberal voices on talk radio are as liberal as they sound.

Middle of the road may be practical, but it's not as interesting as getting a good on air controversy started by advocating an extreme view. The polarizing exchanges we hear so often on radio talk shows are designed to keep the listeners interested.

Despite this understanding I still have problems with Pam Furr's program. On many occassions she seems to agree with callers simply because they sound as if they support her views. This despite the fact that the callers may be weaving in ideas that even Pam Furr herself would never endorse. I mentioned that in my prior post on Pam Furr (click on the link above). Dave of the11thhour mentions this same readiness on the part of Pam Furr to take and run with something a caller says simply because the caller sounds like they agree with her - whether what that caller says is based in fact or not.

It may be that Pam Furr isn't as well read in history, or science, or all the topics which come up on her show as we'd wish. Who can blame her for not being an expert on WWII, or Stem Cell research? Yet I am beginning to suspect that Pam Furr is all too willing to agree with what "sounds" conservative just to "sound" like she is in agreement with her Right Wing fanbase.

This can only act to damage Pam Furr's credibility.

Something Dave of the11thhour once shared with me many years ago was his iteration of the "Seven P Method". Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Dave picked that up in a Radio & Television class down Carbondale will attending SIU-C.

My suggestion to Pam Furr is that she spend more time studying up on the subjects she intends to discuss on her talk show. And that she not be so willing to agree with callers simply because they sound as if they agree with her. If she doesn't know something she needs to admit it. No one expects you to be an expert in every subject Pam.

9 comments:

Pamela Furr said...

I will say the same thing, I said to Dave on his comment page. DO YOU NOT KNOW SARCASM WHEN YOU HEAR IT????

Obviously you don't. And obviously you don't understand the simple words that I have said over and over for the past week. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Did you not hear the INTELLIGENT interview I did with one of the leading scientists in the country on Wednesday? We discussed embryonic stem cell research.

I'm not sure what else to tell you guys.

NOPE - not an expert on WWII and am unaware when I have ever used that subject for a segment on my show.

JeromeProphet said...

Pam,

Read my prior post regarding the Nazi Sympathist which called into your show.

He made a comment regarding how this poor old German WWII Veteran wanted to proudly display a photo of Adolf Hitler placing a medal on him.

I'm paraphrasing, but the caller said that the veteran couldn't understand why people didn't appreciate his pride over being awarded a medal by his nation's leader during WWII.

He compared it to the lack of understanding people have over the Confederacy in the USA.

He made these comments in agreement with your "Southern Heritage" comments.

Any wonder why you have David Duke supporters calling in?

The level of ambiguity which leave about your commitment on social justice is so great that it encourages the worst types of people to pick up a phone and make their idiotic utterings.

You can't ride the top of the fence on such issues.

Conservatives can make clear statements about race if they choose.

Yes it will cost them some votes, but it needs to be done for the sake of honesty.

I never claimed you were a racist, but you do tend to jump the gun to accept what you consider to be a supporting voice from callers.

As I've suggested you should take more time to prepare for your shows if you don't want to come off sounding uninformed.

JP

JeromeProphet said...

Pam,

Yes I listen to your program every morning. I heard some of your interview with the stem cell expert.

I understand that you support some types of stem cell research, including that which was to be funded by federal tax dollars IF only Bush would not veto the bill from his Republican controlled congress.

Your support for stem cell research is not what Dave, or I had written about. I am concerned that you tend to verbally accept support from callers who sound like they agree with you - but who simultaneously weave in their own misinformation, or worse yet disinformation during their call.

You could make the effort to clarify your beliefs - even if you have to disagree with a caller who sounds as if they are supporting your stances with their own.

It's hard to say, "Wait a second, thank you for calling in to agree with my views, but that last part of what you just said is not what I believe".

Or if you say, "I agree with half of what you said, the other half isn't exactly conservative as much as it is racist".

Sure you might not sound as conservative if you stake out your own ground, and disagree with your conservative callers - but you'd gain in credibility.

JP

Pamela Furr said...

Okay - as to the so-called Nazi supporter. If I remember the show correctly, (mind you this is almost 6 months ago) I did agree with the sentiment of the caller...and the point that he had made about being proud of his service and the recognition he received with the medal ceremony.

He was a member of his country's army, and was commended as a hero. He was proud of that. Did he kill any Jews? No. Did he participate in any of that activity? No. He was proud that he served the country that he loved during WWII.

I am proud of my southern heritage. I have NOT been deceived as to what the Civil War was all about. I am proud that my family served and took a stand for what they believed.

For the record, there is only ONE David Duke supporter that calls my show, but he calls EVERY show and says "GET DAVID DUKE ON." I hardly think that is something that should constitute "so-many David Duke supporters".

Pamela Furr said...

YOUR WORDS: I am concerned that you tend to verbally accept support from callers who sound like they agree with you - but who simultaneously weave in their own misinformation, or worse yet disinformation during their call.

MY WORDS: Again, I was sarcastic for the rest of the show with that information. I'm sorry if you didn't get it.

YOUR WORDS: You could make the effort to clarify your beliefs - even if you have to disagree with a caller who sounds as if they are supporting your stances with their own.

MY WORDS: I disagree with callers on a daily basis. I didn't take from his call that he was agreeing with me at all. He was trying to inform people of what indeed was "frozen in these labs"...and that they weren't implanted embryos. If you have half a brain, then you would know that the words "implanted embryos" is redundant...because an embryo IS by definition, in humans, the developing organism from the time of fertilization (ie implanted) until the end of the eighth week of gestation, when it is called a fetus.

YOUR WORDS: It's hard to say, "Wait a second, thank you for calling in to agree with my views, but that last part of what you just said is not what I believe".
Or if you say, "I agree with half of what you said, the other half isn't exactly conservative as much as it is racist".

MY WORDS: It's not hard to say that I disagree, if indeed that's what I wanted to say. As far as the so-called Nazi caller from months ago, I didn't think he was a racist, so why would I say that?


You say I'm riding the fence on social justice. I really don't see how you come to that conclusion if you listen to my show everyday.

YOUR WORDS: Sure you might not sound as conservative if you stake out your own ground, and disagree with your conservative callers - but you'd gain in credibility.

MY WORDS: Again, I disagree with those who call themselves conservative every single day. I am not sure why you believe I have lost come credibility....maybe with you, I suppose, and Dave over at the 11th hour (if I ever had any with him in the first place). I am sorry that I did not communicate my sarcasm clearly enough for you and Dave to understand. I will work on that in future broadcasts so that I can gain credibility to the level that suits you both.

As always, I thank you for listening.

Pamela Furr said...

** PLEASE NOTE ** There was sarcasm contained within the last section labeled MY WORDS.

ThirtyWhat said...

If you have half a brain, then you would know that the words "implanted embryos" is redundant...because an embryo IS by definition, in humans, the developing organism from the time of fertilization (ie implanted) until the end of the eighth week of gestation, when it is called a fetus.

Stand back ... I'm about to show my ignorance.

I am so not arguing with anyone ... cause I really don't want to get in the middle of this ... but are we sure that statement's true?

I thought an "implanted embryo" was an embryo that had actually been implanted into the womb. Before that, isn't it considered just an "embryo"?

This is off a Google search:

"In vitro fertilization
A procedure where an egg cell (the oocyte) and sperm cells are brought together in a dish (i.e. in vitro), so that a sperm cell can fertilize the egg. The resulting fertilized egg, called a zygote, will start dividing and after a several divisions, forms the embryo that can be implanted into the womb of a woman and give rise to pregnancy.
"

Again, I'm not a scientist ... and I'm not starting anything ... I'm just asking.

I mean ... I'm sure an embryo is naturally implanted if we're talking about a "normal" pregnancy ... but in the case of in vitro fertilization ... and in the discussion of stem cells ... I would think we would be talking about two separate things?

An embryo that is frozen in a fertilization clinic comes from an extracted egg and extracted sperm ... therefore it has never been implanted, correct?

[ThirtyWhat now crouches inside fire proof bunker waiting for the inevitable blowback ...]

Pamela Furr said...

You are correct, sir. (or ma'am, whatever the case may be)

But in this case, we were talking about the "fertilization" and he (the caller) said implanted, etc...

But you are correct.

-- Pamela

ThirtyWhat said...

I'm so sorry, Pam ... I missed the show so my only reference was your comment.

Unfortunately, I work in a building that can only pick up radio stations that are within 20 feet of the front door ... so basically ... none. I'm thinking this place could be a blast shelter if anything bad ever happens ...

email jp

  • jeromeprophet@gmail.com

archive

visitors

evworld

Slashdot

Wired News: Top Stories