Stop whispering, start shouting?

I heard a radio show on the way home where a liberal humanitarian and conservative radio host where going head to head on troop action in Ishaqi, Iraq. Here is yet another allegation of a US military massacre to break headline news. The conservative was arguing that the soldiers have a right to the presumption of innocence and was calling the liberal a twisted and sick man for comparing the events to the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. While the liberal defended the earlier statement, it suddenly occurred to me that the two men weren't even arguing on the same topic. The liberal was stressing that strict punishment should be incurred if the soldiers were found guilty. The conservative was arguing for their rights as US citizens to be innocent until proven guilty.

My question is, how can you argue with either? Obviously the intentional killing of innocent and unarmed civilians should have dire consequences for the perpetrators. And obviously we, as Americans, should stand by the ideal of innocence before guilt until an unbiased and thorough investigation demonstrates otherwise.

I then became really angered at how the radio station was pulling on the heart strings of the listener. It was very easy to relate early to one commentator based on personal political viewpoints and then to become very angry at the other commentator for disagreeing. An argument implies opposite viewpoints. But they weren't even arguing about the same thing! The whole purpose of the radio show did nothing more than to fuel hatred and divide unity between two large and common thought groups in America. The match eventually resorted to name calling.

"Pooh head!"
"Fat ugly stinky face!"

When did radio shows resort to such Kindergarten name calling? I believe it is fine to have opinionated radio shows, but they shouldn't be called 'news.' News, by nature, should be unbiased and thorough. News is founded by the ideal of truth and education. Anything else should be considered on par with gossip.

One a side note, I looked up the definition for liberal and conservative a few nights ago.
According to some entries from dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Conservative- Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

At first they seem very different (they are). In the political setting, they don't have to be. I think it could be more appropriate to say that they are two approaches to creating a better America. Isn't what these arguments are always about? Liberal comes from liberty, which stresses the individuals freedom. Conservative comes from conserve, which stresses the retention of rights and freedom. It all boils down to whether you believe the system, as it stands today, is broken or not. Then you have to ask the question, in what sense?

Before we reduce ourselves to petty name calling, let’s remember this: All anybody wants is a better place for everybody in the world to live. Across the globe, a pretty standard set of morals exists. One of them is to treat your neighbor’s ideas with respect. Let’s stop shouting at each other, listen, and remember that we can work together for our shared goals.