RSS
Home
In response to a reader regarding talk radio
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A reader of a previous column was good enough to follow a link therein to a column I'd written for my local paper about the Assembly Speaker of California's legislature. The Speaker blamed conservative talk show hosts in California for "terrorizing" Republican lawmakers into not voting for tax increases. In California, this naturally spun itself into conservative blogger apoplexy as they accused the Assembly Speaker of suggesting that conservative talk show hosts had a kinship with the Taliban, and --oh, my God!-- we can't have this. Only Muslims are terrorists, along with Michael Moore, Hollywood, the NY Times and other assorted usual suspects. The reader, who goes by the handle "dww44," posted a comment in response in the Examiner thread:
Bruce, I happen to believe that conservative talk radio does have something to do with the legislative impasse in California and elsewhere. Yes, it's the legislators who dig in their heels and won't compromise to get things done to run the state, but it is conservative talk radio that has long poisoned the political discourse that it has, almost singlehandedly, created that conservative base that allows legislators at both the state and national levels to not compromise and just say no to everything except a tax cut. My retired military brother-in-law, who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004, is an active member of his Rotary Club here in the Southeast. Early in 2008 he told a very prominent Republican in his club that the GOP was the reason the country was unable to have a respectful political dialogue. The party was and is marginalized by a an ever shrinking percentage of supporters who demand absolute ideological fealty from its elected party leaders and representatives.
First, with regard to the California lawmakers, I really can't defend them. While voters have done their fair share in California to turn the state's governance into a Gordian Knot, they lawmakers have shown little of the testicular fortitude necessary to lead by example and take the necessary steps to set a new course, and it will take a new course to fix the state. Those lawmakers intimidated by ideologues on talk radio rather than driven by good conscience are of even a more dubious distinction and simply shouldn't be in office. Of course, I'd throw the whole lot of them out but that's another story.
But on the matter of talk radio, I have mixed feelings, including the talk show hosts to whom "DW" alludes and not because I'm a broadcaster who might be prone to making a free speech argument. There's a coarseness to our discourse that manifests itself through talk radio --a lack of class and decorum, and a lot of hypocrisy that's inevitable with anyone who takes an extreme position. Sooner or later, you'll end up attacking in the same way you claim they're attacking, you'll attempt to deconstruct the very argument you made yourself when it was rhetorically convenient and politically expedient, you will, in short, be criticizing yourself. You will be a hypocrite. And while the nasty tone is often justified by these hosts who say, "it's only entertainment," people who disagree will call it vile while people who don't won't see a problem.
I see talk radio as an opportunity for listeners to engage, discuss, debate and ponder ideas. Many talk show hosts seem to use it to attack, cajole, insult, marginalize and devalue individuals, institutions or ideologies. That's true on talk TV as well. I don't find these ad hominems useful but it's hard to be sure if the audience does. Conservative talk radio got a toehold long ago and that's where talk radio has stayed in large measure, largely because the radio business mentality tends to imitate rather than innovate, so more of these practitioners dominate the dial and they tend to be nationally syndicated, leaving listeners with few choices. Are they listening because they like the mean-spirited intemperance or would they listen to something more balanced and thought-provoking if it were available? Unknown, though I can guarantee you any argument made in the pro or con will depend entirely on one's politics rather than one's facts. Indeed, facts and politics are often incongruous, so when discussing politics, particularly the partisan vacuum in which we tend to discuss it, a hefty dose of salt is useful.
Another reader of the aforementioned Examiner piece commented, "You are a total elite snob. A moron of sorts. Nobody cares what you and your liberal, leftist, hateful manifesto proclaims." I'm not sure what that means other than to assume this person took personally what I wrote about Sarah Palin (which was nothing personal at all), got angry and decided to engage in the kind of name-calling which seems to be di rigeur in our political discourse.
I don't quite understand the hostility. We not only get mad when someone jokes about a politician and we get mad when someone calmly and rationally offers a critical observation. During the presidential campaign, syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker thoughtfully and respectfully came to the conclusion that Sarah Palin was unqualified. She's an opinion columnist; she's paid to write an opinion; she opined. She was deluged with 11,000 pieces of negative e-mail --hateful screeds from people calling her a "traitor" and an "idiot." I don't know if she got an equal number of more thoughtful response from people who respectfully disagreed, or from people who said something along the lines of "It's about time you figured it out." But goodness, calling someone a traitor or a moron because they disagree with you? I don't get that, and yet, you hear it in talk radio (and talk television) all the time.
George Will thinks it's anger, and that we use this anger as "a coping device for everyday life." He argues that it used to be "Americans admired models of self-control... who mastered their anger rather than relishing being mastered by it." He cited Jackie Robinson as a model of self-control, and I think we can all agree that considering what he was subjected to, his self-control was nothing short of remarkable.
Today: Not so much.
I don't know if Will is right, but certainly, the angrier you are, the more outrageous your conversation (say, on talk radio), the more vituperative your tone, the more attention you get. It's more likely to get you on television. It worked for Morton Downey, Jr. and Jerry Springer, and for a time, the sensationalized Sunday morning gabfest, the McLaughlin Report, and it certainly draws attention when it happens on talk radio or talk television (particularly in the vast wasteland of cable news). Indeed, media watchdogs for this sort of thing have become something of a cottage industry on the internet.
I have a theory about this. In the news business, we tend to define news as change from the norm. Death, destruction, surprising announcements or revelations. No one fronts above the fold that the plane landed on time, everyone got their luggage and arrived home safely. But... if the plane crashes, that tops tonight's news. Business as usual doesn't make headlines.
Maybe... maybe... we think the country is angry, the talk show audience hostile, the political party wing-nutty, because that's what gets reported because that's what's out of the norm. It's not business as usual so it gets reported. So maybe the country isn't angry, maybe people aren't charged up and hanging on every word of the lunatic ravings of a talk show host and maybe when you get right down to it, most of us somehow manage to get along reasonably well: We can be temperate in tone. We can listen and respect the views of others. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
I do think you're right about the more noxious elements in GOP; I don't know if they dominate the party but they tend to be the squeaky wheel and that may well have turned enough voters off to make a difference last November. The GOP would do well to cast out those more repulsive elements as a way to attract voters sick and tired of our nasty political discourse.
Maybe.
More About:
Politics Red & Blue
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
First lady Michelle Obama launched a federal anti-obesity program yesterday (the same day that Denny's made a free Grand Slam Breakfast available to …
It didn't take long for cynical predictions to come true about the proposed bi-partisan summit on health care. GOP leaders have threatened to …
