I know you used to listen to a lot of talk radio T, so I thought you might be interested in this. It's about as cynical as you might expect, but the account actually comes from a guy that worked in a talk radio station...
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes
Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations. They’re not called talking points, but that’s what they are. I know, because I received them, too. During my time at WTMJ, Charlie would generally mine the e-mails, then couch the daily message in his own words. Midday talker Jeff Wagner would be more likely to rely on them verbatim. But neither used them in their entirety, or every single day.
Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. Select conservative blogs were also perused.
A smart talk show host will, from time to time, disagree publicly with a Republican president, the Republican Party, or some conservative doctrine. (President Bush’s disastrous choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was one such example.) But these disagreements are strategically chosen to prove the host is an independent thinker, without appreciably harming the president or party. This is not to suggest that hosts don’t genuinely disagree with the conservative line at times. They do, more often than you might think. But they usually keep it to themselves.
......
Hosts are most dangerous when someone they’ve targeted for criticism tries to return the fire. It is foolish to enter into a dispute with someone who has a 50,000-watt radio transmitter at his or her disposal and feels cornered. Oh, and calling a host names – “right-winger,” “fascist,” “radio squawker,” etc. – merely plays into his or her hands. This allows a host like Sykes to portray himself as a victim of the “left-wing spin machine,” and will leave his listeners, who also feel victimized, dying to support him. In essence, the host will mount a Hillary Rodham Clinton “vast right-wing conspiracy” attack in reverse.
A conservative emulating Hillary? Yep. A great talk show host is like a great college debater, capable of arguing either side of any issue in a logical, thorough and convincing manner. This skill ensures their continuing success regardless of which political party is in power. For example:
• In the talk show world, the line-item veto was the most effective way to control government spending when Ronald Reagan was president; it was a violation of the separation of powers after President Clinton took office.
• Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury.
• "Activist judges" are the scourge of the earth when they rule it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights heterosexuals receive. But judicial activism is needed to stop the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state – say Terri Schiavo – from removing her feeding tube to end her suffering.
-------
Thanks, A - very interesting. I wish the author could have commented on the talk radio industry in general, instead of focusing on the specific habits of Sykes, which may or may not be representative. He said that wealthy, educated people also listen to that kind of radio, so I was curious if he had any demographics data. But just so people don't get the wrong idea about me; I do not and never did enjoy talk radio. It was my landlady who was an avid right-wing talk radio listener (KSFO 560 AM Bay Area), and I just rented a room in her house during grad school, so therefore I was subjected to it during dinnertime.
Yeah, it reminds me a lot of the "Outfoxed" documentary about FNC by Robert Greenwald. It's pure Goebbels stuff, and yeah it works. That's why it really dismays me when liberals try to replicate the recipe on their side of the ideological spectrum (Olberman, Al Franken, etc.) because they think it will help their cause. It's not about truth, it's about winning. And it makes them sound dumb, partisan, and sometimes hateful. Electing Obama (who had quite a bit of conservative and independent support) was maybe a referrendum on that type of poisonous politics. How about "common sense" radio instead, with multiple viewpoints and complexities? I mean, in principle the Capitol Gang or Hannity & Colmes is a good idea, if the rhetoric and guests actually had fair representation. Maybe America can't handle complex? Well, I'd prefer that the media confuse rather than manipulate. A lot of the problems out there are confusing, and maybe it's better to admit that we don't know instead of deceiving yourself and others that you have it all figured out? This applies doubly for politicians. As we've seen during the Bush years, ignorant confidence (spun as "decisive") can be much more damaging than hesistance or flip-flopping.
But I think many Americans are tired of these guy/gals who just get ANGRY about every little thing and spout off OPINIONS all day, with very little data or perspective to support their arguments. It's especially hypocritical for moral-religious arguments, since many of their personal lives are a wreck. I mean, I guess I do that too in this email discussion group (of which I am unfortunately 90% of the total activity), but at least I try to acknowledge other views, and inject a graph or statistic every now and then. :) Those radio hosts tick me off because they think they're right all the time, and display extreme complacent ignorance. So what they admit they don't understand, they ridicule as unimportant, pansy crap. It's almost a quality to be unsophisticated about certain matters, like pronouncing Iraq correctly (much less Ahmadinejad). Maybe this is part of the culture war? So how can anyone have sociopolitics all figured out and neatly wrapped in a conservative world-view bow? Especially when half of them have very weak journalistic credentials, narrow backgrounds, and no public policy experience. If the world was really that simple and obvious, we wouldn't need them to tell us. Or is it the liberal media that are filling our heads with lies? And as you said, clearly their views are malleable if judicial activism and line-item vetos can morph from bad to good depending on which party is in power. And that is precisely my point: things can be both "bad" and "good" depending on the circumstances. There are times when Kim Jong Il was a good leader (very few times I'm sure) and times when the US was the biggest war criminal on the planet. There are times when Democrats started un-necessary wars and hooked up big business, while Republicans risked their careers for the environment, diplomacy, and civil rights.
It's also hilarious when those radio hosts have feuds with each other. I mean, they are big egomaniacs competing for attention from the same audience, right? I can't find any web examples now, but I do remember Rush dissing O'Reilly's program and whatnot, circa 2004. So if they are in competition, they gain an advantage by shocking the most people and getting the most buzz. That's why Ann Coulter is such a genius (and a bitch of course). It doesn't matter how offensive and evil she gets; some people will eat it up and ultimately it will benefit her more than the commentator who was less controversial.
I do know what the author meant about caller screening. If they did allow a disagreeing or liberal person on KSFO talk shows, they picked such an incoherent wacko that he or she made the host's point for them. You know, the kind of people who think that Bush orchestrated 9/11 and the oil companies are running our Mideast wars (well, that one might be semi-true!). And how can you have a respectable debate with someone if you have the power to cut them off whenever you want, and deliver your rebuttal unopposed thereafter? Plus you have your army of lackeys to dig around the web, and formulate a great counterpunch to burn your opponent, airing on tomorrow's program.
It is strange how these radio hosts can reel in so many sympathetic listeners just by making them feel like victims. The peak of my KSFO listening came during the nasty illegal immigration debates. As you would expect, illegals were blamed for everything but the kitchen sink leaking (in fact, they are the ones who fix your leaky sink). There are plenty of things to criticize about illegal immigration, so why go overboard and get personal? How many Americans have been directly negatively affected by illegal immigration? And how many of those are talk radio listeners? It must be less than 5%. The wealthy doctors and businessmen - why are they victims of anything? Sure it sucks to pay a lot of income tax, but it's better than applying for food stamps. There is like this total lack of empathy for others and a victim complex for oneself, which is one of the things I detest most about "the American mentality". Some people are never thankful of what they have (especially compared to the less fortunate), yet always want to blame others for the things they think they don't have, but deserve. They maybe make the world out to be a zero-sum game where they're the only honest chaps left, and everyone else freeloads or steal sfrom them. Well, I could go off here on xenophobia and egocentrism, but I better not.
Knowing some elderly conservatives, I do understand how they feel that the mythologized "perfect America" of the Greatest Generation is "under attack" now and eroding before their eyes. Ironically, progressives say the same thing, though blame different causes of course. They love America, it's theirs, and they don't want it to lose its luster. That makes sense, but how do you go about that daunting task? Some things that made America great 50 years ago are still here, but others may not be available for many of us in the 21st Century. The world is changing and we are too, somewhat for the better and somewhat for the worse. That is nothing new for any state. I guess fundamentally, conservatism is about clinging to the traditional. I am not against that view (and in fact share it sometimes on certain issues like family and consumption), but we have to leave some wiggle room. All traditions started out as a new practice, and survival means change. France has had at least 5 revolutions since ours, while Mugabe keeps extending his presidency. China has adopted a market economy, while the Soviets degenerated into Third World status.
