Posted on 03/19/2007 8:25:29 PM PDT by jazusamo
March 20, 2007
Talk shows began to fascinate me when I was a teenager, many years ago. The first was the old radio program, "The University of Chicago Roundtable." Over the years I also began to listen to "Meet the Press," and to watch David Susskind's television roundtable program, "Open End," and many others.
In more recent years, I can't bear to watch most of the talk shows on television, and on radio I listen only to Rush Limbaugh and a couple of others.
What has happened? Is it just my becoming ornery in my old age or have the programs themselves changed?
None of today's talk shows is like "Open End" or "The University of Chicago Roundtable," and "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert is not like "Meet the Press" with Lawrence Spivak or Bill Monroe.
"The University of Chicago Roundtable" was in fact a roundtable discussion among people with different views interacting and so was "Open End." That format is virtually unknown today.
There are superficial resemblances but the substance is very different. What is most lacking is genuine interaction.
Usually either the hosts or the guests have predetermined positions on issues, and they are not about to change them.
Regardless of what the issue is, do not expect either a liberal or a conservative to say: "You know, I never thought of it that way. I agree with you."
That could leave a lot of silence, unless somebody had another topic ready to go. More important, whoever went over to "the enemy" would lose his standing as a liberal or conservative.
The people around the University of Chicago roundtable had no such rigid ideological role to live up to, and neither did the guests around David Susskind on "Open End." They had different views in general but they didn't make their livings being dogmatic ideologues or political partisans.
The net result is that today the listener or viewer is not likely to get much interaction on issues. Instead, there are far more likely to be parallel and prepackaged talking points.
If either a guest or the host has a pointed question that cuts to the heart of the issue at hand, the first thing the person on the receiving end is likely to do is sidestep the question, saying something like "That's not the real issue" -- and go back to expounding his prepackaged talking points.
All that you learn from watching these kinds of "debates" is how clever some people are, how fast on their feet, and how big a supply of rhetoric they have.
Some guests are masters at monopolizing the time. And when the other side tries to get in a word edgewise, that brings an indignant "Let me finish!"
It takes a hard-nosed host to break up this kind of verbal logjam. But too many talk show hosts see no evil and hear no evil.
Radio talk shows are usually not that bad, mainly because most of the people who call in are not professional talkers and the host is, so he can usually keep them from running away.
Still, incoherent callers are seldom any great improvement over slick and slippery ones. You don't learn much from either.
What you learn from radio talk shows depends on how wide and how deep the knowledge of the talk show host is. Some of them -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and others -- are right on top of things.
The only problem is when they allow some hyped caller to just ramble on and on. That is when it is time to turn to some FM music station, preferably one playing soothing music.
The best part of a radio talk show is usually a monologue by a well-informed host. Rush Limbaugh often lets a caller's comment or question serve simply as a point of departure for giving an explanation of his own about some issue of the day.
Sometimes a well-informed and articulate guest like Condoleezza Rice or Alan Greenspan can provide some real insights to both the hosts and the audience. But these are the exceptions.
Usually the best roundtable programs on television are about sports. Probably that is because there are no predetermined positions or prepackaged partisan talking points.
---------
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
And the evening news hasn't been the same since Harry Reasoner and Howard K. Smith.
I loved William Buckley. Today, Rush.
I only watched it once in a while years ago, it was good.
you know what is amazing about tv in this country is that they can completely ignore a dozen or so important black accomplished people.
i get around and talk to people and i always inquire of blacks if they've read or seen sowell, for example, and they have NO idea who he is.
I guess Dr. Sowell doesn't watch ESPN.
"... "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert is not like "Meet the Press" with Lawrence Spivak or Bill Monroe." I'm old enough to give a hearty ditto to that. But TS left out in the rest of the article some of the reasons why a good talk show like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Liddy's rapid fire works so well for the listener. The main things is the support staff, like Sneardly for Rush or Stu for Glenn Beck. Call screeners (like Bo Sneardly) make things so much easier for the host, and the prep work that Stu does sets Glenn up with fat bowling pins to knock down as he sees fit. But host talent still shines through, clearly.
When TS listened to or watched the predecessors to today's shows, the division accomplished by the political parties wasn't as extreme and the shows (mostly in radio) didn't have the screening mechanisms and political filters which define the shows of today.
[BTW, I am perhaps one of TS's biggest fans. He is what is fast fading from America's resources, a man of clear thinking and articulate expression.]
That just doesn't make any sense to me, you'ld think Dr. Sowell would be a hero and roll model.
I always liked Steve Allen's Meeting of the Minds, but I doubt you could find enough intelligent actors to pull that one off nowadays.
Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite thinkers, is so right. Most talk show hosts are in love with their own voices, or hopelessly duct taped into their own ruts. Hence the incredible success of Free Republic. We all seem to spar back and forth, but most of us are willing to entertain new ideas on our own terms. Free Republic is a very stimulating venue.
no, no, no!
tv prevents the blacks we discuss on this site from access to the general public.
for example, a black guy i met in texas, married, 2 kids, comes home from work tired, eats, relaxes watched the tv news on week days.
no sowell.
on the weekend he told me he wanted to "catch up on the news" so he watched the talking head political shows.
no sowell.
i'd ask him about various black notables and he'd never heard of them.
tv doesn't allow the conservative blacks that we hear on the radio and see on the internet exposure.
he was aware, of course, of condi rice and colin powell. he referred to them derisively as "porch ------s".
Dr. Sowell nails it with that one. I can't stand the pundits who are asked a question and they come back with "that's not really the question." The wife usually has to quiet me down after those. lol
Sowell is a great thinker and writer, my favorite.
Amen! It beats any talk show. IMO
G.G. Liddy is good because he's just a cool old guy with a riveting past. I've yet to hear him get into a shouting match with a caller yet, he calmly and politely decimates their argument. He's funny, too.
John Gibson is either on or off. Sometimes he goes off on tangents that don't work. Like analyzing hip hop.
Sean Hannity has made it clear that "Hannitized" means throwing your support to a guy who will guarantee a Hillary win in '08 while campaigning for his 'Stop Hillary Express.' But, he has a face for TV.
I can't opine about Spencer Hughes because I understand that I may be forced into rehab if I use the word, "faggot."
Andrew Wilkow and his Wilkow Pragmatism lectures got old after about a week. He has no personality aside from a driving need to teach his conservative audience about conservatism.
Most of the modern day talking heads are rude and interrupt guests frequently. And getting a straight answer out of a politician on a news show is like striking oil in my back yard. it aint gonna happen!
Most of the news shows have a theme and set out to report the news that best substantiates the theme. The guests, reel clips, reporters with their biased commentary are all picked based upon their approach to the theme. The very few picked in opposition are rudely interrupted and usually cut short before making any arguements.
And we call this news??
Too true. People that get everything from tv are ill informed people, no matter what race.
Don't let the drivel from the Sean Penns, Barbara Streisands, and Baldwin brothers confuse you. There are very intelligent people in Hollyweird ... smart enough to usually remain silent while their dumber colleagues make fools of themselves. Some are also merely misguided. ex: the 'mermaid' (Darryl Hannah, MOST beautiful creature) has learned and can spout every jot and tiddle of the vegan mantra, but she cannot comprehend the scam in Gore's 'man causes global warming' opera.
He is...among a few smart, clean and articulate whites and even fewer smart, clean and articulate blacks....not including O'bama.
With apologies to Joe Biden
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.