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.
I used to enjoy Bob Dornan, and Michael Reagan, but they aren't available in the Portland-Vancouver area anymore.
Most of the "news" and "commentary" now is produced for entertainment. I've gotten to where I watch very little of it.
Tim Russert has the appearance of an evil pumpkin head I saw in a movie once. His smirk is so obvious when presenting bad news about Bush or iraq when he discloses the results of another one of his so called "Polls".
I really enjoy Glenn Beck. His presentation of commentary related to specific news is making mockery of the idiots who are the news. His smile and colorful comments are priceless.
LOL! I think O'bama and Biden would make a good '08 ticket for the Dems. They could join algore and joncarie after the election.
You are an old guy like me if you remember Meet the Press when it hated everybody. No favorites then and lots of serious questions. They truely were the No Spin Zone. Bubba would have NEVER been President if Spivek was asking the questions.
Yes, the alternatives are available now but it still comes down to those who are interested enough to make the effort. There are just too many that don't care.
Mike Reagan is on Sirius, so there is hope.(c:
Yes, I'm old enough to remember but I was so busy making a living then that I didn't really have or take the time for politics.
Besides, GB is one of us ... he's a real person not a contrived persona, kind of the same with Sean Hannity but much smarter now that he's off the sauce.
His tv show on CNN Headline News is most entertaining as well. The only time I EVER tune to anything related to CNN.
I miss his radio show usually because of work schedules.
Thomas Sowell is always a surprise. One can never predict what his column will be about. He has wide ranging interests and views. He is always a delight to read.
One thing he didn't address directly is the current trend for guests and hosts on talk shows to talk right over each other. The aimseems to be to keep the audience from hearing what the other party has to say. I hate that and I turn the dial when it happens. It is so rude.
Recently, Geraldo has started doing that. Click and he's gone.
I often listen to Glenn on a late night edition found at various radio station streaming links ... WLAC, 8 to 11 PM, central time [http://www.wlac.com/main.html click on the 'listen now' strewaming link].
Wow, I finally read something from Dr. Sowell I disagree with. I think Hannity is an idiot and I can't stand listening to him.
I wouldn't go that far, but his POV is always predictable, and it gets boring. I generally listen to Michael Medved during that time slot. I don't always agree with Medved, but he does think for himself, is very knowledgeable, and isn't afraid to put forth an unconventional opinion. Also most of his guests are people he disagrees which generates some interesting debate.
That used to puzzle me until I figured out it was a form of discrimination. The MSM wants to present blacks as radical, dangerous, and stupid.
Hah...I never could take much of Geraldo but since he went to FNC he's unbearable as a guest on any show.
You can listen online to the Hewitt show here.
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.