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.
Hannity just became too repetitive for me some time ago. I saw one of his new weekend shows a while back and it wasn't bad.
Thomas Sowell BTTT!
Hiya onyx...We've all been deciding the ins and outs of the talk shows. :-)
I noticed that and I am content to merely bump the thread. :0)
The last time Russert was any good was when he had Bill Richardson sweating and stammering about Los Alamos. Since then, he's been completely in the tank for the RATS.
The only TV talk show I watch is FNS, just to see Brit Hume give his weekly b*tch slapping to Juan Williams during the roundtable. ;^)
I consider Brit Hume to be the very best. Slapping down Juan every week is just icing on the cake. lol
Yes, maybe I'm too harsh with the idiot accusation. You described my dissatisfaction with him perfectly.
Sowell is exactly right. I know he didn't mention all those who might rank up their with Limbaugh and Hannity. I also like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. Two "take no prisoners" commentators.
I remember one time Spivak putting some liberal poltico's feet to the fire about Cuba or some other commie country. Spivak kept hammering the guy about his refusal to admit that Cuba was just a totalitarian slave state instead of the wonderful country the politico was saying it was. Spivak was really indignant that this lib just couldn't admit the truth about what kind of a country Cuba really was.
And Howard K. Smith of ABC News was the last conservative anchor I can remember. At his time you had him and Chet Huntley of NBC to cut through the liberal crap. Smith many times was allowed a few minutes at the end of the news program for his own comments. They were of a decidedly conservative bent.
There is no one on TV today or talk radio who can compare with Rush Limbaugh. He can take on anyone. He has a recall of events and can go into an answer to a liberal and talk for hours, and without a script. His memory is unbelievable. I would love to see him take on hillary in a one on one, locked in a room where she can't leave. He would make mince meat out of her. Probably the same with Bill too. He is a God to us conservatives. He truly is, as he says, "on loan from God."
There is no one on TV today or talk radio who can compare with Rush Limbaugh. He can take on anyone. He has a recall of events and can go into an answer to a liberal and talk for hours, and without a script. His memory is unbelievable. I would love to see him take on hillary in a one on one, locked in a room where she can't leave. He would make mince meat out of her. Probably the same with Bill too. He is a God to us conservatives. He truly is, as he says, "on loan from God."
There is no one on TV today or talk radio who can compare with Rush Limbaugh. He can take on anyone. He has a recall of events and can go into an answer to a liberal and talk for hours, and without a script. His memory is unbelievable. I would love to see him take on hillary in a one on one, locked in a room where she can't leave. He would make mince meat out of her. Probably the same with Bill too. He is a God to us conservatives. He truly is, as he says, "on loan from God."
There is no one on TV today or talk radio who can compare with Rush Limbaugh. He can take on anyone. He has a recall of events and can go into an answer to a liberal and talk for hours, and without a script. His memory is unbelievable. I would love to see him take on hillary in a one on one, locked in a room where she can't leave. He would make mince meat out of her. Probably the same with Bill too. He is a God to us conservatives. He truly is, as he says, "on loan from God."
I never could listen to Hannity for long. He sometimes sounds silly or dense with intelligent callers because he too often misses the caller's point and puts himself in the position of arguing against his own point of view without realizing it. Rush grates on me every now and then when he rhetorically grants a callers very wrong point by using the phrase "the fact that" to refer to something that is a fiction, but I can live with that because, otherwise, no one is a better verbal combatant than Rush is.
I agree w/ that and the "panel" is the only talking head show I'll watch anymore.
I like Mort, and Fred and Maura and Charles and yes, I even enjoy Juan. In fact, Juan is not your run of the mill lib and he has written some very interesting books.
I have alot of respect for Juan Williams even though I don't often agree w/ him.
And leave us not forget David Lawrence's fiery editorials for U. S. News and World Report. He was a courageous, literate advocate for the conservative viewpoint!
I agree with you that Hannity is not all that bright, and his analysis strikes me as borrowed from other commentators. Nevertheless, he does at least raise current issues, at least when he is not promoting his latest book, tv show, appearance, favorite musician, etc. etc.
Not one TV talk show, including Hannity & Colmes, allows the "conservative" guest to speak without the squealing, yapping liberal guest interrupting constantly. It seems all the show directors are interested in is some sort of WWF Smackdown show or in SNL's takeoff on "Point-Counterpoint" (Jane, you ignorant slut, etc).
> I like Hugh Hewitt. <
I'm with you 101%!
Just like Rush and Michael Medved, Hugh can make you THINK -- by analyzing events from a fresh perspective. And his impressive repetoire of regular guests is just icing on the cake.
Others who usually force me to think are Dennis Praeger and Bill Bennett (hooray for Salem!), Neal Boortz (who isn't allowed on Salem stations!), Larry Elder, Larry Kudlow and Monica Crowley.
Talkers like Sean and Mike Reagan certainly have their hearts in the right (pun intended!) places -- but they're basically cheerleaders rather than analysts. They tend to bore me after about five minutes. And although Laura Ingraham is sometimes thoughtful during the first hour of her show, by the second hour she normally descends into such silliness that she becomes unlistenable.
Who's my least favorite among the "big name" conservative talkers? Gotta be Gallagher. He's so bad that during the 9 a.m. to noon EDT slot, I usually listen to Brian and the Judge!
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.