shotbanner.jpeg

November 25, 2004

Joe Does Radio

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a cogent, comprehensive critique of radio in general, and especially conservative talk radio, in a post earlier today.

And, as Joe notes, my Northern Alliance Radio colleague Elder has a superb rejoinder over at Fraters that, honestly, covers most of my answers to Joe.

Which doesn't mean there's not a lot to talk about still.

As re music radio, Joe has the best critique I've read lately:

Pop and country stations used to play the “top 40” but now they repeat the same singles over and over throughout the day. No matter when I tune in I know I'll hear about Usher’s confessions or how Toby Keith loves his bar. The music from both genres has become so monotonous that I’m starting to get them mixed up in my head. Just the other day I imagined that Nelly and Tim McGraw were singing a duet. [Painfully true - Ed.]

We also have an “urban” channel that plays hardcore rap in case you need a soundtrack for a drive-by shooting and a “smooth jazz” station that will make you want to reach for your gat and bust a cap in somebody. [Its like he lives in the Twin Cities - Ed.] There is one exceptional “classic soul” channel that is worthy of praise. [OK, forget that "lives in the Twin Cities" bit - the excellent, syndicated "Solid Gold Soul" is long gone - Ed.]And of course you have the requisite “Christian” station playing sugary music so vapid and mawkish that the playlist must be programmed by Satan himself. [Joe has no idea how happy I am to hear this from an evangelical stalwart like him; I've long held that most contemporary Christian music is a tool for atheism at least, evil at worst - Ed.]

Fortunately, I still have another option available. There’s a place on my radio dial that I can turn to hear news, current events, intelligent conversation, and the latest on politics and culture; an oasis amidst the desert of the airwaves. And no, it’s not talk radio. It’s better. It’s NPR.

Joe goes on to give six reasons that NPR is "better" than talk radio. Elder's response is excellent, and covers just about everything I'd have said if I'd written first; read it, as well as Joe's response.

Not that I don't have something to add...

Joe's first reason: "It’s not part of the conservative monoculture" - Carter notes that all conservative talk hosts are white males, except Laura Ingraham, who "merely imitates being one". It's true. It's also the primary audience. Who better to speak to them? Does hearing from people just. like. you all. the. time get old? I'll agree with Joe; unless there's something else there, it certainly does. I can't listen to the likes of Hannity or O'Reilly or Mike Gallagher or, locally, Joe Soucheray or Kris Krok for that exact reason. For the hosts with something different - well, it's a different story. Doesn't matter to me if a host is white, female, hispanic, young or gay - as long as they have something interesting to say. That is, unfortunately, as rare a thing as Carter notes.

Joe's second point:There are no callers. Joe notes "On her recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Jeanne Garofalo refused to talk to callers. She claimed that when people call in to radio shows it does nothing but bore the audience. For once, Jeanne and I agree. The people who call radio shows rarely have anything interesting to say. Mostly they simply want to express that they either love the show’s host or tell them that they disagree with him". Joe is half right (and Garofalo is all wrong, on principle alone). This is an argument we had on the NARN a long time ago - why even take callers? One simple reason; even if the callers are boring, sycophantic time-sucks, they serve the same purpose that comments serve in blogs - letting the audience know they are included, that they are an integral part of the proceedings rather than just expected to sit and listen like docile units of audience product.

That being said, the sorry state of talk radio callers is something we can blame on Rush Limbaugh. Don Vogel taught me how to screen callers; "Mitch", he said, "There are four kinds of callers; great ones, mediocre ones, boring ones and crazy ones. We want to put the great ones and the crazy ones on first, because they help the show. We put the mediocre ones on when we want, because it makes the show less intimidating. And we keep the boring ones off." National talk shows have become largely abysmal at screening callers - most national shows seem to just take names, cities, and basic topics, and then take the callers in the order received. It's silly - a country station would never play a rap record just because someone sent it to the station - why would a station that tries to produce interesting, intelligent talk radio put on a dull, butt-kissing caller just because he or she dialed the number? The death of good screening as an essential element of show production has been a major detriment to good talk radio.

Joe's third point: No commercials - Not much we can do about this, although program directors and consultants that have their shows stop down more than four times an hour should be beaten with sticks.

Joe's fourth point: No Dittoheads - And it's here we see that Joe doesn't actually listen to NPR; the stations are their own dittoheads. How many times do we hear, especially during pledge week, how much better NPR is than the alternative - and NPR's listeners than the hoi-polloi rabble tuned in to Limbaugh? Who needs dittoheads when you wallow in self-adulation the way Garrison Keillor does?

Joe's fifth: It's not Rush - I rarely get to listen to Limbaugh. When I do, it's not to necessarily hear new ground broken; but as a born-again radio guy, dissecting Limbaugh's style is fascinating technical exercise.

Joe's sixth point: There's no Dr. Laura. True, but Ira Glass is at the very least an offsetting offense.

Not to be unbalanced, Joe has NPR's flaws dialed in as well:

In comparison, the flaws of talk radio allow NPR to stand out more than is warranted. Listening to NPR is like dating a charming and beautiful woman that has a semi-serious personality disorder; you're enchanted by her yet know you can’t commit to someone so troubled. But most criticism of the station is too simplistic, too concerned with its liberal bias. The problem with the station, though, runs much deeper than a mere penchant for left-leaning politics. NPR can be heard in almost every town in the country yet its worldview is a secular cosmopolitanism that is foreign to many Americans, particularly those in non-urban areas or in the “Red States.” The hosts of All Things Considered, for example, would have no trouble relating to an obscure avant garde musician, while a popular gospel singer would be considered an anthropological curiosity.
I can't add a single thought to this. It may be the best summation of NPR's flaws I've read.

And now, the fascinating part:

Still, NPR takes ideas, culture, art, and international affairs seriously. Conservative talk radio may touch on the same issues but generally they are either treated defensively (“In our next segment, the NEA's plan to ruin our children…”) or as purely political concerns (“Will the genocide in Darfur hurt Kofi Annan?”). Talk radio is merely topical while NPR attempts to be timely.

Mostly when I listen to NPR I wonder why conservatives can’t produce something similar. Why can’t we have discussions about art for art’s sake on the radio? Why can’t we have debates about the role of religion without it being subordinated to politics? Why have we ceded all culture to the “liberals?”...why can’t we have grant-funded/listener supported conservative radio? We conservatives have a weird bias toward ad-driven free enterprise. Paying for a station we loved would be compatible with free-market principles and would allow us to expand the range of conservative views. I’m not saying we should collectively turn off commercial radio – the Dittoheads need somewhere to go – but we could use more variety.

This is a brilliant question. I'm not overstating one iota.

Why, indeed?

As we watch the era of narrowcasting dawn all around us, why indeed has no entrepreneur hatched the notion of a highbrow conservative boutique narrowcasting service? Something that is for conservative listeners what "National Review" and "Weekly Standard" are for conservative readers? Something with either limited advertising (fewer spots, but charging premium rates for a premium audience) or supported by subscription (think XM or Sirius), with the programming and production wherewithal to tackle a much broader swathe of topics; we'll fight the culture war from within culture, rather than outside of it; we'll fight the intellectual war with brain, rather than just heart and sweat and, yeah, occasionally too much bile.

(Note to entrepreneurs: The Northern Alliance would be happy to anchor the morning show. Let's talk).

PS - I'm gratified that Joe is so complimentary of the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Thanks!

Posted by Mitch at November 25, 2004 03:29 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Good commentary. As to regarding lack of culture in conservative talk radio, Hugh Hewitt does play classical music occasionally and brings in an historical or literary expert once in awhile.

Posted by: Gideon at November 25, 2004 05:00 AM

One of the more successful talkers in Los Angeles (and nationally synicated) is Larry Elder, and African-American conservative/libertarian. I guess that's the trouble with saying "all."

Posted by: James Ph. at November 25, 2004 11:28 AM

Mitch wrote:

“As we watch the era of narrowcasting dawn all around us, why indeed has no entrepreneur hatched the notion of a highbrow conservative boutique narrowcasting service? Something that is for conservative listeners what "National Review" and "Weekly Standard" are for conservative readers? Something with either limited advertising (fewer spots, but charging premium rates for a premium audience) or supported by subscription (think XM or Sirius), with the programming and production wherewithal to tackle a much broader swathe of topics; we'll fight the culture war from within culture, rather than outside of it; we'll fight the intellectual war with brain, rather than just heart and sweat and, yeah, occasionally too much bile.”

There may already be some out there. One that I've been listening to is a fellow named Prodos who broadcasts on the web:

http://prodos.com/

He covers philosophy, economics, culture, the arts, and international affairs with a just a hint of politics. His gypsy-image aside, he’s pretty sharp (sort of a VERY laid-back Jason Lewis) and has had some terrific guests. As far as waging the culture war, while he doesn’t generally eschew military so much as philosophical jargon in his rhetoric, I would say that by examining the underlying ideas behind different aspects of our culture (philosophy, literature, arts), he’s doing his bit for free markets and free minds.

I’d recommend giving him a listen.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at November 25, 2004 11:58 PM

I'm presently conducting a radio-listening experiment: 90% of my windshield time is spent with the radio tuned to either NPR or Pacifica Radio. The reason is to see if they're as bad, in long, concentrated doses, as they are in spot-listening.

The results, though the experiment isn't yet complete, are a partial surprise to me. Pacifica remains an utter waste of radio waves; poor content, provided by rank amateurs. NPR, on the other hand, is pleasant to listen to, by comparison to many of the FM alternatives in Houston. Too much repetitive music elsewhere, and the only non "Format" FM stations on the dial are the two mentioned above.

I find myself able to filter the cultural and political bias from NPR, to the point where I seldom react badly to anything I hear on All Things Considered. Classical music, played by the local affiliate when news isn't on, is far less susceptible to bland repetition, and goes down well.

I listen to AM radio only seldom, primarily for technical reasons. The reception just isn't good enough to stand for long periods. Limbaugh, when I infrequently hear him, is interesting to me in the same way as he appears to be to you, Mitch - not for political comment, but for the showmanship he brings. He's a good talk radio host, bad callers or not. Just as is the local talker who follows him.

Entertainment on the radio trumps politics for me these days, and NPR is one source that provides it. Is NPR better? No, just an accessible form of non-repetive entertainment in Houston.

Posted by: Patton at November 26, 2004 01:56 AM

Very interesting and professional site! Good luck! nokia6630

Posted by: brandy at June 30, 2006 08:11 PM

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: William at July 8, 2006 05:56 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi