Over the last two decades, the business and influence of talk radio has grown dramatically, changing not just the topics of our political debates but, some say, the way we debate politics.
The topic of our salon: Do radio talk shows in California merely provide an opportunity for frustrated voters to vent or do they actually inform the electorate in ways that have increased the efficiency and accountability of government.
Here to discuss the impact of talk radio, a primarily conservative arena in California, are Al Peterson, the News Talk Editor for the weekly newspaper Radio and Records and Michael Harrison, the Editor and Publisher of Talkers Magazine.
dear Mr. Peterson and Mr. Harrison,
Consider the following two quotes taken from newspaper coverage of talk radio and its impact on the California special recall election as well as politics, in general:
“People don’t listen [to talk radio] to have civics lessons. If they did, C-SPAN would have a 20 share.” — Walter Sabo, chairman of Sabo Media, an international radio consulting company in New York
“Conservative talk shows have people who understand the medium. They not only have to inform, but entertain.” — Brent Baker, vice president of the Media Research Center
My question to you both would be: Do you consider talk radio to be a form of entertainment that just happens to use politics as grist for the mill?
Or, is talk radio a civic forum — an integral part of the democratic process — that only uses entertainment in order to attract participants?
Talk radio, at it’s best, is primarily an entertainment medium that also happens to offer information. On any topic, politics, relationships or the SuperBowl, it’s best as an “electronic backyard fence” that offers listeners a chance to call in and contribute to a nationwide town hall meeting. Unlike TV it provides pretty equal access to the average guy who can call in and express opinions, argue with the host, agree with the host or offer up a new topic.
Some hosts use politics and current social issues as the basis for much of their content. Others focus on entertainment talk that is generally not political in nature. And still others focus on entertaining with content about human relationships, consumer affairs, or sports. But all are entertainers first regardless of subject matter. Listeners who enjoy political discussion will seek out those shows, those who don’t will gravitate to other shows featuring topics more to their liking.
Ultimately I have never seen any talk show survive the test of time unless it is first and foremost focused on being entertaining. The highway of radio broadcasting is littered with those who have tried and failed miserably to launch a show because they believed Talk radio was an instructional and educational medium. It’s entertainment, not ideology that makes a successful Talk radio show.
A follow-up question for Mr. Peterson, open to Mr. Harrison
Given that you have described talk radio as entertainment, what do you make of observations such as the following:
“In the aftermath of the [California] recall campaign, the power and the reach of talk radio has never been greater.” — Dan Schnur, GOP consultant and political analyst.
There is something peculiar about a form of entertainment with so much apparent political influence.
Given that entertainment shows are not held to the same standards as “instructional or educational” programming, might there be cases where talk radio’s political influence could end up distorting rather than informing the political process?
Perhaps, you can cite such an instance from history? Or not.
[ed. note: Mr. Peterson would be unable to answer this question due to a scheduling conflict.]
Shakespeare said, all the world’s a stage — and this wise insight certainly applies to talk radio. Talk radio is a stage upon which its players — to be successful– must combine both elements of information and entertainment in a fabric that is so tightly woven that one cannot tell where one leaves off and the other begins. The more of each, the more successful the product. Weakness on either side of the equation, results in less success.
Politics is a civilized form of warfare between conflicting economic and social interests.
Modern life is like a theme park; politics in America is a spectator sport. We turn television news coverage of war into high drama with music and graphics. I suggest that the dissection of the old entertainment versus information issue not be taken too literally, clinically or dogmatically.
Some people find information entertaining, while others are simply entertained and attracted to the intangible mysteries of a radio host’s personality — a process that defies quantification. It comes down to the building of relationships. Very few things are more mysterious than that.
A question for Mr. Harrison, open to Mr. Peterson,
You describe American politics as a form theater (you say “spectactor sport”) and argue that critics should be careful not to split hairs when it comes to distinguishing between entertainment and information.
However, if the statements made by talk radio hosts on public policy, on pending legislation and candidates, are intended to be taken as a form of entertainment, they are also, in that sense, beyond rebuttal.
Yet, politics is precisely about rebuttals — a dialogue to foster consensus through compromise.
Do political talk shows, in fact, distort their very focus? Beyond entertainment, do they not also give listeners a negative impression of politics?
My point is that entertainment and information in successful talk radio cannot be separated — they are connected down to the molecular level. The result is a magical blend that results in the ability to attract and keep an audience.
I’m not quite sure what you mean about politics being “precisely” about rebuttals. Debates are precisely about rebuttals, and viewed from the big picture, the free marketplace of ideas and the First Amendment are precisely about rebuttals.
Politics is a civilized form of warfare between conflicting economic and social interests. It is not specifically dialogue to create consensus. No individual or private media platform is obligated to give opposing views or entertain rebuttals within the context of their presentation. They can if they choose, but only if they choose.
The First Amendment provides the opportunity for other individuals to protest within their own presentations or to establish new or other platforms from which to present their views. The marketplace itself determines which become popular and which do not. Perhaps political shows distort the focus of whatever the truth might be — but so do all human presentations of art, news and views.
It is difficult to successfully run a democracy. It requires the population to be educated, investigative and able to engage in abstract reasoning.