Listening to Al Franken, as I did intermittently today, I have to think: What is the appeal of Talk Radio? Admittedly, I've never been a huge fan of it, in part because so much of it seems theatrical, as opposed to political. The hosts I've sampled (and two I've met) have generally failed to convince me they really believed what they were saying…or that they'd believe it if they weren't getting rich and famous from their line of attack. To use another analogy to professional wrestling: When I did that show with Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper and Cap'n Lou Albano, I heard a lot about that business and one overriding observation was that Reality tends to emulate Art. The scenario masters decide that Wrestler X is going to be a devout enemy of Wrestler Y, and they send them out to hate each other and threaten each other and to hit each other over the head with folding chairs and such. It starts as an act but eventually, as often as not, they find actual reasons to hate each other. On the show I produced, we could not have Hulk and "Rowdy" Roddy in the studio at the same time.
A lot of what I've heard on Talk Radio has struck me as the host just saying what he thinks will keep people tuned in. Those who agree will listen for the reinforcement, and the joy of hearing those they hate get bitch-slapped, and maybe so they can learn some arguments to use against their friends who see the world in a different manner. A friend once told me that every time the news is good for the Democrats, Rush Limbaugh's ratings go up as right-wingers tune in to be reassured and to hear the "spin" as to why the news, whatever it is, really isn't good for the Democrats. In the meantime, a certain amount of those who don't concur with the host will tune in out of a perverse desire to get mad and to hope, usually in vain, that some caller will take the guy down a peg. (It's in vain, of course, because it's close to impossible to lay a glove on someone who can cut off your microphone. Even when you're right and he's wrong. Most Talk Radio hosts do not fare well in a venue they can't control, which is why most avoid them or, like Bill O'Reilly on his book tours, manage to embarrass themselves.) Ultimately, the worst sin in Talk Radio is to be boring and the best way to not be that is to select someone as The Enemy and to do wholesale demonization of them. If one is to fill that many hours a week, one has to seize on every allegation and rumor, giving air time to a lot of bogus stories.
At some point, as with the wrestlers, a lot of Talk Radio hosts and extremist pundits start to believe their own bull. They're getting rich off it. They're getting famous from it. In public places, total strangers come up and thank them for saving America. We'd all like to think that wouldn't warp our thinking, and that we'd adhere to impartial truth and fairness, but a lot of us would get seduced by the finances and fame. We might privately recognize it was an act, or we might start to believe the extreme was the middle and that always seeing the worst in The Enemy was impartial truth and fairness. Either way, we'd realize that a certain amount of hysteria was necessary, just as a matter of showmanship. And if our ratings started to drop or our book sales started to slide, we'd probably panic and ratchet up the hysteria and demonization. If Liberals haven't done as much of that as Conservatives, it's only because they haven't had the economic incentives. I don't really buy the notion that the thing working against Liberal Radio is that lefties are nuanced and more reasonable. Off the radio, most are…just as most Conservatives aren't like Limbaugh or Liddy if they don't have a mike in front of them. What has worked against Liberal Radio is the same thing that's worked against westerns on variety shows on TV: Some day, Liberal Talk Radio may be all the rage but right now, there's no business model that shows anyone getting Limbaugh-style paychecks for doing it.
The new Air America Radio project has many handicaps, just as any new radio venture does…and unfortunately for it, its success or failure will probably be judged on immediate results, not on long-term impact. Most radio success stories are a matter of slow, long-range achievement, so I'm not optimistic. I'm also not likely to be listening. There are only so many hours in my day and I can't afford to devote many (sometimes, any) of them to either hearing someone blindly mock my political views or just as blindly reinforce them. I might make time if there was a real back-and-forth, with reasonable people trying to understand and deal with alternative opinions, rather than to just try and stomp them out of existence. But if a radio show did that, it probably wouldn't survive long in today's marketplace. There is a reason they don't hire or even interview a lot of people who have minds that could conceivably be changed. It's not Good Radio, just as it isn't Good Wrestling if we don't hate the bad guy.
I haven't decided yet if Al Franken's show is Good Radio or Bad Radio. The first one was pleasant enough if you don't get violently ill at hearing people criticize George W. Bush. I'm not sure it will please those who thrill to Bush-bashing the way a certain segment of the population liked to hear that Hillary was going to prison for Filegate, that Bill was going to be tossed outta office for Monicagate and that both would eventually be executed for the murder of Vince Foster. Even if Franken does wind up serving that audience, I'm not sure they're enough of them out there, or enough willing to tune in every day, to make a go of it. I only know that if he pleases them, he won't please me. And even if he doesn't please them, I may not find the time to listen, anyway.