A lot of interesting messages this morning in response to my wondering about a conservative host who has civil conversations on his or her program. A couple of folks mentioned Joe Scarborough. One suggested John Stossel. A few said that while it isn't moderated by anyone as conservative as Jon Stewart is liberal, there are non-rancorous discussions on the NPR show, Left, Right, and Center.
But so far, the most oft-mentioned name was that of William F. Buckley with more than a dozen correspondents suggesting that the kind of thing I seek died years ago, much as did the host of Firing Line. I really want to believe that's not so — not about Buckley dying as I accept that — but that one couldn't do a show like that today and make it entertaining. A reader of this site named Jeff Noren wrote…
What you're looking for isn't on TV because it would be Bad Television. It would be like watching a wrestling match where the two guys weren't trying to kill each other. Who would care? I admit that most people find Jon Stewart entertaining. I don't but I can see why many do. But they find him entertaining as a comedian not as a commentator. In the wrestling model, it would be like he's not really wrestling but is cracking jokes in the ring.
I can have the kind of conversations you want at work and I do. I don't tune in the radio or program my DVR to hear what I can get at the office.
I'm not sure you really get the appeal of Jon Stewart if you liken him to a wrestler. I don't think people who compare him to a Bill O'Reilly do, either. But the wrestling analogy is interesting. I worked a bit with WWE (then WWF) wrestlers and the main thing I gleaned from that experience is that the appeal of pro wrestling for most of its fans is predetermined outcomes. If you root for your favorite baseball team, there's every chance they might lose. In pro wrestling, they tell you who the good guy is and if you root for him…well, it may take a couple of Wrestlemanias or other hurdles but eventually, you'll be rewarded. A lot of Talk Radio is like that to me: Tune in and your side will always win.
I still think civil discourse can have its entertainment value without that. It would require hosts far wittier and interesting than some who are presently cast in that job description, It might also require a slightly different pool of guests than the talking heads who pop up on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN these days…but I think the talent's there. And it would not surprise me if the demand was, as well. Then again, it also wouldn't surprise me if it was not.