Is political talk radio completely useless?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-02 10:49am

I often listen to talk radio in my car, and I've become convinced that it's the most utterly useless form of political dialogue ever. Even worse than water-cooler discussions at the workplace.

The reason? Simple: the host has a lot of callers and a limited amount of time, so regardless of whether he or she is a nice guy or an asshole, no caller can ever get more than a couple of sentences in edgewise before the host switches to the next caller. So the result is an enforced superficiality of discussion (usually restricted to the pure spouting of opinion, unvarnished by logical debate) that cannot even be entirely blamed on the host's personality because it is mandated by the station's desire to let as many callers as possible speak their minds.

In the end, it barely matters whether the caller is stupid or intelligent, informed or ignorant, wise or foolish, because all he can do is get out what would normally be the opening salvo of a real discussion, and no more. The problem is that people who listen to a lot of talk radio might actually believe they are well-informed, but they're actually not; they've just heard a lot of bullshit opinions, and the only person who really gets to elucidate an argument for his viewpoint is the host himself, who need not have any serious credentials to speak of and who need not face serious criticism, for even the most brilliant critic could only say so much in one or two sentences.

Is all talk radio like this? Or just the local talk radio here inToronto? Is talk-radio an utterly useless format for discussing anything serious? Should talk radio shows have some kind of disclaimer so they can't be misrepresented as a source of serious political discussion, and are explicitly stated to be what they really are, which is basically the host's editorial opinion with a bit of decorative audience cheering and heckling around it?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-02 11:16am

NPR down here in the states does it differently. There's no such thing as a pure call-in show, but there are interview shows that allow call-ins. They give the callers enough time to make a real point (it helps that the shows run 60, 90, or 120 minutes and have no commercials), and then the expert or experts on the show respond. That seems to me to be a much better format than the commercial radio call-in show, at least for politics (it works very well for sports talk, perhaps because more people are informed about sports than politics).

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-12-02 11:26am

Yes NPR in the states does it completly diffrently, 60 minute shows without Comericas(nothing but twenty seconds Station ID's) I've heard the same caller on for five or ten minutes with the guest asking diffrent questions

Of course by its very nature NPR discourages the Nutjob callers of Rush's and Hanity's shows

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-02 01:04pm

Cheap commercial talk radio definitely doesn't work. It's a harbor for nutjobbery from both sides and is nothing more than an exercise in style over substance.

However as pointed out, NPR does a good job of it. As does the Canadian Public Radio station I sometimes listen to hear (better international news).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-02 01:20pm

The problem with NPR is that it gets drowned out by the braindead voices of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reiley, Al Franken and countless local boobs.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-02 01:22pm

European political radio offers quite a wide spectrum so there are a few that include some measure of debate. In depth analysis tends to go hand in hand with one sidedness though, so I usually end up switching between stations a lot.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-02 01:22pm

It's entertaining and informative (especially the local ones) at times, but you won't get a serious debate.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-02 01:36pm

Oh you wanted a serious debate? Surely you are making unreasonable demands.

Sadly, in depth debates seem to be few and far between. And in depth analysis is generally one sided.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-02 01:39pm

Glocksman wrote:It's entertaining and informative (especially the local ones) at times, but you won't get a serious debate.

Which is part of the problem, people take it not just for serious debate but for reasonable, realistic debate. That means the likes of Rush, Hannity, Werbe, and Moore all get taken seriously.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-02 02:06pm

On the rare occassions I hear talk radio, usually a topic comes up that starts a discusion involving myself and whoever I may be listening with-- we'll latch onto something said by either caller or host and expound upon it.

I guess in that light it is okay, but I doubt too many folks listening to talk radio use it as a springboard for deeper discussion. It is probably either used as a placebo news source, an object of ridicule, or background noise more often than not.