I get what David is saying, the larger point being the discretion all broadcasters must use before the crack the mic, be it for a break or an hour. Granted, some use very little and occasionally they pay a price: A hotline call, a suspension, a firing. (Karel on KGO, recently caught with the mic open.)
I don't have a problem with Mr. Rothman's topic choice. Citing CNN (as akeller did) may or may not justify his decision but maybe the example of Chuck Nevius' column sort of echoes David's question, or maybe an answer to it: Where does one draw the line on talk radio topics? Perhaps the question is driven by another question: What are people talking about?
At the end of the day, if a broadcaster puts him or herself in the position of the listener (a wise foreign policy), you envision that listener saying, "Why should I care?" Unless you're a table-pounding speechifier, there are fewer disarming moments than a talk show host with an empty call bank. Perhaps this is their motivation: What topics will impel listeners to call?
Of course, there's the intangible element of talent. An artist, for instance --a director, a songwriter, the stand-up comic, a novelist, or even something more pedestrian like a newspaper columnist (no offense to a Nevius or, say, a Maureen Dowd or George Will)-- the thought process you'll often find them taking is that they always assume people are going to be interested in what the artist is interested in provided the artist tells that story interestingly enough. Essentially, that is the job of the provocateur, the artist, whatever category we use.
So, in a utilitarian sense, I guess some assess the interest level of the consumers, in this case, the listener. They may assess their ability to talk about it (I'm sure these boards are replete with stories about past broadcasters who could wax poetic on the virtues of a tomato plant and keep you riveted) --in other words, can the host generate calls by the manner in which they deliver the topic? And then there's the host's passion for the topic, no small component. If he or she doesn't care, obviously they'll have a difficult time making the listeners care.
When you combine this with a certain journalist creed about the significance of the story --is it important, should it be important, will it be important-- and maybe that gives a sense of where one draws a line.
The Nevius column is interesting in that it poses a sort of "if a tree falls in the forest" question, but maybe what he's really asking is, are these protesters even news anymore? What about neo-Nazis?
A couple of years ago, the Gilroy Dispatch ran an article called "Conversations with A Nazi." It was a bit jaw-dropping in that, according to the article, Nazis aren't as bad as we think. The writer said she expected to interview believing that she would be speaking with an intolerant, violent, violence prone individual whom she could quickly marginalize. Turns out this neo-Nazi believes in taking care of the environment, is opposed to welfare but willing to help people, and so on. The price for such reasonable opinions is that you have to deal with his attitudes about race and religion: The holocaust was greatly exaggerated and everybody in the United States who's a Jew oughtta be sent to Israel; interracial relationships should be banned and interracial children are not worthy to live (and any fetus aborted).
The story is no longer on the web (though I kept a copy). Here's the question: Should such a story be in the newspaper? Frankly, that question is worth asking as a topic for listeners, but that's another matter. The point goes to this thread and David's original question: Where do you draw the line, or as akeller implies in citing Nevius' column about the tree falling in the forest an no one hears it.
I think part of our problem is the way news is even disseminated. Take the BART station shooting. What purpose did it serve to show the cell phone videos? There are some obvious answers here but ask it this way: By posting those videos, showing those videos, in what way was our legal system and the concept of justice and a fair trial served? We know the oft-repeated argument: The guy's guilty, didn't you see it?
I'm certainly not defending the cop but who knows what got said, who could hear how much of what got said, who knew what about who. In other words, the videos don't tell us anything about motive. So is the only purpose served by showing it to generate ratings, increase newspaper circulation and boost web hits? That's a tough call for newspapers, local TV news and news radio given the current media environment.
I don't think the case is any different from Governor Blagojevich. What was said on those tapes doesn't make him guilty; it makes him a politician. The question isn't whether he was horse-trading; it's whether he took a check from anyone looking to buy that Senate seat. I'm just amazed that people are so shocked that this is how politics works. What happens if this guy gets impeached and he's acquitted in his trial? We won't be pointing fingers at him, will we?
Maybe a question we should ponder is, should news editors and assignment editors (and for that matter, talk show hosts), treat their readers and viewers (and listeners) more like a jury than an audience? Are we entertaining or informing? Is there entertainment value in being informed?
To some degree, this goes to the points made by landtuna. Because I prefer conversation that is intellectually challenging, conversation that makes me ask questions and makes me think, I have a hard time digesting talk show hosts who constantly engage in the pejorative, the divisive, the name-calling. Liberals this, conservatives that. To me, it's Jerry Springer radio. And yet it gets an audience, so who is to blame in that chicken and egg scenario? Is Rush a good broadcaster or is he just tapping into our lowest common denominator? Is Hannity as good a broadcaster as Rush? Yet, I thought I just read that they have nearly the same number of listeners. Good broadcasters or smart business? If audiences didn't want what Tuna calls hate radio (and I don't think he's that far off), would those kinds of broadcast provocateurs continue to do it? Would they be able to change their act? Or is it just entertainment?
I suspect the answers aren't simple here. Then again, that makes for interesting talk radio, doesn't it?
