David Frum vs Talk Radio

ndm

Seems like a good time to reread the late David Foster Wallace's 2005 Atlantic Monthly article on talk radio. The following is a taste:

-- Which all sounds great, except of course "explaining" the news really means editorializing, infusing the actual events of the day with the host's own opinions. And here is where the real controversy starts, because these opinions are, as just one person's opinions, exempt from strict journalistic standards of truthfulness, probity, etc., and yet they are often delivered by the talk-radio host not as opinions but as revealed truths, truths intentionally ignored or suppressed by a "mainstream press" that's "biased" in favor of liberal interests. This is, at any rate, the rhetorical template for Rush Limbaugh's program, on which most syndicated and large-market political talk radio is modeled, from ABC's Sean Hannity and Talk Radio Network's Laura Ingraham to G. G. Liddy, Rusty Humphries, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Dennis Prager, and, in many respects, Mr. John Ziegler.

-- Whatever the social effects of talk radio or the partisan agendas of certain hosts, it is a fallacy that political talk radio is motivated by ideology. It is not. Political talk radio is a business, and it is motivated by revenue. The conservatism that dominates today's AM airwaves does so because it generates high Arbitron ratings, high ad rates, and maximum profits.

DB

From Iowahawk:

This was, as you know, the theme of the National Topsider's exclusive January conference at the private Breakers Club in Nassau where I hosted a veritable murderer's row of top tory thinkers to diagnose the troubles with conservatism. Dame Peggy Noonan was there, of course, along with Kathleen Parker, Douglas Kmiec, and those two mighty Davids of conservative intellect, Brooks and Frum. But enough of the namedropping. The order of the day, after mixed badminton doubles, was to formulate an Rx for our ailing patient. In this regard we were in surprising accord: in order to survive, conservativism simply must start appealing to a better class of people. The sad fact of the matter, as we noted, is that one no longer finds admitted conservatives in any of America's prestige zip codes nor the faculty redoubts of her selective academies. During our Bahamian summit many gambits were proposed to win back America's elite electoral precincts from the left; sponsoring various hip hop colloquia at the better Ivies, supporting integration of gays into Nascar, endorsing state ownership of the means of production. Rod Dreher, whose sensational exegesis "Crunchy Cons" sold well over 200 copies last year, recommended a full embrace of the environmental movement, which as I understand is quite the rage among youthful voters and the trendsetting thespians of Hollywood. Good and bold ideas all, and necessary steps to get the movement started again. But there remains a daunting obstacle - namely, the benighted rubes who constitute so much of our so-called "base," and whose existence make it nigh on impossible to recruit their social betters.

porkbelly

DB - Now THAT'S funny. Hits the nail on the head.

ndm - surely after half the Washington press corps has joined the Obama administration and the other half shills from the sidelines it is now time to retire the quotation marks from the word "biased"?

Alex - all this going on about the shrill fanaticism, etc. of the remnants of the Republican Party - ever heard of MoveOn.org or Daily Kos? It certainly didn't hurt them in November, did it? Obama won and McCain lost not on the issues, not on philosophy, but on tone and image and a powerful urge for cyclical change. Not to mention a little problem with the economy. I doubt George Washington himself could have beaten him.

ECM

ndm: in that article you could probably insert The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, *insert random US newspaper*, or, gasp, The Atlantic and still come to the same, exact, conclusions that the author reserves as the purview of talk radio.

But leave it to the Atlantic to not grasp the bitter irony of its own leavings--maybe they also need to read Iowahawk's latest so that they start to 'get it.'

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

"it is a fallacy that political talk radio is motivated by ideology. It is not. Political talk radio is a business, and it is motivated by revenue"

Spot on. This was a point I made on Melanie Phillips blog. It doesn't matter whether the GOP are in or out of power. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Coulter will find something to complain about because that is their job.

The thing is, the left have their share of gobshite idiots too, I wonder why there is no focus on them. Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann. It's interesting that Alex Massie constantly attacks Limbaugh but is happy to link to Jon Stewart. Being partisan is fine but it is somewhat blinkered to think that one ignorant blowhard is more worthy than another, regardless of the politics.

However, it is interesting to note that according to Pew Research, the audiences of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are more politically savvy than the audiences of Colbert and Stewart.

ndm

Some commenters here really, really need to listen to Jon Stewart.

THX1138

Cabbie Jon Stewart is an equal opportunities piss taker but your side do provide better material, remember "W" I know the GOP are now desperately trying to air brush him out of history but c'mon he was a satarist's dream.

I do agree with you re Limbaugh, Coulter et all so what are the GOP doing puckering up to them, especially as Rush with his multiple wives & substance abuse is hardly a "Promise Keeper".

This is Funny watch the new U.S. senator from Minnesota (soon I hope) wipe the the floor with Ms Coulter.

http://tinyurl.com/3xupyk

dp damato

Let's see. The rubes of the Republican Party (white lower middle class men who enlist in the military to fight the barbarians) unenlightened - not our type. Okay to demonize. The rubes of the Democratic Party (black, hispanic, single women with children) must refrain. Cannot risk being called racist and sexist and all that. David Frum is nothing more than a rank opportunist. He sees the GOP out of power, so will now ingratiate himself with the liberal crowd i.e. liberals favorite conservative. Is this columnist another blue conservative, or is he a red tory? Who can keep track anymore. Is this columnist the Guardian's favorite conservative?

ndm

dp damato needs to hone up the old analytical skills. The Democratic Party actually cares for and passes legislation on behalf of Blacks, hispanics and single women with children - they are not rubes. The Republican Party is not interested in nor does it pass legislation on behalf of white lower middle class men - and they are rightfully called rubes. If there are rubes in the Democratic Party it is the wealthy Hollywood types and New York money men who fund the party - but I they are smart enough to appreciate the ends their money is being used for.

porkbelly

ndm - I'll bet those Wall St. masters of the universe who backed Obama are VERY appreciative of the ends their money is being used for! Suckers! As for the lower middle class men, well - they can always cling to guns and religion, right?

Francis

In the US they have this idea of a free press which means that if you dont like it you can listen or watch something else. We should try it in Britain though of course the left wouldnt like it.

I read the Derbyshire article a few days ago and didnt think it was up to much. His view of tlak radio as low brow seems to miss the point. Whilst accessible and entertaining they are done by people who are intelligent, well informed and articulate.
He is probably right that it woulder be better to have a wider spectrum of different voices but the absence of this is hardly the fault of talk radio.
It might not be perfect but it would not be preferable for it not to exist.

Complaining that it is didactic is missing the point as that is precisely the purpose.

There is no evidence to substantiate the claim the charge of "frothing lunatics". Levin, whatever else, was certainly coherent and interesting and I think his central charge that Frum was smearing his own side is correct -shooting the wrong people as he put it. The left of course always operates by smearing, repetition and indoctrination so the idea that without talk radio you woud have soem civilised rational debate is pure nonsense. Is that what exists in the Uk? It simply means never challenging "argument" by smearing. Nothing better can be expected from the left but it is shameful when those on the supposed right indulge in the same things and do the left's work for them. The question i tend to ask is whether they attack the left with similar invective. Most often not. Frothing lunatics at hte BBC - now that seems about right.

Andy

Funny how you attack Mark Levin but have no bone whatsoever to pick with the really shrill voices - those of the Left - e.g. Jon Stewart. Why don't try to listen to Mark Levin, I mean really listen - don't just focus on a clip... I started to listen to him without knowing ANYTHING about him, and I have to say, he DID convince me of things I was unclear about... he really cuts through the clutter.... Not for nothing did they call him The Great One.