[Note: This is post #5 in the Blogiversary II series.]
Now that the two media behemoths Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting own every FCC license in the Western Hemisphere, commercial radio has consolidated into one monolithic blanket of banality. Even those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a major radio market (I live in Dallas/Ft.Worth) have few real choices on our radio dials.*
Pop and country stations used to play the “top 40” but now they repeat the same singles over and over throughout the day. No matter when I tune in I know I'll hear about Usher’s confessions or how Toby Keith loves his bar. The music from both genres has become so monotonous that I’m starting to get them mixed up in my head. Just the other day I imagined that Nelly and Tim McGraw were singing a duet.
There is also the “alternative” station in town which has a heavy rotation of Nickelback and Green Day. Apparently, the term “alternative” is loosely defined as to mean any alternative to Usher and Toby Keith. We do have a true alternative at the university, but like every campus radio station the signal can’t reach past the beer-soaked lawns on fraternity row.
We also have an “urban” channel that plays hardcore rap in case you need a soundtrack for a drive-by shooting and a “smooth jazz” station that will make you want to reach for your gat and bust a cap in somebody. There is one exceptional “classic soul” channel that is worthy of praise. Unfortunately, during the morning drive-time the music is replaced by Tom Joyner and company giggling for five seconds before going to the next commercial. And of course you have the requisite “Christian” station playing sugary music so vapid and mawkish that the playlist must be programmed by Satan himself.
Fortunately, I still have another option available. There’s a place on my radio dial that I can turn to hear news, current events, intelligent conversation, and the latest on politics and culture; an oasis amidst the desert of the airwaves. And no, it’s not talk radio. It’s better. It’s NPR.
Here’s six reasons why National Public Radio beats talk radio:
It’s not part of the conservative monoculture – Here in the Metroplex I have three different AM talk stations to choose from. During the day I can listen to Mark Davis, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Gary McNamara, Darrell Ankarlo, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Greg Knapp, Tony Snow, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and Michael Savage.* Every single host is a middle-aged white male conservative (except for Ingraham, who merely imitates being one).
Naturally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that perspective. But why would I want to listen to the same viewpoint being expressed ad nauseum? Seriously, if I want to know what a white male conservative thinks I can just read my own blog.
*There is also Bill Bennett (8am-11am) and Hugh Hewitt (8pm-11pm) but I can’t pick up either one of those shows on my car stereo.
There are no callers – On her recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Jeanne Garofalo refused to talk to callers. She claimed that when people call in to radio shows it does nothing but bore the audience. For once, Jeanne and I agree. The people who call radio shows rarely have anything interesting to say. Mostly they simply want to express that they either love the show’s host or tell them that they disagree with him (and it’s almost always a him). The opinions expressed by callers are consistently unoriginal and dull. Only on the most rare occasion do the add anything worthwhile to the conversation.
But radio hosts love them because they fill airtime. Because the supply always exceeds the demand, a national radio host can fill any excess time by simply answering the phones. Even the most obscure topic will keep people waiting on the line for hours just so that they can hear themselves talk.
NPR shows, on the other hand, rarely have callers. Instead they fill the spare airtime with actual content.
No commercials – I realize that radio is a business and that stations have to sell commercials to stay on the air. But do they need to have so many? Most shows have news and traffic at the top and bottom of each hour. That’s two breaks, along with local commercials. Then they run ads about every 5-7 minutes. All together, the show is interrupted about ten times every hour. Chance are that when you get into your car and turn on radio the AM station will either be playing an ad or will be going to commercial within thirty seconds. Add these breaks to the time wasted on callers and you end up with very little actual content.
No Dittoheads – In all of the years I’ve listened to NPR, I’ve never heard anyone praise Terry Gross or Bob Edwards. Yet you can’t listen to talk radio for more than five minutes without hearing a caller sucking up to the host. I’m sure it is very gratifying to hear people constantly sing your praises but it's annoying for the listener.
And while I’m sure that Sean Hannity is a decent guy and good citizen, it’s rather disturbing hearing him constantly referred to as a “Great Man.” Smedley Butler, a Marine who won two Medals of Honor, was a great man. George Washington, the man who helped win the American Revolution, was a great man. Abraham Lincoln, a President who held the country together during the Civil War, was a great man. Sean Hannity is a talk show host. He makes his living talking. All day. That doesn’t quite qualify him for Great Man status.
It's not Rush – Let’s admit the truth: Rush’s glory days have long since passed him by. Fifteen years ago his schtick was still somewhat fresh and daring. Yes, he was egotistical and overbearing but it was all for show; a way to get under the skin of liberals. But now it’s simply become tiresome. Anyone who still listens to Rush drone on for three hours (or fifteen minutes once you cut out the commercials) is likely doing so out of nostalgia.
Rush was a pioneer and there is no doubt that if it weren’t for him conservative talk radio wouldn’t be the force it is today. But, ironically, his success has led to his downfall. Nowadays he’s being upstaged by imitators like Sean Hannity who do a better job of playing “Rush” than Limbaugh does. It’s time for Mr. Snerdley to whisper in the big guy’s headphones and tell him to put away the Golden Microphone.
There's no Dr. Laura – Say what you will about NPR, it has no one as annoying as Dr. Laura. Listening to her tell people how they could fix their lives is like being trapped in a small room with your mother-in-law.
In comparison, the flaws of talk radio allow NPR to stand out more than is warranted. Listening to NPR is like dating a charming and beautiful woman that has a semi-serious personality disorder; you're enchanted by her yet know you can’t commit to someone so troubled. But most criticism of the station is too simplistic, too concerned with its liberal bias. The problem with the station, though, runs much deeper than a mere penchant for left-leaning politics. NPR can be heard in almost every town in the country yet its worldview is a secular cosmopolitanism that is foreign to many Americans, particularly those in non-urban areas or in the “Red States.” The hosts of All Things Considered, for example, would have no trouble relating to an obscure avant garde musician, while a popular gospel singer would be considered an anthropological curiosity.
Still, NPR takes ideas, culture, art, and international affairs seriously. Conservative talk radio may touch on the same issues but generally they are either treated defensively (“In our next segment, the NEA's plan to ruin our children…”) or as purely political concerns (“Will the genocide in Darfur hurt Kofi Annan?”). Talk radio is merely topical while NPR attempts to be timely.
Mostly when I listen to NPR I wonder why conservatives can’t produce something similar. Why can’t we have discussions about art for art’s sake on the radio? Why can’t we have debates about the role of religion without it being subordinated to politics? Why have we ceded all culture to the “liberals?”
The other day I heard a segment on NPR by a young medical student at Harvard. He was describing a scene in which a pediatrician convinced a child to endure the pain of a vaccination by invoking “magic dust.” From this launching point he raised questions about the ethics of the placebo effect and the trust we put in physicians. It didn’t produce any earth-shaking epiphanies but it did make me ponder the questions involved. Like the best blog posts, it helped me to think about an issue that wasn’t imperative but was still important.
The short segment reminded me of what radio could be, but rarely becomes. Too often talk radio simply asks us to choose sides. Issues aren’t debated in order to change minds, for our minds are already made up. We are only asked to agree or disagree with the host. I, for one, don’t want my time wasted on such trivial discussions. I want to be challenged, I want a real, honest debate. Maybe Rush is right about everything. But I’d still prefer to think for myself.
*I originally wrote this post in November 2004 and have since moved to the Chicago area. Now I have XM Sattelite Radio and a subscription to Mars Hill Audio Journal so I don't listen to as much talk radio -- or NPR -- as I once did.
1
No way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's why NPR LOSES to talk radio:
1. It's part of the leftist monoculture.
Political Diversity on NPR?
2. There are callers. They are boring.
Callers on talk radio do contribute to the debate, and they often have interesting personalities. Listen to guys like Medved or Prager who love to debate people. Callers to NPR shows, on the other hand, speak in the same hushed tones that say, "I'm a pretentious pseudo-intellectual who loves to hear himself talk."
3. There are no commercials because NPR is funded by 1) money unjustly confiscated from taxpayers and 2) pledges squeezed out of listeners through lengthy, boring, and increasingly frequent pledge-drives.
4. Car Talk - Not funny, never was.
2
No matter when I tune in I know I'll hear about Usher’s confessions or how Toby Keith loves his bar. The music from both genres has become so monotonous that I’m starting to get them mixed up in my head.
That's why I have a turntable hooked up and still spin vinyl I get on eBay. (Remember when records were made of this black gunk and you played them by dragging a needle down visible grooves instead of shining a laser through them?)
Despite the best efforts of the "oldies stations", there was far more to Sixties music than "Dope is Groovy!" and "Get Out Of Vietnam!"
posted on 10.12.2005 12:04 PM3
Joe,
I don't for one minute believe that this nonsense you just posted is a true reflection of your beliefs on this. Nice try, though. You almost had us. LOL.
posted on 10.12.2005 2:28 PM4
I agree that NPR is the only good radio news source. It's a pity that conservatives such as David can't stand it and want it dismantled. I grew up with the BBC which is very similar and appreciate the fact that you don't have to listen to commercials. I don't have a radio or tuner now but still provide generously to NPR and PBS because I think its important to have these excellent media outlets especially since commercial media has become so banal or one sided.
posted on 10.12.2005 2:32 PM5
I just re-listened to Gene Simmons versus Terry Gross earlier this week.
BEST RADIO INTERVIEW EVER!!!!!
posted on 10.12.2005 5:53 PM6
DFW radio still succoth. I can tolerate commerical-free KCBI for a while. After that I have to unplug.
It's still better than television.
posted on 10.12.2005 8:40 PM7
On my own xian blog, I have suggested NPR as a news source, and I labeled it as moderate, not liberal.
Sure, Terry Gross has rappor with gay guests and not with conservatives, but so what? NPR is about all I listen to, except for maybe catching Dobson or McArthur (or McGee!) on xian radio. But that's not really news.
Conservatives who bash NPR are by and large more interested in hearing someone buttress their own viewpoint than they are in hearing really informative, more indepth reporting.
Now, NPR does lean left sometimes, but not as much as its detractors say. Christians or conservatives *should* try to both infiltrate the NPR organizations, as well as create alternatives. A little quality competition would be good for everyone.
posted on 10.13.2005 1:51 AM8
In his stunt commmentary, David says, among other things:
"2. There are callers. They are boring.
Callers on talk radio do contribute to the debate, and they often have interesting personalities. Listen to guys like Medved or Prager who love to debate people. Callers to NPR shows, on the other hand, speak in the same hushed tones that say, "I'm a pretentious pseudo-intellectual who loves to hear himself talk."
Ah, pseudo intellectuals, as opposed to those real intellectuals, like Medved and his usual knuckle-dragging callers?
Me, I prefer mud-wrestling. Or snuff films.
Here's a pseudo-intellectual comment for you, DA-vid. Find a deserted island where you can be free of any and all obligation to others around you, and then please f**k yourself, indefinitely.
Thank you.
posted on 10.13.2005 2:40 AM
9
For the record, I do not want to dismantle NPR. I just don't want to be forced to pay for it with my tax money. I also happen to listen to NPR from time to time. I enjoy Marketplace, This American Life, and What'ya Know.
As for seeker's comment that "Conservatives who bash NPR are by and large more interested in hearing someone buttress their own viewpoint than they are in hearing really informative, more indepth reporting," when it comes to informative, in depth reporting, newspapers and magazines are better sources. Radio is not a source of in-depth reporting, and NPR is certainly not a source of unbiased reporting. The truth is, conservatives are tired of the constant barrage of left-leaning reportage which they encounter in the MSM on a daily basis, and they are especially tired of paying for it when it comes to NPR. Why not go to talk radio for occasional refuge where, unlike the MSM and NPR, the hosts are honest about their biases and opinions.
10
Sometimes I listen to NPR, but only when I’m in the middle of nowhere, NPR is marginally better then listing to music radio. I've been a student in higher education for along time, I can't stand hearing people who are trying to sound smart like all the pretenders I hear in university/grad school, this exactly what NPR is.
I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that all talk radio is the same. It is true that they all fit in the White male middle-aged category. But they, for the most part, have different shows. Dennis Prager actually has real talks about religion (even though he has the tendency to politicize things a smidgen to much) He also has interviews with actually interesting academic types. Michael Medved has a debate show format whose callers are interesting and argumentative. Glenn Beck is hilarious, the show is only moldy political, it's more pop/culture funny minus the sexual references. Michael Savage is different' nuff said. Rush I will listen too when nothing else comes in, I cannot stand Ingram she is the least interesting person I have ever heard on the radio. Hannity is better then Rush.
11
brie and merlot-
"Ah, pseudo intellectuals, as opposed to those real intellectuals, like Medved and his usual knuckle-dragging callers? "
Ah, one can always tell when someone is a liberal bigot who doesn't listen to talk radio. Medved graduated from Yale and went to Yale law school with people like Bill and Hillary and John Kerry. How 'bout you? Make it out of kindergarten yet?
As for "knuckle-dragging callers", at least half of them seem to be liberals who disagree with him, which explains the knuckle-dragging part. They often make fools of themselves, like you.
"Me, I prefer mud-wrestling..."
Is that because you miss your mommy and that's the only time you get to see her?
"...Or snuff films."
How sweet! I bet it reminds you of your first sexual experience with that cadaver in the morgue.
"Here's a pseudo-intellectual comment for you, DA-vid..."
Don't flatter yourself. "Intellectual" in no way characterizes your comments.
"..., and then please f**k yourself, indefinitely."
Charming invitation, but that's anatomically impossible for normal people. You would know that if you had genitalia.
"Thank you."
You're welcome.
posted on 10.14.2005 8:43 AM12
Great stuff. NPR has slowly gained more and more of my the dial-time in traffic. It is simply refreshing to be challenged by another position on virtually all of my social views. I cannot see how being forced to think and defend my views can be bad.
posted on 10.15.2005 7:57 PM13
Joe,
Your criticism of conservative talk radio would be correct, or more correct(I agree with some of your points) if the shows actually advertised the content you suggest they do. Conservative talk radio is entertainment, and the hosts are entertainers, not reporters.
My personal preference in talk radio, are the local talk radio shows. As I live in a minor market, Montgomery, AL we have an independent talk radio station, as well as a Clear Channel one, so my situation is probably not what the majority of radio listeners have available. Even greater evidence of difference from major markets, my favorite local host is a Black host, however he does refer to himself as "A white man in a Black mans body."
Entertainment is the reason I listen to talk radio, not for the news. The only real news you get on talk radio is at the top and bottom of the hour when either Fox News, or CNN News gives their news updates. What is entertaining about talk radio? The Personalities! The personality of the host, or the personality of callers.(Even if most of the callers are Liberal or Conservative Kool-aid drinkers)
Personality is what is missing from NPR. NPR in my opinion is not about entertainment, and is more commentary or Philosophical. The philosophy generally of a Secular worldview, whom many of its listeners attribute to a greater understanding of the human condition, and of superior intellectual and philosophical understanding.
My criticism of NPR, may stem from the fact that as a child raised in a middleclass family of self employed parents, I don't accept the general notion that a public education from a secular State University, or one of the "Elite" formerly private Universities(Harvard/Yale), gives them an exclusive license of intellectual excellence. It is my individual experience of observing the work ethic of my parents, and the curiosity of their intellects, as well as their struggle to establish and actually prosper in their own conceptual creations, that has shown me the truth of diversity, not only of people's abilities, but also their ideas.
Philosophy is not an area that, for me can be fully developed in a radio format. Careful examination of the views and corroborating factual evidence shouldn't be googled while driving on the highways. I'll end my comment here before I complete my autobiography.
posted on 10.15.2005 11:21 PM14
I am a liberal, a Christian, and poor. I don't just live on the wrong side of the tracks. I live 1 house from the tracks and so my house shivers when the trains pass. I attended public schools, shared a bed with my sisters, and due to the dearth of money, didn't eat at a restaurant until I was 10. I attended a Big Ten university, as did all my family, and then Harvard.
I am poor by ideological choice. The Christ was poor. I choose to be Christian. Thus, I consider wealth to be a great evil. I base this upon the hundreds of warnings in the Bible about wealth. I have given my money to the poor, as the Bible decrees. And I have joined the poor, as the Christ did.
This is my first posting at a conservative website. I did not know that elite educations worry the Right. Elite educations do not worry me. Yes, I attended Harvard and that was hard. I still struggle to pay the bills.
But I also sat in more common classrooms. I sat in elementary school classrooms with 40 classmates, due to overcrowding. In junior high, my school day began at six am, so that other students could attend school in the afternoon and evening at that overcrowded school.
I share this info so that you can understand that my education is not limited to an elite school. I also taught in Appalachia, in Roxbury, at a reservation school, a prison, and in other ghettoes.
How many of you have attended an Ivy League School? Or Vandy? Or Stanford? Or the Univ. of Chicago? Or some other elite school? Or are you writing from positions of insufficient data? I loved Harvard. It gathers brilliant people. I think we should demand brilliance in our politicians. And courage. And sacrifice. Lincoln was brilliant. So was FDR. Lincoln came from poverty. FDR came from privilege. Lincoln was a Republican. FDR was a Democrat. But they both suffered. And compassion comes from suffering. Bush lacks brilliance, compassion and a history of suffering and sacrifice.
I would vote for McCain, a Republican. He's suffered. And he's brilliant.
I did not vote for Bush, who has an elite education not by merit, but by privilege. And his ultra-elite education did him no good. We have seen that he lacks composure. Eloquence. And the compassion that the Christ compels.
I love NPR. A speck of my taxes go to support it. I hate being forced to buy, via taxation, more bombs and more bullets. I hate having my taxes allocated to keep our monstrous pile of nuclear weapons ready to snuff millions. Billions.
Likewise, I hate abortion. And the death penalty. And the various forms of slavery that remain, such as rich people keeping poor people poor by paying them substandard wages and encouraging them to buy things that they do not need.
The Christ does not command us to love weapons and wealth and the judgment of others. He told us to trust God, to care for the poor, and control our tongues.
If the Christ returns, he best not return as the Prince of Peace. He better return as a warrior. Otherwise, people will crucify Him again. And he is crucified again everyday, in the ways that people behave, in the things they say, in the treasures they hoard while others suffer.
One nation under God? And yet we bomb country after country? Our rich grow richer. Every year, there are more poor. Every year, we build more more terrible weapons. And we use them. And everyday, on talk radio, hosts judge others and justify the horrors of class and nationalism and consumerism. And their listeners cheer them on.
Does Mr. Savage forget that the Christ does sit beside him? That the Christ is in the room? And do Mr. Savage's listeners forget that the Christ is in their minds as Mr. Savage savages the poor and justifies war?
I am a liberal, a Christian and poor.
The Christ was also a liberal and poor. He did not seek to conserve what was. He came to change, to temper desire for wealth and to urge his flock to manage their tongues.
posted on 10.16.2005 11:37 AM
15
Hi, I just found out about this blog, and it is pretty interesting.
I just wanted to mention that everyone is forgetting about Internet Radio. Every genre under the sun is respresented. Also, if you want a great news source, check out the BBC World Service, also streamed over the internet. Radio Netherlands is very good as well. Find them with Google, I forget the URLs.
Sincerely, Rob Lytle
posted on 10.17.2005 1:16 PM16
Joe,
I'd be interested in knowing what trips you up about Dr. Laura (other than "She's annoying"). She's on the front lines, fighting the good fight that no one else will take up.
Is it a daycare thing?
You have the exact same opinion on her as the leftists. This is troubling.
17
jb,
I'd be interested in knowing what trips you up about Dr. Laura (other than "She's annoying").
It's hard to say. She is so annoying that it is difficult to listen to an entire show to find anything on which I might agree (or disagree) with her about. A host may have a great message but if they can't present it in an appealing manner, then it will be poorly communicated.
posted on 10.17.2005 4:18 PM18
Joe:
I used to listen to NPR all the time. And while I agree that what they do is top-notch, anytime they do something political, their perspective ranges from left-wing to way out in moonbat territory. I remember one time many years ago, when I was just becoming aware of my political leanings, they were doing a story on some aspect of the abortion debate. I was a little sensitive about the issue because my wife and I were going through adoption, so the words "unwanted pregnancy" were a cold slap in the face. Unfortunately, I don't remember anything about the story, other than I was so shocked at the complete and utter disregard they had for any perspective other than pro-choice. There was no other perspective in their narrow and biased view. That soured me, because until that time I was trying to disregard all my friends who were saying how biased the mainstream press was.
As to why Christian radio is not as good as NPR or commercial stuff: For the same reason that Christian music (with rare exceptions) is not as good as other stuff: Christian musicians are often more committed to their Christianity than their music. That's a good thing, but it doesn't make for good music. Great music comes from a place that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith or belief. Think about Mozart's line in "Amadeus": "I am a vulgar man, but my music is not vulgar."
People who make it big in radio are talented radio people first, and Christians second. If you set out to make great Christian radio, you might succeed, but it might not be great radio programming. By the same token, NPR is great radio, but that doesn't mean the perspectives of many of their correspondents is not deeply offensive (Nina Totenberg, anyone?)
posted on 10.18.2005 10:38 AM19
And what a walking stereotype is the poster above named Katie. She can't be any more than 24 years old.
posted on 10.18.2005 7:21 PM20
Joe: I think the reason that the conservative talk-radio guys aren't obsolete even if some of their personal ticks become a bit tired is that the news and the issues before us are not static. Every day there is something new to confront.
Have you tried listening to WMBI now that you are in Chicago? Prime Time Live (4pm) is syndicated all over the country. It is an ATC-type program, but from a Christian perspective. I think in general Moody Broadcasting produces thoughtful, good programs pretty much covering the waterfront.
posted on 10.19.2005 7:11 AM21
This is a comment to the comment seeker made on the 13th, regarding how Christians ought to infiltrate NPR or make their own alternatives.
Actually, there ARE evangelical Christians that work for NPR. Barbara Bradley-Haggerty, who reports on religion for NPR, is a believer (she and I used to go to the same church in Washington), and there's a producer for All Things Considered, Franklyn Cater, who is also a believer, and goes to an evangelical church in DC.
There are probably others, I have no doubt. Who knows: maybe more than we realize.
Kevin
posted on 10.20.2005 5:24 PM