[Slightly edited.]
I began this post about three years ago and have always wanted to finish it. So I'll reprint my original introduction in brown font and then continue in regular text.
Running a household entails performing dozens of mundane tasks--alone. So when I'm working on something mindless, such as cleaning the kitchen, and I'm within thirty feet of the radio, it's always on. And I like to saturate my mind with the speech of some of the most reviled men and women in the country--right-wing talk show hosts.
Now I'm not going to say that some of these charismatic right-wingers don't stir up trouble, or that they don't make needlessly provocative or ignorant statements. Some of them do. What I am going to say is that every talk program is different, and needs to be considered on its own merits--not dismissed as a poisonous force in society just because of a reputation--not totally undeserved--for rudeness, racism, and [hatred for certain people].
I thought I would help differentiate between the programs by describing them, my beloved favorites first and the ones that send me sprinting for the tuner taking up the rear.
1. Michael Medved: The conservative talk show world contains a lot of Michaels, but this one is superior. He comes on from twelve to three in my area, and I always welcome his intro music and his optimistic lead-in. He's a brilliant talker, making it look easy. His introductions are intriguing, his segues always smooth, and his format crisp.
I'll divide my analysis into several categories, which get rated with one to four notches up on my volume control:
Charm/Charisma/Likeability: Michael Medved gets four notches up. Where I live now, he gets played for only a little while on Sunday mornings, and I miss him. Medved comes across as a genuine, unpretentious regular guy. However, he can be deliberately provocative by not hiding his disgust--dressed as harsh humor--about what he calls "celebrity bastard babies" or cities' unhelpful policies toward their homeless populations, but since I'm not his target, it doesn't bother me.
Self-Awareness/Intrapersonal Intelligence: Turn him up four notches. As good as he is at what he does, he is not a narcissist.
Depth/Breadth of Knowledge: Four. This guy was a history major and apparently paid attention to every detail. No one can trip him up in any discussion. Plus, he keeps up with all the latest studies and polls. He has a keen mind.
Explanation of Undergirding Principals/Avoidance of Superficiality: Blast the volume four notches. This guy gives no knee-jerk simplistic replies. His ideas are based on years of thinking about history and its implications.
Eloquence/Articulateness: Four. He talks simply so that it sounds easy, but whatever is going on in his head is crystal clear to the listener.
Choice/Arrangment of Topics: Four. He maintains a perfect balance between planning ahead and thinking as he talks. So he lures listeners in by dangling questions and statistics, and once he has them, he rounds out the topics in monologues (my favorite) and/or invites callers to challenge him with the opposite view. And--oh, he has several topics a day. None of this bringing up one or two topics to flay for three hours. And as I said earlier, his segues are always clever.
Guests: I have to give him a four. He often invites book authors and other serious, learned masters of fascinating topics. Then he asks them questions and listens to them talk.
Callers: Four. Most of the time, though, his callers disagree with him, because he formats his show that way. Debate ensues, and sometimes Medved concedes points. No caller, no matter how learned, gets away with any inaccuracies, because Medved calls them on it. This host enjoys playing the "Call of the Week," which features the looniest caller.
Civility/Engagement with "Liberals": Turn it up four. This man invites debate, listens at length to the opposing viewpoint (unless the opposition made an inaccurate statement) and then offers his view. He never gets to the point where two people are talking over one another. He will also have guests on the show with whom he disagrees. Yes, there have been cases in which people are derided (see "Call of the Week"), but if someone presents his point of view consistently and thoughtfully, Medved will verbalize his respect.
Now since I'm out of time, I will turn to a Michael on the other end of the spectrum: Michael Savage. Savage is on during peak hours for me, from four to seven--right when I'm cooking dinner and doing chores. Sometimes, when I dare to turn the radio on, this is what I get:
Charm/Charisma/Likeability: Turn it up one or two notches. His behavior interests me. For example, he'll ask his sound man to play a song, then yell at him to "TURN IT OORF, TURN IT OORF!!" Such unexpected rudeness is routine on his show. You never know when he's going to turn on a caller who is just being nice to him and blast him with loud and puzzling objections. He delivers scorching speeches about those with whom he disagrees. "Nazi" is a part of his regular vocabulary. He often takes on a jeering, mocking register when pretending to quote the opposition.
Self-Awareness/Intrapersonal Intelligence: One notch. It's hard to tell the extent of his narcissism. He'll be going on and on about some quality in himself and then start chuckling and I realize he might be kidding. Yet he really does think he's a specially gifted man, and he's enraged--convinced that he was cheated out of his opportunities early on because of affirmative action. Otherwise, who knows what he would be doing now, he seems to be saying. He talks often about back when he was studying for his doctorate. We hear about his doctorate often. He claims an improbable number of millions of listeners and claims a huge, dubious figure when he's talking about the number of Americans who expressed a wish for him to run for president.
Depth/Breadth of Knowledge: Turn it up one and a half notches. Again, this aspect of his show is puzzling to sort out. He certainly reminds us often that he knows a lot. He talks a great deal about--something. And he seems to have picked up a good bit of odd trivia, with which he beats the listener over the head--"IT'S THE COELECANTH, AN ANCIENT FISH. I'LL BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT, HUH? WELL LISTEN TO THIS SHOW FOR AWHILE, YOU'LL PICK UP A LOT OF THINGS YOU HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE." He'll develop murky political analogies, one of which involved that ancient fish. He'll talk about cooking and congratulate the caller who realized that his cooking monologue was really a cleverly disguised allegory of current events. Also, sometime in the past he's written a book on nutrition to which he regularly refers. When he talks about news items, I take him with a grain of salt because he's so emotionally invested, especially in reports involving the police.
Explanation of Undergirding Principals/Avoidance of Superficiality: A half a notch. It's actually difficult to tell where he's coming from as far as undergirding principals are concerned. He seems to be all over the place; it's hard to pin him down to a consistent worldview. Lots of bellyaching about the downturn our country is taking and yearning for the good old days doesn't do it for me. As for superficiality, Savage constantly blasts "liberals" with unflattering names and blames them for most of our problems.
Eloquence/Articulateness: One notch. His delivery is emotional, wandering, scattershot. He tells stories that start out pretty, but it's often hard to understand the point. Often, he seems to just plain contradict himself.
Choice/Arrangment of Topics: Please just turn it down. There--so we don't hear it. What arrangement of topics? He just sits in the studio monologuing according to his mood and whims. He delights in doing this, and is sure his listeners feel the same way.
Guests: Turn it up three notches. Now and then he'll have guests, usually authors, and he lets them talk.
Callers: Half a notch. His callers are of the fawning variety. They rarely disagree with him--they think he's wonderful--and when they do disagree, they're timid about expressing it. He often asks callers a barrage of questions that help him reflect all caller energy back on to his own views. One man did carefully express a legitimate disagreement with one point in Savage's speeches about the polygamist camp and Savage kept dodging, artlessly and obviously. The man would carefully reword and Savage would dodge again, getting angrier. This is where I turn down the radio and do the dishes in silence.
Civility/Engagement with "Liberals": Turn it down all the way. Sometimes his verbal blasts give me no other choice. Nothing gets accomplished on his show but feeding the "rage" of people who are already angry about the same things that he is.
If I get time, I'll evaluate some other hosts--Dennis Miller, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dennis Praeger, Hugh Hewitt, ahem--Rush Limbaugh, and Michael I-always-forget-his-Irish-last-name. Stay tuned.
Chatboard (1)