David Frum offers a must-read example of how a conservative talk show host immediately demonizes and insults someone who disagrees with him — and most likely alienates some voters. The host: Mark Levin. Go to the link and read the example in full yourself.
Frum writes:
Imagine some commuter – a nonpolitical person, a family man or woman, a taxpayer and billpayer – who happens to flip the dial on the radio on the way home and hears that exchange. What would such a person think? Wouldn’t it be something like, “I don’t know what’s wrong with that horrible man, but I do know this: whatever side he’s on, any decent person would have to be on the opposite”?
Frum nails it.
As an independent voter who was once a Republican (I’ve been a Democrat, too), sometimes voted Republican and who is closer to Colin Powell and Tom Ridge than to many Democrats, I’ve had the same reaction as I drive some 30,000 miles or more each year in my non-blogging incarnation and listen to talk radio. Or rather, listen to it for a few minutes and put in a CD. I’m on the verge of hooking up satellite radio, which will give me more choices than driving from market to market with nothing to listen to but demonizing talk.
I’m turned off by the exclusionary, negative-defining and purity-purging aspects of some of conservative talk radio. It’s basic M.O. is to go after, or question the sincerity of those who disagree. This makes for exciting radio — controversy gets ratings and pumps up callers — but it has also become a way that conservatives and those inclined in that direction now tend to treat those who see things differently than they do.
But this syndrome now infects far more than talk radio. I now hit the delete button for emails that use the same tactic (I answer a few, and regret it because this is what they seek, so I now mark those emails as spam). And in my blog reading, I’ve personally stopped visiting weblogs that use the same tactics. They don’t need my readership, anyway, so why not use limited time to read those who vigorously discuss ideas and differ without trying to discredit? Although we may slip at times, as a website TMV tries not to personally go after blogs and blog writers who see things differently: we may debate them or link to and quote them to offer another viewpoint.
In so many venues in our politics now — talk shows, cable talk shows, comments on weblogs, weblog posts, even on Twitter — there is a growing notion that it’s intelligent and effective to discredit and insult someone who dares to hold a different viewpoint.
Public officials? They are elected, were elected or want to be elected and are rightfully vetted and second guessed. But the concept that someone who disagrees on a talk show, in blog post, or in comments must therefore be a liar, not sincere, evil, a tool of a party or politician, misrepresenting what they really believe (in posts apparently written by psychics) boils down to one component: it’s an attempt to take someone “out” so others will not consider a different way of looking at something.
But the reality is this:
We are all products of our life’s experiences — political and otherwise — and conditioning. Anyone who has done or studied any psychology and/or hypnosis knows this. Each caller to a talk show, each partisan, each blog writer or commenter has a history of experiences, perceptions, and information accumulated over the years and a conditioning that brings him or her to conclude what they do. And they MEAN IT and BELIEVE IT.
Frum and other thoughtful conservatives know this full well. Addressing an actual issue and knocking down a counter belief with stronger facts or a more logical argument (which can be heated) can change minds — and win a candidate or a party votes. Demonizing doesn’t win over that person and others who can see a demonizing attack or insinuation for what it is: an attempt to destroy the credibility of someone who sees things differently.
So is the goal in politics, talk radio, writing to go after others who think differently so that those who already agree with you cheer: “You got him! That’s the way! Great zinger I wish I had thought of that!” or is the goal to try and possibly change minds, generate a discussion of ideas — and maybe get some votes?
One personal note about how this works — using an example from the LEFT.
Several years ago I was invited to appear on a local San Diego progressive talk radio show on what was then a station that carried Air America talk shows. In those days I sent talk show hosts on the left and right some TMV posts. This one local host invited me on his show, supposedly to talk issues and as he said to his producer in his email “to let Joe plug his blog.”
Realistically, being on a talk show won’t add many readers to TMV but I had felt (and still feel) that talk shows always invite the left and right and almost never the center (the same with many Internet talk shows). Look at typical broadcast, televised and cable shows. What do they set up? Left and right. It’s point and counterpoint — but oftentimes there may be a point in the middle.
I was told this would be a serious discussion of issues.
This local host is someone I had listened to for many years in San Diego — before he was presenting himself as a progressive. I had been a huge fan. In fact, I had interviewed him for a story I had done (I was a fan and called him to get his view in the story) when I was a staff reporter on the San Diego Union newspaper.
Under its old ownership, the top manage of the Union (the newspaper officially changed hands two weeks ago and within 24 hours fired 192 people — who were told this week they had to leave the building by the end of the workday Friday), included some people tied to the Nixon and Reagan administrations. One was Gerald Warren, a top quality guy who often appeared on KPBS’ news hour. The paper’s editorial stance was decidedly Republican.
So we discussed issues on that? No.
This liberal host and his producer decided to turn it into a few minutes of quintessential demonization.
He made a point of asking when I had talked to him before and I said when I was on the San Diego Union as a reporter. There was an AHA! tone in his voice — suggesting I wasn’t really a moderate or independent but MUST be a Republican. (As anybody who knows anything about newspapers will tell you, on most newspapers reporters work separately from editorial boards and those who insist there is no difference are peddling right or left hogwash).
He asked me how anyone could be a moderate and what is a moderate. I started to answer. And then he and his producer cohost started talking over me. “A moderate cup of coffee…A moderate case of cancer…” Every time I’d answer they talked over me. And since they controlled the mike I was drowned out. He’d ask me another question…they’d start talking over me again.
And then they just hung up.
So I was presented in a way that told listeners I was REALLY a closet Republican, kept from answering as they talked over me, and then cut off so I couldn’t answer anything. They made their point. So what if it was a bunch of inaccurate crap and I didn’t get a chance to respond?
The upshot? I barely listened to this person again. Anything coming out of his mouth was suspect to me. I had little respect for the people calling him up who praised him. I lost all respect for him because it was clear he had no intention of engaging, he wanted to define and tear down.
As an independent voter, I felt those on his side (represented by callers) on the left were people who couldn’t even conduct a conversation or discussion but merely wanted to insult and demonize anyone who MIGHT differ from them (I was not allowed to really state my position on any issues but was just a nice target). How could I POSSIBLY be on a side with people like that?
Worse (for him): Some friends of mine heard it and said they lost all respect for him and they wouldn’t listen again. They said they told their friends. They said their ire wasn’t because they knew me: it was because he had seemed like such an unreasonable jerk (their words, not mine).
Even so, this talk show host still had his adoring choir of progressive talk fans. And he was on the air — until his station dumped the talk format. So he surfaced on another station with the same political schtick– and was reportedly laid off.
He’ll surface again on another station. But I won’t be listening to him or his arguments.
And if I vote the same way that he does on some issues?
It will be DESPITE him.
RELATED POST: For talk radio junkies, read this Huffington Post piece on why conservative talk dominates the airwaves.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.