Choosing your battles

I was at first somewhat perturbed by Dan Shelley's tell all on talk radio. Controlling your callers and playing victim to liberals as a means of keeping your audience numbers up is a little unsettling. But then I tried to think of other media cirumstances where similiar tactics are employed. The first thing that came to mind was presidential press conferences and the ability to ask questions. In this forum, depending on which side of the fence you are preceived to be representing, you can be granted more or less access to the president. During the election the McCain campaign was choosy about who could talk to Sarah Palin. It seems this tactic is somewhat natural to us as humans, we don't want to get into a fight that we know we are going to lose. But does that make it ok to avoid certain confrontations in positions of public service? I would say no. For news organizations and public officials confrontation can be a healthy and productive means of engagement. The problem is we are so caught up in winning, or coming out on top of ratings that we have often lost sight of those goals.

To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms.

As for the victim role that talk radio employs, all I can say is do something about it. Personally I have little tolerance for complaints if you aren't trying to change the circumstances surrounding them. What are the hosts really doing to empower anyone? The only thing they seem to be accomplishing is further fragmenting Americans. But where does responsibility for that lie? In the host themselves or the people who choose to listen to them?