Stimulation

The fact of the matter is that it is not John Ziegler’s job to be responsible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his on-air comments are productive or dangerous, or cogent, or even defensible. That is not to say that the host would not defend his “we’re better”—strenuously—or that he does not believe it’s true. It is to say that he has exactly one on-air job, and that is to be stimulating.

This is why I don't really care for political talk radio, or political television. The whole idea makes sense from a business standpoint. When your listeners are interested, they are more likely to come back. It works for these stations, so why fix it.

The problem that I have with it is that it discredits the whole industry. Sure there is freedom of speech, but there is a limit for me. When you give your opinion and state it as fact, which many on talk radio and news channels do, people are taken along for the ride. That show that was described with the host faking interviews is awful. Practical jokes are one thing, but elaborate hoaxes like this one are simply unethical, especially when exposed to such a large audience.

The aim is to attract an audience and being outrageous and saying controversial things does that. I think that you can still be interesting and stimulating and attract an audience without being so controversial. That seems like a short cut to me. Come up with original and thought-provoking ideas that don't walk a fine line between disgusting and infuriating listeners.

I listen to sports talk radio, and most of the time hosts hoot and holler and try to stir the pot. I just don't think this is necessary. I as a listener would just appreciate insightful commentary and an open mind when other people don't agree with your thoughts. Maybe I am just wired differently than the rest of the country that seems to like this kind of stuff.