Reforming 'Hate' Radio

Around the country, Talk Radio is regarded by many as a medium that fosters deep odium and division, widening the rift between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right and left. And take it from me, a Talk Radio host with 20 million daily listeners (OK, so I exaggerate slightly), I'm sensitive to this criticism. I believe it's extremely misguided for any of us with radio shows to direct even an ounce of our hatred at John Kerry or George W. Bush-when surely every last drop should be reserved for Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Janjaweed militias of the Sudan.

I am not completely blameless in the widening of the rift. During the election campaign I felt sincerely that John Kerry would be a disaster for the country in time of war, and I expressed as much. Though I did try to be fair-criticizing George Bush on many occasions for what I felt was fear-mongering on the part of his campaign-I know I came off more than a bit emphatic about Kerry being the wrong man at the wrong time. Still, I praised him for his service to his country in Vietnam. But some of my conservative radio colleagues ranted so much against Kerry that you'd think he was the spawn of the devil rather than a duly elected U.S. senator. (But let's be fair. It's not just some conservative talk radio hosts who can pull out the howitzer of hate. The recent crop of liberal radio hosts can spew some pretty nasty venom as well.)

This does not mean that conservative or liberal radio hosts are bad people. The fact is we're only trying to get our point across to an invisible-and distractible-audience that can turn the dial at any time. What nobody but talk radio hosts understand is how the medium itself pulls you toward making strong, emphatic, even extreme statements. As a host you constantly feel that if you just speak without being strongly opinionated, then you're more likely to induce a coma than a call-in. You know that sounding like NPR is the kiss of death, and you sometimes overcompensate by putting more chili pepper on your expression than you might otherwise do.

If calling George Bush a doofus is something that all the other liberal hosts are doing, you have to up the ante and toss in that he's an unrepentant murderer as well, in order to stand out. Pointing out that John Kerry is a flip-flopper is pretty much a conservative cliché. So you feel the need to add that he's a '60s-style, America-hating, French-speaking hippie bum. Now you've got listeners!

There are many talk radio hosts who simply don't want to descend into the gutter of hatred on the air. But we quickly encounter a powerful problem-if we don't spew poisonous invective and bile at the other side, there is always another host who will. And the audience may gravitate to the host with the harsher, more sensationalist language. And then you feel the pressure to use it as well, just so that you don't lose your audience to a more irresponsible host.

I have felt this pressure many times. I am a firm believer, for example, in the inviolate need for a two-party state. I am not a Democrat-indeed, at this point in time, there is not a lot they represent that would cause me to vote for them. But I absolutely believe that we need a flourishing Democratic party. When I hear conservative talk-radio hosts going off about how the Democrats are a threat to the United States, and what a blessing it is that they've been pulverized in the most recent election, I am left with a quandary. Do I get on the air and talk about how necessary they are as a functioning opposition? The host down the dial is calling for them to be drawn and quartered. Isn't that more interesting? And isn't it going to cause me to sound more vitriolic about the opposition than I otherwise might?

It's the old problem of "all the other kids are doing it."

Continued on page 1: »