The unfairness of talk radio

By Editor on November 10, 2008 1:21 am

Talk radio demeans the principles of democracy and civility, even as it plays a powerful role in shaping public opinion in the US. And yet the mainstream media give it a free pass. In this essay, writer and editor Parthiv Parekh argues that ignoring talk radio is dangerous and calls for mainstream media to take a more combative approach to the media form.

THE UNEQUIVOCAL SENTIMENT expressed in the title of this article may not belong in a respectable forum catering to academicians and journalists. But nothing captures quite so accurately how public opinion is shaped in the United States about weighty issues — such as presidential politics, the economy, the environment, and national security — that impact the lives of everyday Americans.

On the one side are the mainstream media, which come into the arena of public opinion with one hand tied behind their back – in the form of stated ideals of objectivity, balance, professional rigor, and a code of ethics. (Whether or not the mainstream media always remain true to their stated ideals is a different discussion). On the other side stands talk radio, which does not proclaim or display a similar allegiance to these ideals. To the contrary, many of the “talk masters” are self-proclaimed entertainers who take pride in their inconsideration and insensitivity. Indeed, a bulk of them, as epitomized by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are the antithesis of the following journalistic creed: “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”  

I would like to share a few categorical generalizations here about the nature of talk radio versus that of the journalistic establishment. While hardly unique or original — in that other critics of talk radio have made similar observations — these assertions are meant to indicate the significant difference in the power of mainstream media and talk radio to impact the public discourses of our times.  

One, the modus operandi of talk radio involves incitement, insinuation, inconsideration, polarization, and vested positions. Conversely, the modus operandi of mainstream media involves at least some commitment, even if imperfect, to rational constructs, research, and investigation, as well as an adherence to a code of ethics.

Two, generally speaking, talk radio hosts do not belong to the journalistic establishment. The rigor that such an establishment demands of its practitioners appears singularly absent amongst them.

Three, talk radio hosts are not subject to counterviews within their own media outlet. In mainstream media, there is a multiplicity of views. There are forums such as discussion panels, letters to the editor, Op-eds, and so on, that provide for contrarian views. 

All of this points to the significant power of talk radio to promote a particular and narrow agenda. And yet we in mainstream media and academia often have a cavalier attitude (if not downright apathy) towards talk radio. We perhaps discount it as an enterprise of the fringe. But, in the context of a democracy, one cannot deny its impact on the masses and consequently on the national affairs of our times. The fact is that talk radio does shape public opinion, and therefore can have a significant impact on American lives. 

 If not a cavalier attitude or apathy, it may be the premium that we inherently place on free speech that disallows us from even thinking about the impact of talk radio as an issue to contend with. Unfortunately, such a laissez-faire attitude towards talk radio amounts to giving a free pass to a practice that defiles our national debates, discourses, decisions, and destiny.  

The question then is what can be done? Obviously talk radio exists well within its constitutional rights to free speech. Certainly curbing free speech is not the solution. Viewpoints — no matter how controversial, insensitive, sensational, polarizing, fringe, or downright unpalatable — are not, in and of themselves, points of contention. The point of contention rather is the inherent disparity in the way these views are offered to the public: one within the constraints of balance, objectivity and professionalism, the other without.

Senator John Kerry at the time of his 2004 presidential bid had reintroduced the idea of the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed during the Reagan administration. The doctrine required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. While Kerry’s initiative for recognizing the problem of inequity in the machinations of public dialogue must be applauded, I am not sure this is an issue that can and should be fought in the court of law.

Rather, the court of public opinion may be the only proper arena to address this issue. Here, the mainstream press seems to have failed. Their blasé approach towards the irrationality of talk radio gives it a free pass. Just as talking heads use their medium to routinely knock the mainstream press, they, in turn, must frequently call to attention the irrationality of talk radio.  

Polluting our public debates with dishonesty, inequity, and imbalance should be at least as strongly criticized as polluting our environment with fossil fuels. Therein lies the challenge for the mainstream media and for citizens who care to keep our public discourse — the engine of a democracy — objective rather than vested. The challenge is how to successfully and sufficiently expose talk radio so that it becomes a hot potato for advertisers and broadcasters. In an era when businesses crave to be seen as responsible corporate citizens, an association with talk radio needs to become a surefire sign of corporate irresponsibility.  

Marginalizing talk radio by not giving it any time and credence can be another important approach. Politicians, celebrities, and other notable personalities in the public sphere come in all shapes and sizes. If there is a sustained effort to sideline talk radio, then conscientious public personalities could deny invitations to be on such shows.

This exercise may appear somewhat malignant and spiteful towards talk radio, but the alternative is the compromise of our public discourses, and consequently, our collective civic consciousness. From that standpoint, pointing to the unfairness of talk radio is a matter of national urgency rather than a juvenile rant.  

Parthiv Parekh is a co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of Khabar, a monthly features magazine serving Indian Americans in and around Georgia. He can be reached at editor@khabar.com

Home

Categories: Article