Jack’s Blog

Although I’m not sure who it was who thought up the idea of talk radio and television, there ought to be a statue of whoever it was in the backyard of every successful pundit’s mansion.

Why?  Because the premise was: be marginally (or completely) outrageous, stir up the emotions in your listeners (your “kind” - e.g. liberal or conservative will gravitite to whichever you are) and stimulate lively chatter.  I was going to say “debate” but it’s usually not debate at all.  It’s one side preaching to its choir, while the other side does the same to its own clones.  And it’s worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

The problem that has stemmed from it is this: all of this rhetoric is based on which side can WIN!  Except the question is: Win What?  Which side can be more flip and embarrass the other more?  It’s great entertainment (depending on which side you’re on and whether you’re listening to your “friends” or your “enemies”).  You can have a barrel of laughs at the other side’s expense or have your blood pressure skyrocket hearing the fanatics blather on using “facts” they pretty much they manufactured (as did your side, but that’s OK because it’s proving your case).

There are two topics that, I don’t believe, have been brought up (other than in a few of my previous blogs: 4/22/07, 6/30/08, 9/27/08 - this is a subject that hits my “hot button”).  One is that , while, initially this was brought up to add interesting discussion on radio and TV, it has blossomed into the anti-team motto: “What’s Right Is More Important Than Who’s Right.“  Every successful group, team, club, organization, company has at its core this fundamental belief.  Because of our attachment to these shows (and their hosts), we have lost the team concept that made America so great.

What these shows have done is violate Stephen Covey’s Fifth Habit of Highly Successful People - Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.  If you’ve ever listened to one of these shows, especially if opposing sides are represented, all one side does, is to find a hole in their opponent (right there, we have pitted members of the same team - the United States of America - against each other) and wait … until they hear whatever tidbit they’ve been waiting to pounce on and, rather than listening all the way through, they interrupt (displaying what’s become a great American trait) and if their counterpart won’t stop talking, it turns into a shouting match to see which individual can yell over the other, thinking that whoever finishes the thought is declared the winner.

That has not - ever - been the case.  People who believed what they believed prior to the high decibel debate will still cling to their original belief.  In other words, what started out as good audio or visual entertainment, has polarized the nation - and, this is me being a realist more than a pessimist (although I hope I’m wrong) but I don’t believe we’ll ever be the same country we once were (at least when it comes to teamwork).

Right now, since the Democrats (liberals) are in power, the Republicans (conservatives) simply lie in wait for something - anything - to happen, whether it’s  a new policy, idea or proposal (independent of if, deep down, they think it’s great for the country) or some misstep, flub, or semi-controversial comment made by their opponent (which is how we look at those who disagree with us).  When that inevitably happens, it’s “OK, what’s wrong with it, how can we exploit it, twist it, repeat it thousands of times (even though it was only said once), to make us look good and, more importantly, them look foolish?

Should someone in the liberal camp be reading this and thinking, “Yeah, those bastards, that’s exactly what they do,” don’t be so righteous.  When the roles were reversed, the actions were identically reversed as well.  

The reason for the “statue” comment at the beginning of the blog is that many of the debates between the two fanatical groups deal with the financial well being of the citizens of the country: is the (upper) middle (working) class, because of their strong work ethic, getting wrongfully punished and therefore are expected to do more for those unfortunate or should the lower class (even though, many are good people who’ve been hit hard by the economy, lost their jobs and homes, and, basically, have next to nothing) start earning their keep, by pounding the pavement and pull themselves up by their bootstraps - similar to the rest of the country (other than those who form the “Lucky Sperm Club,” entrance of which is mandated by choosing one’s parents correctly)?

The ironic part of this entire dialogue is that every host, regardless of which side they’re on, have one trait in common: every last one of them is filthy, stinking rich as all get out.  Yeah, they have their charities and foundations, but so do Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Mark McGwire and the rest of the overpaid athletes (also entertainers).  And while those philanthropic (aka tax write-offs) are truly terrific gestures, don’t think for a minute that the “heads” of those foundations weren’t taken care of first - and in an extremely comfortable first class manner - before a dime was given away. 

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when some of these radical thinkers and screamers - on opposing sides - get together.  As pompous and egomaniacal as every last one of them - be it Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Karl Rove or even “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly, a dollar to a nickel says there are at least some, “Is this a great country or what!” exclamations echoed throughout their little inner sanctorum.

Maybe it’s impossible, but what would be nice would be to have a television (or radio) show about people like us (call us the middle class) hosted by people like us.  And if the show topped the ratings, the hosts got no raises.  The money would go to those who deserved it.  Who?  That’s another verbal battle for another day.

Why are these “gonifs” (thieves) as my grandfather used to call them doing so well?  As a speaker I once heard (I believe it was Danny Cox of Orange County, CA) say, when asked if it was really possible to create emotion: 

“Did you ever go to a movie and laugh?  Ever go to one and cry?  Do you think it’s something they put in the seats?”

After President Obama spoke, I watched the “post-game” analysis on both CNN and FOX.  Whether it was Larry King, Anderson Cooper, David Gergens or Paul Begala (CNN) or Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Dick Morris (FOX), how either of those two stations refuse to admit they have a predetermined, personal bias when any politician, but especially the president, speaks, is not giving the American people enough credit for possessing even one collective brain among us.

Larry King has paid his dues in longevity if nothing else, so he’s got a pass to be open with his political beliefs because he’s been on the air since he covered - live - the Gettysburg Address.  I have to admit I am an ardent admirer of his, if for no other reason than his Rolodex.  He is to getting guests on The Larry King Show what, on a much lesser level, Jerry Tarkanian is to getting guests on his radio show.  I’m sure there were some people who refused to go on with him (I remember Larry discussing the regrets he had regarding people whom he never got to interview - and I know it wasn’t because his people didn’t make an attempt) but that list is a mighty short one.  Same with Tark and coaches.  Each guy has his flaws, but I admire the heck out of both.

As for Cooper, Gergan and Begala, Larry King is making them into household names - outside of their own households.  It’s understandable that each has a belief regarding how the government should function, but they shouldn’t even try to come off as even handed in their comments.  It was overly apparent they began listening to the president last night, waiting for something they could praise.

On the other side, Hannity makes no bones about which side he’s on (according to him, the right side - waaaaaaay right), but, in O’Reilly’s case, he made a point of asking each of his guests (from the left) if they thought his show was presented in a fair manner.  Certainly, it was fair to have both sides represented, but was his assessment and view fair?  Hardly, and it never is - because, when it comes down to it, he’s a conservative.  It’s not a vulgar word, just a descriptive one.  When he listened to the president speak, it was with as jaundiced an ear as the CNN guys did, only he was waiting for something he could pounce on and tear to shreds.  When it comes to political beliefs, he feels all men are created equal, just that some are more equal than others (just like the person he has on frequently, the one God ruined making a perfect asshole by giving her teeth, Ann Coulter).  The amazing thing about both Hannity and O’Reilly (and Coulter) is they do their shows indoors.  Whoever constructed those studios need to be applauded.  How anyone could build something enclosed that would be able to house the egos of those three is remarkable.  But I’d better be careful what I say - O’Reilly will call me a pinhead (since I’m Jewish, I already know, from her appearance on Donnie Deutsch’s The Big Idea, that Coulter sees me as imperfect - and if she’s perfect, I want to be as far from perfect as I can be.  Besides, I have a similar name for those two, but the first part isn’t “pin.”

Rove and Morris are what they are - and both are articulate and well read on the subjects they discuss, Rove having a rather shaky past, but if someone didn’t know, they’d have to find his analysis extremely enlightening.

Speaking of backgrounds - or other flaws in character - it’s almost comical the way each side presents its case for whatever issue is the topic of the day.  The first four men mentioned will constantly refer to President Obama inheriting this mess. to which O’Reilly retorted, “Yeah, but he didn’t inherit AIG.”

When President Bush was in the Oval Office, few people heard O’Reilly saying anything derogatory of the way the economy was handled.  Now, that the worm has turned, it’s time to deflect criticism where it belonged - the absolutely irresponsible job the Bush administration did handling the budget to the absolutely irresponsible job the Obama administration has done with the AIG fiasco.  So it’s not about who is screwing up the country (worse), it’s about placing blame.  And, most of all, … being right.

One note of interest to anyone else who watched both networks.  CNN kept heaping praise on “our own Ed Henry” who asked the president why he waited so long to make a public statement about the AIG mess.  I didn’t think anyone could speak so highly about someone asking a question that, visibly pissed off a guy who few have ever seen ruffled.  That is, until I saw Ed Henry being interviewed and saw how much adulation he had for himself. 

Although CNN made that question out to be the sharpest and most direct asked of a president since Dan Rather asked his famous, “No, sir, are you?” to Richard Nixon, when Nixon asked Rather if he were running for something (public office).  Funny, but that question was never even brought up, never mentioned, on FOX.  Maybe they didn’t hear it.  Or maybe, by acknowledging the “other” station asked it, they would be giving credibility to CNN - and we know that can’t happen, because there’s only room for one “Big Man” (station) on TV. 

Regarding King, Cooper, Hannity or O’Reilly, it’s all about ratings.  Every one of these gentlemen talk about the plight of “Average Joe” and how, whoever’s in power isn’t looking out for us - like those four and the rest of us middle class Americans are getting shafted.  These guys are so far out of our league, if we ever stopped and thought about it, they are nothing more than entertainers.  And high priced entertainers at that.  I wonder if anybody thinks even one of those guys - and now I’m including all eight, and probably every other “regular” on those shows - received a stimulus check last year.

None of the people who are on those shows a number of times as a contributor, has filled out the short form in quite a while.  To them, it’s a game, a ruse, if you will, to inform the public, but mainly to outdo the other guys’ shows so that their ratings are higher, meaning they influence more people than their competitors (and don’t think that they don’t look at their colleagues’ numbers, those who inhabit the same side politically).  It’s a metter of money, fame, ratings, power and ego.

Who’s the winner?  I’m not sure but I can tell you who the loser is - and it’s the guy typing this blog and the people who are kind enough to read it.  It’s been said there’s no “I” in “TEAM.”  True, but there is “ME.”  That’s why the cheer has become:

“T-E-A-M, Goooooo ME!”    Â

A while ago, I mentioned that the audio book I was listening to was Ted Turner’s Call Me Ted.  At the end of the book, there was a bonus piece - Wolf Blitzer interviewing Ted about several contemporary issues. 

One of them was what Ted would change if he were back running CNN.  Without hesitation, Turner said his first two moves would be to make the news the story and not the person whose name headlined the show, and to return to airing the real news, not the sensationalism that exists now.  He cited examples and Lou Dobbs was one. 

Ted told of how he thought the world of Dobbs (in fact, he had hired him), but how Lou (and Turner said he felt it wasn’t solely of Dobbs doing) had become more of a celebrity than the stories on his show.  Turner’s feeling is that the news should be the “celebrity” because, after all, that is (for the most part) the reason people were tuning in.  One thing about Ted Turner: if you ask him a question, he’ll tell you what’s on his mind.

Last night, I was watching AC 360.  Anyone who’s ever seen this show knows the AC stands for Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt).  One segment was about President Obama’s plan to (try to) clean up education, i.e. hold parents, students, teachers, administrators and anyone else connected to the education process accountable.  He cited statistics on how the United States, long considered a major power in the educational field, had dropped significantly when it came to educating its youth.

There were three “experts” in the field on the show and they each had excellent points regarding how to fix the problem - one which plagues the entire country and the answer to which may determine the future power (and world-wide respect) of our nation.  The  dialogue was rational, eloquently articulated, and there was little, if any, yelling over the others speaking on the show (a major problem anytime panels are part of the program).

Cooper sounded sincerely apologetic when he said he had to prematurely end the segment and actually made the following comment: he said he felt bad he had to end the discussion, that they initially had two blocks for this topic, but due to the breaking news one of the time blocks had to be cut (and on this, he not only did not sound apologetic, but stated it, like there would be no one in the listening audience who would find any reason to disagree).

The breaking news was the gunman in Alabama who’d opened fire and killed 11 people, before turning the gun on himself.  This breaking news - of something that was violent, as well as sensational in nature, but didn’t affect (excuse me for being so cold-hearted) anyone outside of those who were directly involved in this (now deceased) lunatic’s rage, i.e. families of the victims, police who were on duty, others in attendance who, thankfully, were not killed or injured and, possibly, someone who had experienced something similar in their past.

In addition, several blocks were devoted to the Rihanna/Chris Brown story of domestic violence and the circus that followed: her going back to him, him jet skiing while all this was being reported and about how the two of them were getting back together to record (hey, why not profit from this little “mishap”)?

This is exactly what Ted Turner was talking about!  It also should be what’s has to make Mommy V shudder, because I truly believe similar scenarios to this one was what was on the mind of best selling author Marianne Williamson when she said:

“The world isn’t falling apart because children can’t spell.  It’s falling apart because adults can’t think for themselves.”   Â