March 6, 2005
Echo chambers
Yesterday was quite an interesting day for me in regards to the media. First off, I read a few articles from the most recent Atlantic that have to do with the state of the media, specifically with regard to their relationship with liberalism. The first is entitled "Thinking of Jackasses", by Marc Cooper, and is an insightful takedown of the recent Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate by George Lakoff, with references to some other books as well.
Lakoff argues that what progressives really need to do is "reframe" the debate by reclaiming the moral and rhetorical high ground. Instead of "trial lawyers", refer to "public-protection attorneys". To quote Cooper, "And here I thought semantic bobbing and weaving had helped cost the Democrats the vote." Cooper views both Lakoff's Don't Think... and Frank's What's the Matter... as solopsistic, naval-gazing examples of exactly why the left got so roundly stomped on in November, and he uses Nation of Rebels to support this thesis.
Elsewhere in the issue can be found "The Air America Plan", by Joshua Green, in which the author sets forth a brief history of talk radio - which has been and continues to be an almost exclusively conservative phenomenon - and discusses the new, liberal alternative, Al Franken's Air America, in light of this history. In short, Green believes that there exists a fundamental misunderstanding by most progressives of why talk radio is so attractive to so many people, coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding by both conservatives and liberals as to the actual effect talk radio has had on the nation's political sphere. Talk radio appeals to conservatives because they feel the need to look to alternative media sources to get what they feel is the straight dope, while progressives are perfectly okay with AP, Reuters, CNN, CBS, the Times etc. So there isn't a built in market. Furthermore, while it is generally recognized that talk radio had a significant role to play in the conservative revolution in the 1990s, it is not nearly as widely recognized that it also had a significant role to play in the movement getting bogged down in the late 90s with both the Clinton impeachment proceedings and several unfortunate political manuverings that cost the conservatives pretty badly (in momentum, if not in seats). Green doesn't think that creating a liberal version of talk radio is going to be successful on either a business or political level, and I'm inclined to agree.
Having both of those articles appear in one issue would be fascinating enough, but the cover story this month is entitled "Host", by David Foster Wallace, and is a lengthy (and I mean 23-pages lengthy) discussion of the author's experience at a conservative talk radio show - The John Ziegler Show of Los Angeles' KFI-AM - and his opinions and analysis of the talk radio phenomenon based on these experiences. It is a great read, especially in light of the previously mentioned articles. I should point out that this is the first attempt at print-media hyper-linking that I've ever seen. Certain words and phrases are highlighted and matched by color with boxes of text in the sidebars, where the author interjects commentary, opinion, analysis, and relevant context, without having to break the flow of a sentence or paragraph. It's quite effective, though someone who doesn't spend a lot of time browsing the web with multiple tabs open in multiple windows might find it a bit distracting.
The article is basically the response of a moderate liberal in a blazingly conservative environment. Wallace is at least as thoughtful and insightful as one would expect of a writer who has a cover in The Atlantic, but it's clear that he views himself as an outsider, and not just from the radio business. He doesn't agree with John Ziegler about most of what he says, and his reactions range from amusement to distaste, and occasionally gruding admiration, but most of the time you get the impression that he doesn't identify at all. He seems to think that talk radio is something that other people do and other people listen to. Which is, of course, correct, and thrown into high-relief by the other articles in the issue. This comes through most clearly in the way that Wallace positions himself so as to be able to pass down seemingly authoritative analysis while clearly belonging to one side of the discussion he so lucidly describes. Charges of being out-of-touch are harder to level at someone who took the time and energy to learn so much about what "the opposition" is thinking and doing, but it doesn't seem that Wallace has entered into their perspective in any meaningful way, or at least he fails to identify with his subjects very consistently.
He does, however, have a lot of respect for Ziegler - and by extension talk radio hosts in general - concerning tradecraft. You just try talking clearly, coherently, and constantly for arbitrary lengths of time while always managing to come to a clean breaking point for commercials and maintaining a high level of interest. Tape yourself. You're not allowed to use any filler noises - no "umm", "ah", or repeated phrases, period - and you can't descend into blather. The level of discourse doesn't have to be particularly high - mere demagougery will suffice - but it does have to be maintained. Then throw in a few callers over the course of an hour and try to maintain a semblence of civility with them. This is not nearly as easy as it sounds on the radio, which is to say nothing of the producers and sound-guys processing the live feed in real time to prevent audio peaking and ensuring that the scheduled ads get played.
If all of this wasn't enough to think about, last night I finally made it to see "12 Angry Men" on Broadway. I saw the 1957 Henry Fonda movie about three weeks ago and have been trying to get down there ever since - it sells out pretty regularly. I don't know if it was just the second viewing or if watching a production directed and acted by New Yorkers, in New York, with a New York audience made a difference, but the play seemed a lot more political than I had first thought. In all fairness, there were a few lines in the play that weren't in the movie, and one of the nastier speeches in the play makes it pretty clear that the accused belongs to an ethnic minority, while the same speech in the movie only implies that he belongs to some kind of underclass. But somehow, the 1957 movie, made just as the nation was starting to grapple with the issue of civil rights and equality before the law, seemed a lot more provokative and edgy than last night's performance, which almost seemed self-congratulatory. One of the key lines in the play is that it's probable that no one will ever know what really happened, and that facts are only as good as the people who witness them. In the 1950s, this would have been a fairly stunning idea, while today it's almost trite it's so well accepted. In the movie, I walked away with the impression that the men who were voting for not-guilty were really sticking their necks out. Today, it seemed a lot more like those voting guilty were taking an unpopular position, because juror #8, Fonda's character in the movie and the juror who casts the initial vote for not-guilty, was enforcing the spirit of the age, not challenging it.
With the movie, my sympathys obviously ran towards juror #8. That's what's supposed to happen. Last night, I felt a lot more for juror #4, the broker, who seems to hold a stronger allegiance to anyone in the room to the idea of factual truth. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm increasingly not a fan of absolutist theories of truth, but that doesn't mean that I think it's appropriate to twist evidence to whatever end is desired by the speaker. In the particular case considered in "12 Angry Men", that isn't what was happening, but it today's legal culture, that's exactly what happens, and I really resonated with the frustrations of the men who felt that the clear truth was being manipulated by bleeding-hearts for reasons unknown.
I also started to have doubts as to exactly how legal some of what went on could have been. I'm under the impression that the jury is to consider the case in light of the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense, and the jury never once made reference to the arguments presented by the defending attorney. He may have been a bum who didn't want the case, but I think - and I could be wrong here - that the jury isn't allowed to do any deconstruction of testimony that hasn't been done in open court. They certainly aren't allowed to consider new evidence. This had a lot more to do with the second viewing than differences in the performances. The introduction of the second knife bothered me the first time, but I figured out why last night.
Throw all of that in with the internal monologue I'd been having about liberal media and you've got quite the interesting evening.
