Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Fake Talk
I listen to talk radio. A lot. I never thought I'd get into that sort of thing, but it's very engrossing.
And I suppose that it's that reason that has me disappointed in the local FM talk radio station, WFNR - now apparently called "Supertalk" or some such.
The station does news, sports, and talk on weekdays, and sports talk on the weekends. Highlights for me include - I should say included - Jim Rome at midday, and Tom Leykis during the late night.
Well, change has come. Rome got dumped for some show on finances and debt-freedom. Leykis lost his last two hours to Phil Hendrie (who had lost his air time to Leykis, incidentally) and more recently, his first two hours to Michael Savage. Now I can't put my finger on what scares me about Savage. Maybe it was his advocacy of dropping atomic bombs on Fallujah and Sadr City. Although the (paraphrased) line "If the President goes on the air and makes the announcement 'The temperature over Fallujah is 2700 degrees, with cloudy skies,' he wins the election by 10 points" had me laughing so hard that I almost drove the car off the road. That he calls himself a "conservative" should give conservatives reason to object.
As for Phil Hendrie, I'm torn. It's funny stuff, really. But it's a talk radio show the same way that Night Stand with Dick Dietrick was a TV talk show. Don't get me wrong there either. Timothy Stack's writing and comedic timing on that show was pure genius. El Guapo-2 here has it absolutely correct.
As for Phil, I listen to the show and laugh, but it's with the knowledge that I'm listening to pseudo-talk radio, or perhaps meta-talk radio. It pays to compare my perspective on Hendrie to my perspective on Leykis. Both shows have elements of farce. Both hosts have spoken in varying amounts of detail about the differences between the caller-as-performer and the listener-as-audience, to great entertainment effect. But with Hendrie, the (intelligent) listener tunes in with the full knowledge that the show is drama, and not really open to discussion. At least on Leykis, I could listen to (farcically) real perspectives on atheism, the relationships between men and women, the meaning of fairness, and any number of other philosophically profound topics. Sure, we were getting the lowest common denominator calling in with their (generally unwanted) opinions, but hey, this is America.
The bottom line is that I'm largely disappointed. Perhaps I'll start a letter writing campaign.
|
And I suppose that it's that reason that has me disappointed in the local FM talk radio station, WFNR - now apparently called "Supertalk" or some such.
The station does news, sports, and talk on weekdays, and sports talk on the weekends. Highlights for me include - I should say included - Jim Rome at midday, and Tom Leykis during the late night.
Well, change has come. Rome got dumped for some show on finances and debt-freedom. Leykis lost his last two hours to Phil Hendrie (who had lost his air time to Leykis, incidentally) and more recently, his first two hours to Michael Savage. Now I can't put my finger on what scares me about Savage. Maybe it was his advocacy of dropping atomic bombs on Fallujah and Sadr City. Although the (paraphrased) line "If the President goes on the air and makes the announcement 'The temperature over Fallujah is 2700 degrees, with cloudy skies,' he wins the election by 10 points" had me laughing so hard that I almost drove the car off the road. That he calls himself a "conservative" should give conservatives reason to object.
As for Phil Hendrie, I'm torn. It's funny stuff, really. But it's a talk radio show the same way that Night Stand with Dick Dietrick was a TV talk show. Don't get me wrong there either. Timothy Stack's writing and comedic timing on that show was pure genius. El Guapo-2 here has it absolutely correct.
As for Phil, I listen to the show and laugh, but it's with the knowledge that I'm listening to pseudo-talk radio, or perhaps meta-talk radio. It pays to compare my perspective on Hendrie to my perspective on Leykis. Both shows have elements of farce. Both hosts have spoken in varying amounts of detail about the differences between the caller-as-performer and the listener-as-audience, to great entertainment effect. But with Hendrie, the (intelligent) listener tunes in with the full knowledge that the show is drama, and not really open to discussion. At least on Leykis, I could listen to (farcically) real perspectives on atheism, the relationships between men and women, the meaning of fairness, and any number of other philosophically profound topics. Sure, we were getting the lowest common denominator calling in with their (generally unwanted) opinions, but hey, this is America.
The bottom line is that I'm largely disappointed. Perhaps I'll start a letter writing campaign.
|
