The talk radio formula

Oliver Stone’s Talk Radio is one of my favour­ite media movies. Eric Bogo­sian plays talk show host Barry Champlain. Only the polit­ics tell you that it was made in 1988 (instead of a con­ser­vat­ive blow­hard, Bogo­sian plays a mor­ally bank­rupt lib­eral). See­ing it again the other night reminded me that the for­mula for talk radio has changed little in a quarter of a cen­tury. Except, per­haps, that it’s become slicker, and more pro­fes­sional — there is now a for­mula you could actu­ally write down.

On which topic, there is a bril­liant 2005 essay on talk radio by David Foster Wal­lace, but it sits behind a pay-wall at the Atlantic. Now I sub­scribe, and per­haps you do too, but if you don’t and the excerpt below doesn’t remind you that some things are worth the price of admission…well, noth­ing will. (BTW it deals with the behead­ing of Nick Berg in Iraq.)

John Zie­g­ler, who is a talk-radio host of unflag­ging industry, broad gen­eral know­ledge, mord­ant wit, and extreme con­vic­tion, makes a par­tic­u­lar spe­cialty of media cri­ti­cism. One object of his dis­gust and con­tempt in the churn so far has been the U.S. net­works’ spine­less, pat­ron­iz­ing decision not to air the Berg video­tape and thus to deny Amer­ic­ans “a true and accur­ate view of the bar­bar­ity, the utter deprav­ity, of these people.” Even more out­rageous, to Mr. Z., is the main­stream media’s lack of out­rage about Berg’s taped murder versus all that same media’s hand-wringing and invect­ive over the recent pho­tos of alleged pris­oner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, which he views as a clear indic­a­tion of the deluded, blame– America-first men­tal­ity of the U.S. press. It is an asso­ci­ated con­trast between Amer­ic­ans’ mor­ti­fied response to the Abu Ghraib pho­tos and reports of the Arab world’s phleg­matic reac­tion to the Berg video that leads to his churn’s cli­max, which is that we are plainly, unam­bigu­ously bet­ter than the Arab world — whereupon John Zie­g­ler invites listen­ers to respond if they are so moved, repeats the spe­cial mne­monic KFI call-in num­ber, and breaks for the :30 news and ads, on time to the second…

Depend­ing on one’s polit­ics, sens­it­iv­it­ies, and tastes in argu­ment­a­tion, it is not hard to think of objec­tions to John Ziegler’s cli­mactic claim, or at least of some urgent requests for cla­ri­fic­a­tion. Like: Exactly what and whom does “the Arab world” refer to? And why are a few edit­or­i­als and man-on-the-street inter­views suf­fi­cient to rep­res­ent the atti­tude and char­ac­ter of a whole diverse region? And why is al Jazeera’s show­ing of the Berg video so awful if Mr. Z. has just cas­tig­ated the U.S. net­works for not show­ing it? Plus, of course, what is “bet­ter” sup­posed to mean here? More moral? More dif­fid­ent about our immor­al­ity? Is it not, in our own his­tory, pretty easy to name some Berg-level atro­cit­ies com­mit­ted by U.S. nation­als, or agen­cies, or even gov­ern­ments, and approved by much of our popu­lace? Or per­haps this: Leav­ing aside whether John Ziegler’s asser­tions are true or coher­ent, is it even remotely help­ful or pro­duct­ive to make huge, sweep­ing claims about some other region’s/culture’s inferi­or­ity to us? What pos­sible effect can such remarks have except to incite hatred? Aren’t they sort of irresponsible?

It is true that no one on either side of the studio’s thick win­dow expresses or even alludes to any of these objec­tions. But this is not because Mr. Z.’s sup­port staff is stu­pid, or hate­ful, or even neces­sar­ily on board with sweep­ing jin­go­istic claims. It is because they under­stand the par­tic­u­lar codes and imper­at­ives of large-market talk radio. The fact of the mat­ter is that it is not John Ziegler’s job to be respons­ible, or nuanced, or to think about whether his on-air com­ments are pro­duct­ive or dan­ger­ous, or cogent, or even defens­ible. That is not to say that the host would not defend his “we’re bet­ter” — strenu­ously — or that he does not believe it’s true. It is to say that he has exactly one on-air job, and that is to be stim­u­lat­ing. An obvi­ous point, but it’s one that’s often over­looked by people who com­plain about pro­pa­ganda, mis­in­form­a­tion, and irre­spons­ib­il­ity in com­mer­cial talk radio. Whatever else they are, the above-type objec­tions to “We’re bet­ter than the Arab world” are calls to account­ab­il­ity. They are the sort of cri­ti­cisms one might make of, say, a journ­al­ist, someone whose job descrip­tion includes being respons­ible about what he says in pub­lic. And KFI’s John Zie­g­ler is not a journ­al­ist — he is an enter­tainer. Or maybe it’s bet­ter to say that he is part of a pecu­liar, mod­ern, and very pop­u­lar type of news industry, one that man­ages to enjoy the author­ity and influ­ence of journ­al­ism without the stodgy con­straints of fair­ness, objectiv­ity, and respons­ib­il­ity that make try­ing to tell the truth such a drag for every­one involved. It is a fright­en­ing industry, though not for any of the simple reas­ons most crit­ics give.

It’s a long, thought­ful essay — give it a go.

New research: the US audience for British news

My City Uni­ver­sity col­league Neil Thur­man has been busy look­ing at the impact of Brit­ish news web­sites in the United States. And maybe it’s time for the tip­ping of web pages into the Second Life equi­val­ent of Boston Harbour.

Here’s what he found:

- Online, the BBC News web­site gets more US read­ers than Fox News, USA Today, and the LA Times; and the Guard­ian more than Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal in their home markets.

- UK news web­sites stud­ied received an aver­age of 36% of their read­ers from the US, although that fig­ure is as high as 73% for some.

- The Drudge Report was the most import­ant refer­rer of US read­ers to UK news web­sites, account­ing for 25% of traffic.

- Google referred about 8% of US traffic and Google News 7%.

- The stick­i­est UK sites with Amer­ican read­ers ranked:

1. BBC News
2. Telegraph.co.uk
3. theSun.co.uk
4. Guardian.co.uk
5. FT.com
6. Times Online
7. Independent.co.uk

- There was an indir­ect link between sites’ suc­cess on Google News and the prac­tice of pub­lish­ing copy straight from wire services.

- Sites like theSun.co.uk and Times Online saw con­sid­er­able poten­tial in their inter­na­tional audi­ence. On the other hand the edit­or­ial dir­ector of Asso­ci­ated News­pa­pers’ web­sites saw little value in inter­na­tional read­ers and “would rather have a hun­dred per cent UK audience.”

- Over­seas read­ers’ promis­cu­ous behaviour — [they come and look at] one page a month and then go away again (Stu­art Kirk­patrick, Scotsman.com) — was cited as a bar­rier to mon­et­iz­ing the over­seas audience.

- The editor of theSun.co.uk spec­u­lated that their global read­er­ship may be chan­ging their news val­ues: “our break­ing news…seems to have recently developed slightly more of a global feel.”

It’s out in a journal soon, but a pre-print ver­sion is avail­able from Neil’s fac­ulty page.

Off topic: How effective is chip and pin?

Last night, hav­ing com­pleted an excel­lent course in com­puter assisted report­ing led by Aron Pil­hofer and David Don­ald, I was hav­ing a well deserved drink in a neigh­bour­hood bar when my wal­let and mobile phone were stolen. Within half an hour I had called up to can­cel the cards, shut down the phone, etc.

But my credit card had already been used to with­draw first £20 and then £200 from an ATM. I never use my credit card for cash with­draw­als and I hadn’t used my card in the bar. (As any­one who knows me will testify, I rarely get my cash out.)

But how safe is chip and pin tech­no­logy if — in the space of thirty minutes — someone can crack the code and help them­selves? I guess my answer would be — not very…and I’ve just tried to call the police and report it for the — let’s call it ump­teenth — time. To no avail. So offi­cially it isn’t even a crime. (Update: just man­aged to report it online.)