I am clear that talk shows have great appeal, but I am equally unclear regarding their intellectual value. I’m not sure what is gained by hours and hours of opinion thrown at the public in the guise of informed conversation.
This may show my bias, but I remember when there were fewer talk shows and the host was not necessarily a personality in his or her own right. He was merely a conduit whereby various authorities on the topic of the day were able to offer informed opinions. Often these authorities had done extensive research or committed their life’s professional career to the study of the topic at hand. They had credentials.
Back then, people like host Dick Cavett might have determined the topic of the day, but he brought authorities on the show to present credible information. It was the host’s job to ask relevant questions that enabled the authority to shed light on a specific subject. Today, the host of a talk show offers his own opinion as the authority, whether it is about child pornography or Anna Nicole Smith’s unusual life and death. If he has credible guests, he belittles their point of view when it doesn’t match his.
In addition, many talk shows have call-in components, where Joe in Alaska calls to say he thinks steroids should be banned in sports and Nick in Mississippi says interracial marriage is against God’s will. I respect that both Joe and Nick are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn’t make them authorities on the subject. Rather Joe and Nick become flashpoints for the host who then reiterates his own point of view. Unwittingly these call-in members of the audience help promote the host instead of promoting an intellectual discussion of the topic.
I suspect we’ll never go back to the way it was. I only hope there are enough people out there who can discern the difference between fact based on study and opinion based on nothing but opinion.
Leave a Reply