"Talk Radio"

Eric Bogosian portrays callers as some of the most extreme, and some of the most low-life people out there.  His character, Barry Champlain, is an abrasive talk show host who provokes angry messages from his callers.  By creating a landscape of callers that include drug addicts, racists, and indolent invididuals, Bogosian is commenting about his real view of society, and the type of people who call into radio shows. 

I often feel like people who call into talk radio shows do not know much about the topic they are calling about, but Bogosian definitely takes this critique to the next level.  He does not only portray callers as being unintelligent, but he also portrays them as ill-intentioned.  He ends up depicting the talk radio conversation as a hostile interaction between angry callers and an even angrier host.

This angry host, Barry Champlain, has a ton of nasty things to say about his callers, but he ultimately ends up hating himself as well.  He is, after all, a major part of this talk radio culture that he condemns.

When I listen to talk radio, I sometimes find that there are people who have very intelligent things to say.  As I become a more critical consumer of information, I realize that radio shows may actually go out of their way to choose callers who are off-the-wall and in ways “unintelligent”.  As we have said in class before, radio shows are seeking to make profits, and seething conversations, no matter how mindless, seem to be a means to this goal.

What Talk Shows Are Saying About Occupy Wall Street

I listened to two talk radio conversations that both supported the reasons behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement. 

One conversation was from Fox News Radio, but it mainly featured the voice of the caller, a self-proclaimed “average-joe”.  At first, as with many caller conversations, the radio host interrupted with questions, trying to challenge what the caller was trying to say.  In the end, however, they ended up being more or less on the same page, and the host ends up sincerely thanking the caller for his contribution to the show. In their conversation, they talked about the importance of average citizens being able to share a dialogue that is taken seriously, instead of every decision being battled out by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Radio Fox News

The second conversation I listened to was between two authors, who had a similar take of the situation, but they got into a lot more details about underlying problems of the economy, and the types of measures that should be taken to address fundamental change. This conversation was much more thought-provoking because it provided real analysis and possible approaches to reacting to the struggling economy, making the former conversation seem like more of a rant. A journalist/author who is participating in the conversation also focuses more on positive aspects of protesters rather than dwelling angrily on negative aspects of the government. She refers to individuals in New York who are holding up signs that say "I Care About You", and others stopping her on the street and saying " I love you". She describes this as a strange time in the city, but it is in ways more inspiring to hear this view of the situation.

"Conversations With Great Minds"

"Stimulating" 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.

-David Foster Wallace

I find it disconcerting that being stimulating for the mere sake of attracting attention and making money is the primary goal of a radio station.  These hosts do whatever they can to provoke their listeners, despite the implications their words may have.

Hosts do not seem to be too concerned with being factual or careful about what they are saying.  I understand that they are in a slightly different industry from journalism, but not all listeners differentiate these two fields in their minds. People often believe the information they hear without being too critical, and as a result I think that many people are being misinformed.

I know that these radio stations are largely designed to be entertaining, but I think that the line becomes blurry when entertaining commentary is being passed off as factual news. As I mentioned earlier, my mom and brother are both frequent listeners of KFI. What I did not mention is that they are both very much liberal, and I still don’t understand fully why they listen to Dr. Laura and John Ziegler.  It must be because these programs are “stimulating”, but what good is this actually doing for the public?

John Ziegler and Other Hosts on KFI

I have never been one to enjoy talk radio. Perhaps I should begin to navigate my interest toward more serious radio stations, but the content I have heard on many talk radio shows makes me skeptical whether this would even be beneficial.

I have heard bits and pieces of several of the shows on KFI because my mom and brother have always been avid listeners. The line “KFI AM-640, Los Angeles-More Stimulating Talk Radio” resonates in my memory, and I instantly recognized it in the article.

David Foster Wallace describes how John Ziegler is very passionate on the air, proclaiming his opinions loud and clear, even if he disguises them as “the analysis of the facts”. Since the only talk radio show hosts I have really listened to are also on KFI, they are similar to Ziegler in many respects. They are all very, very passionate and their voice and attitude is much more apparent than the facts they are actually discussing.  I have heard shows from Dr. Laura, George Noory, and Bill Handel. Everything they say is pretty frenzied and off-the-wall, and it sounds like John Ziegler may be very similar. This is not the type of news or entertainment that I would prefer to listen to. 

Reaction to Twitter Co-Founder Biz Stone

I would definitely say that my feelings about Twitter have changed after listening to this interview with the co-founder, Biz Stone. 

I can appreciate Twitter for the fact that it emerged as a result of young individuals experimenting with new methods of communication.  I really liked everything that Stone had to say about the importance of people being able to voice their opinions, whether good or bad, trivial or serious. 

Since Twitter is so prominent and successful, I guess I always assumed it was created by a big business that was only trying to make money, uninterested with the actual power of the product. Stone described the excitement he felt as Twitter grew, humanizing the company in a way. Twitter is not just some faceless corporation without any concern for the implications of its work. 

I knew before that Twitter is being used in big ways to communicate information worldwide, and even to aid in revolutions, but I did not fully appreciate this fact until listening to this interview.  It made me recognize the importance of being able to communicate whatever you want, wherever, and whenever. 

To Tweet or Not To Tweet?

I am still getting used to the idea of using Twitter, and I am honestly not sure if I am ever going to make it a habit.  I am aware that I am probably just not accustomed to the language, the format, and the content, but as an outsider, I do not feel that compelled to find myself as an expert of the Twitter trade.

One thing that bothers me about Twitter is how short posts need to be. I can value the art of being concise, but when this leads to cryptic messages that can only be deciphered by fellow Twitter users, I begin to lose sight of the purpose. When I tried posting something that went over 140 characters, Twitter told me to "be more clever".  Sure, I can dig your character limit, but I do not think that cutting down on words or letters exactly equates to cleverness.

Although I am currently perplexed by Twitter, I am not giving up on it altogether. There must be a reason why it is a huge phenomenon, and maybe I will eventually catch on. Perhaps I will revisit it when I have a personal urge to Tweet instead of feeling like I have to for an assignment. Until then, I am guessing my Twitter activity may remain at 10 tweets and 1 follower.

Double-edged Commenting

I think that individuals’ motivations for “reciprocity” commenting may often be self-absorbed, but not for the exact reasons that Ito describes.  Ito illustrates through the dialogue of two teens that people comment on Facebook and Myspace so that people will then click on their own page, comment, and make them appear more “popular”.

Often when I see a lot of people commenting on a link, picture, or status, I think they are trying to draw attention to themselves, but in a less blatant way.  I think they are interested in becoming part of something that has created a lot of buzz.  Even if a post has nothing to do with someone, by liking it or commenting on it, I think that he/she then feels partial ownership of the overall conversation.

The overall nature of social networking sites is perplexing.  It is hard to define the motivations of people as they comment to friends and aquaintences, and it is even more thought-provoking because most of us participate in this type of behavior. 

Perhaps we don’t want to admit the motives behind our online behavior, or maybe some do not even know the deeper reasons behind why they comment.  The important thing to recognize is that there probably are deeper reasons, and online conversations should be taken as more complex than they actually appear.

Letter To The Editor Published!

The letter that I wrote to my local newspaper was published last Thursday. I was excited and surprised to find out that it was published because the newspaper didn't actually tell me themselves...

A former teacher of mine actually posted the link to the newspaper on my Facebook wall, saying "Well done", "You make me proud", etc.  It was cool finding out in this way, especially because my article was about my high school, so I knew that it was a topic that was both personal to me and to my teacher who was writing to me.

Although the thought of having people I know read my letter originally made me nervous, I ended up being happy to hear that people actually read what I had to say and that they actually cared.

It was interesting to me that the newspaper never told me they were publishing my letter. Maybe it was a mistake, or maybe it just isn't a part of their protocol.  It would be kind of cool though, had I been home, to just open up the newspaper and find out that way whether I had been published. Perhaps that is the "old-fashioned" delight they are trying to preserve.

The Acorn: Letter To The Editor

Social Networks vs. General Blogs

As I posted comments this week on Facebook and online stories, I noticed a big difference between the types of conversations I became involved in.  There were distinct differences between my use of Facebook and other networks, from the content of topics to the type of language used.  

First, I commented on a story about the Occupy Wall Street protests.  I found myself using formal language; similar to the way I would try to write for an academic paper.  I think I felt less comfortable just being myself since I did not find myself particularly close to the topic.  I had to rely on the information I could gather from articles, and the type of jargon you hear in the news. I feel like the comment I made sort of became lost in the sea of comments on the topic, not being shot down, but not causing much revolution either.

The next conversation I commented on was about Amanda Knox being set free.  I stumbled upon a very heated debate, and tried to chime in with my own opinion. It was interesting to see how passionate people would become during these conversations.  I found it to be a good opportunity for people to talk about issues that they may not be able to discuss by other means.

The third story I commented on, which was on the lighter side, was about the Red Hot Chili Peppers and their return to the road.  This conversation was not as heated as the previous two, but it was still cool to be able to talk about a general topic with a group of people that have similar interests.  You can hear different perspectives about topics that you didn’t even realize had so many sides.

On Facebook, I posted two comments to friends, and one to a former teacher.  My language in all of these comments was informal and perhaps more indicative of my personality.  As I commented, I realized that everything I talk about or read about on Facebook is more about personal relationships and identities.  It’s not that what I talk about on Facebook is unimportant, but it is generally only topics that directly affect me in some way.

Blogging on news and entertainment is great because you can talk about general topics and it doesn’t even matter who you are talking with.  At least for me, Facebook is a place where the person you are talking to can at times can be more relevant than what you are talking about.  One is not better or worse than the other, it is just two different types of conversation. 

Personally, I find myself using Facebook much more than other communication sites.  I definitely want to become more involved though in general discussions about news and different topics of interest.  It allows you to get into conversations that you may not typically have on Facebook or anywhere else.  

Reality Vs. Facebook

As I was walking this morning, it was raining and there were leaves everywhere, and I realized how nice it all was.  At first though, instead of deciding to enjoy the moment, I had been slightly disappointed that I didn’t have a camera to capture it or that I may not experience another morning like this.

This made me think about the fact that people these days feel an overwhelming need to validate every experience they have by somehow reproducing it or sharing it with others.  After talking in class about the effects of the Internet and Facebook, it is clear that the culture of Facebook dramatically heightens this absurd need.

It can be seen with every aspect of Facebook. Did this still really happen if I don’t make it my Facebook status? If I don’t put this picture on Facebook, what do I even do with it? Am I really friends with someone if we’re not Facebook friends? All of these questions sound ridiculous, yet I bet a lot of people can say they have pondered them to some extent, whether seriously or satirically.

Unfortunately, I cannot say I am just a witness to the Facebook craze, and that I too am fully immersed in it.  As all of these ideas about the Internet’s effects were flowing through my head, they were accompanied by sudden, trivial thoughts about none other than…Facebook.  I walked past two people running, had a funny thought and decided: I should totally write on my friend’s wall about this.  Later, out of nowhere, I remembered having a good conversation with someone the previous night, and I thought to myself: Are we friends on Facebook? I should add him when I get home.  I immediately realized how ridiculous these thoughts were given my simultaneous critique of Facebook, but perhaps that just further proves my point about how much it affects our thought processes.

There is no way to really reverse the impact that Facebook has had on us.  One could say the damage has already been done.  Perhaps the best we can do is to reflect every once in a while and realize how absurd the microcosm of Facebook can be.  It is important to prioritize our real lives over our virtual lives, and to feel that our real experiences are more legitimate than our online reproduction of them, not the other way around.  People can benefit from trying to enjoy the moment they are in, instead of thinking about how they can talk about it on Facebook later.