Hot Air: : All Talk, All the Time

Rating:
Summary: Loved the book - front to back
Review: Howard Kurtz is an insider. He knows about that which he speaks. As a result this book offered wonderful insight into the program format of "talk." Although I can't put my finger on exactly why, it seems that the talk format got a lot of attention in the early 1990s. Perhaps it was because Rush Limbaugh was getting so much attention after the '94 elections; or that James Carville was single-handedly dumbing down the political talk show circuit? In any case, Kurtz go this book out in 1996 right at the tail end of the whole deal.

The stories are classic Kurtz and as such are quite entertaining, but take 'em with a grain of salt. I based my masters thesis on a premise in another Kurtz book (Spin Cycle) only to discover that a quantitative analysis proved the premise slightly off-mark. In other words, when Kurtz says that Imus was responsible (or "helpful") for getting Bill Clinton elected, it's a good idea to pause and take note of all the factors involved.

The genre is certainly fascinating fare, but Kurtz often wants us to believe that talk show hosts are the real agenda-setters in our society. The fact is that mass society theory (aka: magic bullet or hypodermic needle approaches) has largely been discounted. We know that the influence of these shows can be great in certain instances, but by and large their influence is best described as moderate. If you want to push the case that people who watch Jerry Springer everyday are prone to behavioral disorders, I would recommend reading several research articles by George Gerbner (or Bandura & Ross) and then rejoining the discussion.

In fact, the whole book is a budding communication researcher's dream. There are so many passages that are screaming to be tested. And in other passages, certain communication theories may go unmentioned, but are clearly being described. For example: In chapter three, Kurtz cites a producer for Sally Jesse who said that these daytime TV shows are really just giving the people what they want. This is the old debate as to whether TV is dumbing down society's level of conversation. In chapter eleven, he quotes a Clinton aide talking about "the water cooler effect." There are many other (and perhaps better) instances in the book where this is the case.

I enjoyed the book. It's a good read. I only wish that Kurtz would write a newer revised edition; my guess is that the air has grown a little more "stale" than "hot" in the past few years. And that may be why no update is on the agenda.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book with One Small Fault
Review: I found "Hot Air" to be an enlightening and engaging book. I enjoyed it as much as I did "Media Circus."

For me, Kurtz's most interesting point is how wealthy the star TV reporters and pundits have become and how little they have in common with ordinary Americans. For example, I did not know that Sam Donaldson has a 27,000 acre ranch in New Mexico.

My one criticism is that Kurtz commits a sin of omission when he decries the fact (which I accept) that conservatives dominate "talk radio." I think that that point should have been presented in context with the fact that liberals dominant other opinion making and forming sectors of society such as the Hollywood crowd and much (but not all) of the traditional media. I agree that the omnipresence of Rush Limbaugh and his legion of imitators is not good. But it needs to be said that the ultra-liberal orientation of a good deal of Hollywood's "movers and shakers" isn't healthy for society either. I know Kurtz is not a theater critic, but it would have made him look less biased to point out that along with ultra-right "talk radio" there are inequities that run the other way in America as well.

Rating:
Summary: Well done
Review: I picked up this book with one goal in mind: cure myself of my own tendency to watch the talk shows. Not so much Springer/Stern, etc.., but the Sunday a.m. and evening politcial shows - particularly Crossfire. And this book definitely accomplished that goal.

The most striking thing to me is how disingenuous this whole culture has become. Anything to get on TV seems to be the theme. We have always made that comment when watching some buffoon on Jenny Jones expose their sad life for all the world. Now we can add Robert Novak, et.al., to the list. They just go about it in a more high-minded manner and expose their self-righteous beliefs and attitudes.

If these shows really cared about content, they would have more objective hosts and panelists. But it's entertainment and so we get Sam Donaldson and John McLaughlin.

Oh well, I'm cured.

On the other hand, it was slightly tedious at times (like the shows themselves) because there is only so much one can say about this genre.