Minnesota Public Radio and some Bostonian talk jock named Christopher Lydon have been engaging in a strange mating dance in the press the last few weeks. I've never heard of the guy before, but his use of the name "Christopher" alone is a huge, pulsating, red neon "DANGER DANGER POMPOUS ASS" warning sign. Given my ignorance of him, it's clear he's not a big name in the industry. So I'm not sure why we should be treated to multiple articles on his tryouts and contract negotiations with the local government funded broadcasting outlet.
Brian Lambert featured the latest update on Sunday. He goes as far as posing 4 "pertinent questions" that the contract negotiations must resolve before a radio station no one listens to hires a guy that no one's heard of. Here's the beauty of the bunch:
Does Lydon's unabashed liberalness create unacceptable levels of discomfort for neutral and balanced-minded MPR?
It'd be a sea change, no question about it. Persistent criticism from conservatives notwithstanding, both MPR and NPR are proud of the ideological balance they bring to reporting and on-air dialogues. MPR, at least, is extraordinarily careful not to paint itself into a partisan corner. But Lydon's appeal is based on, well, Lydon being Lydon. You don't bring him to town with the idea of neutering him or hammering him into an "objective" hole.
The question stands, is Brian Lambert merely a partisan political hack with enabling editors or actually delusional? Hiring an unabashed liberal for an MPR show would be a "sea change" for "neutral and balanced-minded MPR?"
The chick Christopher would be replacing, Cacklin' Katherine Lanpher, was an unabashed liberal newspaper columnist (for the Pioneer Press) and liberal commercial radio host (at KSTP) before coming to MPR. She leaves MPR to join Al Franken in what they all admit is going to be the definitive liberal radio network. Yet the hiring of an unabashed liberal is a "sea change" for MPR? I can only imagine the size of the sneering snicker on Lambert's face after he wrote that (or the crazed glower of dementia--if it's that whole delusion thing which is actually driving him).
One of Lambert's other comments reveals what a radical departure liberalism would be at MPR. This is in regard to his concern that hiring Lydon instead of a woman would be a serious problem:
...that roster would risk furor among MPR's internal and external feminist caucus.
I think it's fair to say that any corporate culture with an internal and external feminist caucus has a rather intimate relationship liberalism already.
Lambert uses interesting language to describe MPR too--"neutral and balanced-minded." To me that's kind of an admission that their execution is lacking, even if their heart is in the right place. I'd like to be charitable and speculate that this may be the start of Lambert coming to terms with the fact that MPR programming has an ideological slant to it. But I think he has another devious motivation. That is, if MPR hires an "unabashed liberal" to host one of their news programs, the only way he'll be able to justify his continued characterization of their ideological purity is to say MPR is "neutral-minded," but sometimes necessary practical considerations intrude to make them slightly deviate from their moral high ground.
Those practical considerations are revealed later in the Lambert article:
For listeners, the singular appeal of the Lydon-Buzenberg/MPR courtship is that both are actual journalists. They have a professional respect for facts, accuracy and topics beyond trendy pop effluvia.
There it is--even if Christopher Lydon is an unabashed liberal, he has respect for facts, accuracy and deep thinking. Considering that, how can you possibly blame MPR for hiring him. The man is a professional fact respecter after all!
Which brings up the question of what type of person wouldn't be appropriate for an objective minded government organization like MPR to hire. Lambert tells all:
With commercial talk radio spiraling ever lower, in a cacophonic brew of carnival-barker partisanship, listeners who are both capable and interested in weighing opposing points of view are seeking new venues for information and their voice. And in Lydon's case, he brings the immeasurable advantage of being both engaging and entertaining.
The hosts of commercial radio talk shows, just coincidently all Conservatives, now THOSE guys are partisan political hacks. And their listeners, not capable or interested in weighing opposing views. My reaction to this is best summed up by paraphrasing a Lileks comment from a few months back, on the experience of reading a Lambert criticism of talk radio: "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?"
Lambert may think Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Dave Thompson, Joe Soucheray, et al are cacophonous carnival barkers. But he ain't heard nothin' yet. Northern Alliance Radio starts on Saturday afternoon. For the sake of his career, he may not want to listen in. Given the standards of hyperbole he's using to describe these other shows, I don't think he could review us without having to use the "f" word.
No comments:
Post a Comment