Volume 5 number 7, August 2003 The Perils of (Too Much) Talk Radio In a raging sea of right-wing talk radio, the Alaska Public Radio Network’s "Talk of Alaska" is often a breath of fresh air. The statewide call-in show, broadcast locally on KUAC-FM, regularly tackles issues of significance to Alaskans, and, best of all, is largely free from the vituperative ramblings so common to other radio talk shows. The May 27 edition of "Talk of Alaska," however, was a missed opportunity for public radio listeners to engage in meaningful dialogue with their elected representatives. That program provided an "end of session wrap-up" to the State Legislature, and featured guests House Speaker Pete Kott and Senate President Gene Therriault, both Republicans. At first blush, it appears odd that "Talk of Alaska" would feature only Republicans, rather than include at least one Democrat for balance. "Talk of Alaska" producer Jessica Cochran explained the format this way: "The Republicans were responsible for [legislative] decisions, the Democrats were largely cut out of those decisions. We wanted the people who were responsible to be held accountable to the listeners." That’s a perfectly justifiable position—except for the fact that host Steve Heimel took only four listener calls during the hour-long program, the last of which was squeezed into the show’s final minutes and never achieved resolution. Those wishing to take a crack at the legislative leadership surely numbered greater than four, and the desired accountability might have been achieved by putting more of them on the air. Further hindering the listeners’ ability to hold Kott and Therriault accountable was Heimel’s dogged insistence on shielding his guests from tough questions. Consider the following exchanges, unfortunately typical of the program’s host:
One can almost imagine the wide grins on the faces of Kott and Therriault as the program’s host repeatedly defused listeners’ queries. Cochran further explained the decision to exclude Democrats from the panel. "Talk of Alaska," she noted, is not intended to be a point-counterpoint situation for those with contrasting viewpoints: "When it becomes a debate, it actually leaves less opportunity for the callers around the state to participate in the show." Again, a rational argument—except for the fact that Heimel shared hosting duties that day with two other journalists, Michael Carey and Dave Donaldson, and there was scant room indeed for listener participation. With two guests and three moderators, the airwaves were too full of professional commentary to allow everyday Alaskans on the air. It’s a wonder they found room for even four callers. Additionally, the views expressed by Kott and Therriault were completely indistinguishable from one another. Although ideological divides abound between the House and Senate, these two are old pros at the media game, and are smart enough to paint a unified picture in public. Indeed, one loses count of the number of times during the program they agreed with each other. Nothing would have been lost by featuring only one or the other, and a great deal could have been gained by including the perspectives of a Democrat, such as Sen. Johnny Ellis or Rep. Ethan Berkowitz. To its credit, "Talk of Alaska" is not solely a breeding ground for conservative ideals, like virtually every other talk radio program. And the exclusion of Democrats from this particular show is clearly not evidence of some nefarious brand of censorship. The program has previously featured only Democrats, and, Cochran explains, is likely to do so again in the future. A high point of the program occurred during a discussion of Governor Murkowski’s plan to end the Longevity Bonus. While Kott and Therriault feebly dodged the question with rhetorical excess, Dave Donaldson succinctly pointed out how the Republican leadership was more than willing to ignore the political hot potato, secure in the knowledge that Murkowski would ultimately veto the appropriated funds, and take all the heat in the process. (To this charge, Kott could only meekly confirm their delight at not having to "fall on our swords" and "bleed over this.") While the intent of the May 27 "Talk of Alaska" was certainly noble, it failed in practice. The program, and its listeners, would have been better served by fewer moderators, an ideologically balanced panel of guests, and more callers on the airwaves. | ||
 | | |
