Letters to the Editor
-
@Dirigo
If they can't prognosticate, and talk to the consultants and various other soothsayers and court Rasputins, they can't keep their audience glued to the tube.
Not for the cheap price of hiring a pundit and never going out of the studio, I guess.
But what would happen if they decided to devote the down time to interviewing voters in New Hampshire about the issues? Polls have a tough time with volunteered data or with (to mix metaphors) "essay questions." Voters and audiences don't.
One of the weirdest shows I listen to is Ira Flato, science Friday. I like some of the topics, but the way he keeps trying to move his guests towards faster and shorter explanations is like fingernails on a blackboard. He's been trained that listeners won't like the long version, but I remember one time Joyce Carol Oates literally took over a talk show one morning (from Michael Krasny) and basically ran the thing, taking as much time as she wanted on what she wanted (to within station breaks), and it was one of the best shows I've ever heard.
These guys forget that people also watch the Discovery channel, and like being informed. What would happen if a guy like James Burke ran a "Connections" like show about the elections on election night? There's all sorts of things they could do that people would like. Hiring a pundit for a million dollars a year isn't one of them.