Watching the various news programs, it seems to me that most of those bodies, on most of the programs, just talk to hear themselves. Whether left-wing liberals trying to lambaste anyone who cares about the country as just this short of slime, or the right-wing conservatives attempting to put down the liberals bombastic dialogue, both sound as strident and as shrill as each other. And when either have guests on their programs, the guests are loud and strident, as much as the hosts.

I understand the liberal-progressives ranting and raving, being loud and obnoxious. If the left were truly honest and transparent, they would admit that their policies are failures. But this is not about right or wrong for the left. For the left, this is about shutting down voices of dissent, of barreling over truth, honesty, and fairness. You cannot have everyone equal, and expect anyone to listen to you. But I am sorely disappointed in the right-wing, Republican hosts. Yes, there are times when you have to override some guests, because those guests have their minds made up, and nothing will change their diatribe. It’s when you have guests who share your view, and you attempt to put more of your words in their mouths, that there’s a problem.

As you can see from the title, I am beginning to believe most of these talking heads are working on their own profiles, not on getting information to the people. Or have the general television-watching audience ignore them as irrelevant. I see shows like Hannity, which I generally admire, have a plethora of guests, or “an audience”, available to participate in “discussions”. The problem I see in this is that the audience is made up of just more of the talking heads that like to be seen on television. The same can be said of CNN’s Anderson Cooper or Christiane Amanpour. If you really want people to believe you have the pulse of the nation, that you are talking about issues that real people want to talk about, here’s what you do:

You go out to a real studio audience. You collect the average joe, jane, john, or mary, regardless of their views, and politely ask them to join your on-stage audience. You can include some talking heads from both sides of the debate, but you give the normal people, the people who live, and in some cases die, by the policies that are being debated in the hallowed (right) halls of congress an opportunity to discuss their views. And you give them a chance to debate, or to question, or to speak, on the merits of the conversation. Mr. and Miss, Mrs., Ms. average american can be more eloquent than you give them credit for. There is one thing I give bill clinton credit for. When his cabinet members would debate things that affected normal Americans, especially if it was something that involved race or sex, he would vent well. “I do not ever want to come into a debate on race or sex”, he once famously said, “if there is not one woman or person of color involved and speaking their mind.” GW Bush never had to make that statement, as, if we recall, his cabinet had women and people of color in very senior positions, a claim no other president can make.

So, if GW can make room for the ordinary people in extraordinary positions, I do believe that television news hosts should be able to do the same in their so-called audience participation programs. Otherwise, this is just another case of primping and preening by talking heads. And, like I said, talking heads…not talking sense….

“We Must All Stand Together, Or We Shall All Assuredly Hang Separate…..”