talkRadio exists to manufacture consent, on behalf of the wishes of its owners, Wireless/News Corp/Murdoch. They try to coerce their audience into advocating certain viewpoints and to behave in ways that will benefit their owners/board members - i.e. voting for a specific party - with the aim of creating the conditions with which to increase the wealth and/or power of the company/stakeholders. They blur the line between news and commentary to avoid certain types of accountability.
Where it is seen that their audience will choose to behave against what will benefit the enrichment and empowerment of their stakeholders, they will use tactics to divide their listeners from their peer groups, present details disproportionately to create doubt and confusion around topics, and use single hot-topic issues to compel allegiance to the narratives they want you to follow, ultimately, again, with the sole mission of steering behaviour.
They present as wanting to hear from a range of their listenership; to give a platform to their voices - but out of a long day’s worth of content (including a lot of advertisements) calls take up a small proportion of the time, in between the presenters rallying a certain viewpoint, using guests only as a proxy to that certain goal.
Agreed Talking Points flow from presenter to presenter, with some nuance to give the illusion of difference and variety. The most passive listener will have casually pick up carefully selected messaging throughout their day, even if they have had the radio on in the background. All ‘questions’ posited to their audience, at the head of segments, are phrased in a way which leads to certain responses which they want.
The presenters will champion the idea that you are part of a community! In truth, the relationship is mostly one directional. Any listening the station does to its audience, is to recognise dynamics it can manipulate to its overall goal. All call-ins are triaged by a researcher/producer, and are selected, or denied, to suit the purpose of the station’s messaging. When a channel such as talkRadio reaches a certain volume of people, the requested feedback will include a range of views for the station to pick from. That caller will then be a ’useful idiot’ for the messaging. Cleverly, they will still present contrary views, to continue the illusion of fairness/balance, but the treatment of each view will be quite different, and dissenters will be debated in bad faith and ridiculed.
As soon as you, as a listener, no longer perform the necessary outcome function for the owner/board members - including voting the way they want you to vote, support the lifestyles they want you to live, to buy the products they want you to buy, to undermine the groups they want you to undermine - then they will ridicule and reject you too.
Where it is seen that their audience will choose to behave against what will benefit the enrichment and empowerment of their stakeholders, they will use tactics to divide their listeners from their peer groups, present details disproportionately to create doubt and confusion around topics, and use single hot-topic issues to compel allegiance to the narratives they want you to follow, ultimately, again, with the sole mission of steering behaviour.
They present as wanting to hear from a range of their listenership; to give a platform to their voices - but out of a long day’s worth of content (including a lot of advertisements) calls take up a small proportion of the time, in between the presenters rallying a certain viewpoint, using guests only as a proxy to that certain goal.
Agreed Talking Points flow from presenter to presenter, with some nuance to give the illusion of difference and variety. The most passive listener will have casually pick up carefully selected messaging throughout their day, even if they have had the radio on in the background. All ‘questions’ posited to their audience, at the head of segments, are phrased in a way which leads to certain responses which they want.
The presenters will champion the idea that you are part of a community! In truth, the relationship is mostly one directional. Any listening the station does to its audience, is to recognise dynamics it can manipulate to its overall goal. All call-ins are triaged by a researcher/producer, and are selected, or denied, to suit the purpose of the station’s messaging. When a channel such as talkRadio reaches a certain volume of people, the requested feedback will include a range of views for the station to pick from. That caller will then be a ’useful idiot’ for the messaging. Cleverly, they will still present contrary views, to continue the illusion of fairness/balance, but the treatment of each view will be quite different, and dissenters will be debated in bad faith and ridiculed.
As soon as you, as a listener, no longer perform the necessary outcome function for the owner/board members - including voting the way they want you to vote, support the lifestyles they want you to live, to buy the products they want you to buy, to undermine the groups they want you to undermine - then they will ridicule and reject you too.
The music used between segments is repetitive and seeks to instal a mood in the listener. A heavy, minor piece with violin stabs creates a sense of import and drama. Such a piece might be used to soundtrack a crude thriller. The contrived excitement marries extremely repetitive content, seducing the listener to be highly alert but also comfortable with their own repetitive behaviour (in their job, and/or listening to this station) and not taking any local action for themselves. The station just wants you to listen more.
talkRadio endlessly campaigns to damage the BBC because it wants a completely privatised news market, of which it wants the lions share to push messaging that suits its shareholders. There is no circumstance they will support the BBC because they do not really care about integrity - talkRadio just wants power.
In fact, as a major power within the privatised market, New Corp/Murdoch would like as many public services privatised as possible, so they can seek to buy-off or crush competition directly. For this reason, talkRadio shows will regularly disparage the NHS as an institution, as it represents to many a great achievement of the public sector. talkRadio will advocate for the privatisation of the NHS, without highlighting that their model would leave the poorest in society without healthcare.
talkRadio messages that there is 'no opposition' to the ruling political party because they want the ruling political party in charge. Their shareholders benefit from low taxes, and internal division between the lower middle / working classes. It may be true that there is small difference in the idiology of the two main parties, but there is a choice you can make - in the voting system, but more so, in how you choose to live your life and work with people who do inspire you on a local level. The stakeholder's of talkRadio benefit from a population that feels apathetic and despondant.
talkRadio wants its listeners to be angry at migrants because it distracts their attention from seeking to make changes to the tax system, whereby the wealth of the rich of this country could be more evenly distributed, creating fairer conditions for all. talkRadio is concerned with protecting the economic situation of its rich stakeholders - expanding those conditions even.
talkRadio loves talking about 'wokeism' because it likes to aggrevate and upset its listeners because if they are distracted by ‘culture wars’, they will not be organising or channelling their efforts, arguing for material change and gain for the working classes from those in power - more progressive taxation, better services etc.
This station presents as being supportive of the Working Class, but every presenter is paid a large salary to sit in a chair for a few hours, to push messaging that argues against and undermines ideas/changes that would enable greater wages for working people, for better health care for working people, for better housing for working people, for more community between working people.
These presenters, and their teams, might be ignorant of the part they play in the machine they support, or they might be complicit in understanding their role as soldiers for their rich boss’ fortunes, and happy with their cut. Either way, the cause and effect of this station is toxic to the population it claims to advocate for, and its business model means it will always function as such, because to change would mean to advocate for a world where the interests of the rich are curtailed, and those funding talkRadio do not seek to diminish their wealth and power.
- c. h., 17th May 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment