Hunter S. Thompson, Car Talk, And The Power Of The Almost True, Part I

The other day I spoke with a radio talk show personality, a nationally known figure with a radio gig in Boston. I called him to make a simple point: that those Democrats who take umbrage with the president's intimations that their criticisms of America's war efforts are unpatriotic are guilty of the same sin: they believe the president, the vice president, and the supporters of the war in Iraq are treasonous, devilish, and thoroughly unpatriotic. Bush and Co., after all (or so it goes), are fascist demagogues and Hitlerian; the armed services families who support him are "brainwashed" (Cindy Sheehan's opinion); and the war is "illegal" and not the result of "democratic debate and agreement" but the cause célèbre of neocon machismo rushing headlong into war. While on air I made the further observation that essayists such as Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich are not known for celebrating the president's patriotism, but for doubting and undermining it; and that documentarian (I must be generous) Michael Moore does not print celluloid honoring the president's devotion to his country. If any group questions a person's patriotism, it is the Democrats nattering on about impeachable offenses and "Kool Aid" conformity. "I hate conservatives and everything they stand for" was not uttered by Fidel Castro, but Howard Dean, the Democrats' leading spokesman. To Democrats and their press minions, it is America's conservatives who hate America (which might as well be the motto for the DNC).

But you'll love this: the radio personality agreed with me, as did his cohorts. And they offered that they had never known another time in American history when the country, from one neighbor to the next, was so bitterly divided. But why bother to tell you all this? Because the very next day, the talk show host was right back at it, his agreement with me having lasted but a few minutes, as he fomented umbrage about the unconscionable suggestion by the president that the sensitive Democrats lacked patriotism. It was clear he didn't agree with me at all.

Shift with me, for a moment, to the National Public Radio smash hit, "Car Talk." Surely you've heard of it. It is a call-in talk show wherein two Boston brothers, Bob and Ray (aka Click and Clack), both of whom attended MIT, answer nearly every possible question concerning anything automotive in hilarious fashion. It is a marvelous program. One time, in fact (and I've told this story to many friends with delight), an astronaut on the space shuttle called into the show, while in orbit. Laugh upon laugh, the astronaut also once attended MIT, and had often brought his car for service at the brothers' repair garage in Cambridge. It was a great moment in radio. That is, it was great until I had my own car trouble.

One day, while driving into Boston, I divined that my car acted strangely. I decided to call the Car Talk guys, though I was uncertain when the show was recorded. So I called 1-888-CarTalk on my cellphone, taking a chance on making air time. My surprise? There was an automated voice system asking me my name, the year, make and model of my car; the nature of my problem, my phone number and when would be a convenient time for Car Talk to call me. You see, Car Talk is not call-in, it's call-out: They contact you (and they've already researched the answer). Hence, the astronaut phone call spontaneously dialed from the heavens was a sham.

The reality about radio, particularly talk-radio, is that much more of it is contrived and rehearsed than is first apparent. Call in to any prominent political talk show and you will be asked a series of questions by a screener, who in turn sends your info to the host's laptop computer or through an ear-piece so that he or she can prep for your call, sequeing into it to elicit a set of listener responses. Like David Brooks' observation that newspapers love essays that are "wrong" as they incite strong reactions, so talk-show hosts love fomenting outrage among their listeners. It is good for ratings, and revenues.

This loss of authenticity is truly disconcerting; surely it's been around a long time. But it feels more prevalent to me, though I am perhaps too often prone to delusion. Last year's US elections provided us with the CBS/60 Minutes debacle, where forged documents were posited for our consideration in order to impugn President Bush. When confronted with the facts, CBS took the position that though the documents were forged, they nonetheless pointed to a true fact. The sophistry was clear, though the inauthenticity inherent in CBS's position is damning–damning to us. When news organizations begin to assert known fictions that conveniently point to some presumed, hidden truth, we are damned beyond repair: the end can never be justified without honest means. Otherwise we begin to think that an assertion is identical with evidence. We lose our way, clicking and clacking through the channels in search of a stable place that will set us aright. But we click and clack in vain.

Where does Hunter S. Thompson fit into all this? Tune in tomorrow.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved