Talk radio

I drive a lot, and when I get bored with NPR (which I support; I have even been in the StoryCorps ... ah, "studio") I will listen to AM talk radio. That's about once or twice a week, rarely the same show, so I've heard all of these people, but not frequently. I've been meaning to do this for a while, but haven't figured out how to organize it. I am also finding myself in conflict with The Pledge. So what follows is a quasi-random set of observations to which I hold no particularly strong affinities (i.e. you could convince me I'm wrong):

• Bill O'Reilly: Very opinionated, very populist, fairly informed, sometimes contrarian, but succumbs easily to confirmation bias. I've mentioned his economic illiteracy before. I'm not sure why he has a co-host - she's worse than Ed McMahon.
  
• Michael Medved: incredible memory for political, legal, and historical fact, but condescending and occasionally uses the loaded question trick [1]. I think he gets contrary views more often than others, though they are sometimes not very bright. He also brings on contrary guests, which is very fair. I was convinced he was gay when I first started listening; I'm not convinced now that he is not.
  
• Rush Limbaugh: occasionally funny but frequently whiny and obtuse. Too bad he hasn't learned his lesson about The War on (Certain People who Use Certain Kinds of) Drugs. The bumper commercials and satire are great and we need a left-wing version of them, but once a month is enough to catch up on the latest satires. His concept of the "drive-by media" is accurate; that should be resonant with everyone, no matter what part of the political space you occupy. I used to like Walter Williams' guest host spots, but he seems to cover the same material every time.
  
• Sean Hannity: maddeningly single-minded. I would totally believe that he gets a talking points memo every morning. Uses the loaded question trick almost exclusively when he has a caller who disagrees. I do a great impression of him.
  
• Dr. Laura: My father used to apologize to the radio if he accidentally let her on. I don't understand why anyone would subject themselves to the humiliation of calling in. "Hi, Dr. Laura, I'm a lesbian who is living with both my lover and the father of my child. They don't seem to be getting along, and I'm afraid my son is caught in the middle, so I was wondering: should I ask my mom to move in with us so she can help keep the peace while I run my Teenangel Tattoo and Tanning business?"
• Jim Villanucci: A local in Albuquerque, I think he's on after Rush and therefore instead of Hannity (thank God). Interesting, entertaining, sometimes very contrarian.
  
• Dr. Dean Edell: Although he has that "I'm a highly trained doctor, so you're probably not going to understand this huh-huh-huh" attitude, he is generally very good. The entertainment value, though, is mostly in the things that people call in with and make you think, "yeah, what is the deal with that?!"
  
• Michael Savage: Completely unpredictable. I used to think badly of him, now I think he's laugh-out-loud funny (not always intended on his part). One day he may be defending Bush as the defender of borders, language, and culture against the "depraved commies" who defend the Islamonazis, the next day he may be ripping him as the Amnesty President and then go off and listen to some rockabilly music or talk about birds in the park. If Hillary is elected, I plan to buy a radio, tune it to Savage, turn it up, and break the dials off so I can answer the koan, "What does a supernova sound like?"
  
• Michael Reagan: Just some guy, really. Not entertaining at all.
  
• Mark Levin: The Worst One. Like Sean Hannity but louder and without the wit and charisma. I do a great impression of him.
  
• Alan Colmes: Could be better, but he seems to be playing beneath himself. Even when he's winning the argument, sometimes he goes to the loaded question almost gratuitously.
• Laura Ingraham: Okay, but too populist and pandering.
  
• Al Franken: Way below his potential. It would be worthwhile to let him get ripped and then go on the air just to see how it went. I think that he's too close to his subject, and he tends to think that his best subjectivity passes for objectivity. Maybe he peaked with Stuart Smalley.
• Rusty Humphries: Why?
• Coast to Coast: Are they serious? They certainly sound that way.
  

[1] The loaded trick question works extremely well in the talk format. It works like this: the caller asks the host a question about something he has been pontificating on, to which the host responds by asking a related but heavily loaded question. For example, an exchange might go like this:

Caller: Hi X, long time listener and first time caller.
Host: Thanks for calling.
Caller: I've been listening to you and I guess I disagree with your stance on GitMo. I mean, we're Americans and the rest of the world looks up to us and expects us to do the right thing, but this just doesn't seem right. How can you support freedom and the right to a fair tri...
Host: Oh, I see where your coming from. Well, answer this, my left wing friend, if you could save a million people by torturing a terrorist, wouldn't you do it? I mean [at this point, the host reiterates what he has been saying for 45 seconds while the caller is turned down] so wouldn't you torture a terrorist to prevent a nuke from going off in downtown New York?
Caller: ... but that's ...
Host: I see, so you won't answer the question? [at this point, the host reiterates what he has been saying for 45 seconds while the caller is turned down] so wouldn't you torture a terrorist to prevent a nuke from going off in downtown New York?
Caller: ... okay, I'll answer your question, but first you answer ...
Host: Oh, no, we're not going to play that game, my friend. You answer my question first. Why won't you answer?
Caller: ... but it's a loaded ...
Host: C'mon, what's it going to be, 4 million innocent children or the terrorist's "right" to a trial? What about the rights of 4 million children?
Caller: ... but tortured people just tell you what you want to hear and how do we know he's really a terrorist ...
Host: These points are lib'ral straw men, but just to humor you and to show you how fair I am, I'll address your questions, but I want you to stop ducking mine. Let's say that I get the world's most accomplished interrogator and we definitely know the guys a terrorist. Now what's it going to be - 4 million innocent little virgins or an islamofascist with a nuke?
Caller: Okay, fine, if you're going to load the dice like that ...
Host: Just like I thought, you're not going to answer the question, thanks for calling, let's go to a break.

I'll generally listen to someone who is reasonable even if I disagree with them because I might learn something. The loaded question trick is so maddening and transparent that I turn off right away when it starts. At least NPR is a little more nuanced in overlaying their frames on the news; maybe I'll do something similar on those shows one day (Fresh Air, Car Talk, etc.).