Australian TB radio content

Speech on Talkback Radio: Should it be subject to more stringent regulation?
Here's most of the script from a debate I'll be participating in tomorrow at uni. I love the topic, and unusually my personal opinion is in synch with the side of the argument our side has to take. We're arguing negative to the above statement.
________________________________
Some people will have you believe that speech on TB is manipulative and derogatory. I disagree. In reality, it’s a just editorial comment from radio hosts and listeners on issues that may not even directly affect their lives. An editorial is defined as a statement that expresses an opinion rather than attempting to simply report the news. That’s all they’re doing: putting their opinions out there to be scrutinised by the wider public. I liken it to a cricket match, where the bowler delivers the ball (the opinion) and waits to see how the batsman plays it (how the listener responds). John Laws himself, old ‘Golden Tonsils’ of the airwaves, describes himself as simply and entertainer. John Pearce, another doyen of the industry, says of TB radio, ‘it’s not meant to be fair; it’s meant to be entertaining’.

I also believe that the current regulation on TB radio speech is already stringent enough, and that the changes to regulation in the past have been sufficient. I’ll explain why in a minute.

Firstly, I’d like to establish that people don’t listen to the likes of John Laws, Alan Jones and Stan Zemanek for information; they listen for opinions and entertainment. Some listeners even call in to voice their own opinion live on air -- this is a unique quality of radio, and one that I think will serve the radio industry well in the competitive years to come.

Their shows do not strive to present factual news on current events, they offer their personal evaluation of these current events in a bid to get people to ring in and actively involve themselves with the program. And it’s the objective, sexist, racist, arrogant views of these emperors of air that attracts millions of viewers daily. Now what’s wrong with exploiting a little controversy to attract audiences? Nothing! TV and newspaper have been doing it for years. TB analyst Phillip Adams says that there is an equation for TB radio… and that equation equals ratings, just like any other media programme we consume. Afternoon announcer on Sydney’s 2UE, John Stanley, says that people want to hear you say something; listeners want to hear someone taking a confident stand on an issue. This is why Alan Jones has the largest talk radio Audience in Sydney: because he uses an intellectual framework around what he says, so people that don’t agree with him still listen to him. And people who really don’t like anything he says simply turn him off. The fact that Jones, Laws and Zemanek attract such large audience numbers is a product of their ability to intelligently entertain a person through skilful speech communication. So why do we want to limit the speech content and therefore limit the potential for entertaining radio? I don't know...

I’m sure some of you have heard of Stan Zemanek. And if you know him then you know that he’s renowned for over-opinionated views, over-generalised evaluations, and over-exaggerated arrogance. If you know him, you know that his belligerence should not be taken seriously, and that the man probably doesn’t believe himself half the time.

I strongly believe that the current regulations placed on TB radio are sufficient for monitoring speech in an entertainment medium. One case of TB speech regulation being enforced is when Steve Schimanski was fired from Radio 97 after expressing derogatory comments towards a homosexual listener. And, also, it’s because of these codes of practice why Alan Jones can’t tell you it’s 9.00 without stating that his show is sponsored by channel 9. And why John Laws can’t even pass wind without stating that he’s sponsored by Valvoline air fresheners. There’s some editorial comment right there -- some exaggerated opinion… but what I mean is that changes are made in the industry when speech on TB radio steps over the line. Since the ‘Cash for Comment’ catastrophe, 2UE’s broadcasting licence has been re-assessed and now all commercial radio stations must adhere to new regulations set by the ABA. But do we query the likes of Keanu Reeves, Nicole Kidman or James Bond’s Pierce Brosnan when they fashion oddly placed consumer products with the label clearly visible? Do we ask the hearty team at Backyard Blitz to state that Kennards Hire is sponsoring their program, even when we see ‘Kennards Hire’ plastered all over their wheelbarrows, cement mixers, and Jamie Drurie’s biceps? No. And I’ll eat my hat if I’ve ever seen Karl Stefanovic or Tracy Grimshaw even touch that all too conveniently placed SONY laptop on channel 9’s Today show.

Anyway, TB radio isn’t all opinionated conflict. There are some shows that’s purpose is to answer people’s questions and help them in their daily lives. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki has an interesting talk show Thursdays on Triple J where he answers many and varied scientific queries from listeners. Radio National hosts a number of helpful talkback shows. You can listen to RN any day of the working week from 6pm and you'll hear Paul Barclay happily chatting with callers on current affair issues. Life Matters, another RN show, offers an open forum for people to ring in to tell stories and comment on topics like social change, health, and parenthood. Brisbane radio station, 96.5 holds a helpful talkback program with Peter Janetski, dealing with Christian issues people may have difficulty discussing in open forums. Now, I know that religion is a very contentious topic and it’s avoided by a lot of commercial radio stations, but this show has proved that religion can be discussed on air, and has expanded to a national audience this year. So, you see, it’s not all heavy-handed hogwash, TB radio has a sensitive side, and regulating speech on TB means regulating it’s potential to be truly helpful.

Hopefully you can understand, as well educated individuals, that TB radio isn’t some kind of all powerful, all dominating stronghold of influential opinion (like the affirmatives will have you believe). But that it’s really a toothless tiger, a source of entertainment for over-45s, a provider of light-hearted information and a forum for people to have their 15 minutes of editorial fame. An opportunity for every-day men and women to talk to professionals, doctors and politicians in an anonymous and passive environment. Let TB radio keep it’s place in society, don’t try to restrict it.
____________________________________

As I said, these are (largely) my personal views and I'd be happy to debate any issues raised.
By next week, I'll have also done a persuasive speech arguing that Australian news media is more and more heavily reliant on tabloid topics and sensationalism. A far cry from my debate arguments I hear you say. Truth is, I argue both that talkback speech shouldn't be regulated, and that Australian, particularly Queensland's, media is becoming dominated by soft news headlines and beat-up celebrity news. I'd be happy to talk about it if someone is willing to challenge my ideas... (assuming that anyone is reading this is a big call in itself).

That's it for now... oh and, I think I might be getting glandular fever again... cool!

______________________________________
picture sourced from http://www.thepubreport.com/aboutus