malaise*lithium

     Oregon Public Broadcasting, the local NPR station, has begun broadcasting the BBC program World Have Your Say. After looking over the show’s blog, it certainly seems as though the program would be something interesting. They say they want to foster conversations between people across the globe, conversations whose agenda is set by by the show’s listeners and callers–an appealing idea in that feel-good we’re-all-on-this-crazy-planet together sort of way, but something has gone awry. The show reminds me, more than anything, of inane morning-show DJ chatter: inarticulate and uninformed people volleying sound bites about complex issues which deserve more comprehensive and responsible treatment.
     In some ways the show delivers exactly what it promises; many people all around the world indeed have their say. The pity is that almost no one appears to be listening. Technical considerations seem to prevent direct exchanges; most called-in responses arrive minutes after the original comment–giving them that insecure ring of a too-late retort to an insult. Time and again clear thinking and accuracy often lose out to emotionally charged language because none of the callers are really responsible for their statements in the way a reporter, host, or commentator would be.

     Surely there is a place for emotion. If a thing is newsworthy, is surely important enough to arouse the emotions, and the way we collectively feel about something is inextricably tied to everything from public policy to philosophy to celebrity gossip, so I don’t believe that the considerations of emotion and sentiment should be entirely ignored in favor of bloodless logarithmic deliberation. Still, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that this isn’t what NPR does best.
     At the same time I don’t know if any media are best served by doing only what they do best. I wonder if anything worthwhile is worthwhile even if it’s transmitted by a medium which doesn’t seem to be ideal. Indeed, I am aware even as I write that this is not an example of the best work done on this blog; my best pieces have been more personally revealing than didactic. Still, as this moment, it is what I have to say, and I can see why in some cases it is more important to simply have your say than to be heard.

     So perhaps then it is best to say only that World Have Your Say constitutes a shift in tone for NPR. Other shows have callers, and some of the shows I like best do not have a dour attitude towards the news.Even when a show like Wait, Wait treads heavily on delicate issues, is it carried by knowledgeable panel members, and even when it is absurd it is well informed. That, in fact, I think is the biggest difference between the balance of programming on NPR and World Have Your Say. On World Have Your Say, debate, or perhaps more accurately argument, has become more important than truth-seeking.

     On a recent edition, World Have Your Say devoted a segment to what Ros Atkins characterized as New York City’s attempt to “ban the word nigger.” After taking several calls from listeners who likened the idea to thoughtcrime and questioned how any such ban could be enforced, Atkins invited one of the New York City Councilors behind the bill onto the air. The Councilor was quick to explain that they had not ‘banned’ the word but only enacted a piece of legislation asking that local businesses ‘voluntarily abstain’ from using the word. Despite this clarification of fact, Atkins continued to state that New York City had ‘officially banned,’ the word, and each caller thereafter was either unaware of or insensible to the distinction.

     Unfortunately, the casual listener has no easy means of differentiation between callers with first hand knowledge or special perspective and those who are merely regurgitating propaganda, although it is clear that some are aware of this blurring line. An article by Noam Levey from the 22 March edition of The Oregonian quotes World Have Your Say staff member Mike Sandell saying, “We have gotten emails from Oregon saying, ‘What is the BBC doing with this uninformed, uncontrolled rubbish?’”

     Still, I fear that few are astute enough to pick up on the nature of the program quickly. OPB and NPR have earned a great deal of respect and, to some degree, authority for its news programming, but I feel both of these are undeserved when it comes to a program like World Have Your Say. H.L. Mencken said of newspapers that they are “a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier,” and the same could certainly be said of any other form of media.
     World Have Your Say certainly sounds like the news from a distance, but up close it’s nothing but scuttlebutt.