I'm new to doing the publicity thing. I don't mind being published, but being interviewed is an entirely different matter. It makes me nervous. A friend of mine told me on Friday that whenever he does interviews, he's afraid something horrible will come out of his mouth. Maybe he'll accidently accuse someone of doing something unforgivable.
I can relate to that fear, especially since my beliefs can't readily be categorized. They require some kind of explanation. If I have to talk in sound bytes, then it's not worth my time to talk at all.
So when I was invited to be on a radio talk show, I hesitated. I'm a huge fan of talk radio. I grew up with it, and I know that there are a myriad of different types of talk shows out there. Some consist of long-form interviews; others are all about attack and arguing.
I researched the host and the show before accepting the invitation. I never heard of the show since it wasn't based in the U.S. The radio station was highly rated in its area, and played some American radio shows. I listened to a clip of an interview the host conducted and decided to do it. As Jethro said, "It's by phone and if you don't like it, you can hang up."
The subject of the show was 1968, of course. The host emailed me to mention that people from "Recreate 68" would also be taking part. This was a red flag as far as I was concerned. Since Project 1968 was built on the idea that our country hadn't learned the lessons from that era, I was theoretically opposed to recreating the same mistakes. I responded to the host's email, telling him that I would be on his show, but I was not affiliated in any way, shape or form with that group. He said he understood and that the group would be on after my appearance.
As time passed, I started to get really nervous about the show. I thought that maybe it was because I was just nervous in general. There really wasn't anything to be nervous about, people told me. Maybe it was just because I was new to doing publicity. But something inside didn't feel right.
On the day of the show, I sat in a conference room surrounded by notes, the Walker Report, Life Magazine from August 23, 1968 and 2 pictures of Christopher - for support.
I honestly hoped that all of this nervousness was based on fear rather than intuition. My interview with the Weekly had been very pleasant. The interviewer was probing and I thoroughly enjoyed the banter.
The show producer phoned and told me to hold. I heard commercials over the phone and the host came on to say hello. He told me that we'd be on in a moment after a "big production" sound montage of 1968. Sure enough, I heard King and Kennedy's voice, along with other recognizable sounds. And then we were live.
He introduced "the panel." Two college professors and me. I had no idea I would be a part of a panel.
(Jethro listens to Rush Limbaugh, which every now and then I overhear when I'm not in another part of the house. A while back, Rush told his audience how some talk show hosts ambush their guests. They set you up by putting you on a panel without warning you or opening the segment up by attacking you. This immediately went through my mind when I heard him introduce the other guests.)
So his first question was to me: What intrigues you about 1968? I explained that it was a period of time when people were experimenting with beliefs and attempting to live by them. His response: So people aren't doing that now?
Before I could respond, he brought on a college professor who immediately told everyone that he disagreed with me. (Huh? I didn't even get a chance to explain what the hell I meant.) He also told the host that 18-year-olds were more optimistic than past generations, etc.
So the basic gist of the agenda was to assure the audience that the public is secure, that we have it far better than the Boomers and the younger generation will save us.
Oh, and I was supposed to be the "Liberal Whipping Post" because the host thought I was liberal. The problem is, I'm not. I'm not a conservative either. As I told the host, "I don't believe in the 2-party system. America is a diverse country. We should have more than 2 viable parties to choose from."
When I said that, the host repeated it slowly and then I didn't get a chance to talk again for a while after that. Evidently, I wasn't the guest the host thought he was getting.
(It's interesting to note here how many people outside of theater think that all theater people are knee-jerk liberals. Since, unfortunately, people have hung their hats on my theater stuff, they automatically think I'm a liberal - and a bit of a flake. I'm sorry theater friends. It's a terrible stereotype I've run into consistently. It's not pretty, and yes, it pisses me off too.)
During another commercial break, the host asks if I will stay on longer. I shrug and say sure, thinking that maybe I'll actually get a chance to say something meaningful. But as the show progresses, it occurs to me that the Recreate 68 people probably ditched this dude, knowing that it would be a complete waste of time.
So I'm asked questions by the host like: Would you be a protester in 1968? It's a fair question, so I tell him that having been both a protester and a campaign worker, I'd work for Gene McCarthy. He sounds excited for a moment, and then cuts to commercial. There's no follow-up to the comment.
A few callers phone in and one sounds intelligent. She tells us that her daughters are teenagers and seem optimistic about the world. I think back to when I was younger and optimistic about the world. Hell, I worked on the Jerry Brown for President campaign. That's nothing if not optimistic. I tell the panel that it's fabulous that young people are optimistic, but my generation isn't so positive. Besides, there's an endless war, bank failures and Russia. Maybe we should take a look at why the Boomers didn't pass their optimism down to their kids.
Anyway, I'm eventually dismissed early from the show. Which suits me fine since I've been looking at the clock wondering how many commercial breaks you can legally fit into an hour in this particular country.
Jethro, who listened to it live, says that the host's final question to the panel was whether kids today would rather live in 2008 or 1968. Of course, they answered 2008. Upon finding that out, I just shook my head. Any idiot would say 2008. After all, an 18-year old male in 1968 would've probably been drafted. Sheesh.
And so, I spent the rest of my time trying to figure out what the hell all that was about. Here are a few thoughts:
1) Media can be summed up in two parts: information and reaction. I prefer to traffic in information and this show clearly was into reaction. No real information was given. It was all uninformed opinion. No one on the panel was allowed to bring up an interesting point. It was controlled to bolster the host's agenda.
2) I supposed to be the "liberal scapegoat." As an interview with me earlier in the week noted, I'm a "self-styled political agnostic." Clearly, someone didn't do such a good job with their show prep.
3) How many shows do I listen to that offer no real information? I used to listen to attack shows like this. Maybe what I went through was karmic in nature. But I also realize that I don't listen to shows like this anymore. They offer absolutely nothing. There's no real information or conversation.
4) I seriously doubt that guests on shows like this actually believe what they're saying. Case in point: The host hung up on a caller who talked about corporate control of the media. He turned to me and asked if I agreed with the caller. Since I constantly stream audio over the net, I said that I didn't agree with him. The internet offers plenty of competition for media these days. As I said it, I remember thinking how lucky I was that I did agree with the host. Otherwise, I would've gotten a major verbal lashing.
5) Cute comebacks and one-liners aren't a replacement for meaningful conversation. I think the tide is turning against shows like this. It may take a while, but as the world situations become more serious, people will want substance.
Finally, these types of shows aren't in my D.N.A. If you enjoy them, then more power to you. I suppose if I was a lawyer who loved debates, then I'd get off on them. I guess I just don't have it in me to wear a black cocktail dress at 8 in the morning so I can call a bunch of grieving widows "harpies."
Knowing what I know now, I can't take any of those people seriously. And I don't think you should either. But that's just my opinion.
I can relate to that fear, especially since my beliefs can't readily be categorized. They require some kind of explanation. If I have to talk in sound bytes, then it's not worth my time to talk at all.
So when I was invited to be on a radio talk show, I hesitated. I'm a huge fan of talk radio. I grew up with it, and I know that there are a myriad of different types of talk shows out there. Some consist of long-form interviews; others are all about attack and arguing.
I researched the host and the show before accepting the invitation. I never heard of the show since it wasn't based in the U.S. The radio station was highly rated in its area, and played some American radio shows. I listened to a clip of an interview the host conducted and decided to do it. As Jethro said, "It's by phone and if you don't like it, you can hang up."
The subject of the show was 1968, of course. The host emailed me to mention that people from "Recreate 68" would also be taking part. This was a red flag as far as I was concerned. Since Project 1968 was built on the idea that our country hadn't learned the lessons from that era, I was theoretically opposed to recreating the same mistakes. I responded to the host's email, telling him that I would be on his show, but I was not affiliated in any way, shape or form with that group. He said he understood and that the group would be on after my appearance.
As time passed, I started to get really nervous about the show. I thought that maybe it was because I was just nervous in general. There really wasn't anything to be nervous about, people told me. Maybe it was just because I was new to doing publicity. But something inside didn't feel right.
On the day of the show, I sat in a conference room surrounded by notes, the Walker Report, Life Magazine from August 23, 1968 and 2 pictures of Christopher - for support.
I honestly hoped that all of this nervousness was based on fear rather than intuition. My interview with the Weekly had been very pleasant. The interviewer was probing and I thoroughly enjoyed the banter.
The show producer phoned and told me to hold. I heard commercials over the phone and the host came on to say hello. He told me that we'd be on in a moment after a "big production" sound montage of 1968. Sure enough, I heard King and Kennedy's voice, along with other recognizable sounds. And then we were live.
He introduced "the panel." Two college professors and me. I had no idea I would be a part of a panel.
(Jethro listens to Rush Limbaugh, which every now and then I overhear when I'm not in another part of the house. A while back, Rush told his audience how some talk show hosts ambush their guests. They set you up by putting you on a panel without warning you or opening the segment up by attacking you. This immediately went through my mind when I heard him introduce the other guests.)
So his first question was to me: What intrigues you about 1968? I explained that it was a period of time when people were experimenting with beliefs and attempting to live by them. His response: So people aren't doing that now?
Before I could respond, he brought on a college professor who immediately told everyone that he disagreed with me. (Huh? I didn't even get a chance to explain what the hell I meant.) He also told the host that 18-year-olds were more optimistic than past generations, etc.
So the basic gist of the agenda was to assure the audience that the public is secure, that we have it far better than the Boomers and the younger generation will save us.
Oh, and I was supposed to be the "Liberal Whipping Post" because the host thought I was liberal. The problem is, I'm not. I'm not a conservative either. As I told the host, "I don't believe in the 2-party system. America is a diverse country. We should have more than 2 viable parties to choose from."
When I said that, the host repeated it slowly and then I didn't get a chance to talk again for a while after that. Evidently, I wasn't the guest the host thought he was getting.
(It's interesting to note here how many people outside of theater think that all theater people are knee-jerk liberals. Since, unfortunately, people have hung their hats on my theater stuff, they automatically think I'm a liberal - and a bit of a flake. I'm sorry theater friends. It's a terrible stereotype I've run into consistently. It's not pretty, and yes, it pisses me off too.)
During another commercial break, the host asks if I will stay on longer. I shrug and say sure, thinking that maybe I'll actually get a chance to say something meaningful. But as the show progresses, it occurs to me that the Recreate 68 people probably ditched this dude, knowing that it would be a complete waste of time.
So I'm asked questions by the host like: Would you be a protester in 1968? It's a fair question, so I tell him that having been both a protester and a campaign worker, I'd work for Gene McCarthy. He sounds excited for a moment, and then cuts to commercial. There's no follow-up to the comment.
A few callers phone in and one sounds intelligent. She tells us that her daughters are teenagers and seem optimistic about the world. I think back to when I was younger and optimistic about the world. Hell, I worked on the Jerry Brown for President campaign. That's nothing if not optimistic. I tell the panel that it's fabulous that young people are optimistic, but my generation isn't so positive. Besides, there's an endless war, bank failures and Russia. Maybe we should take a look at why the Boomers didn't pass their optimism down to their kids.
Anyway, I'm eventually dismissed early from the show. Which suits me fine since I've been looking at the clock wondering how many commercial breaks you can legally fit into an hour in this particular country.
Jethro, who listened to it live, says that the host's final question to the panel was whether kids today would rather live in 2008 or 1968. Of course, they answered 2008. Upon finding that out, I just shook my head. Any idiot would say 2008. After all, an 18-year old male in 1968 would've probably been drafted. Sheesh.
And so, I spent the rest of my time trying to figure out what the hell all that was about. Here are a few thoughts:
1) Media can be summed up in two parts: information and reaction. I prefer to traffic in information and this show clearly was into reaction. No real information was given. It was all uninformed opinion. No one on the panel was allowed to bring up an interesting point. It was controlled to bolster the host's agenda.
2) I supposed to be the "liberal scapegoat." As an interview with me earlier in the week noted, I'm a "self-styled political agnostic." Clearly, someone didn't do such a good job with their show prep.
3) How many shows do I listen to that offer no real information? I used to listen to attack shows like this. Maybe what I went through was karmic in nature. But I also realize that I don't listen to shows like this anymore. They offer absolutely nothing. There's no real information or conversation.
4) I seriously doubt that guests on shows like this actually believe what they're saying. Case in point: The host hung up on a caller who talked about corporate control of the media. He turned to me and asked if I agreed with the caller. Since I constantly stream audio over the net, I said that I didn't agree with him. The internet offers plenty of competition for media these days. As I said it, I remember thinking how lucky I was that I did agree with the host. Otherwise, I would've gotten a major verbal lashing.
5) Cute comebacks and one-liners aren't a replacement for meaningful conversation. I think the tide is turning against shows like this. It may take a while, but as the world situations become more serious, people will want substance.
Finally, these types of shows aren't in my D.N.A. If you enjoy them, then more power to you. I suppose if I was a lawyer who loved debates, then I'd get off on them. I guess I just don't have it in me to wear a black cocktail dress at 8 in the morning so I can call a bunch of grieving widows "harpies."
Knowing what I know now, I can't take any of those people seriously. And I don't think you should either. But that's just my opinion.
