Podcast 302

Mass Markets and Politics. As the death rattle of the Mass Market echoes through the land, why do politicians, specifically those on one side of the spectrum continue to attempt to appeal to it? In discussing the rhetorical and organizational challenges of the politics recently, it was suggested that the reason some politicians make lurid comments is to ‘appeal to the mass markets’. If you were born at a certain time in the US, you became very familiar with something called ‘The Mass Market’. From Elvis, to the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy Debates, the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, favorite TV shows and songs and the radio stations people listened to, there was a collective experience. Millions had to wait a week for the next episode of their favorite show. You had to go to a big department store to examine consumer goods. It was an era of shared experience; one after another, from Johnny Carson to Star Trek, to All in the Family and Miami Vice. Radio multiplied from AM only to AM and FM, but all still served a mass market and provided a mass experience. First came cable television, which brought scores of nationwide channels into the home, then the VHS machine, the DVD, Netlfix and very recently, on-demand audio and video, You Tube, Google Hang Outs, Vimeo, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon Prime, HBO Go, and more to come.  Now people can have the experience they want, when they want it, how they want it. They can research characters, content and what it said. Now, the experience is between the content provider, the retailer, politician, entertainer or writer and the individual. While we still have shared experiences, we may have it at different times, we may binge listen and view, we may not have the same experience as someone else. Why then, do politicians insist on lining up and yelling at each other, say ridiculous things to get publicity, why do political parties insist on mass promotional orgies called conventions be televised on the ‘networks’, when the era of Mass Specialization is upon us, and growing stronger every day? Are candidates that play to the mass markets making a mistake? What new tools are there and how can they be used to win. 1965 called, and left a message. It’s not coming back. Ever. Sponsored by Ryan Plumbing and Heating

Podcast 292

Free Speech. The founding principles of the US Government guarantee freedom of expression, without qualification. Americans have gone to war to protect their rights, and to fight for the same kinds of rights for the people of other countries. It might be said, at the very least Liberty is the main tenant of Western Society. Why then do we tolerate ‘leaders’ who insist on qualifying these unalienable rights? The White House has qualified its assertions of freedom of expression and this was a week in which President Obama was shamed for not showing unity with our French allies in their time of need. But, Pope Francis didn’t attend the massive march in Paris either. While both President Obama and The Pope initially condemned the Paris attack on Charlie Hebdo, they seem to be back pedaling their remarks. The Pope, in his shiny big airplane, on the way to wave his scepter at the dancing peasants in the Philippines, says Freedom of Expression has limits, echoing similar statements from the White House. The Pope says killing in the name of God is an ‘aberration’; a factually incorrect statement since the Church has advocated and killed quite a few people in the name of God over the years. In the next breath the Roman Prelate asserts there are limits to free speech. Um, no your communist Holiness, actually, there aren’t. And to the qualifiers; Please stop comparing Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The idea of free expression was made for just this kind of thing. If our leaders won’t stand up for core western values without qualification, what is the point of western civilization? If protecting unalienable rights is in fact virtue in its purest form, and the reason for the existence of our government, and our leaders won’t protect our rights, or are afraid to stand up for them when we are threatened, where is virtue? What, then, is the purpose of government? Let’s put it this way; The Pope is certainly no Winston Churchill. If he isn’t confusing economic philosophy, jumping on board with Global Warming Believers (a religion in itself), now he’s exhorting supposedly free people to act as though they are actually not free at all. Is the Pope morally bankrupt? Sponsored by X Government Cars. (Editor’s Note: I may have referred to Pope John Paul II, in this podcast as Pope John Paul the 23rd, which of course is a mistake. I hate when I make mistakes!)

Podcast 203

Being Right. An email sparks some thoughts about the political discourse in The United States. Should a person who puts themselves out in the public eye as a commentator always be right, as in ‘correct’? Should everything they say be required to be proven ‘correct’ at a later date? Should a major league ball player leave the game if he fails to make an important catch? What does it mean to take a risk? What lessons have been learned in almost twenty years of talk radio? Political figures, writers, musicians, actors, comedians, and especially talk and podcast hosts take risks and put themselves ‘out there’ everyday. Should a person decline to use their talents because they are afraid of being ‘wrong’? Moreover, does the country gain from the increasing practice of demonizing and trying to destroy people who say things others disagree with, or are ‘shocked’ by? How has talk radio, and cable television (which has stolen the talk radio format) turned the body politic into tribes that demand their point of view, and only their point of view, be heard. Why radio and TV managers are suddenly terrified by opinions. How podcasting is changing this. And, a pitch for contributions to the Bob Davis Podcasts for the Podcast Van. Sponsored by Baklund R & D.