| Thoughts on Dennis Prager and his Radio Show
12-9-97
By Luke Ford
I prepared this web site on Dennis Prager
because I believe that he is the greatest thinker of the
late 20th Century. I view Dennis Prager's KABC radio program
as the deepest of the genre. It is the only one I tune in to daily.
That his show has not yet gone national is another argument against
equating excellence with success.
It is also evidence that Prager, as he admits, does "not sell
well." He may not package himself, his show and most importantly
his values, as well as he could.
Increasingly surrounded by either sycophancy or derision, battling
such forces as KABC management and his book publisher who try to
dumb him down, Prager walks a lonely road. His ideas probably won't
get their due until after his death.
Another part of the reason that his show has not gone national,
I hear, is that KABC, as yet, won't allow it.
Also, for all its depth, the show is frequently ponderous, and
not as entertaining as those of Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlesinger.
Prager seems like a public speaker still adjusting to radio.
Notice how many times he says "Ladies and gentleman."
Dennis frequently takes too long phrasing his questions and introducing
his topics. He uses cliches like, "This is a fascinating topic...
"The truth is..." If one feels possessed of the truth or of the
fact, one should simply state it, not give it advanced billing.
(E.B. White)
I sense that Prager's show has declined over the past few years,
particularly the past year. I keep tuning in each day, and then
frequently tune out because his topics tend to be either goofy (Monday's
show about dolls) or cliche (how many times is he going to repeat
himself on second hand smoke, divorce, the importance of gratitude).
I adore the man and his work. His values influence me more than
anyone else alive today.
See the following chapters:
Luke Ford
Chapter Four UCLA and encounter with Jews,
Dennis Prager and Judaism.
I think some of the problem with his show is the new format, one
topic per hour. It too easily allows me tune out, when I find out
the that hour's topic. If it is any one of 146 topics, I already
know 90-99% of what he will say.
Perhaps I am spoilt from thousands of hours listening to Dennis,
from feeding at the Prager trough. Dennis is not glib because he
is deep. My expecting him to be both quick and deep may verge on
the impossible. Though I do hear it when he's challenged face to
face, either with in-studio guests on his current program, or in
a public speaking debate. Many callers say that there favorite moment
of Prager's show is when Larry Elder enters the studio and jokes
with Dennis. Their ribbing of each other is a delight.
Prager may be the most ripped-off thinker in America today. I
constantly hear others repeating his ideas (like Rush and Dr. Laura),
and they frequently fail to credit the source. Dr. Laura and Rush
exhibit personalities and approaches better suited to success in
the electronic media than Dennis, but neither of them are original
thinkers, nor even great synthesists like Prager. Dr. Laura and
Rush entertain and inform, but beneath their roar is far less substance
than Prager shows.
The proof is in their writing. As Dennis says, "writing is a
mirror to the mind." Neither Rush nor Dr. Laura have penned anything
that will last. One thousand years from now, however, people will
still study Dennis Prager's thought. He has written the greatest
book in three different areas: Introduction to Judaism (Nine Questions),
antisemitism (Why the Jews?), and happiness (Happiness).
Prager has probably brought more people to Judaism than any
other individual, including more to Orthodoxy than any Orthodox
thinker. And Dennis is not even Orthodox.
Alan adds:
Dennis' program began its decline with the
change in station management, a little over a year ago, I believe.
First the classical bumpers went, then topics appeared. You will
recall prior to that the program was caller driven, with Dennis
giving a commentary and then taking calls on whatever. Recall how
many times the program took off in an unplanned direction. Take
a look at this month's Buzz magazine. There is an article on how
Disney has screwed up its radio properties. Dennis is specifically
mentioned. He was forbidden to discuss certain topics.
Format is the curse of radio. This goes
back many years. I've seen more then one talented person damaged
by being forced into a format that didn't fit his talents. Dennis
went from three hours Sunday evening to fifteen hours in a prime
slot by NOT doing topics, so what does some "genius" do? She [ex-KABC
GM Maureen Leonard]forces him into a format he can't do well. In
general, program directors are among the lowest forms of life.
True the show has picked up in the last
few days. Recall my "Ding-Dong the Witch is Dead" post - the general
manager and source of all evil was fired.
Now if topics goes and the classical bumpers
return all will be well. Come on, admit it, doing second hand smoke
every other week was a bit much (yes, it was that frequent for a
while).
12-22-97
I caused a mini scandal by criticizing Prager on that (now
toned-down) internet post above.
My friends said that public criticism of the man who
changed my life was the height of ingratitude. They also disagreed
with most of my perceptions.
After pouring out my heart to another friend via email, he
sent me this reply, entitled "Hey Jude." [Judas, get it.]
Oh my oh my!!! Nietzsche and Wagner ! Watch it or you'll be kicked
out of Wahnfreid house and unable to attend Cosima's soirees. The
Meister's avid disciples are sensitive and can detect a Judas.
This is not to imply that they are not nice people with much to
offer. I mean disagreeing out of the bounds of the permitted field
of doctrinaire nitpicking is bad enough. Disagreeing still tolerable
as it is necessary for conversation and the "body life" of the "ecclasia"
("church").
But criticism? And in public! Why that might be misunderstood!
You see how it works?
Inappropriate views cogently expressed in the private space of
"The List" is soiling the sacred halls. But of course there are
enough "clubmen" to beat you up, or, if matters get out of hand,
tell you not to post.
So then inappropriate views expressed in public space? Well Nooooo!
We are assured (usually second hand) that the Master is deeply hurt
and you give countenance to the enemy. If you check with him yourself
of course he agrees but often because his views and your actions
have ALREADY been mediated and interpreted for him by close associates
anxious to sooth the discomfort.
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. To obey is better than
sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams."
Of course Samuel was using this agrement standing AGAINST the
authority and ACTION of King Saul. Much better now to twist the
scripture for use BY authority against the SPEECH of the dis-established.
Now it could be that you ARE just a rebel. (But probably not a
serious deadly dangerous heretic one but more like an artist jester
or Loki or coyote man the trickster or the gadfly) OR IT COULD BE
that you ACTUALLY SEE something and felt constrained to announce
those thoughts and observations.
But in what forum? Public and private expression are "inappropriate
or hurtful". A paradox and impasse!
Hey I got it, a seasonal idea!
Mary at the Annunciation she paraphrased the Song of Deborah spontaneously
spouting the Magnificat (a document with some political content
about justice and expression for the weak). It is in private and
only the angels hear. After the shepherds and wisemen visit, Mary
"keeps and ponders all these things in her heart".
Of course sometimes meditating in silence is as likely to give
birth to a new "religion" as it is to lead Luther to "adjust his
views" and come into conformance...
Now I am not really much of a talk show listener. I think they
have value but they aren't on par with serious books. Just as various
pop culture, psychology and self help books are somewhat useful
but of limited value.
As Paul said about exercise. "Bodily exercise profiteth a little."
There is a comfortable watering down and it happens faster in
South California. At a certain point - to point this out is discomforting.
An interruption at the festivities and the feast.
As Nabal said to David's young men. "And who is this guy anyway.
There are lately lots of unemployed fellows around these parts".
It could be that though you are not "ready" for life as an anchorite,
hermit or monk. You ARE a bit dissatisfied with the repetitious
blather and talk and social tempests in a teapot over an intrusive
serious note.
I commend a bit more reading to you!
One day I will have to write "the Book of Remonstrance". This
would contain accounts such as:
The 'suasions Nebuchadnezzers councilors explained to the highly
valued three Hebrew children to persuade them to "act right" for
the encore orchestral performance.
Texts based on employer and other company officials trying to
persuade a valued employee to take a disciplinary demotion for his
"errors" segueng to a firing but trying to get the employee to resign
rather than collect severance.
The true account of a Rosecrutian, an accountant and "Seeker"
who came to the headquarters to work directly for the wise and good
people of the Brotherhood and Order. But found them imperfect and
did he not quite fit in the pecking order. The poor guy lost his
faith and the power to levitate large stone blocks!
..All the sorts of things IN FORM similar to your "I need to think
more about the points you guys raised.." Hmmn, maybe a literary
sequel to Job but dealing not with the "problem of suffering" but
of the MORE DIFFICULT problem of "conversation, conformance and
persuasion".
Anyway, savor the delicious remonstrances and rebukes. They make
fine texts.
Also, I have been looking diligently with concordance for the
Proverbs:
"To criticize is to stab in the back"
or the
"Beware friends who criticize and remonstrate with them extensively
in appalling kindness".
Do you suppose they are Apocryphal? Or maybe they are lost in
the Gnostic library buried in Elephantine, Egypt.
Is a cautionary note warning of lack of substance that harmful?
Is this to become a Rush Limbaugh cult?
And yes, wouldn't it be nice to keep inaccuracies to private communication.
That will impress 'em.
Clear everything first!
The warning of "talk that is not speech at all" cannot come too
soon!
They complain but maybe you did some good.
Your strategic mistake? Your attention getting grabber {Is Prager's
Show in Decline?]. I'll bet that the header is taken as a literal
topic sentence and it is so loud a zinger they can't hear the forest
for the tree. Leave it to media people to take a phrase out of context!
You can be treated like this because you are NOT a peer. You were
supposed to merely follow and repeat. You noticed that there was
already enough repetition....
Be not a "men pleaser as the manner of some are" and take an antiacid
O Timotheous and get a cast iron stomach!
Now then comes the psychologizing. (Talk about hurtful. Doesn't
that count?) Any truth in it is happy accident at your weakest vulnerable
points (and I don't mean the arguments!) and has no bearing on the
truth. They are being "charitable" to you by not giving your ideas
credit.
You know Luther had constipation and discovered that "the just
shall live by faith" on the pot. So what of the accident of the
idea? That's trivial.
Luke "we're concerned for you. Repent and have good only thoughts!"
Reading your actual text it seems about 90% non-malicious and
the 10% can't be edited out. If you had intended worse in a fit
of pique, you did not succeed.
>Perhaps you write things publicly to see if people care about
what you have to say... a >validation of your worth (as in the
case of your scathing piece on >your father printed in a mainstream
Seventh Day Adventist journal).
>You like to shock people, in your actions and your words -
verbal and written.
>I have always known that about you. You don't have to shock
people to remind them you are alive.
>A good dose of kindness is unusual >enough these days,
and it will make a more lasting and welcoming >impression.
Why do you say such naughty things? Be quiet and that makes a
big impression? YOU, by your disposition.... ARE going to be uncomfortable
with most any people's up-close disapproval as you by your disposition
seek BOTH their attention and approval.
(See I can psychologize too!)
Let it suffice that what you say hasa good amount of truth in
it.
Luke I'm sorry but this sounds too familiar. I think I have seen
it far too often. Mostly observing the pattern as a third person.
In short, I think this is more a tempest in a teacup and a social
brouhaha to pass the time than anything else.
Now I am sure you have your faults and for instance might well
deliberately but thoughtlessly publicize private information that
could disrupt the balance of private lives.(Considering especially
people's inclination to make mountains out of molehills and cause
themselves needless grief worrying about their neighbors' or friends'
sins!)
Nor do I wish be Oedipus' father figure or to lead you astray.
Now I don't mean to be unkind or excessively caustic or acid.
I respect and feel kindly toward these associates of yours. But
gentile irony is NOT out of order.
1-1-98
Dennis Prager's show (noon to 3PM weekdays) on KABC AM 790 has
improved since the firing a month ago of the station's general
manager Maureen Leonard. Today Dennis spent the first half of his
show taking suggestions on how to improve his show.
Callers argued for a return to classical music bumpers, open lines
(rather than one topic per hour), and more guests.
I agree with every suggestion. Every caller who compared the current
show to the program in years past, agreed that the show years ago
was better.
Dennis argued that one topic per hour was more conducive to depth.
Callers disagreed, pointing out:
* The repetitive nature of many calls, such as many of the ones
on the show about California's banning smoking in bars. About dozen
or more folks simply repeated the line about unwarranted government
intrusion into our freedoms.
* Open line allows callers to think through an issue. In past
years, the most cogent comment about an issue often came hours or
days later.
* Topical shows force less thought-through responses, and shows
tend to drag.
Dennis said that the problem with having more guests was not knowing
whether they would make good guests.
SOLUTION: Do homework. That's why Dennis has assistants and producers.
Find out which authors are articulate on the radio. Have an assistant
call an author up, say that they are considering doing a program
on subject X, and get into a dialogue. Does the person have what
it takes to cut it on talk radio?
Callers also pointed out how good Dennis and Larry Elder are together.
Dennis deserves reverential treatment, but that does not make for
good talk radio. Elder is an excellent foil for Dennis, and vice
versa. Larry knows much more about economics and law and Prager
about religion and morality. More airtime with those two would be
great.
Dennis is so precious that it is worth considering how his resources
are used.
In a typical hour there are about 20-24 minutes of ads. Nothing
can be done about this.
Then, there is the 2-3 minute ABC news at the top of the hour.
Also fixed. But the local news is usually drivel and could be dispensed
with in this non-drive time. Also, much of the traffic reports are
useless... There are so many freeways, etc, and so many stations
doing this stuff, that these traffic reports could be tightened
up or eliminated. Weather could also be eliminated unless there
is something special going on. Also, the first two minutes of Prager's
show is usually wasted time, where he says things like: "Have I
said my name yet?" or "I am debating about whether to discuss this
topic or that topic," or "How are you doing today Manya?" I wish
he would get to the point. As in: "Good afternoon, I'm Dennis Prager
on KABC. There's a woman in Texas on death row......"
Gentle introductions are great for public speaking but not for
talk radio.
Also, the screening of Prager's calls is mediocre. Good callers
should be nurtured and pushed through first. Callers should be asked
more questions by the screener to make sure that they are articulate.
And stop giving car phone calls priority. That is their business
if they want to pay their tolls. Not our business. In fact, their
calls should be given lower priority because many of them are of
bad technical quality.
The above suggestions would free up Dennis to give us five to
ten minutes of more insights per hour.
At 1:30 PM, Prager went to open line.
He took a call on economics, where he presented a different perspective
than mine. Dennis often says that economics is not a science. Well,
it is as scientific as engineering, and it is the most scientific
of the liberal arts.
When Prager says "that if we had five Nobel Laureates in economics
here answering this question, they would give many different answers..."
he may not be correct.
In some questions they would give different answers and others
similar. For instance, almost all economists would point out that
free trade is beneficial to an economy, and that minimum wages are
bad.
Economists tend to agree on most micro-economic questions. What
would happen if we added a $1 tax per gallon of gas or to carton
of cigarettes? Economists would generally agree. What about an increase
in the minimum wage? Economists would generally agree on the results.
Macro-economic questions are more tricky because there are more
variables.
1-11-98
Is Prager Pompous?
I can hear most of my friends screaming at that headline. They
would say:
1. How dare I even write that considering that Dennis changed
my life for the good, etc...
2. How dare I critique someone so personally? It is lashon hara
(gossip and slander).
Noting those objections, I will push ahead. IMHO, because Dennis
speaks publicly and frequently about himself and his life, it is
not unfair to ask this question. Many of the illustrations he offers
for his observations on life, come straight from his own life. For
instance, he often says that he has never encountered antisemitism,
that he has never heard anyone around him use the word 'nigger,'
and other provocative personal claims. Because Prager personalizes
many of the values he discusses, it is not unfair therefore, to
turn this technique around on him.
The most frequent description of Prager by those who are not fans
of his, is that he is pompous. The December issue of BUZZ magazine
described Prager's show as "professorial and pompous." Friends of
mine who are fans of his, were furious.
This "pompous" accusation is the type of personal argument that
Dennis finds difficult to rebutt. He says that it verges on the
impossible to argue for good against evil and to discuss ultimate
issues without coming off as pompous.
Maybe.
Many people find Rush Limbaugh pompous, though to me he so often
makes fun of himself, that I rarely regard him as such. Prager's
show is more serious than Limbaugh's, and while Dennis's goofy personality
often comes through, he does not make fun of himself and the values
that he discusses as often and as cuttingly as Rush does.
So what does 'pompous' mean? The Oxford American dictionary defines
it as "full of ostentatious dignity and self-importance." Ostentatious
means showy, to impress people. If we leave 'ostentatious' aside,
we can agree that Prager is full of dignity. He gives the value
enormous value. Both in the way he treats others and in the way
he expects to be treated. For example, Prager often says on his
show that he does not mind when other talk show hosts criticize
him and his ideas, so long as they do it respectfully.
Why the hell should they do it respectfully? Talk radio and the
media are not respectful mediums. Dennis Prager deserves great respect
for his accomplishments, but he has chosen to largely work in an
environment not conducive to respectful treatment - talk radio.
To many people, asking that others who criticize, do it respectfully
is a statement of dignity and, in a non-perjorative sense, of self-importance.
Which leads to the second definition of pompous. Full of self-importance.
Dennis is certainly an important man. He rightly regards himself
as such, and he has many reasons to do so. So, I think it would
be fair to characterize Dennis as full of self-importance, as long
as that is understood as in no way negating that Dennis IS VERY
IMPORTANT, and that his importance is in no sense a delusion or
ego trip.
Dennis says that his mission is to heal a wounded nation (America).
As Prager also says that it verges on the impossible to do vast
amounts of good, that goodness can only be built up slowly, by one
person at a time, that society can only make glacier like improvements
(unless it is through negating an evil); then it seems audacious
of Dennis to declare that his life mission is to accomplish something
that even he would have to say, verges on the impossible.
So is Dennis pompous? Pompous to whom? Pomposity is in the reaction
of the listener. It is incontrovertibly true that for a large part
of Prager's listening audience, he comes across as pompous.
Those of us who wish to promote the values he so eloquently espouses
should not simply roll our eyes and dismiss the 'pompous' accusation.
Would there be anything that Prager could do, to minimize this
impression of pomposity? Yes. As Dennis often says, we largely influence
how people react to us.
Continue
Send Luke Ford E-mail by clicking here.
|