Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:08:41.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ears Wide Shut: Epistemological Populism, Argutainment and Canadian Conservative Talk Radio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

Paul Saurette  and
Shane Gunster
Paul Saurette*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Shane Gunster*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
*
Paul Saurette, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Rm 9101 Desmarais Bldg, 55 Laurier Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1S 0T2, saurette@uottawa.ca
Shane Gunster, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, K9671-8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, sgunster@sfu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Although scholars have identified political talk radio (PTR) as an important site of political socialization, the current literature has largely failed to examine the political relevance of PTR's rhetorical strategies and has virtually ignored Canadian PTR altogether. This article addresses these gaps by analyzing Adler On Line, Canada's only nationally syndicated commercial PTR program, to show that how Canadian PTR talks, particularly its use of populist rhetoric, plays a central role in establishing what type of political deliberation and debate is possible within it. Divided into two main sections, the article first explores how Adler On Line renders a particular epistemological framework authoritative. The second section then analyzes the rules and norms of political expression and debate encouraged by the show's style of argutainment debate. The article concludes with a more speculative evaluation of the practical consequences as well as the theoretical and normative implications of these discursive practices.

Résumé. Bien que les auteurs de recherches reconnaissent que la radio interactive politique (RIP) représente un lieu important de socialisation politique, la littérature courante dans ce domaine omet, en grande partie, d'analyser la signification politique des stratégies rhétoriques de la RIP, tout en laissant entièrement dans l'ombre les activités de RIP canadiennes. Visant à combler ces lacunes, le présent article offre, dans un premier temps, une analyse de l'émission Adler On Line, qui est la seule émission de RIP commerciale souscrite nationalement au Canada, puis démontre que le mode d'expression typique adopté dans cette émission, et surtout son usage de la rhétorique populiste, ont une incidence déterminante sur le genre de délibération et de débat politiques que permet la radio parlée au Canada. L'article se divise en deux grandes parties. La première explore le cadre épistémologique particulier de l'émission Adler On Line et la manière dont ce cadre se voit empreint d'autorité. La seconde partie analyse les règles ou normes de débat et d'expression des opinions politiques qu'encourage le style divertissant de cette émission-débat. Pour conclure, les auteurs évaluent de façon plus spéculative les conséquences pratiques de ces formes d'expression discursive, tout comme leur incidence théorique et normative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 195 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, David. 2002. Rushed to Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBM Canada. “Top Line Radio Statistics S4—2005 (September 5–October 30)” and “Top Line Radio Statistics S1—2006 (January 9–March 5).”http://www.bbm.ca/en/data.html (October 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Bennett, Stephen Earl. 1998. “Political Talk Radio's Relationships with Democratic Citizenship.” American Review of Politics 19 (spring):17–30.Google Scholar
Bennett, Stephen Earl. 2002. “Americans' Exposure to Political Talk Radio and Their Knowledge of Public Affairs.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46 (1): 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickford, Susan. 1996. The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening Conflict and Citizenship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boggs, Carl and Dirmann, Tina. 1999. “The Myth of Electronic Populism: Talk Radio and the Decline of the Public Sphere.” Democracy & Nature 5 (1): 65–94.Google Scholar
Botes, Johannes and Langdon, Jennifer. 2006. “Public Radio Talk Show Hosts and Social Conflict: An Analysis of Self-Reported Roles during Debates and Discussion.” Journal of Radio Studies 13 (2): 266–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Connolly, William. 1995. Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William. 2008. Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. Raleigh NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, Ann and Naylor, Ted. 2005. “Dialogue and Public Space: An Exploration of Radio and Information Communications Technologies.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Richard and Owen, Diana. 1998. New Media and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power. New York: Longman, 2001.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, ed. Bouchard, Donald F.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge, ed. Gordon, Colin. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Frank, Thomas. 2000. One Market under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gingras, Anne-Marie. 2007. “La question de la liberté d'expression dans les démêlés judiciaires et les revers administratifs de CHOI-FM.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Hoare, and trans. Quintin and Smith, Geoffrey Nowell. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Griffin, Harold. 1999. Radical Roots: The Shaping of British Columbia. Vancouver: Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
Gunster, Shane. 2008. “Listening to Labour: Mainstream Media, Talk Radio and the 2005 B.C. Teacher's Strike.” Canadian Journal of Communication 33 (4): 661–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger, Thomas. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Alice and Cappella, Joseph. 2002. “The Impact of Political Talk Radio Exposure on Attributions about the Outcome of the 1996 US Presidential Election.” Journal of Communication 52 (2): 232–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1988. The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Hall Jamieson, Kathleen and Capella, Joseph. 2008. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holbert, R. Lance. 2004. “Political Talk Radio, Perceived Fairness and the Establishment of George W. Bush's Political Legitimacy.” Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics 9 (3): 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, B.A. 1997. “Fuel to the Fire: Talk Radio and the Gamson Hypothesis.” Political Communication 14 (3): 355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1992. “The Pursuit of Controversy: Routine Scepticism in Talk on ‘Talk Radio.’” Sociology 26 (4): 673–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 1996. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. “Witnessing: The use of first-hand knowledge in legitimating lay opinions on talk radio.” Discourse Studies 3 (4): 481–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, David A. 2002. “The Polarizing Effect of New Media Messages.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (2): 158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Andreas. 2008. “Colonial Subjectivity and Canadian Media: Exploring Talk Radio.” Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, David. 2002. The New Right and Democracy in Canada: Understanding Reform and the Canadian Alliance. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luntz, Frank. 2007. Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Lyons, Jeffrey. 2008. “Political Talk Radio and Values: Finding Support for the Two-Value Political Ideology Model.” Journal of Radio and Audio Media 15 (2): 150–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marland, Alex and Kerby, Matthew. 2008. “Are Politicians Listening? Talk Radio Call-in Shows and Public Policy in Newfoundland and Labrador.” Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association annual meeting, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Meyer, Dick. 2007. Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Negt, Oskar and Kluge, Alexander. 1993. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, trans. Peter Labanyi, Jamie Daniel and Assenka Oskiloff. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Perse, Elizabeth and Butler, Jessica. 2005. “Call-In Talk Radio: Compensation or Enrichment.” Journal of Radio Studies 12 (2): 204–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Michael, Cho, Jaeho and Chong, Kriston. 2001. “Communication Forms in US Presidential Elections.” Harvard International Journal of Press Politics 6 (4): 88–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Sampert, Shannon. 2009. “Jock Radio/Talk Radio/Shock Radio.” In Mediating Canadian Politics, ed. Sampert, Shannon and Trimble, Linda. Don Mills: Pearson Canada.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1988. Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thussu, Daya Kishan. 2007. News as Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattie, Chris. 2005. “Gomery not a big issue: poll finds: Health care of most concern to voters, even in Quebec.” National Post (Toronto): December 7, A1.Google Scholar
Westen, Drew. 2007. The Political Brain. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael. 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed.London: Sage.Google Scholar
Young, Walter D. 1969. The Anatomy of a Party: The National CCF, 1932–1961. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar