Saturday, February 6, 2016

"...Pick A Card, Any Card...Or A Target, Any Target..."

Talk radio is a lot like magic.

Sometimes, in fact, very often, the key to being successful with it is being able to direct the listening audience where you want it to go.

Or misdirect,  as the case may be, if the need be.

Those skills come in especially handy on slow news days.

Obviously, when something major is happening, conversation, debate, argument, discussion, dissent and/or simple chit chat about that said something between show host and show listeners pretty much happens by itself.

No poking, prodding or provocation required.

That's one reason why, regardless of our personal, political persuasions and/or positions, all of us who do any talk radio hosting at any time are likely, at least once per show, to say a prayer of thanks to the good Lord above for providing this life with the bountiful harvest of chat chaff that is Donald Trump.

Sarah Palin.

Ted Cruz.

Lacey Lafferty (hometown favorite, do the Google).

You get the idea.

When nothing out of the ordinary is going on, though, it gets a little more challenging on the "hey, we want to hear what YOU have to say about it" side of the microphone.

That's why most experienced talk show-sters have a folder (mentally or literally) of fallback topics.

Subjects pretty much sure to set the phone lines afire.

And what the conversations lack in, say, sophistication and/or insight, they more than make up for in "filler fodder"

Which, just between you and me, is an inside the biz slang term for "I got twelve minutes to kill here and absolutely nothing is going on worth talking about..."

 Here's just a few of the live grenades I keep stashed in my news/talk knapsack, just in case.

  • Same sex marriage
  • Uni-sex rest room access
  • Same sex workplace equality
  • Okay, actually anything that starts out with "same sex"
  • Donald Trump (yeah, I know, already mentioned, but, still, almost always sure to start a new back and forth in one way or another.
  • Obama (the shelf life on this one is ticking, given Jan 2017 is so close, but, for now, the hatred of this guy in my neck of the broadcast woods is still good for damn near a whole show)
and...

two words that, when put together, brings a flood of phone calls into the studio line that makes a Tsunami look like the splash Uncle Fred causes when he eases down into the bathtub.

Gun.

Control.

See?

I just got three incoming calls this second.

And I don't even have a phone in this room.

Monday morning show prep is on today's "get started to research a little" list and, lo and behold, thank you, Jesus for never failing to bring it, there's a brand spanking new development in the world of high caliber conversation.




The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that Americans have a “fundamental right” to so-called assault weapons, a major victory for gun rights.

A three judge panel ruled that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, ban against what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens”, is a blunt violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

“In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Traxler sent the case back to the District Court for review, demanding they apply “strict scrutiny” – a stringent constitutional test that almost no gun control legislation can survive.

“This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in Second Amendment law. “This opinion is an important one because it subjects important gun control laws to the most strict form of judicial scrutiny.”
 
While the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on these cases, Justice Clarence Thomas has complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to “a second-class right.”

“If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing,” he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn’t be expected to “clarify the entire field.”



Obviously, the general subject matter isn't even remotely close to new.

And while this latest juicy judicial tidbit is fresh, the primary pinpoint of pondering is also solidly grounded on well trod territory.

Still and all, not a whole lot of the ordinary going on at the moment (Donald and Sarah on the down low for now, but, hope springs eternal) and while there is always a good chance something sensational and salacious will pop between now and 05:30 Monday, I'm ready to lock and load on this latest smack-down attempt on the Second Amendment.

"So, join me Monday as we talk about the 4th Circuit Court giving those who feel the need to own an AR-15 the full and legal right to do so.....and, of course, the latest in weather and traffic information..."

Always looking for a different way to talk about the same old things kind of guy that I am, though, I already know how I want to come at this.

First, though, in the spirit of "fair and well balanced" discussion (yeah, I know, Fox News really has made that too much of a punchline to take seriously, right), here's a key fact I just grabbed on line that I think is germane to our conversation.

A fact that addresses the legitimate argument gun enthusiasts offer that the whole "assault rifle" controversy is bogus.

The AR-15 can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.

Okay.

Quite an obvious difference between the ability to fire one thousand rounds per minute, which by my Louisiana sixth grade math skills comes out at sixteen bullets per second.....and a mere 60 rounds per minute, which calculates out at a calm, easy going one bullet...per second.

So, here's how I'm most likely going to put the on air question of the hour.

And, as a little extra Monday morning show entertainment bonus, throw in a little magic.

"hey, I want to hear what YOU have to say about this latest ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeals..so give me a call...and here's the question....taking into account any reasonable justification, from protecting your family and property to shooting animals from a well camo'ed hiding place and everything in between, why do you feel the need to own a weapon that can fire one bullet per second? OTHER than the only reason so many people seem able to offer up.

"Because you can."

This ain't my first morning talk show rodeo, so I can assure you that two things will happen when that question goes out on air.

The phones will light up because, hey, although I didn't actually say the two words, even the hint of the words "gun" and "control" perhaps being insinuated will bring out the faithful by the 600 round clip.

That faithful, by the way, will offer nothing even remotely close to anything in response to the question beyond a literal or easy to spot variation of the one answer I said was out of play.

Because they can.

And, as for the magic?

Well, those who are waiting for the screener to pick up the phone, letting it ring and making the lights on her console blink furiously but then actually heard me say "OTHER than because you can" will cause those lights on the console to vanish.

As they hang up.

Because they haven't got any other answer to offer.

Presto.



 




No comments:

Post a Comment