Reith’s Jocks are Shocking
October 14, 2013
With the Coalition currently embroiled in a complex and revealing expenses scandal, it’s heartening to note that elements of the Mainstream Media are pursuing the stories with some measure of vigour and rigour. It’s always nice to see journalists doing their jobs. It kind of makes you feel as though Santa may be real after all.
Much discussion of the various elements of this scandal has followed both in mainstream and independent media outlets. But I want to focus on a piece of commentary from ex-Howard Government Minister, and for some, Seed of Satan, Peter Reith. His views on MPs claiming expenses are too idiotic and self-serving to warrant serious attention, in my estimation. However, his remark regarding politicians attending the weddings of radio announcers caused me to do a bit of a double-take.
“You’d be a mug if you didn’t go to a shock jock’s wedding if you’re invited.”
Yes, you would, given the importance these denizens of the depths of dialectic depravity seem to have for conservative pollies. What struck me initially was Reith’s casual use of the pejorative term, “shock jock”. He appears to think the epithet is perfectly accurate. You have to wonder, though, why anyone would wish to develop a cosy relationship with someone whose job it is to shock (i.e. offend) people. You’d like to imagine persons of good character and sensibility would tend to remain aloof from such a rancid rabble. What’s that old saying about lying down with dogs? Do we even know what a flea looks like anymore? Also, is it possible that Reith was suggesting that cosying up to these people, becoming part of their social group, is how one avoids becoming a target? Could he have meant “mug” not only in the sense that you’re missing out on a great schmooze opportunity complete with like minded and affluent people, but with the far more sinister implication that you would in fact be harming your own agenda if you did not foster a cosiness with them? Was he suggesting their influence and power is greater than that of a humble pollie? And if so I think that deserves more attention.
Whilst there’s nothing especially rare about politicians exploiting the audiences of various identities in the media, the relationship conservative politicians have with the country’s shock jock fraternity is a curious one. It’s also a rather disconcerting one. Certainly there are some Labor politicians and an occasional braveheart from the “left” of politics that will offer their heads on a platter to these bards of barbed abuse, but generally speaking they provide a podium for the conservative odium. In the general run of things, shock jocks grant conservative politicians a supportive platform from which to peddle their views. Indeed, if I’m to be perfectly candid about it, I think it’s reasonable to say most shock jocks are unashamed and unapologetic mouthpieces for the conservative side of politics. Now, if such radio hacks were apt – or even modestly inclined – to be intelligent, reasonable, honest and balanced persons this wouldn’t be so bad. But of course they are nothing of the sort. They are persons of highly dubious moral and intellectual character who are clearly willing to toss in the garbage any notion of human decency, all in the name of profile and ratings (i.e. money).
I, for one, am made very uncomfortable by the idea that those that purport to represent me sidle up to such squalid sound-biters. I can only imagine how it must feel for those more moderate and sane conservatives who actually voted for the Coalition. Whatever their level of discomfort, it seems however to be insufficient for them to speak out about it or to consider changing their vote. But this relationship is really all about political expedience and it’s truly amazing what that little shoulder devil will cause someone to do. So, as disturbing and nightmare inducing as the relationship between politicians and shock jocks might be, the political expedience is at least easy enough to understand. But what of the relationship with the audiences that these vulgar vocalists have? What’s that all about? We know the shock jock brigade is popular; they tend to have significant audience pulling power.
Why? What’s going on?
There are a number of arguably reasonable explanations for it, but for me the primary one is really quite simple: power. Human beings crave power and control. It’s hard-wired into us. Where and when we can’t establish power and control for ourselves, in the course of our daily lives, we will look to experience it vicariously. We will look for an external source via which to sublimate this particularly strong and primal desire. This is the seminal psychological reward for people who listen to shock jocks – the vicarious experience of power and control.
Shock Jocks get to say most anything they want with relative impunity. They get to treat people and ideas, if not facts, with complete disregard. They get to control the narrative. They get to talk over people, to tell people to shut up, to cut them off then abuse them afterwards – with no risk of consequence and no burden of responsibility. They behave in a manner that the darker and less emotionally secure parts of many of us would like to behave, even if only in some sort of fantasy realm where consequence and responsibility don’t exist. This is all about power and the audience gets to experience that power through the vehicle of the shock jock.
There are also those who get an emotional lift from having their own views and attitudes reinforced and reflected back to them, especially when it’s by someone in an apparent position of power. “If Alan Jones is saying what I think then I must be right!” And then for others it’s just a simple guilty pleasure, like dark chocolate or jam donuts or Baskin Robbins’ pralines and cream… um …
On the flip side of that are people who are a tad addicted to the egotistical high and feelings of superiority that moral indignation grants them. We just love to feel indignant. It’s a very powerful force in the human psyche and we’re all a little prone to it. This is why you have the seeming incongruity of persons from the “left” of politics who also listen to such depravity. Now, some might think “depravity” is a little too strong a word, but I personally find the behaviour and verbal dross of the average shock jock to be literally depraved.
Now, it’s easy to suggest that all of this reflects badly on certain segments of the population, but there are complex psychological forces at play and that has to be taken into consideration in any judgements we might make about these dynamics. The truly disturbing, if not outright frightening aspect of all of this is that these psychological forces are operating at a mostly unconscious level. As in so many facets of life people are not truly consciously aware of the motives and psychological pressures driving their behaviour and mentality. This is what makes so much of the human experience problematic – Father forgive us for we quite literally know not what the hell we do.
This lack of consciousness effectively blinds people, not just to the motives they have for engaging shock jock drivel, but more importantly to the ways in which they are influenced by it. It would be somewhat hyperbolic of me to characterise it as a subtle form of hypnosis, but it’s not that far removed from it. We know that most forms of advertising, for example, rely on the fact that we’re not operating in a fully conscious capacity and are highly suggestible. And it works for that reason. Combine this aspect of human psychology with the aforementioned mental dynamics of the vicarious experience of power and you have a very potent mix. One that Peter Reith believes parliamentarians should exploit and would be mugs for not doing so.
On reflecting on the psychology of the relationship many have with the shock jock clan, I was struck by another interesting “fact” regarding the whole thing. I think it’s fair and accurate to say that shock jocks are almost exclusively inhabitants of the “right wing” of politics (yes, I realise that political designation is an increasingly imprecise and problematic one, but I think we know what is generally intended by it). I’m not aware of anything remotely akin to an Alan Jones or Ray Hadley of the “left”. I’m more than happy to stand corrected on this point, but I think generally speaking there is no equivalent on the left side of the political divide. I puzzled over this, thinking that it would be quite interesting to have a “take-no-prisoners” voice from the left on commercial radio. I don’t believe, however, that it would be possible. I think most Australians have a different set of expectations of the left-wing commentariat and tend to hold them to, and judge them by, a different set of standards. I strongly doubt that a left-wing version of an Alan Jones, Ray Hadley or Howard Sattler would gain any sort of acceptance in Australian society. We just seem to demand a different tenor from our leftists. Rightly or wrongly we associate them with a degree of intellectual weight and integrity that is simply not mirrored in our perceptions of those on the “right”. We have significantly lower expectations of those powerful purveyors of putrescence that creep about the darker regions of the conservative side of politics. And yet Peter Reith, along with many current Coalition parliamentarians, is happy to foster a close association with such people. Apparently they’d otherwise be mugs.
Left in Limbo 