I love your blog but if you and Gladwell were sitting across from each other at Charlie Rose's Table, you would be Nixon in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. Your positions are too thoughtful for radio/tv where people who can make their points concisely are at a distinct advantage, no matter the merits of their position. Jason Whitlock, the black columnist at the Kansas City Star Telegram had this piece of advice for Jerome Bettis regarding his ability (actually lack of) to do live color analysis that you should also take to heart "Being entertaining and insightful in short TV bursts is as a talent as rare and unique as having the ability to run through tiny NFL holes".
Steve, talk radio doesn't work like print. You need to condense things down for the constraints of the format. Hit them with the dirt on Obama in a few sound bites that they can repeat to their friends.
A little odd that the host wanted to cover the entire book chapter-by-chapter in 25 minutes, but since that's what he wants, you need to just pick one major (and hopefully juicy) anecdote or fact from each chapter, and tell it in less than 60 seconds. Rush through it fast, gives you more time afterwards to cover a couple things in more detail.
I agree that you're getting betetr at these things. Good radio is hard to do.
Can't go wrong with a guy called Chuck. It'd be interesting to see how you'd react to adversarial questioning. Personally, though cool in front of a keyboard, my voice audibly wavers in any type of personal confrontation.
Just heard the last few minutes, will try to get back later if it's archived. The voice quality was better though it still needs work. The heavy breathing was gone so I assume you were sitting in a quiet place.
That said, you need to boil things down to juicy bulion cube hooks (to blend a metaphor) and find a speaking style closer to tabloid newspapers. Hit them with the lead first and then back it up as much as possible in the time available. You're too much trying to lead the listener down long intricate paths and it's not the radio way.
Before your next gig: Work out a dozen sound bites "Michelle Obama is our first affirmative action hire first lady." or "All Michelle Obama has ever done is use affirmative action or make backroom deals." Then back up with supporting info or just tell them to buy the furshlinging book.
Don't be afraid of being repitive, successful radio people are repitive. They're repititive. They repeat things a lot. Don't be afraid to repeat things a lot. That's what successful radio people do.
I think I disagree with with the idea that you should be more Sean Hannity-like when on the radio. If you're given the opportunity to articulate yourself, then you should explain you positions as detailed as possible.
But, if you do get invited on a TV show where short talking points are the game, make sure you're ready. On these shows, you need to have a few points that are simple, in which people will remember.
Overall you do a good job representing the truth. This is important becuase as we seen with the NYT's and the sub prime housing affair, people are listening and are forced to tell the truth in order to keep legitimacy.
If your book starts taking off, don't be surprised if some liberals start bringing you on their shows to try to discredit you.
You may even see Conservatives trying the same thing. "Respectable Conservatives" (like George Will) love to not look "racist" by attacking people they can portray as being very bad and evil haters.
"I think I disagree with with the idea that you should be more Sean Hannity-like when on the radio. If you're given the opportunity to articulate yourself, then you should explain you positions as detailed as possible."
Amen.
Let Steve be Steve.
p.s. if you do ever appear at Charlie Rose's table across form Mal Glibwell, promise me you'll get a loose perm beforehand
For adversarial/confrontational: Have a laugh it off + "what's interesting" strategy. "Steve, that's horrible/racist/crimethink".
You: "Hehehe, come on Chuck, you're getting ahead of yourself there. Hehehe, look, the interesting thing about this ...
Never admit that it's horrible/racist/whatever. It's interesting. It's novel. What they "haven't thought of is [...]" "A better way to understand it is [...]" Etc.
Truth is, truth is all those things. And people crave it. Because after 12+ years of "education" there's a lot that they need to unlearn.
On a meta-level, I found this interview utterly fascinating. Never have I experienced anyone whose "prose persona" (voice in print) is so radically different from his actual persona (voice in the flesh) as Steve Sailer. It's as psychologically baffling as it is intriguing.
On paper, he comes across as a snarky but sophisticated intellectual--kind of a smarter, "race realist" (bigoted?) version of Chris Hitchens. But then you actually hear him speak and you grasp the immense gulf between the written and spoken Steve.
Peter Brimelow hinted at some of this in his introduction to Sailer's book, but you don't get the full effect until you hear the poor man speak. As he bumbles his way through this interview (went well! an improved performance!), trying to plug his book on some third-rate radio talk show, you get a sense of the awkward, nerdy doofus behind the impressive body of original thought on this website.
The psychological process that turns the awkward, nerdy doofus into the sophisticated in-print Steve when he sits down at his word processor must be complex beyond description.
"The psychological process that turns the awkward, nerdy doofus into the sophisticated in-print Steve when he sits down at his word processor must be complex beyond description."
Not at all. It is common for reflective, gifted thinkers to be awkward at extemporaneous speaking.
Glibness is a trait of extraversion.
Intellectual giftedness is actually highly correlated with intraversion.
An effective voice "sings" a certain way. Chris Matthews - for example - has a certain cadence and tone. Rush sounds like Rush, etc.
Note that they are not, essentially, speaking. They are "singing" - the way actors are said to "sing" lines. Rush is a flurry of notes, with a few pompous periods.
Develop a Steve cadence, a snarky tone in the voice. Listen to the swoops and swing in radio voices (never mind the words). Vocal personality is put on, an attitude, a mindset more akin to singing than speaking.
A master can fit his words concisely with his music. But save that spooky business for much later.
For now, just practice the musicical up and down of low/high, loud/soft, slow/fast, chuckle/protest, brittle/soft, warm/cold. A good exercise at home or in the car is to recite Shakespearean monologues in different voices, with different attitudes. Listen to classic recordings of them to get ideas (Gielgud, Olivier, etc.).
Steve
ReplyDeleteI love your blog but if you and Gladwell were sitting across from each other at Charlie Rose's Table, you would be Nixon in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. Your positions are too thoughtful for radio/tv where people who can make their points concisely are at a distinct advantage, no matter the merits of their position.
Jason Whitlock, the black columnist at the Kansas City Star Telegram had this piece of advice for Jerome Bettis regarding his ability (actually lack of) to do live color analysis that you should also take to heart "Being entertaining and insightful in short TV bursts is as a talent as rare and unique as having the ability to run through tiny NFL holes".
Steve, talk radio doesn't work like print. You need to condense things down for the constraints of the format. Hit them with the dirt on Obama in a few sound bites that they can repeat to their friends.
ReplyDeleteA little odd that the host wanted to cover the entire book chapter-by-chapter in 25 minutes, but since that's what he wants, you need to just pick one major (and hopefully juicy) anecdote or fact from each chapter, and tell it in less than 60 seconds. Rush through it fast, gives you more time afterwards to cover a couple things in more detail.
I agree that you're getting betetr at these things. Good radio is hard to do.
It sure was nice of the Rev. Wright to grant you an interview.
ReplyDeleteCan't go wrong with a guy called Chuck. It'd be interesting to see how you'd react to adversarial questioning. Personally, though cool in front of a keyboard, my voice audibly wavers in any type of personal confrontation.
ReplyDeleteJust heard the last few minutes, will try to get back later if it's archived.
ReplyDeleteThe voice quality was better though it still needs work. The heavy breathing was gone so I assume you were sitting in a quiet place.
That said, you need to boil things down to juicy bulion cube hooks (to blend a metaphor) and find a speaking style closer to tabloid newspapers. Hit them with the lead first and then back it up as much as possible in the time available. You're too much trying to lead the listener down long intricate paths and it's not the radio way.
Before your next gig: Work out a dozen sound bites "Michelle Obama is our first affirmative action hire first lady." or "All Michelle Obama has ever done is use affirmative action or make backroom deals." Then back up with supporting info or just tell them to buy the furshlinging book.
Don't be afraid of being repitive, successful radio people are repitive. They're repititive. They repeat things a lot. Don't be afraid to repeat things a lot. That's what successful radio people do.
Thanks for the advice.
ReplyDeleteSteve, are you going to review Richard Nisbett's book "Intelligence and How to Get it?
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with with the idea that you should be more Sean Hannity-like when on the radio. If you're given the opportunity to articulate yourself, then you should explain you positions as detailed as possible.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you do get invited on a TV show where short talking points are the game, make sure you're ready. On these shows, you need to have a few points that are simple, in which people will remember.
Overall you do a good job representing the truth. This is important becuase as we seen with the NYT's and the sub prime housing affair, people are listening and are forced to tell the truth in order to keep legitimacy.
If your book starts taking off, don't be surprised if some liberals start bringing you on their shows to try to discredit you.
You may even see Conservatives trying the same thing. "Respectable Conservatives" (like George Will) love to not look "racist" by attacking people they can portray as being very bad and evil haters.
"I think I disagree with with the idea that you should be more Sean Hannity-like when on the radio. If you're given the opportunity to articulate yourself, then you should explain you positions as detailed as possible."
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Let Steve be Steve.
p.s. if you do ever appear at Charlie Rose's table across form Mal Glibwell, promise me you'll get a loose perm beforehand
More advice for Steve:
ReplyDeleteFor adversarial/confrontational: Have a laugh it off + "what's interesting" strategy. "Steve, that's horrible/racist/crimethink".
You: "Hehehe, come on Chuck, you're getting ahead of yourself there. Hehehe, look, the interesting thing about this ...
Never admit that it's horrible/racist/whatever. It's interesting. It's novel. What they "haven't thought of is [...]" "A better way to understand it is [...]" Etc.
Truth is, truth is all those things. And people crave it. Because after 12+ years of "education" there's a lot that they need to unlearn.
On a meta-level, I found this interview utterly fascinating. Never have I experienced anyone whose "prose persona" (voice in print) is so radically different from his actual persona (voice in the flesh) as Steve Sailer. It's as psychologically baffling as it is intriguing.
ReplyDeleteOn paper, he comes across as a snarky but sophisticated intellectual--kind of a smarter, "race realist" (bigoted?) version of Chris Hitchens. But then you actually hear him speak and you grasp the immense gulf between the written and spoken Steve.
Peter Brimelow hinted at some of this in his introduction to Sailer's book, but you don't get the full effect until you hear the poor man speak. As he bumbles his way through this interview (went well! an improved performance!), trying to plug his book on some third-rate radio talk show, you get a sense of the awkward, nerdy doofus behind the impressive body of original thought on this website.
The psychological process that turns the awkward, nerdy doofus into the sophisticated in-print Steve when he sits down at his word processor must be complex beyond description.
"The psychological process that turns the awkward, nerdy doofus into the sophisticated in-print Steve when he sits down at his word processor must be complex beyond description."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. It is common for reflective, gifted thinkers to be awkward at extemporaneous speaking.
Glibness is a trait of extraversion.
Intellectual giftedness is actually highly correlated with intraversion.
Basically, Steve is suffering from stage fright.
how do i listen?
ReplyDeleteIs this interview archived anywhere?
ReplyDeleteAn effective voice "sings" a certain way. Chris Matthews - for example - has a certain cadence and tone. Rush sounds like Rush, etc.
ReplyDeleteNote that they are not, essentially, speaking. They are "singing" - the way actors are said to "sing" lines. Rush is a flurry of notes, with a few pompous periods.
Develop a Steve cadence, a snarky tone in the voice. Listen to the swoops and swing in radio voices (never mind the words). Vocal personality is put on, an attitude, a mindset more akin to singing than speaking.
A master can fit his words concisely with his music. But save that spooky business for much later.
For now, just practice the musicical up and down of low/high, loud/soft, slow/fast, chuckle/protest, brittle/soft, warm/cold. A good exercise at home or in the car is to recite Shakespearean monologues in different voices, with different attitudes. Listen to classic recordings of them to get ideas (Gielgud, Olivier, etc.).
Content? Forget it. You have bags of content.