Erick Woods Erickson (b. June 3, 1975) is an American conservative radio host, political commentator, author, lawyer, and former local politician whose career mirrors the transformation of conservative media from blogs and online activism to nationally syndicated radio, podcasts, newsletters, and digital publishing. Best known as the longtime editor-in-chief of RedState and later the founder of The Resurgent, Erickson emerged as an influential conservative voice in the Obama era. Throughout his career, he has combined movement conservatism, evangelical Christianity, Southern cultural identity, and a willingness to criticize figures within his own political coalition.
Erickson was born in Jackson, Louisiana, and spent much of his childhood overseas. When he was five years old, his family moved to Dubai, where his father worked for the energy industry. Erickson attended the American School of Dubai and lived in the Middle East throughout much of his youth before returning to Louisiana during his teenage years. The experience exposed him to international politics and cultures at an early age and gave him a broader perspective than many future conservative commentators. He later attended Mercer University in Georgia, earning degrees in political science and history before completing a law degree at Mercer University’s Walter F. George School of Law.
After entering legal practice, Erickson entered Republican politics and grassroots conservative activism. His political interests coincided with the emergence of political blogging in the early 2000s. He joined RedState shortly after its founding and rapidly became its most influential voice. Under Erickson’s leadership, RedState evolved from a niche conservative blog into one of the most important online gathering places for Republican activists, campaign operatives, journalists, and elected officials. During the George W. Bush and Barack Obama years, the site helped shape grassroots conservative opinion and became a significant force within the emerging Tea Party movement.
At RedState, Erickson cultivated a reputation for bluntness and ideological independence. He frequently criticized Democrats but was equally willing to attack Republican leaders whom he viewed as insufficiently conservative or insufficiently accountable to voters. His widely circulated email briefings became required reading for many conservative activists and political professionals. The site’s influence reflected a broader shift in American politics, where online media increasingly competed with traditional newspapers and television networks as agenda-setting institutions.
While building his media career, Erickson also pursued elected office. In 2007 he won a seat on the Macon City Council in Georgia as a Republican. His experience in local government gave him firsthand exposure to the practical realities of policymaking and governance. He served until 2011, resigning before the completion of his term as media opportunities increasingly demanded his attention. The decision marked his transition from politician to full-time commentator.
National prominence followed. Erickson became a regular political analyst on cable television and joined CNN as a contributor in 2010. His combination of policy knowledge, conservative credentials, and sharp debating style made him a frequent participant in discussions about healthcare reform, federal spending, elections, and the future of the Republican Party. After leaving CNN in 2013, he joined Fox News as a contributor while continuing to expand his presence in conservative media.
The rise of Donald Trump presented the most consequential political challenge of Erickson’s career. During the 2016 Republican primary campaign, he became one of Trump’s most visible conservative critics. His opposition reached national headlines when he withdrew Trump’s invitation to a RedState gathering following controversial comments Trump made about journalist Megyn Kelly. Erickson emerged as a leading figure among conservatives who feared that Trump’s populism, personal conduct, and governing style threatened traditional conservative principles.
The dispute reflected broader tensions within conservative media. By 2015 and 2016, RedState’s corporate ownership and much of the conservative grassroots movement were becoming increasingly receptive to Trump. Erickson departed RedState in 2015 amid disagreements over the site’s future direction and broader changes within conservative media. The break marked the end of an era. For more than a decade, he had been among the defining voices of conservative blogging.
Yet Erickson’s relationship with Trump and Trumpism became more nuanced over time. While maintaining criticisms of Trump’s temperament, staffing decisions, and personal behavior, he gradually came to support many of Trump’s policy initiatives. Erickson voted for Trump in 2020 and supported the Republican ticket again in 2024, arguing that judicial appointments, tax policy, regulatory reform, and other substantive issues outweighed his reservations. Even so, he continued to criticize Trump when he believed criticism was warranted. His opposition to proposals such as accepting a luxury aircraft from Qatar and his warnings about Republican mismanagement demonstrated a continuing independence from partisan orthodoxy.
After leaving RedState, Erickson founded The Resurgent, an online publication dedicated to conservative political analysis, cultural commentary, and religious reflection. The publication became his principal writing platform and allowed him to operate independently of larger media corporations. Through The Resurgent, daily newsletters, podcasts, and subscription products, Erickson developed a direct relationship with readers that resembled the increasingly personalized media model of the twenty-first century.
Radio eventually became the center of his professional life. Erickson joined WSB Radio in Atlanta and steadily expanded his audience through local and regional broadcasting. His reputation grew through guest-hosting appearances on nationally syndicated programs, including The Rush Limbaugh Show. Following Limbaugh’s death in 2021, Erickson assumed the influential midday slot on WSB previously occupied by the legendary host. Through syndication agreements and digital distribution, The Erick Erickson Show expanded across numerous markets and became one of the most prominent conservative talk programs in the country. By the mid-2020s, the program consistently ranked among the leading news-talk shows in the United States. In addition to his weekday broadcasts, Erickson maintained a strong podcast presence and produced weekend programming that further extended his reach.
Unlike many talk-radio personalities, Erickson’s broadcasts regularly move beyond partisan politics. Discussions of faith, family life, economics, technology, culture, and personal experience occupy a substantial portion of his programming. This broader approach reflects both his intellectual interests and his evolving understanding of his public role.
Religion occupies a central place in Erickson’s life and work. A member of the Presbyterian Church in America, he increasingly frames political and cultural issues through a Reformed Christian perspective. To deepen his theological education, he began pursuing a Master of Divinity degree at Reformed Theological Seminary. His formal study of theology strengthened a tendency already evident in his writing and broadcasting: the belief that political debates often reflect deeper religious and moral assumptions about human nature, authority, freedom, and community.
Personal hardship shaped Erickson’s worldview during the 2010s. In 2016, doctors discovered life-threatening blood clots in his lungs. Around the same period, his wife faced a prolonged battle with a rare genetic form of stage-four lung cancer that had initially been misdiagnosed years earlier. Targeted medical treatments eventually stabilized the disease, allowing her to live far beyond many early expectations. Erickson has written extensively about these experiences, emphasizing themes of providence, gratitude, suffering, family responsibility, and faith. These experiences softened some of the combative style that characterized his earlier political commentary and contributed to a more reflective public voice.
Those themes are particularly evident in his books. Red State Uprising (2010) captured the energy of grassroots conservatism during the Tea Party era. You Will Be Made to Care (2016) examined the relationship between government power and cultural coercion. Before You Wake (2017) took a more personal turn, presenting life lessons and reflections addressed to his children in light of family health crises. Later, You Shall Be as Gods: Pagans, Progressives, and the Rise of the New Religion extended his analysis of politics into the realm of religion and culture, arguing that many contemporary ideological movements function as substitutes for traditional faith.
In addition to broadcasting and writing, Erickson hosts an annual conference known as the Gathering. The event attracts prominent Republican politicians, policy experts, journalists, activists, and religious leaders. Unlike many partisan conferences, the Gathering emphasizes extended conversations and direct questioning rather than carefully scripted appearances. The conference reflects Erickson’s role not merely as a commentator but as a convener within the conservative movement.
By the mid-2020s, Erickson had become a mature broadcaster whose work blended political analysis, religious reflection, cultural criticism, and personal storytelling. While many influential figures from the early conservative blogosphere faded from prominence or became rigidly aligned with particular factions, Erickson adapted repeatedly to changing media environments while maintaining a recognizable voice. His career stands as one of the clearest examples of how an early political blogger successfully transitioned into a lasting presence in American media.
At the center of Erickson’s work remains a consistent conviction: that politics cannot be understood apart from the moral, religious, and cultural foundations of society. Whether discussing elections, public policy, family life, or faith, he approaches contemporary debates through that broader lens. This combination of conservatism, Calvinist Christianity, institutional skepticism, and personal candor has made him one of the most enduring and influential conservative commentators of his generation.
The Voice
Erick Erickson speaks in a warm mid-register baritone with a soft Southern coloring, not the heavy drawl a listener might expect from an Atlanta host. He grew up partly in Dubai and trained as a lawyer at Mercer, and you hear both in his speech. The voice carries Georgia, but the sentences carry the courtroom. He builds a case. He lays premises, anticipates the counterargument, then closes. That lawyerly architecture separates him from hosts who run on pure affect.
His diction mixes two registers that rarely sit together. One is plain talk. He says “folks,” he says “look,” he says “here’s the thing,” and he opens segments with a domestic anecdote about his kids or his cooking or his dogs before he turns to a Senate vote. The other register is precise and structured, the residue of law practice and seminary. He reaches for Scripture and for legislative detail in the same breath. He can quote a verse and then walk through the procedural mechanics of a bill. That pairing gives the show its texture. He sounds like a deacon who reads the Congressional Record.
The governing rhetorical move is the hard-truth pose. Erickson sells himself as the friend who tells you what you do not want to hear, the conservative who scolds his own side, the man who cuts through spin rather than feeds it. His promoters lean on this hard, calling him reliably conservative yet unpredictable and crediting him with the courage to cut through his own side’s talking points. The pose has real content. He did break with parts of the Trump coalition, he does criticize Republicans by name, and he does lose listeners and sponsors for it. The truth-first claim is also a brand, and a profitable one, because the audience that wants to feel smarter than the red-meat crowd is a sizable market. Both things hold at once. The honesty is sincere and the honesty sells.
His manner on air runs measured rather than manic. He does not scream. He does not run the relentless high-pressure monologue of the Limbaugh school, though he inherited that midday Atlanta slot after Limbaugh died and guest-hosted that national show before. He talks the way a smart man talks at a long dinner. He digresses, circles back, tells a story against himself, laughs easily. Where many hosts perform certainty, Erickson performs reasonableness, and the performance of reasonableness is its own form of authority. He frames himself as the man who can explain the left to the right and the right to the left.
The faith register sets him apart from the secular shock model of talk radio. He pursued an M.Div, he speaks about God with male pronouns and capital letters in the old Protestant manner, and he has folded his wife’s cancer and his own grief into the show. That confessional thread softens the political edge and binds the audience to him as a man, not only as a voice. It also raises the stakes of his moral framing. When he calls something wrong, he means wrong in a theological sense, not merely impolitic.
The weakness in the style sits inside its strength. The reasonable-conservative position depends on the existence of unreasonable people on both flanks, so the show needs villains on the right as much as on the left to keep its shape. The insider sourcing, the “my sources tell me,” builds trust and resists verification. And the friend-who-tells-you-the-truth frame can flatter the host as much as inform the listener, since a man who keeps reminding you he is brave is asking you to watch him be brave.
The Catapult
In January 2011, an ice storm shut down Atlanta. Erick Erickson (b. 1975) had just taken the microphone at WSB, the slot Herman Cain left behind to run for president. The roads froze. Erickson slept on the floor of his office so he could make the broadcast. He had no radio training. A few months earlier a station in Macon had paid him for three months of fill-in work with an expired gift certificate to Outback Steakhouse. He took the second stint for no pay at all. A man who sleeps on an office floor during an ice storm to do a job that once paid him nothing is a man who believes the job means something past the paycheck. The question worth asking is what.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave one answer that fits most men. We know we will die, and the knowledge is unbearable, so we build systems that let us feel we matter beyond our span. Becker called these hero systems. A hero system tells a man what counts as a life well spent, what counts as cowardice, what death is for, and how a person earns a place that outlasts the body. The terror of death sits under the whole structure. The hero system converts that terror into a program. Live this way and you will not have been nothing.
Erickson’s hero system has a name and a creed, and he says both out loud. He is Presbyterian Church in America, the conservative wing, Reformed, Calvinist. He started a master’s at Reformed Theological Seminary while working two full-time jobs. He has had reason to think about death more than most men his age, and he tells the story plainly. The week before Christmas in 2006, on the same day he lost his job, doctors told him his wife had six months to live. He sat in her recovery room after a lung biopsy, waited for her to wake, and told her she was going to die. They had a one-year-old. That night, in the hospital, they had the conversations a husband and wife have only when they do not want to have them. Where would he move. Should he remarry. How would he raise their daughter without her mother. The diagnosis turned out wrong inside twenty-four hours. Ten years later the Mayo Clinic called Christy Erickson to say she had a rare genetic lung cancer, stage four, no cure. The same week, blood clots filled Erickson’s own lungs and a hospital wheeled him into cardiac intensive care and told someone to summon his family.
So here is a man who has looked at death from both chairs, the bedside and the bed, and who has built his life on a hero system that claims death is not the end of the story. That claim is the engine of everything else he does. Hold it in mind.
In the recovery room in 2006, Christy Erickson told her husband something he has repeated for twenty years. She said she thought he was a catapult, that his gift was to throw good ideas and good people into the arena, and that he should find a way to keep doing it. Becker might note what the image does. A dying woman hands her husband a picture of a life that matters, and the picture survives her supposed death and shapes the next two decades. The catapult flings other things forward and stays planted. That is a man who has decided his heroism lies in launching, in engagement, in refusing to sit out.
Engagement is one of his sacred words. Watch what it carries.
In 2016 Erickson declared himself Never Trump and is credited with the hashtag. He had already crossed Trump the year before, disinviting him from the RedState Gathering in Atlanta after Trump’s remark about Megyn Kelly and blood. Erickson called Trump a racist and a fascist and said he would never vote for him. People came to his house to threaten him. His children were harassed in a store. His wife was harassed at church for not supporting the president. Then, in 2019, he endorsed Trump for 2020, and again in 2024. The reversal looks to many like a man trading his integrity for relevance. Erickson tells it as a choice forced by his sacred word. He said he could go third-party again and look what that got him, or go Democrat and trust people he thinks lack character, or stay engaged in the party he had worked in. He said his evangelical friends who actually practice the faith had abandoned politics, and he still wanted to be engaged. The catapult must throw. A catapult that holds its stone forever is a wall.
Now bring in the other word, the one he put on a book cover. You Will Be Made to Care. The phrase came from a RedState writer who said he did not care about gay marriage because it did not touch his life. Erickson told him he was going to be made to care, that the world would force him to pick a side, and that picking the wrong side would cost him. Care, for Erickson, names a cosmic conscription. There is a war over the shape of the soul and the shape of the country, and neutrality is a fiction the war will not permit. To care is to take your post.
Set that word loose among other hero systems and watch it change shape, because this is where Becker earns his keep. The same word is a different word inside each system, and the difference is not a matter of emphasis. It runs to the bottom.
Take a hospice nurse who has sat with four hundred deaths and built her sense of a life well spent on presence, on staying in the room when staying is all there is. To her, care means the opposite of conscription. Care means you do not make the dying take a side. You bring water, you turn the body, you let the man go out as himself. Her hero system earns its immortality through tenderness without agenda, and Erickson’s sentence, that you will be made to care, sounds to her like a threat dressed as a virtue. She hears coercion. He means fidelity. The word splits clean in half.
Take a Stoic who has read Epictetus until the spine cracked and ordered his inner life around the line between what he controls and what he does not. Care, to him, is a trap. The whole training aims at caring less about the things outside his power, at meeting his wife’s cancer or his own clots with an even mind because the universe owes him no exemption. Erickson and the Stoic both face the falling piano, to borrow Christy Erickson’s own image of the diagnosis, the cartoon piano dropping out of a clear sky. The Stoic trains himself to want what happens. Erickson tells himself the piano came from a hand, and that the hand is good, and that the bruise has a purpose he cannot see. Two men, one piano, two hero systems, and care points in opposite directions. One man heroically detaches. The other heroically clings, and calls the clinging trust.
Take a longevity investor in San Francisco who has put real money into stopping aging and means it, who believes death is an engineering problem and that solving it is the highest work a person can do. To him, Erickson’s whole frame is the enemy. Erickson looks at his wife’s pill, the drug called Tagrisso that has held her tumors still for years past the prognosis, and he says God and the drug companies kept her alive, and he thanks both in the same breath. The investor reads the same facts and draws the lesson that the drug did the work and the prayer did nothing measurable, and that a culture which credits God for the chemistry slows the chemistry down. Care, to the investor, means funding the cure and refusing the comfort. Care, to Erickson, means accepting that the cure will fail one day and that the failure is not the end. The investor builds his immortality out of more years. Erickson builds his out of a promise that the years were never the point. They use the same word and they are not in the same conversation.
Take a Shia Muslim shaped by Ashura, by the memory of Husayn at Karbala, for whom the highest life is witness through righteous suffering, who hears in Erickson’s account of his trials something close to home and something foreign at once. The shape rhymes. Suffering means something, God is just though the world is cruel, the faithful man holds his post under the blade. But the content is another God, another covenant, another arena, and the heroism that looks parallel from a distance is built for a different door. Becker’s point lands here. Hero systems can mirror each other in structure and still divide men forever, because each system insists it alone names the real terms of death.
And take, finally, the secular humanist in Helsinki who finds the falling-piano stories slightly embarrassing, who thinks a man builds a good life by being kind, paying his taxes, raising decent children, and not pretending the universe has a plan. To her, Erickson’s certainty about the resurrection is a coping story, and a man is braver who faces the dark without it. She has her own hero system, and its hero is the person who needs no afterlife to behave well. She reads Erickson’s grief and admires the love and discards the theology. He reads her decency and calls it a gift from a God she will not name. Each one fits the other inside his own frame, and the frames do not touch.
This is the heart of the matter, and it is Becker’s, not mine. There is no neutral word care that all these people are arguing about. There is the hospice nurse’s care, the Stoic’s, the investor’s, the Shia witness’s, the humanist’s, and Erickson’s, and each one means what it means only inside the system that issued it. Pull the word out of the system and it dies on the table. The progressive who tells Erickson to care about the marginalized and the Erickson who tells the progressive he will be made to care are not failing to communicate. They are succeeding. Each hears the other clearly and rejects the other’s whole account of what a life is for.
Erickson knows this better than most of his opponents, which is why his book argues that the country has a spiritual problem wearing the costume of a political one. He says the progressive left has built a pagan religion with its own creeds, confessions, sacraments, heretics, and rites of shunning. Set the theology aside and the observation is Becker’s. The fight over a wedding cake or a pronoun is never only about the cake. It is two hero systems each trying to make the other concede the terms of immortality, and neither can concede without dying in the only way that frightens it.
Return to the word he placed at the center of his life. Providence. The misdiagnosis in 2006, the wrong one, the one that put him through a night of hell, turns out in his telling to have been the thing that saved his wife, because it started the monitoring that caught the real cancer ten years on, when there was still a drug to hold it. He calls that a blessing he could not see at the time. The longevity investor calls it luck and lead time. The Stoic calls it a story the mind tells to make a random sequence bearable. The humanist calls it a coincidence given a halo. Erickson calls it the hand. He has staked his life that the hand is there, and the stake is not abstract, because the pill will stop working someday, and he has said so, and on that day the difference between providence and luck will be the only thing he has. A hero system is tested at the deathbed. His is built for exactly that test and for nothing smaller.
He has told the world what he wants on his stone. Here lies Erick Erickson who said what needed to be said even when people didn’t like it. Read it through Becker and it is a near-perfect specimen. A man stares down his own erasure and answers it with a sentence about fidelity under pressure, about speaking the true thing into a hostile room and paying for it. The catapult again. The throwing that matters more than the thrower. He has paid the price the sentence describes, in threats at his door and his children harassed and his wife confronted in the pews, and he has also, his critics say, betrayed the sentence by bending to Trump after all. Both can be true. A hero system gives a man his standard and then watches him fall short of it, and the falling short is part of the system too, since his system is the one that built sin into the foundation of the world and called the whole creation fallen. He does not claim to clear his own bar. He claims there is a bar, that it is real, that it was set by God, and that grace covers the gap between the bar and the man. That last move is the one the other hero systems cannot make, and it is the one his whole life rides on.
A catapult throws and stays planted. The stone it throws is a wager about death. Everyone reading this has made the same wager in some form, with some word, inside some system, whether or not they have noticed. Erickson noticed. He wrote it on the cover of a book and asked for it on his grave. The rest of us mostly leave it unspoken and let the word do its quiet work, caring or detaching or curing or witnessing, each of us certain we know what the word means, each of us holding a different one in the dark.
The Set
Erickson works from Macon and broadcasts from Atlanta, noon to three, into the swingiest swing state in the country, and the set he belongs to is not the set he lives among. His neighbors are Georgia. His people are scattered across studios, seminaries, and Substacks, and they find each other by a shared sense of what a serious man owes the truth. The set has a center of gravity, and the center is not a place. It is a posture.
Start with the dead, because this set honors its dead the way a regiment honors its colors. Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021) sits at the head of the table he no longer occupies, and Erickson took his midday slot in Atlanta after he died, which the set reads as succession rather than coincidence. Herman Cain (1945-2020) held the WSB chair before Erickson and gave it up to run for president. William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008) hovers further back as the founder myth, the man who made conservatism respectable and funny at once. The living radio elders are Neal Boortz (b. 1945), the Atlanta libertarian whose chair Erickson also filled, and a thinning bench of syndicated hosts who came up before the podcast swallowed the format. The set venerates the microphone as a pulpit and treats three hours of live talk as a daily act of nerve. You cannot fake your way through three hours. The form rewards the man who knows things and punishes the man who only performs.
Then there is the writing wing, the one Erickson keeps a foot in through The Resurgent and his Substack and his standing invitations to the right kind of podcast. Here the company is Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969) and Stephen Hayes (b. 1971) and the rest of The Dispatch, the outfit that kept the old conservative catechism after 2016 and paid for it in audience. David French (b. 1969) belongs to this circle too, the PCA Presbyterian and former litigator who took the religious-liberty cases Erickson used to write about and who went where Erickson did not on Trump. Kevin D. Williamson (b. 1972) writes the kind of hard prose the set admires even when it stings. Goldberg drove down to Georgia to record with Erickson and called the two of them bygone conservatives, which is the set’s house joke about itself, the joke of men who think they kept the faith while the church emptied out around them.
Across one aisle sit the cross-examiners the set respects, the serious men of the other side. Andrew Sullivan (b. 1963) hosts Erickson on his Dishcast and calls him a friend while disagreeing about most things. David Brooks (b. 1961) shared Erickson’s viral letter to his children, the one written when he and his wife both faced death the same year, and that act of sharing matters to the set because it marks Erickson as a man the thoughtful center will read. The set keeps a short list of honorable opponents and a long list of unserious ones, and the distinction is itself a status claim.
Across the other aisle, and this is the harder border, sit the people who used to be in the set and left, or who arrived after and never belonged. The MAGA populists who showed up at Erickson’s house in 2016 are not his people, whatever ballot he now shares with them. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (b. 1954) and the movement against the drug companies are antagonists to a man whose wife stays alive on a pill, and Erickson wrote a whole essay crediting God and Big Pharma in the same sentence to mark the line. Donald Trump (b. 1946) is the body everything in this set now orbits, the figure who split it, the test it cannot stop taking. Some of the set bent and some did not, and the not-bending and the later bending are the two great status currencies, which is the part worth slowing down for.
Now the theological wing, which is the deepest one, because Erickson’s set is finally a religious set wearing political clothes. He is Presbyterian Church in America, Reformed, and he studied at Reformed Theological Seminary, and the names that anchor this corner are not pundits. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) is the patron, the Princeton man who walked out rather than soften the creed and wrote that liberal Christianity and Christianity were two different religions. Erickson’s whole argument in You Shall Be as Gods is Machen’s argument updated, that two stories of reality cannot share a roof. Tim Keller (1950-2023) is the model of the PCA mind that stayed winsome. Albert Mohler (b. 1959) holds the harder Southern Baptist line. Russell Moore (b. 1971) is the more painful case, the evangelical who broke with the movement over Trump and lost his place in the Southern Baptist machine, and Erickson knows the genealogy, knows Moore was taught by the same reformed preacher Erickson heard in his grandmother’s church. The set reads these men closely and ranks them by a single test. Did the faith bend the politics, or did the politics bend the faith.
They value truth over comfort, and they say so in nearly those words. Erickson’s station bio brags that he tells his audience the truths he thinks they need rather than the affirmations they want, and the set treats flattery of the audience as the cardinal sin of talk radio. They value candor that costs something. They value the family as the first institution, older than the state and prior to it. They value the local and the small, the city council seat, the home town, the church you can drive to. They value courage under social pressure above almost everything, because their founding story is now the story of 2016, when some of them paid in threats and harassment for saying a thing out loud. They value the remnant, the idea that a faithful few hold the line while the many drift, and the word remnant does real work for them, both consolation and command.
The hero they honor follows from all of this. He is the watchman who says the hard thing into a hostile room and pays for it and does not stop. Erickson wants on his gravestone that he said what needed to be said even when people did not like it, and that sentence is the set’s entire ideal compressed to one line. The hero is not the man who wins. Winning is suspect, because the set has watched winners sell the creed for access. The hero is the man who keeps the creed while losing audience, losing the network seat, losing the friends who went populist. Martyrdom is the high status the set cannot openly want and cannot stop admiring. The catastrophe of 2016 became the set’s proving ground, and a man’s conduct in it is now his permanent rank. Did people come to your house. Did your wife get confronted at church. The wounds are credentials.
This produces the status games, and they run on a currency you would not guess from outside.
The first game is integrity through the Trump years, scored with great precision. The purists who never bent, the Dispatch men, hold the highest theoretical honor and the smallest audience, and the set both envies and pities them. Erickson occupies the contested middle, the man who was Never Trump first and loudest, took the threats, then endorsed in 2020 and 2024 while saying his concerns about character remained. He narrates the reversal as engagement rather than surrender, and whether the set grants him that reading is the live question of his standing. The fallen, in this scoring, are the men who flipped early and cheaply and pretended they had not, and the set keeps receipts on them.
The second game is theological seriousness. The M.Div, the seminary class taken one a semester while working two jobs, the ability to discuss Gnosticism and Machen and not only the day’s headlines, all of it buys rank. A pundit who can only do politics ranks below a pundit who can do politics and the Nicene Creed. The set distrusts the merely clever and prizes the catechized.
The third game is the practicing-Christian distinction, and this one cuts inside the set itself. Erickson talks about his evangelical friends who actually practice the faith, the phrase doing quiet sorting work, separating the believers who walk it from the believers who wear it for the base. Authenticity of faith is a status axis, and the set polices it against its own.
The fourth game is access without capture. Erickson knows the Republican heavy hitters, ran their campaigns, has the sources, and the set wants proximity to power as proof of relevance. But proximity that becomes dependence drops a man’s rank fast, because the set’s hero is supposed to tell the powerful no. The trick is to be near the throne and still willing to embarrass it, and the man who pulls that off, who cuts through his own side’s spin, as the bio puts it, sits highest of all.
Under the games lie the normative claims, the oughts the set treats as settled.
Truth is objective and external and binding, not a construction and not a preference. The set holds this as the first principle, and Erickson’s book opens by mourning that even suggesting truth exists now reads as oppression. Neutrality is impossible. You Will Be Made to Care, the title of his earlier book, is a normative claim before it is a prediction, the claim that no one gets to sit out the central conflict and that pretending to is itself a choice. The two cultures cannot coexist, which is Machen’s old line, the insistence that the polite hope of live-and-let-live is a category error when two religions claim the same ground. Speak the truth in love, the qualifier the set adds to keep the first principle from turning cruel, the instruction that candor without charity is a failure too. And politics is downstream of the spiritual, the claim that the country’s trouble is not partisan or economic but a sickness of the soul, which licenses the set to treat a tax debate and a confession of faith as the same argument at different depths.
Beneath the oughts sit the essentialist claims, the set’s picture of what things simply are.
Man is fallen. This is the bedrock, and it explains the set’s politics more than any policy. Because the heart is corrupt, power must be checked, utopias must fail, and the man who promises heaven on earth is selling the oldest lie, which is the lie in Erickson’s title, the serpent’s promise that you shall be as gods. Sin is real and not a synonym for harm, a category the set refuses to surrender to the therapeutic. Human beings bear the image of God, which grounds a dignity no state confers and no state may revoke, and which the set deploys on abortion and on the worth of the ordinary person against the expert. The family is natural, not assembled, father and mother and child a given order rather than one arrangement among many. Sex is binary and bodily and received, not chosen, and the set treats the denial of this as the purest case of the gnostic error it names, the old heresy that the spirit is real and the body a prison to be overridden by secret knowledge. Erickson’s whole frame casts progressivism as gnosticism revived, the belief that the enlightened self remakes reality by knowing better than the body, and the essentialist counterclaim is that reality is fixed, creation is good, and the body tells the truth.
Which brings the moral grammar, the vocabulary the set thinks in, and it is older than any of its members.
The grammar is fall and redemption. The frame is not progress toward a better future but rescue from a ruined present, and this single difference separates the set’s moral language from the language across the aisle at the root. The other side speaks of the arc bending toward justice. This side speaks of a world that fell and a grace that saves. The keywords are sin, grace, repentance, idolatry, remnant, witness, and the chief opposition is not justice against oppression but faithfulness against compromise. To compromise is the worst of it, worse than to lose, because losing while faithful is the hero’s portion and winning by compromise is damnation dressed as victory. Idolatry is the diagnosis the set reaches for first, the charge that the other side has made gods of the self and the state and the cause, and the charge it turns on its own side too when the right makes a god of a man. Erickson criticizes a gnostic right alongside the gnostic left for exactly this reason, and the willingness to aim the idolatry charge inward is itself a status move, proof the believer serves the creed and not the team.
Grace is the move the set can make that its opponents structurally cannot, and Erickson’s life rides on it. The gap between the gravestone he wants and the endorsements he gave, the distance between the hero’s standard and the man who falls short, is closed by grace rather than by getting it right. The set does not claim to clear its own bar. It claims there is a bar, that God set it, that all men fail it, and that mercy covers the gap. That last article is the one the surrounding hero systems cannot borrow, and it is the one that lets these men lose and call the losing holy.
The whole set, finally, is a set of men who believe they are holding a line that most of the country has already crossed, and who take their bearings from the dead and the fallen-away as much as from the living. They prize the watchman over the winner, faithfulness over success, the costly true word over the comfortable one, and they read every political fight as a religious fight wearing a suit. Erickson sits near the middle of it, contested, his rank still being argued, a man whose enemies came to his door and whose friends went somewhere he would not follow, holding the microphone three hours a day and betting, out loud, on a grace that makes the falling short survivable.
My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.
Erickson grew up between his grandmother’s Southern Baptist church in Jackson, Louisiana, and an itinerant Methodist service in Dubai he hated to attend. He landed in the Presbyterian Church in America as an adult and took the Reformed creed for his own. He experiences that creed as truth received, the one true story of reality set against a false one, and he says the certainty of the resurrection is better translated from the Greek as profound certainty. Mearsheimer hands him a colder reading. The certainty is the felt texture of deep socialization, and from the inside it cannot be told apart from the felt texture of any other deep socialization. A man raised in another tradition holds his tradition’s certainty with the same grip. Erickson thinks he believes because the thing is true. Mearsheimer says he believes because a particular people made him before he could weigh the question, and that the weighing came later and changed nothing.
The cut goes further, into the heart of what Erickson calls the gospel. His faith is universalist in the exact sense Mearsheimer distrusts. Everyone on the planet needs the same savior, the same truth binds all men, and the two cultures cannot peacefully coexist. Set that beside the line Mearsheimer indicts, that everyone on the planet holds the same inalienable rights. Erickson would reject the comparison, and the structure does not care. A creed that claims all men, that cannot let anyone sit out, that sends its holders to convert the world or at least to refuse it quarter, is a universal crusade. You Will Be Made to Care is a crusader’s title. Mearsheimer’s whole argument is that universal crusades run aground on the tribal nature of man, and he does not exempt the ones that fly a cross.
In 2016 Erickson held a universal moral line. Character is absolute, Trump fails the test, no believer may pretend otherwise. The tribe answered the way Mearsheimer predicts a group answers a defector. People came to his house. His children were harassed in a store. His wife was confronted at church for not supporting the president. The in-group enforced its value infusion and punished the lone wolf, and the lone wolf felt the full cost of standing on principle outside the warmth of the group.
By 2020 he came back. He narrates the return as reason, a sober choice among bad options, and his words give the game away. He said he could go third party again and look what that got him. He said many of his evangelical friends had abandoned politics and he still wanted to be engaged. He said he was not sure he had anywhere else to go. Mearsheimer reads this without strain. A social being cannot survive long as a lone wolf, the pull of the group reasserts itself, and reason arrives afterward to write the justification for what belonging had already decided. When the universal principle collided with the tribal bond, the bond won, and the man who lost was the man who tried to live by the principle alone. Erickson the lawyer built a case for re-engagement. Mearsheimer says the verdict came first and the brief came second.
The Dispatch men make the tidy objection and Mearsheimer absorbs it. Jonah Goldberg and David French and Stephen Hayes held the line Erickson let go and accepted the smaller audience. They look like proof that a man can stand on reason against his tribe. Mearsheimer denies the exit exists. They did not escape into pure principle. They re-sorted into a smaller group with its own creed, its own heretics, its own intense socialization, the group that calls itself the remnant. A remnant is not the absence of a tribe. A remnant is a tribe that has lost the field and tightened its bonds to survive the losing, and Erickson’s consolation, the faithful few who hold while the many drift, names that survival strategy and dignifies it. Mearsheimer would recognize the move from his own discipline. When the numbers turn against a group, the group intensifies the infusion.
After the year his lungs filled with clots and his wife learned she had incurable cancer, he wrote a letter to his children and titled it If I Should Die Before You Wake, then expanded it to ten letters about how to live. A father under the shadow of death sat down to load his children with a code before he might lose the chance. Mearsheimer would call that the truest thing in the whole story. Moral codes do not propagate by argument. They propagate through the long childhood, through the parent who pours himself into the child before the child can reason, and the urgency rises when the parent fears he will not be there to finish the pour. Erickson wrote the letters because he understood, in his body, exactly what Mearsheimer claims in the abstract. The transmission matters more than the proof.
Mearsheimer says we are born with innate sentiments that shape our thinking before we choose anything. Erickson’s doctrine of the fall says we are born with a corrupt nature prior to any choice. Both deny the blank rational slate. One calls the inheritance evolved survival equipment, morally flat, simply there. The other calls it sin, a wound that grace alone can close. The fact pattern is shared. The meaning splits.
And the demotion of reason lands on the part of Erickson’s life that buys him the most standing. The PCA is the most catechized wing of his world. He took seminary classes one a semester while working two jobs, he traces intellectual history from Gnosticism through the Enlightenment in his book, he prizes the confession and the argued defense of the faith. If Mearsheimer is right, all of that careful doctrine is a thin rational glaze over socialization and innate sentiment, rationalization rather than cause, the least powerful of the three drivers dressed up as the engine.
Erickson has one move left. Mearsheimer’s claim is universal, derived by reason, and it says reason cannot reach universal truths about how men should think. Apply the claim to the claim. If reason ranks last and our convictions come mostly from where we were raised, then The Great Delusion is mostly the product of an academic tribe at the University of Chicago, and we hold no strong reason to credit it. The frame, turned on itself, dissolves its own authority. This does not restore the truth of the resurrection. It only strips Mearsheimer of the neutral ground from which he calls Erickson’s certainty an illusion while keeping his own as insight. Erickson can say they are both standing on something prior to reason, that his something is revelation and Mearsheimer’s is a seminar room, and that the realist has no place to stand that is not also a tribe.
In his politics Erickson is already Mearsheimer’s kind of realist, anti-universalist, rooted in family and church and nation, suspicious of the crusade to remake the world by reason. In his faith he runs a universal crusade of his own and stakes everything on a truth he says binds all men. Mearsheimer salutes the first Erickson and guts the second, and the second Erickson answers that the knife cuts the hand that holds it. Neither one wins on the page. The man keeps the microphone, keeps the creed, and keeps believing he reasoned his way to a faith that, by his own account of the fall, he could never have reasoned his way into.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Erick Erickson Show
Phil Hendrie (b. 1952) is an American broadcaster who turned talk radio into live improvised theater. Most hosts in the form built careers on journalism, political argument, or celebrity interviews. Hendrie built his on performance. Across the 1990s and early 2000s he fused character comedy, audience participation, and social satire into a format no one had attempted at scale, and he ran it live, alone, voicing every part.
He was born in Arcadia, California, one of four children in an upper-middle-class Catholic family. His father came to Los Angeles in 1950 after serving in the Canadian Army during the Second World War and worked as a sales executive. Hendrie served as an altar boy at Holy Angels Church and spent his teenage years on Top 40 radio, which he later called his escape. He wanted the booth early.
He entered the business in 1973 and spent roughly fifteen years as a disc jockey on rock stations, spinning records through a run that ended in Miami in 1988. He worked at stations around the country as a young broadcaster, learning programming, pacing, and audience behavior. The grounding was practical. Music radio paid him, taught him the equipment, and left him restless for something his own.
The move to talk came at the end of the 1980s. Hendrie hosted talk on WIOD in Miami, WCCO in Minneapolis, and WSB in Atlanta. In 1989 he debuted as a weekend talk host on KFI in Los Angeles, and the station cancelled him. In August 1990 KVEN in Ventura offered him a job. That hire changed American radio, though no one knew it then.
In late September 1990, with the Gulf War breaking, Hendrie put an Iraqi character named Raj Fahneen on the air. Fahneen defended Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) and goaded American listeners. The phone lines lit with furious callers who took the guest for a real man. Hendrie saw what he had. The audience’s confusion produced a form of entertainment he could build on. He could construct whole situations, and he could draft the listeners into the performance without telling them.
From that came the format.
A Hendrie segment runs on a tight dramatic design. He introduces a guest and a provocative topic. The guest defends an absurd, selfish, or offensive position with total sincerity, and he stays calm while he does it. The comedy lives in the gap between the guest’s composure and the caller’s rage. Callers phone in to argue. The guest answers their fury with patient, confident logic, which enrages them further. The host, meanwhile, plays the reasonable man caught in the middle.
Listeners often did not grasp the trick. Hendrie voiced both roles himself.
Carrying host and guest at once took a real technical setup. Hendrie ran his character voices through a telephone hybrid that mimicked the sound of a phone caller, with the slight compression that made a guest sound apart from the host. Multiple microphones, handsets, and switches let him interrupt his own characters, argue with them, and suggest a studio full of people. The production held the illusion together. It kept listeners from hearing one performer where they thought they heard several.
The act asked for skills rarely housed in one host. Hendrie acted, improvised, screened and steered callers, engineered the board, and held character continuity, all live, all at once. Scripted comedy gives you retakes. His show gave him none. Each segment turned on his reaction to an unpredictable caller while he sustained both a character and a longer story.
He managed callers with care. He often sided with the angry listener against his own fictional guest. He validated the frustration, or he stoked it, and he kept the caller invested. He gave his recurring characters full backgrounds, phone numbers, businesses, and personal histories, so they seemed to share one coherent home world.
That world grew into a large cast. The characters linked into a social ecosystem of recognizable American types. Ted Bell, a wealthy restaurateur, chased status and exclusivity into absurd fights. Bobbie Dooley stood for affluent suburban activism and moral self-regard. Jay Santos, founder of the Citizens Auxiliary Police, embodied amateur authority and bureaucratic reach. Steve Bozell turned small slights into lawsuits. David Hall trimmed his opinions to dodge any conflict. Art Griego, an airline pilot, held passengers in open contempt. Margaret Gray offered odd takes on age and romance. Pastor William Renick paired religious certainty with strange readings of modern life.
Each figure carried a social meaning. Through them Hendrie worked over status anxiety, resentment, moral grandstanding, class aspiration, and self-decpetion. The show ran as a long satire of American manners.
His return to KFI in October 1996, now hosting daily, gave him a vast national talk audience. Syndication through Premiere Radio Networks followed in 1999. Political talk dominated the form then, organized around ideology and party. Hendrie offered something else. His show gathered no movement and served no coalition. It examined the emotional habits that drive public argument. He sat on the left in a field that ran right, a Democrat among conservative hosts, and that placement set his work apart from the programs around him.
Many of his characters study status behavior. Bell sought prestige through exclusivity. Dooley sought influence through moral leadership. Bozell converted embarrassment into legal claims. Santos sought authority through procedure. The laughs came from the distance between how each man saw himself and how the world saw him.
As the audience grew, Hendrie shifted the bond between performer and listener. The early years depended on the guests passing for real. In the syndicated years he began to reveal the method. He stepped out of character mid-segment, explained jokes, and discussed how he built the act. The show turned from a prank into a meta-comedy, and the audience came to enjoy the craft along with the fiction. He moved this way years before podcasters and streamers made it ordinary.
His flagship station moved him to KLAC in February 2005, an attempt to lift a sports station with entertainment programming. The syndicated run held at roughly a hundred affiliates. On April 27, 2006 he announced he would leave radio for acting, and his last terrestrial show aired June 23, 2006. He came back on June 25, 2007 through Talk Radio Network, airing nationally from ten at night to one in the morning, Pacific time. Soon after, he built a direct subscription and podcast operation and reached listeners without a station at all. He understood early that audio would leave the limits of broadcast.
His standing among comedians stayed high even as wide fame did not. A 2024 documentary, Hendrie, directed by Patrick Reynolds, traced his career, narrated by Hendrie and carried by admirers including Bill Hader (b. 1978), Apatow, Kevin Pollak (b. 1957), and Henry Rollins (b. 1961). In September 2024 the Radio Hall of Fame inducted him for his voice work and for a method that reworked the talk format.
Set in the history of American talk radio, Hendrie holds a branch of his own. Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021) showed the pull of political identity and audience as movement. Hendrie showed the pull of performance. He laid bare how outrage, certainty, and status hunger can be produced and amplified through a microphone, and he did it before online culture ran on the same forces. His lasting contribution is a broadcasting form: live interactive character satire built inside talk radio. Few performers remake the grammar of their medium. Hendrie did. His show stands as an original experiment in American audio.
Hero System
Phil Hendrie sits alone in the booth. A world map hangs on the wall. A bottle of Don Julio stands near a biography of Franklin Roosevelt and a bongo drum he keeps off the air. Two microphones face him, and a telephone handset runs to a hybrid that thins a voice down to the tin of a phone line. He leans to the studio mic and he is the host, calm, reasonable, a little tired. He lifts the handset and he is Ted Bell, who owns a steakhouse in Beverly Hills and offers, with the manners of a maître d’, to put his meat in your mouth. The host sighs. The guest preens. In a kitchen in Bakersfield a man sets down a glass and reaches for the phone.
The man calls to set Ted Bell straight. He waits through the break. When he gets on he is shaking. He tells Ted Bell that decent people do not talk that way, that he has a daughter, that this is what has gone wrong with the country. Ted Bell laughs at him. The host plays referee and lets the guest work the knife. The man hangs up worse than he called.
There is no Ted Bell. There never was. Hendrie does the host, the guest, and the laugh, switching from studio mic to handset, dropping a sound bed of a busy dining room behind the voice on the line. The first one came in 1990, an Iraqi named Raj Fahneen who defended Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) while the Gulf War ran on the news. The patriots called in to fight him. Hendrie saw what he had. For sixteen years he built a cast and ran it live and alone: Steve Bosell, the contractor who sues over hurt feelings and cries while he does it; Bobbie Dooley, who rules a homeowners association and corrects the morals of the county; Jay Santos of the Citizens Auxiliary Police; a teacher named Dean Wheeler who explains that a knife and fork in a Chinese restaurant is racism. The guests said the unsayable. The callers came to defend the world from them. One night a girl phoned to argue with a guest who told her to scrub her face with Clearasil pads, and she snapped back, “I use tampons,” and the guest howled, and the bit wrote itself. The guests were the bait. The callers were the show.
Here is the value I want to follow, and the company that follows it: sincerity, and the men in every corner of life who hold it sacred and mean a different thing by it. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) argued in The Denial of Death that a culture hands each man a way to feel that his life counts against death. The hero system names what a hero does and names the blasphemy that threatens him. When a man defends his sacred value he defends his small portion of permanence. Outrage is the alarm that sounds when something touches the project that makes him feel he will not have lived for nothing. Hendrie built a machine for tripping that alarm. The caller from Bakersfield does not phone to win a debate. He phones to stand watch over the thing that makes him a good man in his own account of himself.
The caller believes he speaks for reality. He speaks for one hero system among many. He does a voice as surely as Bobbie Dooley does a voice. Hendrie is the single man on the line who knows that everyone is doing a voice. That is the joke, and under the joke sits the knowledge that the sacred is local and the man who holds it cannot see the edges of it.
The caller trusts sincerity. He arrives at the phone with one test and one shield, and they are the same: he assumes that a man who says a thing on the radio means it, and that meaning it makes him answerable for it. Hendrie lives in the gap between saying and meaning. To him sincerity is the rube’s tell, the soft place where the bait goes in. He spent a career proving that a sincere man can be steered anywhere by a fictional one.
Sincerity is not one thing. Carry the word from room to room and it changes in the hand.
In professional wrestling, sincerity means staying in the work. The terms of the trade run on this. A worker performs the match. A mark believes it. A smart mark, a smark, knows the match is staged and loves the worker more for never admitting it. The wrestler who breaks the act to tell the mark it is fake has betrayed the room. Realness here lives in the refusal to confess the fake. Hendrie’s audience split along this exact seam. The mark called in furious. The smark grinned and turned up the volume.
In the Method, sincerity means private feeling summoned on cue. Konstantin Stanislavski (1863-1938) and after him Lee Strasberg (1901-1982) taught the actor to reach the house by feeling the grief for real, weeping true tears over a written sorrow. The sincere actor is the one who can manufacture the inner state to order. Hendrie does this at the speed of talk, for a dozen strangers at once, with no script and no second take.
For the salesman, sincerity is a working state, switched on at the door and off at the curb. Hendrie’s father sold for a living. The good salesman believes in the product while the product is in the room. The close depends on the customer reading that belief as the man’s whole soul rather than his trade.
In the confessional, sincerity is a condition of grace. The boy who served at the altar of Holy Angels learns that a confession takes only if the penitent means the sorrow and means to amend. Rehearsed contrition earns nothing. The priest cannot grant what the heart withholds. Here the test runs upward, to God, who reads the difference between the said and the meant.
For the Pentecostal, sincerity is possession. You cannot fake the Spirit. The tongues come or they do not. The body gets taken, and the taking is the proof, because no man authors it himself.
For the diplomat, sincerity is a fault. The frank cable starts the war. The useful fiction keeps the peace. The skilled envoy says the warm false thing and both capitals sleep that night. Candor is for amateurs and for men who do not have to live with the result.
For the poker player, sincerity loses the hand. The face must lie. The tell is the leak of the true thing, and the true thing is what ruins you. A man at the table who shows what he feels has handed his money to the room.
For the confidence man, sincerity is the lever. The mark trusts the warmest voice. The man who seems most heartfelt takes the most money. This loops back to the booth, because Hendrie’s warmest characters are his most dangerous, and the host’s reasonable tone is the safest disguise on the air.
One word, eight altars. The wrestler’s sincerity would damn the priest, and the priest’s would baffle the diplomat, and the diplomat’s would scandalize the Pentecostal, and the poker player’s would get the salesman fired. Each man holds his meaning as the meaning. Each treats the other seven as liars or fools. This is Becker’s argument turned audible. The caller screaming at Ted Bell defends a local sense of a sacred word and mistakes it for the floor of the world.
The show has a victim by design, and an honest reading says so. Becker held that men buy their worth by finding someone beneath them. Hendrie sold his in-crowd a clean and repeatable way to feel superior, and a stranger paid the bill, a man who only wanted to defend decency and got spent for sport. Hendrie knew this. He described the show as a study of the talk radio listener’s ignorance. The honesty in that is also a hardness, and the laugh has a cruelty in it that the smark prefers not to examine while he laughs.
Set Hendrie inside his own hero system and the shape of him comes clear. He served no movement. A liberal among conservative hosts, he handed his audience no tribe and no enemy to march against. The other men in the format sold immortality projects: the cause, the side, the war on the other side. Hendrie sold the picture of the project being built. That is why he drew fans and never a following. A following needs a sacred value held straight. He held them all up to the light at once.
His heroism, in the terms of his own system, is the man who sees the gag when no one else in the room can and sustains it alone, live, with no net, every part lodged in his own throat. He is the one who knows that everyone on the line is doing a voice. Knowing it does not warm a man. The light goes off and the world he conjured goes with it, and he is one man with a map on the wall and a bottle on the desk.
He turned the booth into a confessional run backward. The strangers bring their sacred values and shout them down the phone. He hears every confession and grants no absolution. He gives them the broadcast instead, and keeps for himself the one thing the callers never get, which is the knowledge that the meat in your mouth and the country going to hell and the daughter you are protecting are real to you and built by you, and that the man laughing at you over the phone line is the same man asking, in his reasonable voice, whether you would like to hold for the break.
The Set
Garry Shandling (1949-2016) calls the show to complain about Bobbie Dooley. She has told the audience that he is hosting a charity event for her, and he wants the record set straight. He plays it dead straight. He calls in, in the credits of the documentary, to dispute Bobbie Dooley’s claim that he is hosting a charity event for her. He knows there is no Bobbie Dooley, that the woman slandering him is Hendrie working a telephone handset, and he calls anyway, because to step inside the fiction and treat it as fact is the finest move a man can make in this company. The civilian calls to argue. Shandling calls to play. The distance between those two calls maps the whole social world around Phil Hendrie.
That world has three rings. The inner ring is the comedy trade. The middle ring is the devoted fan. The outer ring is the prey, the caller who does not know, and behind him the mass audience of political talk that the whole set holds in contempt.
The foils sit across the dial. Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021) and Howard Stern (b. 1954) built the format Hendrie walked into and turned against. The crosstown man Tom Leykis feuded with him and accused him of scripting his callers, a charge the insiders waved off, since the callers were plainly too dim to write. Art Bell (1945-2018) ran the paranormal overnight show Hendrie loved and lampooned. The earnest KFI host John Ziegler drew the attention of David Foster Wallace (1962-2008) in Consider the Lobster (2005), and Wallace described Hendrie’s method as a cruel meta-comedy, Candid Camera rebuilt so the gag convinces a man that someone he loves has died.
What the set values, above everything, is knowing. The supreme good is to be in on it. A man earns his place by hearing the gag and never falling for it, and the fan’s whole identity rests on having crossed from mark to smark, from the one who is fooled to the one who watches the fooling and laughs. Hendrie supplied the creed himself: people who do not listen to talk radio are dumb, people who listen are smart, and people who listen and call in are the dumbest of all. The set adopted that ranking whole. It orders the moral universe by perception. Credulity is the cardinal sin. Detachment is the cardinal virtue.
The second value is craft, held almost as worship. The professionals prize a thing that cannot be faked and cannot be repeated: one man, live, no script, every voice in his own throat, holding the host and the guest and the board and the caller at once, with no retake. They do not admire a position. They admire a nerve and a skill. Oldman and Pollak and Hader make their living inside performance, and they bow to the performer who runs the room alone.
The third value is the cult, the smallness of the thing. For decades the fans felt like a secret club that wanted the world to notice what it had found. Obscurity works as currency here. If everyone got it, the holding loses worth. The pleasure of the bit includes the knowledge that the man drying glasses in Bakersfield will never hear it the way you hear it. So the set carries a permanent split feeling toward fame. It wants Hendrie canonized, and the Radio Hall of Fame named him in 2024, and the documentary went out to praise him, and each honor lifts the fan who backed him early while it thins the scarcity that made the backing feel like taste.
The hero system runs on those values. You rise by perception, by nerve, and by proximity to the act. The deepest insider can name the characters, date the bits, hear Hendrie a half second before he switches mics. The professional rises by doing voices of his own, by building a character with a full interior life and putting it on its feet. And the highest rung, the Shandling rung, belongs to the man invited to play inside the fiction, to call the show as a known quantity and keep a straight face while the host slanders him through a woman who does not exist. Status flows downhill as contempt. The smark stands above the mark. The fan stands above the normie. The craftsman stands above the political host, who owns one voice, his own, and one product, outrage rented to a side.
The status games follow from this. There is the connoisseur’s contest over who found him first, who kept the CDs, who can quote the oldest break, who listened in which market in which year. There is the proximity contest among the pros, settled by a seat in the documentary, a name-check, a call placed inside a bit. There is the recognition campaign, fans pushing for the Hall of Fame and the film, a campaign that raises the fan’s standing and quietly endangers the secret he prized. And there is the conversion boast, the man who admits he called in once, long ago, before he understood, and who now tells the story against himself as proof that he crossed over.
The normative claims sit close to the surface and the set states them without much shame. Listening is the sign of a working mind. Calling in to argue is the sign of a fool. Outrage summoned on cue is contemptible, and the man who supplies it has chosen his own humiliation. Moral seriousness without irony reads as stupidity. Loyalty belongs to the artist and scorn belongs to the medium, the commercial talk format that fed the country fear for ratings. Hendrie sat to the left, a Democrat among conservative hosts, but the set does not run on party. Its entry ticket is perception, so it crosses lines, and it scorns the earnest man wherever he lives, on the right with Limbaugh’s audience and on the left with the humorless.
The essentialist claims run underneath. The set holds that there are two kinds of people, the ones who get it and the ones who never will, and it treats the divide as fixed, close to a birthright. The mark is a mark by nature. The fan’s working picture of the caller is a delusional figure with too much free time, a type as stable as any of Hendrie’s characters. The set reads the rube the way Hendrie writes him, as a kind rather than a man having a bad afternoon. And it holds the talent to be one of a kind, a thing that cannot be taught or passed on, only marveled at. The promotional line that the method has not been attempted before or since travels through every notice of the show, and the professionals repeat it, because a gift that no one can copy raises the value of the men who recognized it.
The moral grammar ties the rest together. Praise attaches to nerve, perception, and craft. Blame attaches to credulity and to earnestness. A thing is judged funny or unfunny, seen-coming or missed, and almost never right or wrong by the lights of a cause. The grammar licenses cruelty through one move: because the caller chose to dial, his humiliation counts as self-inflicted, and the prank victim turns into a volunteer. That move is the seam Wallace pressed on, the place where the outside eye sees a man wounded for sport and the inside eye sees a fool who walked into it. Membership comes by knowing, not by believing. You do not join the set by agreeing with anyone. You join by understanding the joke.
The set prides itself on being unfooled and unjoined, a gathering of men too sharp for tribes and too cool for causes. It is a tribe. It has an inside and an outside, a shared contempt, sacred objects in the bits and the breaks, a conversion story, and a creed it can recite. The fans who laugh hardest at the caller defending decency are defending a sacred thing of their own, which is the standing of the man who cannot be fooled. And the documentary, with its row of famous faces praising a genius and ranking themselves by their nearness to him, is the exact ceremony Hendrie spent sixteen years taking apart. He built a room to expose the performance of conviction. The room filled with people performing their good taste, and they called it love, and in a way it was.
The Voice
Hendrie spent fifteen years spinning records before he moderated anything, and the disc jockey trained the instrument. He has a warm, mid-range Southern California radio voice, smooth at the bottom, a little nasal up top, sat close to the microphone so it arrives in your kitchen as a man at your elbow. As a talk host he slows it down, lowers it, and lays patience over it. The host sounds reasonable. The host sounds like the one adult in the room. That reasonableness is the bait, because a calm man lends his calm to whatever he introduces, and when he says, in that even tone, that his guest owns a steakhouse and would like to put his meat in your mouth, the evenness carries the premise into plausibility.
Then the switch. He drops the open studio sound, lifts a telephone handset wired to a hybrid, and the voice changes twice over. It changes in character, in pitch and placement and tempo, and it changes in signal, thinned and narrowed and a little compressed, the sound of a phone line. The ear gets two cues at once that a second man has entered, the personality and the acoustics, and the brain accepts the second man. He makes the change in a fraction of a second, and he can do the hardest version of it, talking over himself, host and guest stepping on each other’s lines, which is the part other performers cannot account for, since it asks him to hold two vocal setups and two trains of thought and flip between them faster than a listener can find the seam. He lays a room behind the guest, a busy restaurant, a bowling alley, so the invented caller has a place to be.
The voices are written as much as performed. Each character carries a vocabulary and a syntax that do the work before the timbre arrives. Ted Bell talks in the register of money and contempt. Bobbie Dooley talks in the language of the committee, the bylaw, the standard of decency she upholds on behalf of the association. Steve Bosell talks in the aggrieved man’s lexicon of lawsuits and hurt feelings, blustering in run-on sentences until he drops to a wronged-party whimper. Jay Santos of the Citizens Auxiliary Police talks in the flat bureaucratic deadpan of a man who has given himself a uniform. Bud Dickman squeaks. Hendrie hears class and trade and self-image in speech and reproduces them, so the characterization rides on word choice and rhythm, not on funny noises.
The host’s rhetoric is fairness turned into a weapon. He keeps the grammar of the responsible moderator running the whole time. He gives the guest a chance to respond. He restates the indefensible position in measured words, as if clarifying it for the room. He tells the angry caller that he hears him, that he understands, that we should be fair to our guest. The civility holds the caller inside a frame of reasonable debate while the guest goads him past reason, and the host never once breaks the frame. His steadiness is the rule against which the caller’s collapse reads as collapse. The contrast is the comedy. The straighter the man in the chair, the funnier the man on the phone coming apart.
He works the small sounds. The patient sigh. The dry, low chuckle. The okay, okay that plays as restraint and functions as a prod. A held pause that lets a caller say more than he should. These are a host’s tics, and he turns each one into a goad.
A segment runs like a one-act play and he paces it like one. He sets the premise. The guest states the obscene position, the host offers mild resistance, the guest doubles down. The caller comes in hot. The volley starts, guest against caller, host refereeing, and the line tightens until the caller peaks, and then a break or a fresh caller resets the clock. He builds tension and releases it live, with no script and no retake.
That is the rarest thing in the manner. He improvises inside a fixed character against a real stranger. He cannot know what the caller will say, so the guest answers the caller’s actual words, in character, at the speed of talk. A girl tells a guest she uses tampons and the guest howls in horror, and the reflex is the art, a written personality reacting in truth to an unwritten line. The act rests on listening. He catches the caller’s exact phrasing and hands it back bent. Most of his manner is attention.
Under all of it sits one gift. Hendrie reproduces the speech of the self-justifying American with such accuracy that his inventions sound truer than the real guests on real shows. He has the cadence of the man who has been caught and will not back down, the defensive rhythm, the pivot to grievance, the small pomposities people reach for when they defend the indefensible. Mel Blanc (1908-1989) voiced cartoons to a script. Hendrie voices arguments to live opponents who believe the argument is real. He mimics a manner, the American habit of dressing appetite and resentment in the language of principle, and he plays every part of it in his own throat while a stranger on the line supplies the principle in earnest.
The voice you trust and the voice you hate are the same set of cords. That is the show.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on The Phil Hendrie Show
As a talk radio programmer, Robin Bertolucci hires the hosts, shapes the format, sets the editorial line, manages the talent through their better and worse days, and absorbs the controversies the audience never sees. For more than two decades that chair at KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles belonged to her, and the station she ran held first place in its market across the whole of her tenure.
She came to radio through the side door. At Berkeley she took a rhetoric degree and stumbled into the campus station, KALX, treating it as a hobby rather than a career path. After graduation she interned at KQED, the public station, then talked her way into a desk-assistant job in the KGO newsroom in San Francisco. The intimacy of the medium caught her early: a voice in a car, a voice in a kitchen, a voice that arrives without a screen between speaker and listener. She moved up at KGO from producer to executive producer under Jack Swanson, who taught her much of what she carried forward, then took a programming post at KOA in Denver alongside Lee Larson. KGO and KOA were two of the properties that defined the modern news-talk format, built on strong personalities, live local coverage, breaking news, and listener participation rather than fixed ideology. The grammar she learned in those rooms shaped everything she did afterward.
She arrived at KFI in 2002, recruited as a replacement when the previous program director, David Hall, left for Premiere. KFI already won, but the ground under all of radio had begun to shift. Satellite, podcasting, streaming, social media, and the slow collapse of local news budgets threatened the old model. Bertolucci answered by deepening what the station already had rather than chasing the disruption. She pushed KFI toward live and local programming, retiring syndicated hours and turning the station into a Southern California news and talk operation that ran on its own people. Traffic, weather, crime, public safety, city hall, the consumer grievances of a region that spends its life in the car—politics lived inside that mix without swallowing it.
Her reading of the audience set her apart from the national trend. Talk radio drifted toward ideological combat through the 2000s and 2010s. Bertolucci held a wider frame. She insisted KFI did not belong to the right, that its place in the format came from trust rather than from a party line. The Los Angeles commuter wanted company as much as argument. Hours in traffic create a hunger for a human voice that informs, entertains, and rides along. She built the station around hosts who could do all three at once.
The talent record carries the clearest mark of her judgment. She oversaw a lineup that included Bill Handel, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, the Gary and Shannon morning pairing, and Tim Conway Jr. Each ran a distinct register. Together they made a single station that listeners treated as a fixture of the region. Colleagues credited her with a method that gave hosts wide editorial freedom while she kept the larger identity intact. She coached more than she commanded. The arrangement held because the talent trusted that she would defend them and tell them the truth, and because she trusted them to carry the show.
That trust met its hardest test in 2012, after Kobylt and Chiampou made on-air remarks following the death of the singer Whitney Houston (1963–2012). Civil-rights groups, elected officials, and advertisers came down hard. Bertolucci suspended the two men. She refused to fire them. The episode laid bare the bind of the modern programmer, who must protect audience trust and corporate calm at once without throwing away a franchise built over years. She held both. In the years that followed the station widened its range of voices and opened more room for women and minority hosts while keeping the core audience it had earned.
Local journalism was the other commitment she would not surrender. As rival companies gutted their newsrooms, KFI kept reporters, field crews, and traffic specialists on the payroll, and ran one of the larger radio news operations in the western United States. The investment paid off in the moments that justify local broadcasting: wildfires, earthquakes, civil unrest. When the region needed continuous information, listeners turned to KFI, and the station answered. The pattern repeated often enough to refute the people who had written off local radio.
She read the digital shift early and without panic: podcasting, on-demand audio, social platforms, online video. She backed all of it before the rest of the industry treated it as routine, and she framed these platforms as extensions of the bond between host and listener rather than rivals to the broadcast. Her hosts built followings across several channels while the station kept its center.
KFI under her hand worked as a civic body and not merely a product. Its PastaThon raised millions for children and families across Southern California. Studio 640 brought students into journalism and broadcasting. These efforts grew from a conviction that a loyal audience places obligations on the people who hold its attention.
The recognition followed. KFI ran as a regular Marconi Award finalist across the News/Talk, Legendary, and Major Market station categories, and Barrett Media twice named her the top major-market program director in its rankings. She also programmed the conservative talker 1150 The Patriot, the KEIB signal, alongside her KFI duties. Through it all she kept a record few can claim: she spent her entire career at three call-letter stations, KGO, KOA, and KFI, and treated that narrowness as a point of pride rather than a limit.
The end came as a corporate decision rather than a personal one. In November 2024 Bertolucci and her husband Don Martin, who ran programming for iHeartMedia Sports and KLAC, left the company on the same day, swept up in a national round of cost-cutting that hit even its most successful operators. She had programmed KFI since 2002 and worked for the company through its years as Clear Channel and then iHeartMedia, close to a quarter century. By the time she walked out the station had outlasted the satellite scare, the podcast boom, the recession, and the political churn, and it remained one of the region’s recognized media names.
Her significance runs past any single ratings book. A local institution survives when it earns trust, guards its connection to a place, and changes its tools without losing its purpose. Bertolucci built such an institution and held it together for twenty-two years from a chair the audience never sees. In the history of American talk radio she stands as a study of the programmer as builder, measured not by her own fame but by the staying power of the thing she made.
She wanted smart talk hosts who could analyze, entertain, explain, and make a subject fun, all at once. Larger-than-life voices that a listener trusts to bring the latest and the best. When Ryan Hedrick asked her why John and Ken lasted decades, she pointed to their chemistry and their instinct for the issues Southern Californians care about, plus a near-constant ability to read the audience right.
Trust carries more weight than ideology. She held that KFI’s place in the format came from reliability rather than from a party line. The station could run edgy and irreverent, but not provocative for its own sake. The promise on the air, more stimulating talk radio, meant smart, energetic, and honest rather than loud.
Then the part of the recipe that lives behind the microphone: coaching. She used her own analogy for it. The host flies the plane and she does not know how to fly. She works as the air traffic controller, the professional listener, the one with a different vantage point. Everyone benefits from that outside ear, not because the programmer is smarter but because she hears the show the way a stranger in a car hears it.
The coaching runs on honesty. She framed brutal honesty as the highest respect she could pay her talent. When she calls something great it has to be great, and when it falls short she has to say so. Complete support and hard truth at the same time. That deal lets a host take risks, because he knows the feedback is real.
Under all of it sits listening. The trade press summed up her method as winning by listening, and she fed her judgment by taking in far more than radio. She also kept a working sense of quality she could not fully define, what she called greatness, the thing she knows when she hears it.
Robin Bertolucci and the Company Against Silence
A man drives home alone at six on the 405. The brake lights run ahead of him for miles. He left an office where he is one of forty, and he drives toward a home where someone may or may not be waiting, and in the hour between the two he belongs to no one. He turns on the radio. A voice comes into the car. The voice tells him the wreck sits at the 10 interchange, that the heat breaks Thursday, that the council did something he should resent, and the voice stays with him until he pulls into the driveway. For that hour he is not alone. He is a citizen of Southern California, and the station has told him so.
Ernest Becker (1924–1974) spent his last books on one claim. A man knows he will die, and he cannot live inside that knowledge, so he builds a symbolic order that lets him feel he counts. Becker called the order a hero system. The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil describe how a culture hands each man a script for significance, a way to earn a place in something larger and longer-lived than the body. The terror underneath is the terror of the void, of mattering to no one, of vanishing without a mark. The hero system answers it. Different cultures write different scripts, and a value that reads as holy in one script reads as nothing, or as sin, in another.
Robin Bertolucci ran a hero system from a chair the audience never saw. For twenty-two years she programmed KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles, and across that whole tenure the station held first place in its market. She hired the hosts and set the editorial line and absorbed the controversies the listeners never learned about. She came to it sideways. She took a rhetoric degree at Berkeley and wandered into the campus station, KALX, as a hobby. She interned at KQED, then talked her way into the KGO newsroom in San Francisco, where she rose under Jack Swanson from producer to executive producer. She went to KOA in Denver, then to KFI in 2002 as a replacement when the previous programmer left for the networks. She married Don Martin, who programmed sports for the same company. Her son started preschool the year she arrived and turned twenty-seven the year she left.
Her hero system is the system of the invisible steward, and it has its own answer to the void. The host earns fame. The programmer earns the survival of the thing. She compared the hosts to pilots flying the plane and called herself the air traffic controller, the professional listener, the one whose perspective differs because she sits where the audience sits. The pilot is seen. The controller keeps the sky from killing the pilot and is never thanked by name. Becker would notice the trade at once. She poured a finite life into an object that would never carry her signature, and she meant to. The immortality project here is the institution. KFI outlasts the woman who ran it, and in her system that outcome is the success, not the loss.
Her sacred word is local.
Inside her hero system local names the real. The local is the freeway and the weather and the crime blotter and the consumer grievance of a region that lives in the car. It is the wildfire her reporter flies to cover because Southern California families have ties to Maui. It is the thing that binds strangers into a people who share a commute and a heat wave and a council vote. She pushed the station toward live and local programming, retired the syndicated hours, and turned a national-sounding talker into the voice of one place. She kept reporters and field crews and traffic specialists on the payroll while rival companies gutted their newsrooms. When the industry drifted toward ideological combat through the 2000s and 2010s, she held that KFI was not conservative talk, whatever Rush Limbaugh (1951–2021) led outsiders to assume. The genre was the place. Politics lived inside the mix and never swallowed it. For her, to serve the local is to do the work that counts, and a station that could only work in one city, and would die anywhere else, is the highest thing she could build.
The word does not hold still when it crosses into another man’s system.
A Benedictine monk takes the vow the Rule of Saint Benedict (c. 480 – c. 547) calls stability. He promises to stay in one house until they bury him there. For him the local is the road to God. To want another monastery is to want another self, which is the temptation he has renounced. He stays in his place the way she stayed in her chair, and he would recognize her constancy, but his local points past the city to eternity, and hers points at the city and stops there. Same fidelity to one ground. Different reason, and a different thing waiting at the end of it.
A founder in a glass office south of Market holds the opposite creed. For him the local is what fails to scale. It is the family hardware store, the taxi medallion, the regional paper, the un-networked friction his money exists to dissolve. Salvation for him is growth without a ceiling, a product that works the same in Lagos and Lima and needs no city to love it. Her proudest claim, that KFI would only work in Southern California, is to him a confession of smallness. He hears local and thinks of the thing he came to replace. She hears it and thinks of the only thing worth making.
A career officer in the foreign service carries no such attachment. He rotates every few years and learns to hold a posting loosely. For him the local is the assignment, the staff he hires and leaves, the apartment he furnishes and abandons. Home is the flag and the service, an abstraction he can carry through customs. He would find her rootedness a kind of failure of nerve, a refusal of the wider world. She would find his rootlessness a refusal to belong to anyone.
An exiled poet keeps the word like a relic. His local is a street he cannot walk again, a country sealed behind a border he crossed once and for the last time. The place is holy to him because he lost it, and memory is the only nation left to him. Hers is holy because she can drive into it every morning and keep it alive on the air. He guards a local that no longer exists. She tends one that does, and the difference runs deeper than mood. His grief and her stewardship grow from the same root, the human need to belong to a ground, and the same word splits into mourning and labor depending on whether you can still go home.
Her second sacred word is voice, and she spent her career giving it away.
The radio is the most intimate of the broadcast forms because nothing stands between the speaker and the ear. A voice arrives in the kitchen and the car with no screen, no face, no distance. She traded in that intimacy, and she kept her own voice off the air. The host speaks. The programmer arranges the conditions under which speaking works, and then steps back into the dark. She made men heard and stayed silent, and she counted that as the job done well.
Voice means something else to the men who trade in it differently. A ghostwriter counterfeits another man’s voice for a fee and watches the name on the cover take the credit. He suppresses himself as she did, but he resents it, or he tells himself a private story about the craft, and the suppression eats at him. A vocal coach hears voice as the body’s instrument, one cold or one bad surgery from ruin, a gift held on loan from the throat. A courtroom advocate raises his voice for the man who cannot speak for himself and calls that the whole dignity of the trade. A revival preacher believes the voice is not his at all, that the Spirit speaks through the body, and that to perform well is to disappear so the word can come through clean. The preacher and the programmer share more than either would guess. Both build a channel and then vanish into it. The preacher vanishes so God comes through. She vanished so the city could hear itself.
Every hero system gets tested at the seam where two sacred things collide. Hers was tested in 2012, after John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou made remarks on air following the death of Whitney Houston (1963–2012). Civil-rights groups and elected officials and advertisers came down hard. She suspended the two men and refused to fire them. The station issued a memorandum to the community and put the hosts and management through sensitivity training and promised to widen the range of voices on the air. She had to protect the trust of the audience and the calm of the corporation at once, and she had to keep a franchise built across years, and these did not point the same way. She held all of them. Becker would read the resolution as a map of what she ranked highest. She would not throw away the men, who were the talent. She would not throw away the audience, who were the place. She bent the system enough to survive the collision and kept its center intact, which is what a steward does when the sacred values quarrel.
In November 2024 she and Don Martin left the company on the same day, swept up in a national round of cost-cutting that reached even its strongest operators. She had worked there through its years as Clear Channel and then iHeartMedia, close to a quarter century. She said the timing was right and that she was at peace.
The peace makes sense inside her system and looks strange from outside it. She gave her working life to a thing that would never bear her name, and the company that owned the thing let her go to trim five percent of a payroll. A man whose hero system runs on personal fame would read that as betrayal, proof that the invisible steward is a sucker who builds monuments for other men to own and discard. She does not read it that way. The station still stands. It outlasted the satellite scare and the podcast boom and the recession and the political churn, and it remained the voice of its region, and she made it so and then walked out of the chair the audience never saw. In her system the survival of the work is the immortality, and the anonymity is not the price of the heroism. The anonymity is the heroism. She kept a region company against the silence for twenty-two years, and the region never had to know her name to feel less alone on the drive home. That was the whole of what she set out to do, and she did it, and a man who needs his name in lights will never understand why she calls that enough.
Posted inKFI, Radio|Comments Off on KFI Talk Radio Programmer Robin Bertolucci
David G. Hall mainly worked behind the microphone rather than in front of it. As a reporter, news director, program director, syndication executive, and talent coach, he helped move talk radio from a narrow public-affairs format toward a mass-market medium that fused journalism with entertainment, personality, audience participation, and emotional appeal. The principles he advanced at a single Los Angeles station spread across the industry and became the working assumptions of the format. To study Hall is to study how a structural innovator shapes a medium more than the famous voices he develops.
Hall grew up in Sacramento, California, and found radio early. He took an internship at a local station while still in junior high and learned the craft from the ground. He worked in production, ran the board, reported, and broadcast on air before he moved into newsroom management. The breadth mattered. A programmer who has done every job in a station understands the trade-offs that an executive trained only in sales or management cannot see. By the 1980s Hall had become a reporter and then news director at KFBK in Sacramento, one of Northern California’s strongest talk outlets.
His years at KFBK placed him at the source of a national shift. There he worked alongside a young Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021), then a Sacramento host developing the personalized, confrontational style that later carried him to a national audience. Hall watched a single performer turn political commentary into compelling popular entertainment. He drew lessons from the experience that shaped the rest of his career: a host succeeds through audience identification, emotional pull, and a distinct point of view that the market rewards. Hall never became a commentator. He became something rarer, the man who understood why commentary works and who could teach others to make it work.
In 1989 Hall moved to Los Angeles as news director at KFI. Two years later the station promoted him to program director. KFI was then a weak property living in the shadow of KABC, the longtime market leader. Few expected a reversal. Over the next decade Hall engineered one of the great turnarounds in American radio. KFI climbed from the lower ratings to become the most listened-to station in Southern California. His station displaced a dominant rival, and the manner of the win advertised a method other programmers could copy.
That method rested on a clear theory of the listener. Traditional talk radio often resembled a recorded public meeting, hosts discussing politics and policy in measured tones. Hall rejected the premise that listeners tuned in mainly for information. He argued that they came for connection, emotion, conflict, humor, and story. Successful talk radio, in his account, had to entertain first while staying informative. He refused the old split between journalism and entertainment and treated the two as partners. The position sounds modest now because Hall and a handful of peers won the argument. At the time it cut against the self-image of the format.
The theory governed his approach to talent. Hall earned a reputation across the industry for intensive coaching. He pressed hosts to find the emotional center of a story, to sharpen a point of view, to cut needless exposition, and to choose topics that touched listeners in their own homes and jobs. He held that audiences respond hardest when an issue arrives through lived experience. The result was a conversational, personality-driven style that pulled in listeners who had ignored talk radio before. KFI under Hall drew younger audiences and women, two groups the format had long failed to reach. Hall measured good programming by the relationship it built between host and audience over time. That emphasis on identification became a defining trait of the modern format.
Hall’s choices lifted a generation of broadcasters. During his tenure KFI became home to Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bill Handel, the afternoon team of John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, and Phil Hendrie. Hall took chances on unconventional talent and untested formats. He backed hosts whose approaches looked risky when they carried a strong individual voice. His handling of Phil Hendrie shows the pattern. Hendrie built a program around fictional characters he voiced himself, baiting callers into arguing with people who did not exist. Nothing else on radio resembled it, and it drew complaints. Hall recognized the originality and the audience appeal and protected the show. His support gave one of the format’s most inventive programs the room to grow.
Colleagues described Hall as an architect of a station’s character. He built a coherent institutional personality that ran across the whole broadcast day. The KFI slogan, “More Stimulating Talk Radio,” captured his view that radio should engage the mind and the emotions together. Under his hand the station held a consistent tone that bound very different hosts into a single recognizable brand. A listener could not always say why KFI sounded like KFI, yet the coherence was the product of deliberate design.
By the late 1990s Hall’s influence spread past Los Angeles as executives in other markets studied KFI and borrowed from its strategy. Hall helped prove that talk radio could compete with music formats for large mainstream audiences. That competitive reach changed the economics of the format and the ambitions of the men who ran it.
In 2002 Hall left KFI to become Senior Vice President of Programming at Premiere Radio Networks. The move carried him to a national platform, where he worked with major syndicated hosts and shaped programming across many markets. The following year he returned to Los Angeles as a programming executive for the all-news stations KNX and KFWB. The choice reflected a commitment that ran through his whole career. However closely his name attached to talk radio, Hall always located his foundation in reporting and newsroom work.
In 2008 he joined KABC, the station whose dominance KFI had broken during the previous decade. There he worked to tie news gathering more closely to talk programming, the theme that had marked his work from the start. Hall denied that journalism and personality broadcasting were separate trades. He held that each strengthened the other when a station did both well. The argument unified a career that might otherwise look like a series of moves between rival camps.
In his later years Hall became an international media consultant. He advised broadcasters across many countries, languages, and formats, and his work moved beyond traditional radio into podcasting, streaming, and other digital audio. His own account describes launching the first spoken-word network to challenge the BBC in the United Kingdom in 1994 and the first spoken-word network in Poland after the fall of communism, projects carried out across four continents and five languages in both music and spoken-word formats. Much of the consulting centered on talent, where his reputation ran strongest. Broadcasters sought him for audience engagement, storytelling, presentation, and program structure, the same skills he had taught at KFI.
Hall’s historical significance lies in his part in turning talk radio into a mass-market entertainment product. The judgment that follows divides his critics from his defenders. Critics argue that the emotionally charged, conflict-driven style that flourished under Hall and other influential programmers fed the rising polarization of American media. Defenders answer that Hall read audience preferences and built programming around political and cultural divisions that already existed rather than manufacturing them. The dispute might never resolve, since it turns on a hard question about whether media shapes a public or reflects one. Few on either side dispute his influence on the format.
Placed in the longer history of the medium, Hall belongs to a generation of programmers who reset the economics and the character of spoken-word broadcasting. His career shows the often-missed importance of the executives who never appear on air. Audiences fix their attention on the voice at the microphone. Hall’s success shows how talent development, institutional strategy, audience psychology, and format design exert an influence at least as deep on the final shape of the medium. Within the history of American broadcasting he holds a place like that of a film producer or a newspaper editor, rarely visible to the public, yet decisive in determining what the audience finally hears.
Hall’s recipe starts with one rule that reorders everything else. Entertain first. He threw out the old premise that people tune in for information. They come for connection, emotion, conflict, humor, and story, and a host who forgets that loses them no matter how much he knows. Information still matters. It rides inside the entertainment rather than sitting on top as a lecture.
Everything else follows from that rule. Make it about the listener. Frame every issue through the man’s own life, his commute, his paycheck, his kids, his block. A fight over abstract policy dies on the air. The same fight told through one person’s morning holds the room. Find the emotional core of a story, the point where it stops being data and starts being feeling, and open there. Cut the setup and get to the heat faster.
Take a side. Mushy neutrality bores. A listener can argue with a host who stands somewhere and tunes out a host who stands nowhere, so the voice needs a clear point of view. Pair that with the thing Hall coached hardest, which is the bond between host and audience. He measured good radio by the relationship built over years, not by the information moved in an hour. The listener should feel he knows the man in his ear.
On the talent side the recipe runs two ways at once. Coach hard and tell the host the truth, but protect what makes him distinct and refuse to sand off the strangeness that draws the crowd. Hall backed Phil Hendrie’s show of invented callers and fake guests when it looked too odd to last, because the oddity was the appeal. He took the gamble that a timid programmer skips.
Two larger moves frame the whole method. Build one identity across the broadcast day, a station character that binds very different hosts into a single recognizable sound. The KFI slogan “More Stimulating Talk Radio” named that character. And marry news and entertainment instead of treating them as rivals, since in Hall’s account each strengthens the other when the shop does both well. Run the recipe right and the audience widens past the old base. KFI under Hall pulled in younger listeners and women, the people traditional talk radio had never reached.
Hall was Phil Hendrie’s program director at KFI, and the relationship ran in two directions at once. Hall was the protector. He saw a show built on invented callers and fake guests, a format that drew complaints and resembled nothing else on the dial, and he gave it room to grow rather than killing it. A timid programmer kills that show in a ratings book or two. Hall let it run.
Hendrie repaid the protection by turning his boss into one of the show’s recurring characters. On the program, a fictional “David G. Hall,” director of programming, calls in and Hendrie voices him. The comic premise inverts the real chain of command. The fictional Hall is a meddling, ratings-mad executive who imposes ludicrous schemes on a powerless host, and Phil, the put-upon employee, caves every time.
The bits show the shape of the joke. In one, the fictional Hall decides to chase the Los Angeles Spanish-language market by dubbing every show into Spanish. Hendrie protests that he cannot speak Spanish, and Hall tells him the language is easy to fake, that he himself speaks perfect “mock-Spanic,” then has Phil play a Rush Limbaugh tape while Hall babbles nonsense underneath. When offended listeners call to lambaste him, Hall calmly says he is only serving the ever-changing radio business. In another, Hall forces Phil to do a “gay friendly” show. In another, Hall orders Phil to fill in for the absent afternoon hosts Karel and Andrew while listeners complain about their absence. The St. Patrick’s Day version still runs. Hall makes Phil drink green beer and sing “mick songs.”
The irony is the heart of it. The real Hall was the sophisticated programmer who shielded Hendrie’s strangeness from the demands of the demo. The fictional Hall is the philistine suit who embodies those demands, the executive who chases audiences with cynical, tone-deaf gimmicks and treats the host as a tool. Hendrie took the name of the man who saved his odd show and pinned it to the cartoon of everything that threatens an odd show. That is an affectionate attack, the kind a man only makes on a boss he trusts.
It also tells you what Hall was made of. A thin-skinned program director shuts down a bit that turns his own name into a running gag broadcast on his own station. Hall let it air for years. The willingness to be the joke is its own proof of the relationship, and the character outlived the working arrangement that produced it. Hendrie was still voicing program director David G. Hall in 2025, long after both men left KFI. The boss became a permanent resident of the fictional world his real protection made possible.
A man drives east on the 10 at six in the evening. The freeway does not move. He has the windows up and the air on and a voice in the car with him, close, the way a voice goes close when it comes through good speakers in a sealed space. The voice belongs to a man he has never met and will never meet. The voice talks about a thing that happened today, a thing the driver also saw, and the voice carries the same heat the driver carries, and for the length of a red light the driver is not alone on the 10. He turns it up. Tomorrow at six he turns it on again.
That driver is the center of the world David G. Hall built. Everything Hall did at KFI from 1989 to 2002 served that man in the car, that woman at the kitchen sink, that contractor in the truck. Hall never spoke to them on the air. He had no show. Most of them never heard his name. He worked the far side of the glass, in the building on Wilshire, with the ratings books and the airchecks and the clock on the wall.
He came to KFI in 1989 as news director and took the program director’s chair two years later. The station then lived in the shadow of KABC. Over the next decade he turned a weak property into the most listened-to station in Southern California, and the manner of the win taught a method that other programmers copied. He held that the old talk radio, the recorded public meeting, the measured discussion of policy, had the listener wrong. A man stuck in traffic does not want a seminar. He wants a person in the car with him who sounds like a person and not like a press release.
So the note Hall gives a young host runs to one place. Not explain the policy. Not lay out both sides. Find the cost. What did this thing do to you, to your block, to the man you talked to at the hardware store. He cuts the throat-clearing. He tells the host to drop the windup and start inside the feeling. He judges a show by one test. Did the relationship hold. The information the host moves counts for nothing if the driver does not come back.
Phil Hendrie (b. 1952) ran the strangest hour on the dial. He played his own guests. He voiced a fool, a bigot, a smug suburban couple, a doctor, and argued with all of them in his own calm voice while real callers, not in on the trick, phoned to scream at people who did not exist. Complaints came in. Hall kept the show. He saw that the trick was the craft and the craft pulled an audience, and he gave it room to grow.
Hold that picture. A program whose guests are inventions, whose realness the host conjures live, protected by the man whose whole trade is the manufacture of the real. The contradiction is the door.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote in The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil that every culture is an arrangement for earning the conviction that a man counts against death. The hero system hands out roles and rules, and a man who fills them well buys the feeling that he is not nothing, that he registers, that his life will leave a mark the grave cannot erase. Each culture issues a different recipe for that feeling. The hero earns his durability by binding himself to a thing that does not die.
Hall’s recipe for the listener: you are not alone, a man is speaking to you and to you, you have a side and your side is sound, come back tomorrow. The car turns into a small room where a stranger tells a man, every evening, that he shows up in the world. Radio reaches one person at a time even when a million listen at once. The format puts down, for an hour, the suspicion that a man could vanish and no one would mark the absence. That suspicion sits under all the other fears. Hall sold its opposite by the clock.
His own recipe ran a different way. He did not want the microphone. His monument was the station’s character, the sound a listener could not name and never mistook, the method his rivals studied and stole. “More Stimulating Talk Radio” stood for his belief that the dial should work the mind and the heart at once. He built a personality that ran across the whole broadcast day and outlasted the men who passed through it. Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bill Handel, the afternoon team of John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, Hendrie. They came and went and the station held its tone. The work is the building. He is the man absent from the photograph because he took it.
His sacred word is real. He chases the real, teaches the real, protects the real, and by real he means the thing that makes the man in the car feel that what he hears is true to his own life. Real, for Hall, is not what answers to the record. It is what produces identification. Hendrie’s invented guests pass the test, because the feeling they raise in a caller is real, and the feeling is the thing Hall sells.
Carry the word out of his system and it changes shape in the hand of everyone who holds it.
To a field seismologist the real is the signal that survives the instrument. He distrusts the felt thing. The ground that seems firm lies; the tremor no body can sense tells the truth. His training teaches him to discount what a man feels and trust what the machine records and a second machine can record again. Hand him Hall’s real and he hears fraud.
To a Carthusian in his cell the real is God, and the audience he plays to is an audience of One who needs no microphone. He spends his life shrinking the audience to nothing so the single Listener comes clear. The reach, the ratings, the loyalty of a city, these belong to the world he left at the gate. Hall’s real, for the monk, is the loud surface under which the real waits in silence.
To a war photographer the real is the unposed instant, the thing that dies the moment a subject performs for the lens. He stakes his name on never staging the frame. The arranged, heightened, lit scene is the lie he trains himself to refuse. Hall heightens for a living. He coaches the host to find the feeling and lean his weight on it. To the photographer that coaching kills the only thing worth keeping.
To a man at a poker table the real is the tell, the small thing the face leaks that the will cannot govern. He reads the involuntary and throws away the performed. Everything a man chooses to show is noise. Hall works in the chosen, the staged, the produced. Two men, one word, opposite meanings.
To a futures trader the real is the cleared price, the number that pays or does not pay at the close. The story a man tells himself about the market is the error a trader fades for profit. Hall sells the story. The trader strips it to the bone.
Each of these men is a hero inside his own system, and each earns his standing by a different test of the real, and each test holds only inside the system that issues it. The seismologist who trusts his feet is a bad seismologist. The host who puts a cleared price on the air and refuses the feeling empties the room. Hall did not stumble onto a wrong idea of the real. He found the one that works in a car at six in the evening, served it without apology, and the city paid him for it.
A strange thing runs under all of this. The man who sold the felt real called himself a newsman to the end. He arrived at KFI from the newsroom. After the talk years he went back to the all-news stations, KNX and KFWB, then to KABC, and the job he set himself there was to tie reporting to talk. He denied that the two trades stood apart. The architect of feeling-first radio kept his foundation in the work that tests a claim against the record. He held both reals at once and saw no seam.
There is a second half of Becker that the warm account leaves out. In Escape from Evil he wrote that men buy their own goodness with other men’s blood. A man earns the sense that he stands on the side of life by naming the thing that stands on the side of death and turning against it. The hero needs a villain. The drama of being right needs a body.
Talk radio runs on this. The format Hall refined hands the listener a daily enemy and a daily verdict. The conflict is not a flaw in the product. The conflict is the product at work. The man in the car wants company, and he wants to hear that he is right and that the people wrecking his city are wrong, and he wants it hot. Hall’s critics say the style he and other programmers built fed the country’s split into camps. His defenders say he read a division that already ran through the audience and gave it back in a voice they knew. The question under the fight is old and hard. Does a medium make a public or find one. The dispute might never close, because the evidence runs both ways and each side draws a reward for holding its ground.
This much sits outside the fight. The same hour that cures a man’s loneliness can feed his contempt, and the two run on one wire. The voice that tells the driver he is not alone tells him, in the next breath, who jammed the freeway and whom he may blame for it. Company and grievance arrive in one package because they sell as one. Hall understood the package and built the method that delivers it.
The driver gets home. He cuts the engine in the garage and the voice stops and the quiet comes in. He sits a moment. Tomorrow at six he turns it on again. The relationship held. That is the only count Hall trusted. He spent thirty years making sure a stranger came back to a voice, and he did it from the far side of the glass, and most of the people he served never learned his name, which is the shape his own heroism took. The host earns the love. The architect earns the building. Hall built the room a lonely man enters to be told he counts, and he charged rent on the oldest fear there is.
The Set
The number comes once a quarter and rearranges the room. A programmer opens the ratings book before the coffee cools. Inside sits the one verdict the trade respects without argument, the share, the rank, the count of who listened and for how long. The hosts go on the air and take the applause and the hate mail. The programmer reads the book in an office the audience never sees and decides who keeps the chair.
That office holds the center of this world. David Hall sat in it at KFI through the 1990s. Robin Bertolucci took it from him in 2002, when he left for the national job at Premiere, and she held it for twenty-two years, until a round of corporate cost-cutting ended her run in November 2024 on the same day it ended her husband, Don Martin, who programmed the sports station down the hall. She came up at KGO in San Francisco under Jack Swanson, then KOA in Denver under Lee Larson, then KFI. Three sets of call letters across a whole career. She treated the narrowness as a point of pride.
Above the programmers sits the money. Premiere Radio Networks, where Hall went in 2002, was built in 1987 by Steve Lehman and a small group that included Kraig Kitchin, who ran the company through its rise and now chairs the National Radio Hall of Fame. Premiere syndicated Limbaugh through EFM Media and Ed McLaughlin, the man who took the daytime national show nobody in the business thought would work. Norm Pattiz (1943-2019) had shown the way at Westwood One. Above Premiere sat Clear Channel, the roll-up that became iHeartMedia, built by Lowry Mays (1935-2022) and run later by Bob Pittman (b. 1953), the company whose cost-cutting cut down Bertolucci at the top of her market.
A trade press feeds the whole structure and keeps its scorecards. Talkers magazine, run by Michael Harrison, prints the Heavy Hundred and confers rank on hosts. Barrett Media ranks the program directors and twice named Bertolucci the top major-market programmer in the country. RadioInsight and Lance Venta track every hire and firing. Don Barrett’s LARadio.com keeps the city’s memory, who worked where and when, who died and how. The Marconi Awards, the Golden Mike Awards, the National Radio Hall of Fame hand out the plaques. A man earns a place in this world by the book, and the trade press tells him where he stands while he waits for the next book.
What do they value. They value the audience, and they mean a thing more intimate than a number. Bertolucci says the station competes with everything that takes a listener’s attention, with the phone, with a call to your mother, with silence. She measures a show by whether it holds a man through the break and brings him back tomorrow. Hall taught the same thing a generation earlier, the emotional center of a story, the cost a thing carries for the listener, the slogan stamped on the whole operation, More Stimulating Talk Radio. They value the live and the local. Bertolucci cut the syndicated shows over the years and made KFI a Southern California station that talks about Southern California, the traffic, the sheriff, the fires, the price of a house. She says her job is not conservative talk and not even politics, that politics is a small part of what the station does, that she wants smart people who can analyze and entertain and make a thing interesting. Kitchin, looking at the same world from the money side, says the cleanest measure is cash, that barter muddies the deal, that a host has to become a businessman and read twelve program directors at once.
Their hero system runs on building something that lasts and ranks, and the dead get enshrined. The living chase three things. They chase the legend tag, the heritage-station chair, the turnaround story other men study and copy. Hall’s turnaround of KFI is such a story, a weak property that displaced the market leader and held first place for a quarter century after him. A man who pulls that off enters the small group whose method gets taught. The National Radio Hall of Fame is the field’s church of the dead, and Kitchin holds the keys to it, which gives him a standing past any single ratings book. To reach the audience of millions through thousands of affiliates is to leave the minors and join the majors. To carry a heritage station for decades, as Bertolucci did, is to become the voice of a place. The man behind the glass earns his immortality through the talent he made and the ratings he held, not through a voice of his own. Hall built a station that sounded like itself long after he left it. That is the monument the programmer wants.
Their status games run on the book and the lineage. The book ranks everyone every quarter, and a programmer lives by the trend. The lineage ranks a man by whom he learned from and whom he raised. Bertolucci came up under Swanson at KGO and got the KFI chair from Hall, and she in turn coached a roomful of hosts and producers, and that chain is a form of capital. Longevity at one shop is honor, not a rut. Reach is currency, the affiliate count, the weekly millions, the obituary in Talkers that lists the markets a man conquered. The awards finalist nod is a coin too, and KFI under Bertolucci collected Golden Mikes for its newsroom and Marconi nominations for the station, because a talk shop that also funds reporters can claim a higher seat than one that only shouts. The move from local star to syndicated property is the great ascension, and it carries a risk the locals exploit, because the home talent in every new market aims at the outsider. Kitchin describes the syndicated host with fifteen plates spinning, selling himself to a dozen general managers at once.
Their normative claims start with the audience as sovereign. Serve the listener and the rest follows. The ratings are evidence and not scripture, Bertolucci says, because the book is always the past, and a programmer reads data and then trusts a feel the data cannot hold. Protect the talent through the bad days. When Kobylt and Chiampou drew civil-rights groups and advertisers down on the station after on-air remarks about the death of Whitney Houston (1963-2012), Bertolucci suspended the two men and refused to fire them, and she held both the audience’s trust and the franchise she had spent years building. Keep it local. Do not homogenize, do not paint by the national number, do not let the consultant flatten the sound until every city hears the same station. And never, on pain of death, be boring. Boring is the one sin the trade does not forgive. A host may offend, may err, may apologize, but a host who bores has no defense.
Their essentialist claims gather around a single word, talent. They speak of talent as a thing a man has or lacks, an ear, an instinct, a born quality the school cannot teach. They speak of chemistry between a duo as something that cannot be manufactured, and they explain John and Ken by it, the laser feel for what Southern California cares about today. They read the audience as a fixed thing with a nature a good programmer hears, the man in the truck, the woman at the sink, the 35-to-54 listener who wants the city explained to him by a person and not a press release. There sits a tension in their creed they do not resolve and do not need to. Bertolucci says everybody benefits from coaching, that her edge is only a different angle on the landscape, which treats greatness as made. The same room worships the born broadcaster, the natural, the man who walks to the microphone with a gift, which treats greatness as given. They hold both. The gift gets you the chair. The coaching keeps you in it.
Their moral grammar divides the world into the real and the phony. The highest praise a host can earn is that he sounds real, that a stranger in a car believes a person is talking to him and not reciting a line. Hendrie built his whole act on the seam between the two, inventing guests so vivid that real callers fought with men who did not exist, and Hall protected the act because the audience felt the thing was alive. The villains in this grammar are the bean-counter who cuts the newsroom from a spreadsheet far away, the consultant who sands every station down to the same surface, and the ideologue who serves the party instead of the listener and bores the room while he does it. Bertolucci says she wants free-thinking people and not political ideologues, and the line is a moral one in her mouth, not a tactical one. The saints are the host who tells the truth as he sees it and the programmer who shields him from the suits upstairs and the mob outside. Loyalty runs up and down that line. A programmer who protects his talent earns the talent’s loyalty, and the breach of that bond, the firing by memo, the cold corporate cut that took Bertolucci and Martin in a single afternoon, is the act the craft world reads as betrayal.
A last thing holds the whole set together and explains its grief in the iHeart years. These men believe the work is a calling and the audience a kind of congregation, and they built a hierarchy of honor on that belief, the book, the lineage, the hall, the heritage chair. Then a national company bought the lot and ran it from a balance sheet, and the cost-cut reached even the operators who won, and the verdict that ended careers came not from the book but from a memo. The trade press marked it as a wound. The men who measure themselves by the audience watched themselves measured by something else, and they did not have a word for it that did not sound like loss.
Luke: G’day, mate. Luke Ford here, and my guest today is media strategist David G. Hall. David, how did you get into radio?
David: I got into radio when I was twelve years old. My first job was as a call screener at a top 40 station in Sacramento, California, and I’ve been doing it ever since.
Luke: I moved to Sacramento in 1980. I worked in radio at the same time you did there. What was the top 40 station you started at?
David: No, not then. That was a few years before all that. In 1980 I was working at KWOD, Quad 106 in Sacramento, as a board op, and also at KXPR, the public station. Where were you when you worked there?
Luke: I started out at KAHI–KHYL, the Sacramento station. 101.1 and AM 950. I was at the Mighty 950. I did news reports. I was in high school until 1984, then I came back from a year in Australia and anchored the news on weekends for KHYL from May of 1985 until August of 1988.
David: That station is still going.
Luke: Talk to me about your progression through Sacramento radio.
David: I worked at some music stations, all off the air. I worked at a tiny little station in a cornfield in Davis, KL 105.5, which is really the first time I was on the air. TThen I moved to San Jose, worked at KEZR, and then KNRY in Monterey on Cannery Row, also music. KNRY is where I switched from being a DJ to being a news anchor. That’s when I started spoken word, and that was in 1983. Then I went back to KFBK in Sacramento as a news reporter and left there five years later as the assistant news director, and came down to KFI in Los Angeles.
David: I did. I was his news anchor. We had two desks butted up against each other. I was the news anchor on his show, and he was local in Sacramento.
Luke: When did you first start working with Rush?
David: I was the news anchor and he was the talk show host. It was October of 1984. He started maybe a month or two earlier, if I’m not mistaken.
Luke: How long did you work with him in Sacramento?
David: In 1988 he moved to New York and WABC and then went syndicated. So from 1984 to 1988.
Luke: What did you learn from working with Rush that shaped your career?
David: He always said he’s not a journalist, he’s a showman. And he was. So I learned a sense of show from Rush.
We had a funny moment once. When I was the news anchor on his show, some state politician had been arrested for drunk driving and spent the night in jail. In California, if you are arrested for drunk driving, it’s mandatory that you spend the night in jail. Everybody does. Rush was making a huge thing about this guy. It was so bad, he must have been so drunk, because he ended up in jail. During the break I said, everybody goes to jail if they’re arrested for DUI. And he said, “You think I don’t know that? This is a show. This isn’t the news. You do the news. I’m doing the show.”
That was a great lesson. And he’s right. There were a lot of moments like that, where just watching him do a show was educational.
Luke: How would you describe your relationship with him on air and off?
David: On air I was the pinko commie news anchor from the newsroom. That’s how he used to introduce me. Off air we got along quite well.
Luke: Did you give it back to him, or did you play it straight?
David: I played it straight. I was the news guy, so I had to play it straight.
Luke: When did you realize you could be good at directing a news and talk operation?
David: About that same time. It was kind of funny. I was mostly a reporter, even though I anchored the news on his show. I had my forty seconds for my report, and at some point I thought, I only get to control the forty seconds. The rest of it, I have no control over the quality of what we’re doing. So I took myself off the air and got into management, so I could have more say over the overall news style and sound and content.
Luke: What can you do in news? I moved here from Australia in 1977. I was eleven. I got a radio. I listened to KCBS and KNBR and KGO, and I was a big news fan. San Francisco had an all-news station. But when I worked in news, a sixty-second story was fairly long. What can be done to make a forty-five second or eighty-second news report more compelling?
David: Two things. It’s all in the writing and it’s all in the sound. If you have great sound, and if you’re a good writer, and it is very difficult to write creatively in forty-five seconds, but if you’re able to do it and you have good sound, that makes all the difference.
Luke: How did you get the job at KFI? Why do you think they hired you?
David: I was assistant news director at KFBK, and our program director at the time was a guy named George Oliva. I remember having a conversation with him once about why nobody was doing news and talk in Los Angeles. There was KABC, the huge talk station, and in fact it was the top billing station in the United States at that time and the number one station in audience in Los Angeles, and had been for a long time. Then there was KNX, the big all-news station, and KFWB, the little scrapper all-news station. But there wasn’t anybody doing both. I was talking to him one day and I said, somebody should try to do both. He said, yeah, that’s interesting. Then he went to KFI to be program director and called me a few months later and asked if I wanted to go there to be news director, and do pretty much what I had described to him in Sacramento. Put on a serious news department amid a bunch of talk shows, which just was not being done at that time in Los Angeles.
Luke: What kind of resources did you have?
David: They made quite an investment. It’s very different from today. At its peak I had about eighteen people in the news department at KFI. We had a couple of news cars and all the equipment we needed, and a good way to get reports back to the studio. This was right as cell phones were coming into being, so we didn’t really have the use of that yet. We needed two-way radio to get reports back to the station. We had a great staff. Writers and anchors and reporters, an Orange County bureau, a Washington bureau, and a stringer in Sacramento at the Capitol. We were a serious news operation.
Luke: How many minutes an hour did you get?
David: Four at the top and a minute and a half or two at the bottom. And no network. It wasn’t like a five-minute network feed and then we would come on. We had to do both national and local, which I always preferred.
Luke: I assume many of the people you were directing had worked in the medium much longer than you. So you were learning from them, and you were repeating certain things to those working for you and with you. Can you share some of those things?
David: I was really young. I think I was twenty-two when I got to KFI as news director. Virtually everybody in that newsroom had been in radio longer than I’d been alive, I think every single one of them, and a couple of them had been at that station longer than I’d been alive. That always presents its own challenge.
We brought other people from Sacramento. There were four of us that came down at the same time, including our big reporter from KFBK. That really helped. I was able to build my own team in the news department, because I had a very different vision from what they had been doing.
I should also say that when George Oliva got to KFI, he flipped the station from still playing some music to talk, and actually news talk. My first day working there was the last day an actual record was played on KFI. Then it was all spoken word starting the day I started. So it was about putting on a completely different kind of programming, and my mission was to put on a very different kind of news than had been done there or in the market before.
Luke: I came to UCLA in 1988. I was twenty-two. Did Terri-Rae Elmer come down to KFI with you?
David: Yes, he did. Terri Rae Elmer, her husband Gerry Wallace who did weather, Andy Friedman, and myself.
Luke: So July 17, 1989 was your first day. And that was the last day KFI played any music.
David: Yep.
Luke: I was there [in LA]. All of this has additional resonance for me. What were some of the things you found yourself telling other people in the news department repeatedly? What were you trying to communicate that required many repetitions or different ways of getting it across?
David: I wanted to focus on active reporting. I wanted reporters out in the field almost all the time, which in Los Angeles with the traffic is not an easy thing, but I was insistent on it. I wanted the sound of the news to be fast-paced and conversational. No battling blazes. No gubernatorial moves. No legislative whatevers. No deceased vehicle one, no suspect apprehended. None of that jargon the old news stations had at the time. Conversational, fast, and a lot of active reporting with a lot of sound.
Luke: Did they get it? Did you have to repeat yourself?
David: It took a while. Andy Friedman, the reporter who came with me from Sacramento, had already been doing it, because I had started that transition at KFBK before I moved. So he got it. Then slowly we built the team of people who really got it and knew what we were looking for. There wasn’t anybody doing that, certainly not in Los Angeles at that time and not much anywhere else in the country. So I couldn’t just hire people who were already doing it. I had to hire people who had the right kind of talent and ambition and then train them. Once we started to find those people, it went very well.
Luke: Were there any radio hosts who had a particular impact on you before you were eighteen? You started listening to radio very early.
David: I grew up listening to KFRC in San Francisco, which was one of the really big top 40 stations in the country. I was very influenced by the DJs and the news department at KFRC. If I had a sound in my head that I was trying to emulate, it was that KFRC sound, even though we weren’t playing records. It was that same feel I was going for.
Luke: That was the number one station with my friends in sixth, seventh, and eighth grade.
David: It was huge. And it was very, very good. Very well programmed.
Luke: How did you get into talk radio? You were the news director. How did your career progress at KFI?
David: I was news director for two years, and almost exactly to the day two years later George Oliva left to do other things and they were looking for a program director. I had no programming experience whatsoever. I had been news director there, and before that reporter, anchor, writer, and assistant news director at KFBK. But I applied for the job and got it, which is crazy, because it’s a big station in a big market. They probably could have hired anybody from anywhere. I guess they liked what I was doing in the news, and they liked what I said we could be doing or should be doing on the programming side. I got the job as program director in July of 1991.
In a bizarre sideshow to the international furor surrounding Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses,” KFI-AM (640) told morning talk show host Geoff Edwards not to report for work Monday, suspending him indefinitely in a feud over another KFI host’s reaction to the controversy.
Edwards’ 9 a.m.-noon talk show was hosted instead by Tom Leykis, the KFI afternoon host whose plans to burn the recordings of former rock star Cat Stevens sparked the turmoil at the station.
Leykis launched the campaign against Stevens last Thursday to protest the singer-songwriter’s professed support of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s order to kill Rushdie because of what the Iranian leader regarded as his novel’s insults to Islam.
On his show Friday, Edwards condemned Leykis for planning to burn artistic material and threatened to resign if a promotional spot for the record-burning was played during his show. He said he would not be “joining forces with those who want to burn anything.”
“If this radio station is supporting that . . . then I’m out of here. I don’t want to work here,” Edwards told his audience.
He also said that he believed that whatever Leykis did on his own show was “up to him,” but that the burning was “fascist.”
Station manager Howard Neal confirmed Monday that KFI programming director George Oliva had approved Leykis’ campaign but said the reason for Edwards’ suspension was that promoting one radio personality’s show during another’s is a long-standing practice that would not be changed to suit one staff member.
In the latest round of shake-ups at KFI-AM (640), a producer, newsman and associate producer who worked on radio personality Geoff Edwards’ morning show have been fired.
While the three said they were not given reasons for their terminations, a station publicist said Thursday that they were fired to make way for a syndicated talk program that will be airing in the morning slot. New York-based Rush Limbaugh, known for his conservative views and and combat-radio style tactics, will be featured as the host of the 9 a.m.-to-noon talk program, beginning today.
Completing its two-year transformation from pop music to all-talk, KFI-AM (640) has raided a Sacramento radio station to recruit a new morning talk team and a new news director in an effort to compete head-to-head with Los Angeles’ three current news/talk stations.
Terri-Rae Elmer and David Grosby, the agricultural reporter and sportscaster, respectively, at all-news/talk KFBK-AM in the state’s capital, will replace KFI morning veterans Gary Owens and Al Lohman in their 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday time slot beginning July 17.
KFBK’s news director, David Hall, will also switch to KFI at the same time, signaling a ratings strategy that will attempt to lure listeners from all-news KNX-AM (1070) and KFWB-AM (980) as well as KFI’s arch-rival talk station, KABC-AM (790), Southern California’s top-rated AM station. Hall will replace Dave Blake, who was fired with Owens and Lohman last week.
Elmer’s husband, KFBK weatherman Gerry Wallace, has also signed on with KFI, but will remain in Sacramento until he has sold the couple’s home and a photo finishing business they operate.
“Part of KFBK’s big mistake, I guess, was that they didn’t have any of us under contract,” Elmer, 32, told The Times on Monday. “We were free to come and go.”
KFI program director George Oliva, himself a KFBK graduate who moved to KFI at the beginning of this year, was not available Monday for comment on the latest moves. He did instruct KFI publicist Mike Venema to release the following statement:
“Having Grosby, Elmer and Hall on board at KFI reflects our commitment to increased credibility and competitiveness in the talk radio arena.”
Since KFI began phasing music out and phasing talk radio in two years ago, station management has attempted to increase credibility and competitiveness by adding to its lineup tabloid talk jock Tom Leykis, curmudgeonly talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and psychologist Toni Grant.
Despite the changes, the powerful (50,000 watts) station has continued to flounder in the quarterly Aribtron ratings. KFI has failed to climb into the ranks of the 20 most-listened-to stations despite frequent advertising campaigns and publicity stunts, such as Limbaugh’s plan to bus the homeless to Malibu and Leykis’ much-publicized destruction of several dozen Cat Stevens records earlier this year.
(Leykis railed against Stevens, now a Muslim, for his approval of the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence against novelist Salman Rushdie and urged listeners to send him old Stevens albums so that he could publicly destroy them.)
Owens and Lohman remain under contract to KFI, but don’t expect to return to the air following their final show on July 14. Lohman, currently on vacation near Palm Springs, will probably not return to the air at all.
“We were humorists and entertainment-oriented folks, so basically with the news format change, they (management) felt it was not cohesive with their new all-talk programming,” Owens said. “There will be no music on the station at all.”
Elmer said she was uncertain how the new morning program will operate, though she hopes to bring her agricultural expertise with her to KFI.
“I’m real big on poison cheese and poison watermelon issues,” she said with a laugh. “It’ll be interesting to watch the water issue from down there too.”
Grosby, who did play-by-play for the Sacramento Kings while at KFBK, has worked with Elmer as his afternoon sidekick at the station for the past six months.
Luke: How would you describe the ratings and the sound and the feel of KFI before your first day there?
David: It was middle of the road. They had started doing some talk shows. They did a game show. Tom Leykis was doing afternoons, so they had a loud, attention-getting, engaging talk show already in the afternoon, but they were still playing some music in the morning.
My very first day there is a good illustration. I went to the general manager’s office to meet him in the morning, and the door was closed. His assistant, sitting outside, said he was firing the morning show, because there was a middle-of-the-road morning show on and we were going to change to Terri Rae and Dave Grosby. So I waited, and when the door opened, out came Gary Owens, who is a huge legendary Los Angeles personality. I certainly knew who he was. He had done national television and all of that. He had just been fired as the morning host. He comes out and sees me, and I stand up, and he introduces himself, and I introduce myself, and I said, today’s my first day, I’m going to be the news director. He shook my hand and held it for a moment and said, “Well, welcome to Los Angeles, and I hope this market is as good to you as it has been to me. I absolutely wish you all the best.”
Such an amazing thing for him to say, having been fired five minutes before. That was the outgoing sound of the station, and I was part of the incoming sound of the station. It was an amazing moment, because I really looked up to him and had listened to him for years, on and off, when I was in Southern California. For him to be that gracious was really cool.
Luke: I presume that when you lived in Sacramento you loved nighttime, when you could pick up Los Angeles stations. How would you describe the sound or the feel between Los Angeles radio, San Francisco radio, and Sacramento radio before you moved to KFI?
David: When I was a kid I used to listen to KFI at night, and during the winter, when it gets light later, I would listen to the morning show. I won a Bee Gees album from KFI. I was the whatever caller from Sacramento at probably five or six in the morning, and they never sent it. So when I started working at KFI I said, hey, where’s the fabulous prize closet? You guys owe me a Bee Gees album. It’s here somewhere. It’s got to be.
I used to listen to KFI all the time when I was a kid. At night, like you say. KHJ in Los Angeles was very similar to KFRC. They were the same company, they had the same consultant, and a lot of personalities went back and forth. But I always found KFRC to be better programmed. That might just be because it was Northern California and I was more familiar with it. Whenever I was in Southern California I would try to listen to KHJ, and I would always listen to KFI. As time went on and FM became bigger, I would try to listen to KMET 94.7 and KLOS as much as I could. I always appreciated hearing Los Angeles radio.
Luke: Is there a certain personality who does better as a Sacramento host versus a San Francisco host versus a Los Angeles host? Are there any generalizations?
David: No. I think the things listeners listen for are pretty universal. These days I’m consulting full-time, and have been for a long time, with clients all over the world. One thing I’ve found is that the needs of listeners are pretty universal. Whatever makes somebody turn up a radio in Los Angeles is the same thing that makes them turn up a radio in Sacramento or Madrid or Bogotá or Mexico City or Toronto. It doesn’t really matter.
Luke: How would you describe KABC? What was going on with it when you moved to KFI in July of 1989 and worked as news director for a couple of years?
David: KABC was the number one station in the market by far. It wasn’t close. They were the top billing radio station in the United States. They had huge personalities. Michael Jackson, who had been there a long time. Ken Minyard was doing mornings and had been there a very long time.
They were comfortable, really professional, very entrenched, and pretty inside. I found that station to be very good for people who had always listened to it and less good for people who hadn’t. That’s where I always thought KFI had a real opportunity to grow audience. We weren’t going to steal audience that had been listening to KABC for forty years. We were going to steal from the fringes, which is exactly what we ended up doing.
Luke: Tell me more about stealing from the fringes, because I experienced that. I was there when KFI was the upstart, the brash one. Would it be fair to call it shock talk radio, KFI in 1988, 1989, 1990?
David: No. Before 1991 it certainly wasn’t that. I’ve never called it shock radio, the whole time I was there or since.
What I tried to do with KFI starting in 1991 was be as different as I could from KABC. KABC was very comfortable, certainly informative, serious interviews. Everything they did, I wanted to be the opposite of that at KFI.
We even used to run billboard campaigns against the Dodgers, which is a crazy thing to think of now, because it’s such an institution. KABC carried the Dodgers, and I knew from audience research that every time they ran a Dodger game, a significant portion of their audience that didn’t want to hear a Dodger game, whether they were a fan or not, started spinning the dial looking for something else. That was another great opportunity for us. That’s why we did those billboards. I tried to be everything KABC was not, so we were a serious alternative and not just another flavor of the same thing.
Luke: How would that show up? I assume your demographics were ten years younger.
David: Yes. Here’s a good illustration. When I put Bill Handel on in the morning doing a talk show, I don’t think there was another show in the morning on a spoken word station in America that was anything like what Bill Handel was doing. What KABC was doing was Ken and Bob, Bob Arthur and Ken Minyard, a very traditional and extremely successful morning show. They would do the dumb office fact of the day, that kind of thing.
I had Handel go on and go back and forth between giving his opinion, like a talk show, which did not occur in morning drive anywhere at that time, and explaining. Helping you understand what’s going on today in no uncertain terms and in easy to understand terms, and giving his opinion on it. Rather than the dumb office fact of the day. I don’t mean that as a put-down of that morning show at KABC. They had been extremely successful doing it for a long time and had a much bigger audience than we did. I just needed to be completely different.
Luke: Do you remember the date you took over as program director at KFI?
David: July 19, 1991.
Luke: At that time, what were your ratings compared to KABC?
David: I don’t remember. A ten share, an eight share, something like that. And we were about a 0.8 or 0.9.
Luke: What did you notice about how Rush Limbaugh changed when he went national?
David: He didn’t change for a long time. After several years of being national he became less entertaining and more serious. That was probably the biggest change over the course of his career. He was really entertaining when he was local, and when he went national he was at least as entertaining. He used to beat up on Teddy Kennedy, on the National Organization for Women, all kinds of things. He had a lot of fun doing it. He had song parodies. He had a lot of fun, which was the show aspect he brought to what he was doing. Later in his career he didn’t do the parodies as much, and there wasn’t quite as much humor. I think he was more and more focused on trying to get people to understand his point of view from a more serious standpoint. That was the biggest change. But it wasn’t when he went national. When he went national, the entertainment value of his show was one of the things that made him take off from the get-go.
Luke: If you had to name a year when Rush changed?
David: Maybe 1998.
Luke: You take over as talk radio programmer at KFI. What do you start doing, and what do you start learning?
David: There were two things that were part of my programming of KFI from pretty much the day I started, and well beyond when I left, I think well into Robin Bertolucci’s time.
The first one is that we did a lot of audience research. Even though you use the word shock, and even though we were pretty out there sometimes, almost none of it was by the seat of our pants or random. I used a lot of audience research. At one time I probably had a budget of a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, and I did focus groups and big studies and content studies, where I would play pieces of audio and have people comment on what they thought we were doing. It was like a very good music station, just like KFRC in San Francisco in the 1970s. It was a well-researched product, very much aligned with the audience I was trying to attract. That was from the very beginning.
The other thing, from the day I started as program director until the day I left in 2002, is that I never programmed the station to be liberal or conservative. I programmed it to be stimulating. That was the word for me. Today I think a lot of stations try hard to be very conservative, more and more over time. I never once looked at it that way. I just looked at stimulating. We were More Stimulating Talk Radio. Every single thing we did, every show, every person I recruited, every segment of every show, the main measure was, is it stimulating? KABC at that time was not seen as stimulating. They were seen as very comfortable, as was KNX. That was my way of flanking both of those radio stations with KFI. Again, with a lot of audience research, and very methodical and intentional.
Luke: How do you know the research represented something real?
David: Because the more we followed it, the better the station did. The more we started to grow.
Luke: Do you remember some of the insights you got from the research?
David: I’ll give you one. Bill Handel in the morning used to talk about his wife all the time. One of the things that came back in research was, I’ve got my own wife, I don’t need his wife at six o’clock in the morning. What I need at six in the morning is to know what’s going on in the world and what I do with it.
So I really focused his show on explaining. We added a thing in the morning, in the six o’clock hour, called Handel on the News. The team would throw news stories at him. Hey, did you see this? What do you think about this? And Bill would comment and explain, helping us understand what was going on in the world. That hour was the first hour of his show that really took off. And it came straight out of audience research. The audience saying, in the morning I don’t just need the headlines. I get that from KNX and the newspaper. What I want is to really understand. I don’t need the dumb office fact of the day. I don’t need another set of headlines. I just want to understand what’s going on. He’s personally a student of history and incredibly knowledgeable, and he was the right guy to pull that off. The audience research said if you do this, people will really listen. So we did it, and we took his wife out of it, and people really did listen, and that show took off.
In April 1992, I was working as the marketing and promotions director of KFI radio. Our offices were at Sixth and Ardmore in Koreatown. I’d been with the station for about six years, starting off as an intern, then working as a news editor and occasional reporter before moving into the marketing role in 1989.
When the verdicts came down at 3 p.m. on April 29, I had just finished a meeting with an ad agency in Beverly Hills. Rather than head back to the station, I went home to Costa Mesa down the 405. It’s about a two hour drive with traffic. I’d listened to our news department covering reaction at the Simi Valley courthouse and in other spots around LA. We also got a lot of listener reaction ranging from incredulous anger to smug satisfaction. I flipped on the TV when I got home and watched along with everyone else as fires and protests started to flare up around LA.
Monitoring KFI at the same time, I heard our field reporters put themselves in very difficult situations while trying to provide first hand information. Andy Friedman was at Parker Center and took a bottle off the head. And kept on going.
As the night came on, the flames at Florence and Normandie and the rioting downtown dominated the coverage. There was a sense of the rioting expanding, but not to the point of an area outside of South Central. Still, it was clear that it was going to be a long night and maybe a long couple of days for the news staff at KFI.
I grabbed a little sleep and got up around 1 a.m. I picked up some food and water from the market for the news staff. Healthy stuff like oranges and bananas and stuff that the staff would actually eat like chips and soda. Around 2 a.m. I started the drive back to Ardmore. This wasn’t received very well by my wife Katie. Our son Ben was only five months old at the time. Katie didn’t like the idea of being home alone with civil unrest going on. However, nothing had been reported in Orange County and there was no sense that anything would be happening. Of greater concern to Katie was the fact that I worked at a radio station. Katie had lived in Ghana for two years. In that time, Ghana had two coups and neighboring Togo had one. In each of the coups, rebel forces had made tv and radio stations high priority targets. Control the media and control the message.
While it didn’t seem likely that control of a radio or tv station was on the minds of rioters, it was still a factor in Katie’s thinking. And she just didn’t want me heading into an area that was in harm’s way.
The impression from the news was that the rioting, arson and looting were all contained south of the 10 Freeway and west of the 110. As I drove north on the 110, I could see fires to my right. And turning west on the 10, there were fires to my right again. That was the direction of the station. Not a lot of fires, but fires nonetheless.
The next twelve hours are pretty jumbled. KFI staff reported for work and then were sent home at noon by general manager Howard Neal. It was clear that the area was not going to be safe. Shortly thereafter Mayor Bradley issued a city wide curfew.
Chief engineer Marvin Collins set up a satellite studio in his home in La Canada. Rather than have hosts come to Koreatown, they went to Marv’s home and broadcast from his living room. The decision was made early on Thursday to keep programming local. That meant no Rush Limbaugh for the LA audience. The news team kept following and reporting on rioting as it moved north from Florence and Normandie toward and into Koreatown. And Howard brought in our security adviser, an ex FBI agent and his team, to evaluate our situation on Ardmore.
By about 3 p.m., there were very few of us left in the building. Program director David G Hall, producer Marc Germain, Howard Neal, the security guys and me. I grabbed about an hour’s nap and woke up at four. The light outside the building was not right. Going up on the roof, the reason became clear. There were fires in every direction. The largest and closest were six blocks west at Sixth and Western and six blocks east at Sixth and Vermont.
While there were no cars on the street, there were groups of rioters/looters on most of the streets. They didn’t seem particularly angry. Just looking for opportunities to smash something of high visibility or grab some available merchandise. Our building was very non-descript and we may have covered the call letters on the side of the building. However, with the fires and the looters, we were now inside the perimeter of the riots.
Over the next couple of hours, with night coming on, we were weighing the safety of staying at the station. There were benefits to staying in the building as going on the streets was not really a great idea. But if the building became a target, it wasn’t going to be a whole lot of fun to stick around. From the roof, we’d scouted a couple of ways to move to the roofs of adjacent buildings if we had to make our way out that way. And our calls to the LAPD Emergency Operations Center hadn’t yielded any guarantee of assistance if needed. They had plenty of other things to do.
As the sun set, our security guys deemed the situation to be unsafe and recommended evacuating. Evacuating would have meant that KFI would go off the air. While the hosts and the broadcast studio had been moved to La Canada, we still needed the central controls on Ardmore to stay on the air.
Howard, David, Marc and I decided to stay. The security detail decided to leave after observing hand guns and rifles in the groups walking the streets. David and Marc had been running the board most of the day. They were coordinating the hosts, our field reporters and phone calls that went on the air.
Howard was working to evaluate the station as well as conferring with his bosses in Atlanta on what to do about the facility. They left it up to him to make the call based on our situation locally.
Luke: Do you get clues from your physiology, from what’s going on in your body, precognitive cues about what works in good radio?
David: That’s a great question, Luke. When I was a little kid growing up listening to KFRC for hours and hours, and I mean I spent hours listening to KFRC, and KROY in Sacramento, I felt touched. John Mack Flanagan did afternoons on KFRC and he was talking to a million people, the whole Bay Area. I was way off to the east in dusty little Sacramento. And yet every time he was on the radio it was like he was talking right to me. He touched me.
So my entire career, and to this day consulting, that’s something I feel for as I’m listening. Sometimes I feel it and sometimes I don’t, and when I don’t, I try to figure out how to help a personality get there and communicate in a way that will make a listener feel touched. Because if you can make one listener feel touched, you can make them all feel touched.
Luke: The cliché for what you just described is that words that come from the heart are heard in the heart.
David: I’ve never said it that way. I look at it like, I say something on the radio and it makes you look at the radio, literally physically look at the radio, and what you’re thinking is, wow. That’s the moment. That’s the thing KFRC used to do for me, and I tried to bring it to everything I did at KFI, as both news director and program director.
Luke: Bill Handel, Tom Leykis. Who are some of the other big names at the station as we move through your talk radio career into 1992, 1993? I think Dr. Laura comes along about 1994.
David: 1993 is when I put Bill Handel on the air. Tom Leykis left. I put the very controversial police chief Daryl Gates on the air as a kind of interim between Tom Leykis and John and Ken. John and Ken started in September or October of 1993, I think. Laura was already on the station when I started, but as a fill-in. I put her on at night, and then I ended up putting her on during the day, and then she went on to become syndicated. Then I added Stephanie Miller, who I think is still doing a syndicated show out there. And then Phil Hendrie. There were others in between, Mr. KFI and others, but that’s how it evolved. I put Handel on first, then Laura, then John and Ken, then Hendrie. That ended up being the lineup that stuck. And in the case of Handel and John Kobylt, thirty-something years later it’s still going.
Luke: How would sessions work between you and hosts?
David: It completely depends on the host. Bill and I would sometimes meet in the office, sometimes go to lunch. We used to go to dim sum in downtown Los Angeles, and that’s where we talked. John Kobylt and I had one meeting in the office that did not go well and we ended up screaming at each other. After that we always ended up over a burger in Beverly Hills at a particular place he liked.
Everybody had a different way of communicating and a different comfort zone, and almost none of it was in the office over the desk. To this day it’s like that. I work with these personalities, some of them really big and really successful, all over the place, and the relationship with each one and the way we meet and communicate is completely different for each one.
Luke: When did the ratings start heading up, and were there any major milestones in your early years as program director at KFI?
David: It took about two years. The first big milestone was right after I became program director. A weekend host on KFI made a comment that turned out to be controversial about a television news anchor at the time. That comment was misconstrued, and then a PR firm was hired, and it was blown up, and an FCC complaint was filed against us, and there were protests outside the radio station, over a comment that had been completely misconstrued, and I think probably misconstrued on purpose.
That was the first time we got a bump in the ratings. Because I was brand new to programming, I didn’t yet know how that worked. I learned it firsthand, in real time, in a very scary way. A weekend host makes a comment, it gets blown out of proportion, totally misconstrued, becomes a huge thing. I was sure I was going to get fired, and the station was going to get an FCC fine, and all of that. None of it happened. Then the ratings came out and we had, I think, a hundred thousand listeners more than before all of that happened. And I thought, wow, that’s really interesting how that worked.
On the broadcast the host, Jane Norris, appeared to question the wisdom of the local news anchor, Bree Walker-Lampley, who is expecting a baby in mid-September. Ms. Walker-Lampley has ectrodactyly, a malformation of the hands and feet that can cause fingers and toes to be fused. Experts say there is a 50-50 chance that the gene that causes the condition will be passed on to her baby. Ms. Walker-Lampley has a daughter from a previous marriage who has the condition.
“Is it fair to bring a child into the world that you’re pretty sure has a very good chance of having a disfiguring disease?” Ms. Norris said on the air. “Is it fair to that child?”
“People judge you by your appearance,” Ms. Norris went on, according to a tape of the broadcast made available by advocates of the disabled. “They judge you by the words that you use. They judge you by your education; what you dress in. God knows they’re going to judge you by the shape of your hands, and the shape of your body and the shape of your face. They just do.” ‘I Felt Terrorized’
Ms. Walker-Lampley, who worked in 1987 and 1988 at Channel 2 in New York City, was not invited to participate in the broadcast. She and her husband, Jim Lampley, who also anchors a local news program, learned about the program the following day.
“I felt terrorized,” Ms. Walker-Lampley said in a telephone interview from California. “I felt that my pregnancy had been terrorized.”
Ms. Norris, who has been a host at the radio station for about a year, said in an interview that her intention was not to judge Ms. Walker-Lampley’s decision, but to get at the “larger issue” of the ethics of bearing a child when there is a strong possiblity the child will have an impairment.
Nancy Becker Kennedy, a member of the Southern California chapter of ADAPT, a group based in Denver known for forcefully pressing for the rights of the disabled, said: “I couldn’t be more shocked that this was even a topic of discussion. What’s next, a discussion of whether black people should reproduce?” Ms. Kennedy said her group would picket the station. ‘Politics of Eugenics’
Barbara Faye Waxman, a writer who is co-editing a book on the sexual and reproductive rights of disabled women, said Ms. Norris’s comments promoted a kind of eugenics, the once-popular theory that society can be improved by selectively breeding out undesired charateristics.
Physical limitations and deformed hands did not prevent Walker from becoming one of the most visible and respected anchors in L.A. during her years at KCBS. She was nationally recognized for her contributions to disability awareness and was on the President’s Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped. She reportedly made about $800,000 a year. Even shock jock Howard Stern made crude but admiring jokes about her, commenting on her beauty.
Asked if her photogenic presentation helped take focus off her hands, she replied, “I’ve always tried not to have my hands noticed. I had to make concessions for the world that made it less convenient for me. And all news anchors are attractive people. I practiced as carefully as I could as a teenager to learn how to apply my makeup so that people would pay attention to my face and not my hands.”
But there was a darker side to her high-profile job. Walker got caught up in an on-air scandal in 1990 when she became romantically involved with her co-anchor, Jim Lampley, while they were still married to other people.
When the anchors finally had their respective divorces and married each other, another firestorm erupted when Walker became pregnant. Jane Norris, a KFI-AM fill-in talk show host, blasted Walker for conceiving a child, given that there was a 50-50 chance that the child would inherit her condition. Norris then opened the phone lines for listeners to discuss whether they felt the couple had been irresponsible.
“Jim and I were on the set for the 11 p.m. news when I first heard about it,” said Walker. “That evening I cried and cried. I was in disbelief. I went catatonic for a few days. Then I vowed to fight.”
The couple filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the station in an effort to get its license revoked, maintaining that the station violated the FCC’s Personal Attack Rule by airing factual inaccuracies and impugning her character. The FCC ultimately rejected the complaint.
Aaron James Lampley, afflicted with ectrodactylism, was born in August 1991.
Walker remembers the furor as a major personal turning point. “It was where the rubber met the road,” she said. “Before then, I had been such an ambitious, creative person, but I decided after that that I was no longer going to let my career guide my heart. It was a rude wake-up call. I became much more active in fighting for the rights of the disabled.”
She added, “I’ve had a wonderful but stressful life. It was truly stressful living in a fishbowl while trying to raise two kids.” After leaving KCBS, she anchored for a few years at NBC affiliate KNSD in San Diego but left in 2000. A self-described news junkie, she watches CNN and other newscasts but has no burning desire to return to the anchor desk.
Walker resides in a gated community in Del Mar with her children (16-year-old Andrea also has ectrodactylism). She and Lampley, who will anchor daytime coverage of NBC’s broadcast of the Olympics in Athens, divorced in 2000 but remain a couple. Walker at times refers to herself as “Bree Walker Lampley.”
Though Lampley, who also is a sportscaster for HBO, recently declared on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that he and Walker would soon remarry, Walker expressed a little more caution about the future.
“There were lots of strains with a traveling spouse,” said Walker when questioned about the split. “We were juggling our careers, and we both had some growing up and childhood issues to deal with. There was a lot of therapy,” she said with a chuckle.
“We’ve talked about getting married again,” she added quietly. “We’re still working through our issues.”
I ask Claude: “Was the KFI host right that this was an interesting decision? Both children have the condition.”
Claude says:
Both children have it. Andrea, born around 1988 and so predating the marriage to Jim Lampley (b. 1949), and Aaron, born August 1991. The fifty percent figure came up twice.
That settles less than it looks like it settles. Outcomes don’t grade the decisions that preceded them. A fifty percent risk that materializes twice was still fifty percent when the choice got made, and if Aaron had been born with ten fingers, Jane Norris’s argument would have been exactly as strong or as weak as it was. Anyone who thinks the second birth vindicates the broadcast has to accept that a different roll of the dice would have refuted it, which is a strange position for a moral claim to occupy.
The stronger point in Norris’s favor is that the question she raised is a real one. People do weigh heritable conditions when they decide whether to have children, genetic counselors exist to help them do it, and pretending the calculation is illegitimate would be its own kind of dishonesty. Walker’s condition is not cosmetic. It costs function, it invites surgeries, and it draws the sort of cruelty that arrived early enough in her own life to come from her brother.
Where the argument fails is the inference. Norris moved from “there is a fifty percent risk” to “conceiving was irresponsible,” and that step requires holding that a life with ectrodactyly falls below the line where existence beats non-existence. The counterexample was sitting on the KCBS anchor desk making $800,000 a year. Ectrodactyly shortens no lives and touches no cognition. If a woman who has built a career on network television while carrying the condition still shouldn’t pass it on, the principle sweeps in most of the human genome and every family with a dominant trait in it.
Walker also occupied the best epistemic position available. She had lived the condition for four decades and already raised one daughter with it. Whatever the calculation was worth, she had more of the relevant information than any caller on the line.
The format is where the thing goes wrong, and I’d separate it from the substance. Norris did not open a discussion of prenatal risk. She named a pregnant woman, described her unborn child’s odds, and put it to a listener vote. A bioethics seminar can ask whether people with dominant heritable conditions should reproduce. A call-in show cannot ask whether this woman, right now, carrying this child, has done something shameful, without producing a boy who grows up able to find the transcript of the broadcast where strangers debated whether he should exist. The abstract question survives; the referendum on a named fetus does not.
The FCC complaint deserved to fail, and Walker’s own position made it harder. She had spent years as a public advocate on disability, which made her disability a legitimate subject of public comment. Seeking revocation of a station license over a talk segment was out of proportion to anything Norris did, and the remedy would have set a worse precedent than the offense.
So: right that the decision carried a known and substantial risk, right that the risk was worth naming, wrong that the risk made the decision blameworthy, and wrong to litigate it on air against a woman by name. The two children with fused hands are evidence about genetics. They are not evidence about whether Norris should have picked up the microphone.
Luke: If I’d spoken to the leadership at KABC and KNX from 1989 to 1993, they would have told me KFI is vulgar, low class, shock radio. Is that a fair description of how the stations on top in news and talk in Los Angeles saw KFI?
David: Absolutely. They paid no attention to us whatsoever. They totally wrote us off, which really helped with my strategy and all my audience research and everything I was trying to do, because they never played defense. They never blocked it until it was too late.
Luke: How did you spend your time? Take the first year as program director. Were you working forty-hour weeks, fifty-hour weeks? How did that get sliced up?
David: I don’t think I ever worked a forty or fifty hour week the whole time I was at KFI. It was a tough job and well beyond full-time. A lot of it was spent talking to personalities. Some of it was spent with the news, though I had replaced myself with a very good news director, a guy named Mark Thomas, so I didn’t have to worry about the news as much, because I knew he was on it.
It was just trying to keep people to the strategy, on air and off air. Be more stimulating. Explain things. Have a lot of fun. Never take ourselves seriously. Big talk stations at that time took themselves very seriously, and so we very deliberately never did, or tried not to. It was really just working on those fundamentals all the time with the entire staff.
Luke: What was the typical commercial load? Twenty minutes an hour?
David: No. When I started there I think it was fifteen or sixteen, and when I left it was twenty-two.
Luke: I remember in the eighties there were all sorts of top talk stations that had twenty-two plus minutes of commercials an hour. I don’t know how you do it.
David: We didn’t for a long time. We kept it to sixteen for a very long time.
Luke: When did KFI become the number one talk station in Los Angeles?
David: Probably 1994 or 1995, when KABC started to come down, really come down, and we continued to go up and passed them. I don’t remember exactly, but probably in there. It took a couple of years. I started in July of 1991, and it took a couple of years just to get the station set and start to build the audience, and then probably another couple of years for it to really turbo with the audience.
Luke: How would you describe your sources of energy? Were they coming from success, from the excitement of running a radio station, from your personal connections inside the station? What was fueling you?
David: Success. Starting with that first thing with the weekend show that I described, the more we followed the strategy, the more the audience grew, and it was pretty cool to experience that.
At the same time Rush really started to take off. It took Rush about two years to get any traction whatsoever in Los Angeles, but once he did, he really started to take off. It was a multifactor thing. Rush was bringing a lot of audience into the radio station that I was trying to spread around to other shows, and he very quickly became the number one show on the station. The other things we were doing were starting to kick in. The news was starting to kick in. We were finding that more and more people would listen to us for news, because then they didn’t have to listen to the all-news station. They could get everything they needed from us and then be entertained by the talk shows, which was the whole thing I had described to the program director in Sacramento all those years before.
We had a lot of things going right for us at the same time. In those days, unlike now, we had some marketing money. Not a lot, and I don’t think we had as much as KABC or KNX, but we had some, and we had a very good marketing director. Our strategy for marketing the station to draw a new audience was to focus it. Instead of doing a billboard campaign with billboards all over Los Angeles, where you wouldn’t really see any of them because we couldn’t afford very many, we grouped them. In one area you would see us all over the place, like we owned it. If we could only have twenty billboards, rather than diluting them over the whole metro area, we would use them all in one place, or with one campaign. I think that really helped. The way we marketed, and a lot of guerrilla marketing. Every single one of those was a big factor. And the more successful we became, the more energy I got from it.
Luke: Did you have mentors during this period, once you became news director at KFI and then program director? Was there some guy in New Orleans or New York you’d reach out to first when you didn’t know what to do?
David: Absolutely. We had a consultant who lived in Cambria at the time, up the central coast, and he had been the consultant at KFI long before I started. I think he might have had something to do with how I got hired without having any previous experience. He and I talked every single day except when he was on vacation. Every single day I worked there until I left in 2002. I would run everything past him and he would say, oh, that’s a great idea, or, be careful about this, or, you’re not thinking about that, or, somebody tried that over there and it didn’t work. He was a great consultant. He’s the reason I’m a consultant now. He really inspired me. We really programmed that radio station together.
Luke: Can you give me a taste of what those conversations were like?
David: It was just daily programming. Handel wants to do this, I don’t really see how it fits, what do you think? John did this and it was great, I want to get him to do more of that. Is there a blind side? Is there something I should know that I’m not seeing? Questions like that most of the time.
Luke: What kind of feedback did you get from your advertisers? What did they want?
David: They want their phone to ring. We were a very engaging station. We were not the kind of radio station you could have on in the background across the office while you do your work. People who listened to KFI really listened to KFI. So the products we sold sold very well. When Bill Handel would do an endorsement for something, people would buy it. The advertisers got tremendous response from KFI, much more than from KABC, much more than from KNX, much more than from music stations, just because we were so foreground and so engaging.
Luke: Did you go to national conferences with other radio elites, and did you learn at those conferences?
David: I didn’t learn too much. What we were doing at that time was so different from what the format was doing anywhere. There wasn’t really anyone else for me to listen to or talk to. It was kind of lonely, to be honest with you. There were very few other stations, if any, doing anything similar to what I was trying to do at KFI. So I would go to those things, and I’m sure I learned a thing or two, but not very much.
I learned mostly by doing. Let’s try this, and if it doesn’t work, it’s just radio. It’s not brain surgery. Nobody dies and we move on. And if it works, then we’re on to something. That was a big part of my philosophy.
Luke: How did you help your hosts find the emotional center of a story?
David: There’s one thing a great host does, to this day, and this is in my work currently in different countries. That is to say what people are thinking but don’t necessarily say. It took me a minute to figure that out, but I figured out that’s what really makes hosts authentic, vulnerable, and engaging. They say things you’ve been thinking all along but don’t say yourself, and then all of a sudden you hear it coming out of the radio and you go, oh my God, that guy is so right. Thank God somebody’s finally saying it. And you turn the radio up. That’s how somebody becomes a very loyal, longtime listener. That’s how the host really connects with the listener.
I’ll give you an example that’s not from KFI. It’s another show I’ve worked with for several years, a nationally syndicated show. One of the guys is very pro-Second Amendment, no gun control, that kind of thing. The Sandy Hook school shooting happened, and he was on the air saying, we’ve got to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, because at Sandy Hook it was a mother who owned the gun the shooter used. And another guy on the show, his partner, goes, you know what, don’t look now, but you’re talking about gun control, which you’re completely against. And the first guy goes, I know. I know, and it’s driving me crazy, but I can’t stop thinking about it. I know I’m against gun control, but I know we need something.
That’s being vulnerable. It’s not being a know-it-all and it’s not being the smartest guy in the room. It’s being authentic and vulnerable, and people can relate. That’s what I try to bring to every star I work with now. We did that at KFI.
Luke: How do you think John and Ken lasted so long together? Usually tensions crop up in these arrangements.
David: They were very professional. Like a lot of teams I work with, I think they were friendly and social, but I don’t think they were necessarily friends. They were business partners. It’s like how long-term business partners work together. Ron Howard and Brian Grazer have extremely different personalities. They come to realize, and I think John and Ken realized this before I even met them, hey, we don’t have to be friends. We don’t have to be best buddies doing the show. We’re in business together. So we show up and bring everything we can to support the business, and we want a business that’s bigger and better than any one of us individually. I think those guys were particularly good at that.
“This is entertainment,” Handel confessed later as he turned away from a plate of Spam and guacamole. “But you can’t do it just on entertainment. Obviously, there has to be information. The whole point of the show is to bring something new to the table that people otherwise would not know.”
It’s a novel approach to talk radio, mixing fact with fun–or at least it was novel when KFI-AM (640) started doing it a decade ago. Since then, however, it’s come to be known by another term: successful.
“Up until that time, talk radio had been just hosts and callers,” says talk-radio superstar Rush Limbaugh, whose nationally syndicated show helped define KFI’s format. “And this brought an entirely different dynamic to it. I think what we’ve done is revitalized a lot of AM stations and made AM a place where people actually tune now.”
And for a while, more of them tuned to KFI than to any other talk station in the country. Based on national Arbitron figures for the winter of 1998–10 years after KFI first switched to talk–the station’s weekly cumulative audience of 1.3 million was the largest of any talk station in the United States. And although KFI has since slipped to fourth nationally, that achievement nonetheless completed a remarkable rise for the station, which joined the talk-radio wars only as a last resort, then proceeded to redefine the format entirely.
Today, for example, the station carries the conservative political commentary of Limbaugh and tough-love moralist Laura Schlessinger. But it follows them with local personalities such as Karel Bouley and Andrew Howard, an openly gay couple who host the afternoon drive-time show, and evening host Phil Hendrie, whose unique style mocks the very premise of talk radio.
“It’s a whole different way of doing things,” says Handel, a practicing lawyer who, for six years, has hosted one of the few issue-driven morning drive-time shows in the Southland. “KFI is a different station. It’s a very unique station.”
Eleven years ago, the only thing different about KFI was the fact that it had one of the largest signals but one of the smallest audiences in the Los Angeles market. It had been a music station almost since its inception, but by the time George Oliva took over as program director, music on AM was dying and KFI’s ratings were fading faster than Michael Dukakis’ presidential hopes.
“We needed to do something,” remembers David G. Hall, who was Oliva’s news director at both KFBK in Sacramento and at KFI before succeeding him as program director in 1991. “There was one huge all-talk station in town . . . and that was KABC. And then there was Spanish and there was religion. And if you’re a big AM station, what are your other choices?”
New Format Arrested KFI’s Ratings Slide
The obvious target was KABC-AM (790), even though the station so dominated its competitors that a court once ruled it had exclusive rights to the slogan “talk radio.” And the opening skirmishes of radio’s war of the words gave no indication that was about to change: Although the new format arrested KFI’s slide, lifting the station five places to 20th in the local radio rankings in less than a year, the audience for third-ranked KABC grew almost as much.
Oliva made the transition slowly, phasing in talk-intensive programs hosted by the likes of Tom Leykis and a former Cleveland comic known as Mother Love around a mix of music, advice and game shows. So although the station marks its first day as a full-time talker as July 17, 1989, the day after it played its last record, it had actually adopted the format in principle more than a year earlier.
“We may or may not be 10 years old,” Hendrie says. “Who cares? We’re having a party anyway.”
But in a sense, KFI never completely abandoned its music-format roots–a fact that has contributed to its success. The station employed rock music “‘bumpers” to transition in and out of commercial breaks, irreverent “in your face” promos and a frenetic on-air style.
“There was no passion. It was just talk,” Hall says of traditional talk radio. “I guess I kind of made the conscious decision that a news/talk station can sound and feel like a Top 40 station does. The whole style of the radio station, I think, comes from that. There were no other stations in the country . . . quite like us.”
But while Oliva and Hall can claim credit for making KFI unique, Limbaugh is the one who made the station successful. KFI was still struggling to find its voice when it replaced Geoff Edwards with Limbaugh’s New York-based show in spring 1989. Limbaugh’s entertaining style, unabashed point of view and eschewing of guests provided a jolting contrast to the more balanced, interview-intensive approach of Michael Jackson, who was a Southland morning fixture on KABC. Twenty months after joining KFI, Limbaugh’s show was outperforming Jackson and, by fall 1992, KFI had passed KABC as the top-ranked talk station in Southern California.
“I truly believe that Rush Limbaugh has had a lot do with the re-attention and the success of AM radio,” says KFI traffic reporter Mark Denis. “He set a trend. The product was working; it was going to work. [But] it seemed like we filled the car up with supreme when Rush came.”
And the station did just as much for Limbaugh. Before it was picked up by KFI, Limbaugh’s show was heard in 109 markets, but his home base of New York was the only major market that carried it. But after going on the air in Los Angeles, Limbaugh was suddenly drawing more listeners in one market than he had drawn nationally just a few months earlier.
“Los Angeles was technically and literally the acquisition that woke everybody else up,” Limbaugh says. “I’ve enjoyed a lot of success in Los Angeles. Early on, they promoted the show. When they took it, they didn’t act ashamed of it. They were very proud of it, which was a key factor. I mean, they hired a PR guy. First time I ever worked with a PR guy was when KFI had one.”
Perhaps more important, however, was the fact that Limbaugh’s vision mirrored that of Hall’s; both thought talk radio should be about more than just talk.
“I had always wanted to do things other than just talk,” says Limbaugh, who is still the most listened-to English-language radio personality in L.A. “I had always wanted to use music for themes and as entertainment. I looked at talk radio not as a political vehicle, but as an entertainment vehicle.”
…KFI has encountered some bumps in the road along the way, of course. The station endured a wave of protests for its ill-conceived–and ultimately unsuccessful–attempt to send a pair of neo-Nazis to the Auschwitz death camp with Handel in 1994, for example, and a suit filed in March by former overnight host Tammy Bruce–charging the station, Hall, Hendrie and General Manager Howard Neal with sex discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination and slander–is still pending.
In just the last five months, the station has had to deal with the loss of popular afternoon drive-team hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou–who jumped to rival KABC–and the weekend duo of Scott Hasick and Casey Bartholomew, who did their final KFI show on Sunday. They will soon join “New Jersey 101” in Trenton.
“Any time we do something that works, someone else copies it or they hire away our people,” says news anchor Terri-Rae Elmer. “So we have to continuously keep coming up with something that’s new and different.”
That’s all part of the process, says Hall.
“We did a billboard [that] said, ‘We Don’t Know What the Hell We’re Doing.’ I loved that because, to a large degree, that’s true,” he says. “We never expected to beat KABC. We never expected to be the leading talk station. We certainly never expected to be in a position where every time a show would leave here, one of our competitors would pick it up.
“That puts us in a very different position, to tell you the truth. And a very interesting one.”
Talk radio listeners may know him only as a character on the Phil Hendrie show–maybe a real person, maybe not–who provides a regular foil for the outrageous host. But few probably know how much David Hall has shaped what they’re hearing.
After 11 years as program director at KFI-AM (640) in Los Angeles, Hall is moving up the ladder of the station’s parent company, Clear Channel Communications, shifting next month to oversee some of the company’s nationally syndicated talk and sports programming. But the past decade has been one in which both Hall and events have changed talk radio here and around the country.
“It’s very different now, compared to what it was 10 years ago,” Hall said. “We kind of redefined what talk radio is all about. It seemed talk radio should be a mix of what’s very entertaining and very informative. We also made a pretty big change in thinking what information should be.”
When he started, Hall, 37, said his image of a talk radio host was a middle-aged guy peering over half-glasses at a stack of newspapers. He sought to change that, and instead of just the headlines, he wanted topics on shows to include universal truths and experiences that would resonate with listeners.
So Bill Handel’s KFI morning show tries to give commuters a full dose of information and insight on the hot topic du jour: Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, the latest earthquake, the Raiders, Monica Lewinsky, terrorism, Enron.
By changing the presentation, Hall was looking to reach an audience different from the stereotypical talk radio listener.
“I always pictured guys in jumpsuits and comfortable shoes listening in their garages,” he said. “We’re not like that. We’re younger and more female. That’s a pretty concerted effort we’ve had over the past decade to be different.”
The effort seems to have worked. When Hall arrived at KFI as news director in 1989, the station’s ratings barely registered–about 0.7% of the listening audience. According to the most recent Arbitron ratings of listeners age 12 and older, during the fourth quarter of 2001, KFI was the fourth-most-listened to station in the area, with a 4.2% audience share. “David has been so tremendously successful at KFI, I’ll just try not to screw it up,” said Hall’s replacement, Robin Bertolucci, who oversees a trio of talk and sports stations in Denver. “He’s invented and created a lot of the personality at the station. He really built KFI. He turned that whole paradigm on its head, filling a void the other stations didn’t know existed.”
“People have tried to get me to say bad things about him, but I don’t have anything bad to say,” said Erik Braverman, who programs KFI’s archrival in the talk business, KABC-AM (790). “When he got the job of program director he inherited some great talent. But it lacked focus and direction, and David brought that…. Even with all that [on-air] talent, he’s the heart and soul of the station.”
Hall says his thoughts about diversifying talk radio with a combination of perspective and news were borne out after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In other markets, listeners sought out all-news stations, he noted, while ratings in Los Angeles showed KFI and KABC at fourth and 12th in the market, respectively, beating out AM all-news outlets KNX (1070) and KFWB (980), which were 16th and 20th.
“After the World Trade Center, people didn’t care about other people’s opinions, they wanted information; 9/11 shows that talk radio is pretty well-rounded, and giving people what they want, when they want it,” Hall said…
KFI was one of the first big-market stations to carry Limbaugh’s show, and Hendrie, John & Ken and Dr. Laura Schlessinger all became syndicated after laying foundations at the Los Angeles station. Among his earliest changes, Hall moved Schlessinger from a late-night weekend shift to midday weekdays, and worked to differentiate her from the pack of on-air therapists.
Hall also brought Hendrie from Miami, where he went after an earlier stint at KFI. In return, Hendrie added “David G. Hall” to the cast of characters he voices during his frenetic, four-hour show, portraying Hall as a scratchy-voiced “vice president of syndication” forever complaining about the style of the show, encouraging Hendrie to cater to spurious advertisers and making impolitic comments about women or ethnic groups.
“Phil Hendrie, he’s just a trip,” Bertolucci said. “I don’t want to be the next David Hall character.”
Not every move was a home run, including the acrimonious departure of Tom Leykis in 1992 after a contract dispute. Hall also programs Clear Channel’s other Los Angeles-area AM properties, sports station KXTA (1150) and talk station KLAC (570).
Despite his relative youth, Hall has already logged a quarter-century in the radio business. “I knew I wanted to be in radio from about the time I was 9,” he said. At the age of 12, he lied about his age and secured an internship at the local Top 40 station in his hometown of Sacramento.
Hall soon learned just about every job at the station, working the control boards when deejays left to meet groupies, and answering request lines.
“Here I was, this seventh-grader from Catholic school, and every day after school I was talking on the phone with 16-year-old girls,” he said. “It’s still the best job I’ve ever had.”
After getting his chance on air (“All I wanted for years was to be a big deejay; I finally got the chance, and I was just awful,” he said), Hall became a news reporter at Sacramento station KFBK, winning awards for his coverage from Mexico, Nicaragua and elsewhere. He was named news director there before leaving in 1989 to take the same job at KFI. Two years later he was promoted to program director, when the then-struggling station just started carrying Limbaugh.
“We had no ratings,” Hall said. “We had nothing to lose.”
Luke: I’ve got a commercial question, not a moral one, about Tucker Carlson’s final years at Fox, when he would get monster ratings but nobody wanted to advertise on his show. Did you have to deal with anything like that?
David: We had advertisers bail. Not very much. We produced such great results. The advertisers we had were mostly local, mostly direct business advertisers. We never did very well with advertising agencies, even when the ratings went way up, because we did so well locally. We just made their phones ring. I don’t think they cared that much. I’m sure over the years we lost a few, but not very many, and certainly not like that.
Luke: When you were program director, what was your attitude toward syndication versus local programming?
David: I did not like syndication, which is funny, because now I work with some syndicated shows that have become very successful. But I was not a big fan. I wanted KFI to be live and local as much as possible.
Luke: I used to listen to Ronn Owens because I was in Northern California. I listened to him for years, and then I was like, oh wow, he’s come to KABC. But that didn’t work. And in Australia, big Sydney radio hosts don’t do well in Melbourne. Any thoughts on that?
David: It was worrisome to me when I heard he was going to do both and be on KABC, because I also grew up listening to Ronn Owens on KGO. My dad listened to KGO when I was a kid, so I was very familiar with his show, and I always thought he did a great job.
I was pretty worried when I heard he was coming to KABC, and here’s what I did. I went to Arbitron, which at the time was the ratings company, now Nielsen, and asked if I could do a deep dive into his ratings in San Francisco. I did not have audience research for San Francisco the way I had it for my own market, and I’ve already talked about how much I relied on that. I wanted to understand his audience, and I wasn’t going to have enough time or budget to do an audience research project in a market I don’t even broadcast to. So I went to Arbitron and did this big deep dive.
What I discovered is that KGO was so big, as you remember, that there were certain people who carried KGO forward and moved it up, and there were some people KGO brought along. You could have a high rating on KGO, but really your high rating is because of KGO. A rising tide floats all boats. It was a huge discovery for me. It surprised me to see that Ronn Owens at that time, and I know he was a big leader of KGO for many years, but at that point he had crossed over to being more carried by KGO than carrying KGO. That meant that if he came to Los Angeles he would certainly draw an audience, but he would depend on the existing audience of KABC, which was dwindling and way down at that point. As long as I played good defense against him, I probably wouldn’t have much to worry about. Which is exactly how it turned out.
Luke: At a lot of stations the top hosts earn four or five times what the program director earns. How does that affect relations between the program director and the host, in your experience?
David: It’s never been a factor for me, ever. I can’t speak to how others have dealt with it. The way I always look at it is, if Bill Handel can go on the air in the morning in this market against Rick Dees or Ryan Seacrest and KABC and Howard Stern and Mark and Brian, the absolute biggest personalities not just in this market but in this country, and win and beat them and draw more listeners than they do, and sell things that generate millions of dollars of revenue for the radio station, I would want to see him paid very fairly for that. I never looked at it and would never look at it like, wow, this is what I make and that’s what he makes. That just wouldn’t come up.
Luke: Were there any hosts you stopped giving notes to because they were so good at what they did?
David: Laura, I think, kind of got to that point.
Luke: Dr. Laura. What was it about her? There was some compelling quality I can’t describe.
David: She did that thing I described earlier. She said what people were thinking and wouldn’t say. Somebody would call her up and say, my boyfriend and I are still in love and we’re going to move in together. Well, they wouldn’t be calling her if the person making that call didn’t have some doubt somewhere deep in their mind. Why on earth would you call Dr. Laura with a question like that unless you had a doubt? And she would go right to that doubt. It’s like she had x-ray vision. She was particularly good at putting into words things people were thinking and sometimes couldn’t even admit to themselves. It’s that whole thing I described earlier, saying what people are thinking but don’t necessarily say. She does it at a completely different level. That’s her superpower and always has been.
Luke: What did your bosses say to you? I don’t want you to violate confidence, but what sort of feedback were you getting from the people above you when you were running KFI?
David: We were owned by Cox Enterprises, based in Atlanta, so we had real geographical distance from the home office, which I think was good, because there are a lot of things we did that probably made them pretty nervous.
The general manager I worked with, Howard Neal, was amazing at letting us do what we needed to do and playing good defense for us in the community and with the ownership. He was always fighting Atlanta, and he was always fielding calls from community groups or whoever was offended or didn’t like what we were doing, and letting us do it. He was involved in all the audience research, so he knew this wasn’t me trying to be liberal or conservative or anything in particular. He knew what the strategy was. We all agreed to the strategy together, and it was my job to execute it, but he was aware of it, and I think that made it possible for him to defend us both to corporate and in the community, and also to really sell us and speak very well of what we were doing. He was amazing in his ability to do that. I don’t know that I’ve worked with many managers since who have been able to do that to the extent he was. He didn’t take it personally.
Luke: Was there a moment when you realized talk radio was in decline as a genre in the United States?
David: I left for Premiere and launched some shows there and was there for a couple of years and really enjoyed it. Then I came back to local radio, to KNX and KFWB, and I ran both of those together and got back to the news, although I tried to bring a little bit of the show side to KNX. The very last thing I did in local radio before I started consulting full-time was put in a little bit of time at KABC.
When I got to KABC I realized the extent to which talk radio had become purely ideological. As I said at the beginning of our conversation, for me it never was. I didn’t want us to be talking about politics very much anyway, except for Rush Limbaugh. But it was never ideological. It was never righty, lefty. When I got back into talk radio I saw it had turned pretty conservative and hard right, and the whole format was doing the same thing.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with that personally or ideologically, because that has nothing to do with it, it limits the audience. It’s like if all rock stations go yacht rock at the same time. That limits the audience to people who only like yacht rock, and not people who like hard rock or metal or singer-songwriter or any other genre in that format. The same thing was starting to happen in talk radio.
Luke: Let me give you a theory for part of that. For a regular bloke who’s not liberal, who has a job in an office, he has to walk a minefield. He has to squelch his natural reactions to the world around him. Your average bloke who’s an employee in an office feels castrated, and things that are blindingly obvious to you, you cannot say at a workplace. You have to behave like a castrated bloke. And talk radio is a way of letting off steam. Does any of that make sense to you?
David: Totally. And it does exactly that in one category, politics. But there’s a lot of other things to talk about, and that’s why at KFI I tried not to be political, especially nationally political, and tried to keep it to more local things, more real life things, more daily things.
Now the format is really just politics, isn’t it, to a large degree. Not entirely, but to a large degree. And yes, that bloke, I don’t know how many blokes we have here in the United States, but that bloke definitely now has a voice and an outlet and people he can agree with, who are saying on the radio things he was probably thinking all along, which is very powerful, as I’ve said. But that’s just one category. That’s just one genre.
Luke: I’m thinking of the minefield of male-female relations. In elite media you can crap on men all day long, but if you ever suggest women have a weakness. Or the struggles and challenges of dealing with different groups, not the politics of it, but that we’re raised with different codes. There are all these parts of life you cannot talk about at the office or in polite society, if polite society is university graduates. You saw something and you were horrified, but you cannot say out loud how horrified you are by what you saw.
David: That’s where talk radio should come in, right? That’s where we say the things. Howard Stern was particularly good at this. He would say the things everybody thought and didn’t feel they could say. That’s what we did at KFI, and that’s what the people I work with now try to do, to the extent they can. That’s exactly it. They solve the problem you’re describing. That’s what the format at its best does.
Even morning shows on music radio stations are sometimes able to pull that off, and I think that’s great for the audience they have, that they’re able to say things their audience thinks and would never dare say.
Luke: How much is talk radio like top 40 radio, in that you have a host who plays the hits, whether it’s constitutional conservatism or whatever his shtick is?
David: These days, probably not very much. When I was at KFI, KFRC was in my head every single day. I think it’s very different now. There’s not nearly as much audience research being done. KFRC and KHJ and KIIS-FM, and mine was no different at KFI. These days there’s no budget for that, especially on the spoken word side. Music stations still do some research, but talk stations rarely do. So there’s a lot more flying by the seat of your pants, and being an echo chamber for the audience or for the people who are calling in anyway, and not trying to figure out where the line is or where the boundary is. Much less now and much more thirty years ago.
Luke: Who are your peers you have the most respect for? Not the hosts, but the programmers and coaches and consultants.
David: I’ve been away from the radio station level here too long to be able to say. I don’t know.
Luke: Why did you leave KFI in 2002?
David: Because all of my shows were being syndicated by Premiere, and Premiere wanted me to go there with those shows and create more shows. I had been at KFI a long time, and it had been a really good run, and I felt that would be an interesting next chapter.
Luke: What price did you pay for being a great talk radio programmer at KFI?
David: I don’t know. I worked too much. I don’t know how to answer that question.
Luke: Let’s skip it. When did you stop being a radio programmer primarily? Was it 2008?
David: July 2010 is when I left KABC.
Luke: What kind of radio station did you leave in July 2010?
David: A very conservative talk station that fits right in with conservative talk radio all over America today.
Luke: How long had you been there? And was it a congenial experience?
David: I was there a year, maybe. It was a tough experience, because if you think back over the hour of this conversation, that’s just not how I ever programmed before. It was more difficult, more challenging, than I expected.
Luke: What were you thinking about where you would go after you walked out of KABC in July of 2010?
David: When I left Premiere, before I went to CBS and the news stations, I knew I wanted to start consulting full-time, but I didn’t have the confidence to do it. I thought, nobody’s going to hire me, I’m going to starve. So I went to CBS, ran the two all-news stations for a few years, enjoyed that. When I left there, and I didn’t get fired or anything, I left to go to KABC, it was the same thing. I don’t know that I could really do this consulting thing full-time. I really wanted to. I was inspired by that consultant I mentioned who I had at KFI for all those years. I just didn’t have the confidence. And then after KABC I had the confidence, and I just did it, and I’ve been doing it ever since, and never starved so far.
LAT: ‘David Hall will try to work his KFI magic at KABC’ (Dec. 22, 2008)
When David G. Hall first went to work at KFI-AM (640) in 1989, the station had just adopted a talk format and people were scoffing at the notion of an upstart thinking it could challenge the dominance of KABC-AM (790), the nation’s first talk-radio station. When he gave up the program director’s job in 2002, KFI was one of the most popular outlets in Southern California, and KABC wasn’t even a close runner-up.
Can he now turn the tables and do for KABC what he did for KFI?
Radio listeners will find out in the months ahead. After five years as program director at all-news stations KFWB-AM (980) and KNX-AM (1070), Hall on Friday was named director of operations at Citadel Broadcasting’s KABC, effective Jan. 5. He replaces Erik Braverman, a 12-year veteran at the station.
His first project, Hall said in an interview, will be to build a news staff. The aim is neither to replace the talk programming nor to compete with what his former all-news colleagues do, but to enhance what KABC already offers.
If the hosts are talking about L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Hall said, “it really helps to have a reporter at City Hall in the middle of it.”
He said he doesn’t know yet how many people he will be hiring but expressed admiration for the commitment Citadel had made to him to expand the staff at a time when other media companies are contracting.
In the most recent quarterly Arbitron ratings for the L.A. and Orange counties market, KABC tied for 19th, averaging 2.1% of the audience — less than half of the 4.4% share that KFI had in its No. 2 perch. KFI’s weekday schedule still features the formidable lineup that Hall helped put in place: Bill Handel, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger and the team of John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.
But Hall, 44, said overtaking KFI is not his goal.
“It’s a big market; there’s plenty of room for all of us,” he said. “My goal is to find the right place in the market for KABC and to help the station serve the market as well as possible.”
Robin Bertolucci, who succeeded Hall as program director at KFI, said she wasn’t fazed by having him as a competitor at KABC. That station is only one of many talk rivals, she noted, including KLSX-FM (97.1), KGIL-AM (1260), KRLA-AM (870) and KTLK-AM (1150).
Luke: What are the advantages or disadvantages for you between being a consultant versus being the guy in charge of a station?
David: A badge. When you’re the guy in charge of the station, you wear a badge. When you need people to do something, they do it. As a consultant, I can highly recommend that people do things, and if they don’t do them, there’s not much I can do about it.
Luke: Is there any reading you assign to people who hire you?
David: No. I never have. Never even thought about it. It’s a great idea.
Luke: So there’s no book about communication or radio you regard as particularly important?
David: I wouldn’t say that. There’s just no reading I assign, like, okay, go read this book and then we’ll work together.
Luke: What do you think are the best books about radio or communication, off the top of your head?
David: Valerie Geller’s books are really good. I know her. We worked together at KFI. She was in my news department in the very beginning, in 1989. I think she’s done a great job in all the different things she’s done and the places she’s worked, and I think her books have been very helpful to people. If someone were to ask me about a book, I’d recommend Valerie’s.
Luke: Have you worked with hosts, given notes to hosts, who you recognized were really good at what they did but who just made you feel lousy, and you didn’t like them, or it took a toll on you even interacting with them?
David: Not really, because it’s just never been that personal to me. Like I said before, whether I agree or disagree doesn’t matter. I’m in it for the radio. I’m in it for producing a really great product that comes out of a radio and makes people turn it up and want to come back for more. It isn’t about what I like or don’t like, or whether I get along with somebody well or don’t. It doesn’t matter.
Luke: But don’t people give you a feeling? You meet someone and you relax inside. You meet someone and you get excited. You meet someone and you start having all these questions. We all have strong emotional reactions to people. Surely that plays a role in what you do.
David: Not really. I don’t let it be a factor. Sometimes people are easier to work with, or a little more complicated to work with, but that’s just part of the challenge. I’ve never been that way. It never mattered whether I liked Handel personally, or whether he rubbed me the wrong way, or John, or Laura, or anybody, or Hendrie. It just does not matter.
I look at it like music formats. I’m a classic rock guy. I’m not a country guy, but I worked at a country station, and in fact I was on the air at a country station, and I did okay. It did not matter that I wasn’t a country music fan working at a country music station. And it does not matter whether I feel better or not as good about a person I’m working with. That’s not what I’m in it for.
Luke: Talk to me about the trajectory of your career once you walk out of KABC and start consulting.
David: I had already been consulting internationally. I put on the first talk station in Poland right after communism, in the early nineties, which is one of the things I’m most proud of in my career, and it’s number one in Poland even today. It’s called Tok FM. I put on a talk radio network in the UK, the first real network to go up against the BBC a little bit. Talk Radio UK, it was called. I did that in the mid-nineties. And I had been consulting in Mexico and New Zealand before I ever left KFI or Premiere. So I had already been doing quite a bit of consulting.
When I finally got the confidence to go out on my own and do this full-time and really start the business, it was those international things. Then I started to work with some different groups around the United States, and then it went international again, and now most of my clients are outside the United States. I still have clients here, and some great ones and important ones, but I work in Latin America and in Europe in several countries, and around the US. That’s been the trajectory.
Luke: How did you discover podcasts?
David: I became interested when they first started to become a thing. I think I was an early adopter. Like when I first started programming at KFI, I wanted to understand how they work and what the appeal is. So I started to study them and listen to a lot of them, different ones, and try to understand them as best I could from the very beginning.
Luke: What are the most common things you say to your clients?
David: That’s a great question. Everybody I work with who is either on the radio or produces a podcast has, in my experience, a superpower. There’s always a thing or two, maybe more, that they’re really good at. And often they shoot themselves in the foot. I see my role as trying to get them to shoot themselves in the foot as little as possible, while highlighting their strengths and the things they do best, maybe better than almost anyone else, as much as possible. You would think that would be a no-brainer, but that ends up being the challenge almost every time, for different reasons.
Luke: What are the most common ways people in the audio business shoot themselves in the foot?
David: They’re very inside. They do a show for people who have always listened to them, which makes that show very difficult for somebody who has never listened to them. That keeps them from growing an audience. That’s probably the biggest thing I see, and I see it all the time. Even shows that do a really good job, at some point they assume the audience knows all their tricks and all their nuances, and they get into a shorthand, and new audience doesn’t know that. It makes it very difficult for new audience to listen.
Another is that interviews can be really difficult. They’re better on podcasts, but on radio interviews are really difficult to do, because you introduce the person at the beginning and most hosts forget to reset and reintroduce the person later. If you hear the first three minutes you hear the introduction, who the person is, why we’re talking to them, and the best question, because every host thinks of the big question he wants to ask and usually asks it in the first couple of minutes. After that it’s an ongoing conversation. Anybody who tunes in after that first three minutes often doesn’t get who the guest is or why they’re there, and never gets the big question, because it’s already passed by the time they come in. It’s pretty hard to do an interview well.
Luke: Being a professional in the audio business, how does that affect your ability to get pleasure from choosing to listen to audio?
David: I don’t listen to spoken word audio recreationally. I only do it for work. I listen to music radio and music when I’m on my own time. But it never really turns off. This is kind of embarrassing to say. I’ve been in church watching a priest do a sermon, wanting to aircheck him, wanting to say, no, no, no, you should start with a story, and you should explain this, and you should do that. Coaching him. Unfortunately it doesn’t turn off.
Luke: If there’s anything that turns it off, what is it?
David: Music or movies. Mostly music.
Luke: Do you have favorite songs, a favorite band?
David: My favorite artist is Simon and Garfunkel, going way back to my early youth. But I like a lot of different kinds of music. As I said, I’m probably more naturally a classic rock guy, but I also grew up listening to all the big top 40 hits of the seventies on KFRC, so I guess I’m also a classic hits guy. In Los Angeles I listen to KLOS, I listen to K-Earth, I listen to 93.1 Jack FM. All very well programmed radio stations.
Luke: How did you have to grow to make it in your new consulting business, or did it just flow naturally? Did you have to learn new skills, new ways of working with people?
David: It mostly flowed. As I said, I had been doing it part-time from the early nineties anyway, so I had a lot of experience, and I had a great mentor. The consultant who helped me all that time at KFI also inspired me in what I’m doing now. I had a really good role model.
I’ve adopted some things that have helped over time. One of the things I really live by, and I tell my clients this all the time, is that I’ll give them my best thinking and I’ll make recommendations, but the decisions are theirs, because they’ve got a business to run and I’m not on the hook for their business. They are. Once they make a decision, my role changes. It goes from having the ideas and making recommendations to supporting whatever the decision is, even if it was not my recommendation or not what I would have decided. I really do live by that, and I think that’s what you have to do in this role. I make recommendations, they make decisions, and the moment they make a decision my role becomes making their decision successful.
Luke: I assume that pretty much everyone you’ve ever worked with, from radio to consulting, has an enormous drive to succeed. Am I wrong?
David: I would say that’s very true.
Luke: I would assume for most of the people you work with this is the number one thing in their life. It’s not number three.
David: Sometimes it’s not. I’ve worked with some people who had a lot of television experience, and they often don’t do very well in radio, because they miss television when they do radio. Radio is a little too simple for them sometimes. But for the most part I would say that’s accurate, Luke. They’re driven, and this really is the most important thing, or one of the most important things, in their lives. That’s great for the relationship, for me as a consultant or coach or program director. I have their attention.
Luke: Are there healthy drives you notice and unhealthy drives? Everyone you work with is incredibly driven. Do you think in those terms? One person trying to get back at a girl who rejected him in fifth grade.
David: No, not in my work. Not really. If I were a psychologist, probably. And sometimes I feel like a psychologist in this job. But no, not really.
Luke: How much have you been required, in your professional work in radio and other forms of audio, to reassure people, to tell them they’re good?
David: That’s a big part of the job. But from the beginning, when I first started programming, I realized it isn’t really helpful to say, hey, you’re doing a great job. It’s much more helpful to say, wow, you’re doing a great job, because I heard you do this and this and this. When you do those things, man, you are on fire. To be very specific and genuine about it. That’s what I’ve done my whole career.
Luke: Which hosts caused you the most aggravation, not because they were bad people, but because they were so provocative? I assume Phil Hendrie caused you more than anyone else.
David: No, not really. We have a great relationship. We had great communication when we were working together. Whenever I was going to be a so-called guest on his show, he told me. I knew what he was going to do. I always had the opportunity to say, oh man, I don’t know, that’s gotten a little close, I’ve got kids in school. So no, not really. My aggravation in my career has come from outside partnerships.
Luke: But you got more complaints. Didn’t you get more intense complaints about him?
David: I don’t care about complaints. Complaints are good. Let me tell you, the day I don’t get complaints, that would be a scary day. I love the complaints.
Luke: But they make your life complicated.
David: No, no, no. That’s part of the payoff. That’s how I know we’re touching people.
Luke: So the most controversial was that situation around 1992, the comment made by a radio host about a television news anchor, and that was somewhat scary for you.
David: It was, and that was probably the moment when I realized complaints are good and complaints should not complicate my life. They did during that time, because I didn’t know any better. But after that, they didn’t. It was such a great lesson for me.
Luke: And after that, things fell into place for how you regard complaints.
David: There are always a lot of complaints. I always just took them as good news. The more complaints, the better.
Luke: What do you do with podcasters that’s different from what you did with radio hosts?
David: The first thing is to understand that podcasting is its own medium. Television and radio are separate media, and podcasting is its own medium. There are a lot of people who start a podcast thinking they’re doing a radio show, but it isn’t a radio show. People use podcasts very differently, and that’s the most important thing for people to understand when they’re doing a podcast.
Also, radio is broad. It’s broadcasting, and it’s mass, and podcasting is niche. That’s a pretty big difference too. There are things about it that are very different from spoken word radio. It is spoken word content, but it’s really its own medium, more than a lot of people appreciate.
Luke: What separates the people who are great at what you do from the people who are merely good?
David: Talent, which can’t be taught. A sense of humor, typically. And the ability to boil things down, whether it’s a podcast or a radio show, which is really key now, maybe more than ever. We’re living in a more complicated world all the time. Mostly those things.
Luke: Are there things you tell people that no one else has told them, that open up vistas? Things you’ve been able to get through to people that they say no one else could?
David: There are some things I tell people and the reaction is, wow, never thought of it that way before. Nobody has ever said that to me. I’ve been doing this for thirty years, or twenty years, and nobody has ever said that to me. That happens, and it’s very rewarding when it does.
But more often it’s, no one has ever said it like that before. I’ve heard that over the years, and I couldn’t really do much with it. And then the way you just said it, I can work with that. I can do something with that. You really made that make sense for the first time. I hear that a lot. It’s not that I’m saying something for the very first time. I’m just saying it differently.
Luke: One thing I’m taking away from this is that a successful radio host or podcaster is often able to say things other people feel but no one says out loud. Then you have to have incredible courage to do that on an ongoing basis. Are you thinking of people who had the ability to say those things everyone else is thinking but doesn’t say, but who, when push came to shove, couldn’t deal with the pushback? Or have you only dealt with people so driven they’re willing to pay the price?
David: I’ve dealt with people who couldn’t deal with the pushback. What’s more common is that because everybody now has a phone in front of them, they’re looking at what people are posting or commenting, or what their friends and colleagues are texting or emailing them, and they let that drive what they do. That’s a really common thing these days, unfortunately. I wish I could take the phone out of every studio.
Luke: Are there people who, when they tell you they don’t follow social media, are telling you the truth? Or are they pretty much all hooked?
David: I think they’re all hooked. Everybody’s into social media and gives way too much weight to the comments. They don’t get that complaints are a good thing, the way I do.
Luke: Were you surprised how well your techniques translated to Poland and other places?
David: Yes, because I never thought of the basics of what makes a listener listen to radio as being as universal as they turn out to be. Now, of course, having done this a long time on the consulting side, I totally get it.
You’re in your car in Madrid. It’s hot. It’s already ninety-something degrees at eight in the morning. You’re in traffic. Your boss is an idiot. You’re ready for vacation. You’re hungry. You’re already thinking about what’s for dinner and about the weekend. And you’re listening to the radio. What is it we’re bringing to make you think, to put a smile on your face, to make you nod your head, and most importantly, to make you physically look at that radio? It does not matter whether that person in that car in that heat is in Los Angeles or Madrid or São Paulo or Paris or wherever. The things that make someone listen carefully to a music morning show or a talk show or a podcast are universal.
Luke: What constitutes a great radio host or podcaster? Is it eighty percent talent? Forty percent talent, forty percent discipline? How would you describe the components?
David: Probably seventy percent talent and thirty percent discipline, plus show. They have to have a sense of show, which is the thing I learned from Rush Limbaugh in the very beginning. They do have to be disciplined. They have to understand the environment they’re in. But I think the rest of it is talent.
You asked me before what things I end up telling people over and over. One of them is that people, especially when they’re newer at this, tend to think that people listen to their show or their podcast the way they do. Every time you do a video, Luke, you watch the entire thing, but of course your audience doesn’t. The good news with YouTube is you can see what percentage they actually watch, over time or per episode. It’s the same in radio. Somebody listening in the morning in Los Angeles is listening to anyone’s show for about twelve minutes, and the person doing that show hears four hours of that show every day. Plus his mom, probably. So they assume everybody hears the whole show, when in fact people are only hearing eleven and twelve and thirteen minute snippets of it.
Where that comes up, and this is both in music morning shows, which I also work with, and talk shows, is that they tend to shoot their wad first. They go on the air at six o’clock and they have all their best material, and they don’t repeat it. They don’t go back and touch it, because they already talked about it and the audience already heard it. But the audience listening at 8:20 certainly wasn’t listening at six o’clock when they did that. That’s where the discipline really comes in, and the understanding of how the medium works and their place in it, to work that to their advantage instead of against them.
Luke: When Dennis Prager was getting started at KABC, one of the challenges for him was that he kept getting the instruction, more energy, more energy, more energy. I think one thing that distinguishes those who do it from those who listen is that the listener doesn’t understand that a successful radio or podcast host has to bring at least five times the energy he’d bring to an in-person conversation. Am I in the ballpark?
David: I think that’s often the case. In Dennis’s case, when he started at KABC they had already lost a lot of audience and KFI was really starting to do well. Unfortunately for Dennis, I think a lot of that direction came from an urgent need to somehow follow KFI. We were really energetic, so they needed to be energetic. That was the secret sauce and why we were winning, and they needed to grab that back. And that’s not his style. That’s not who he is. It’s not his talent. He’s much more philosophical, and there’s a lot more to him than that. In that case I don’t think I would have given him that direction.
Luke: One thing I remember from working in radio is how absolutely wiped out hosts typically were after a show. Is that your recollection?
David: Absolutely. It was like that for me when I was on the radio, and it’s like that for just about everybody I work with.
Let me say one thing here that has to do with that and is kind of important. You watch a show like Jimmy Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel, who comes from radio of course, he was on KROQ here, or Jon Stewart, or Stephen Colbert, and they have a writers room of twenty-two writers, or twenty, or fifteen, writing the monologue and the script and all that. Bill Handel was on the radio every day for four hours and it’s all off the top of his head. All of it. He has to keep a train of thought, and remember what he’s going to say, and be creative, and think about what his opinion is and how he’s going to express himself. That is remarkably challenging. I don’t think people appreciate that a radio show generates two or three or four or more hours of original content every day, all by themselves. Whether it’s one person or two people. Rush used to do three hours because he had no guests. Three hours every day, all original content, all generated by himself. He had no writers. That’s amazing when you compare them to people in national television and the support they have. So yes, of course they’re exhausted. They should be mentally exhausted.
Luke: I feel like I can get a read on someone from one, two, three seconds of their voice. When I call my friends or family, I immediately know where they are emotionally, what’s going on with them. I do a lot of twelve-step work and sponsorship. I can immediately tell whether someone feels beaten down, whether someone’s making progress. It’s so quick. The voice just screams somebody’s state at me. How about you? Do you feel this?
David: I think I’m pretty good at reading people. I have a sense, especially when I’m listening to them, whether they’re a music morning show or a talk show or news or a podcast.
You’ll find this kind of entertaining. I used to do this at KFI, and maybe even at Premiere a little bit. Somebody would want to do a talk show, so they’d come in and pitch me their show, and invariably, every single time, I would say, John Kobylt just choked on a pizza, I need somebody to go in and do afternoon drive in thirty minutes. If that’s you, what do you talk about? What are you going to go on the radio with thirty minutes from now?
Ninety percent of the time they would say, oh my God, I haven’t even looked at the paper today, I don’t know, let me look at the paper and see what’s going on. A good talk show host is dying to talk about stuff. You just need the microphone in front of you. You don’t need to look at the newspaper first. You would know immediately. All the best people I’ve worked with have been like that. I would ask that question and they would say, oh my God, the thing nobody’s talking about is this or that. And they’d jump right into it.
Luke: My mind immediately goes to, what are the obvious truths you can’t say out loud, particularly in polite company? I would just start making a list. Male-female differences. Relations between groups. Blindingly obvious things you cannot cop to or admit in polite company. That would be endlessly fascinating.
David: Yeah. That’s good. See, I would have hired you to do a talk show.
Luke: Well, what have I not asked you about that I should have?
David: This is pretty extensive. This is the longest interview I’ve ever done, that’s for sure. I think you asked some really good questions.
Luke: Thank you. I’ve thought about it for years, because I’ve loved radio since I came to America in 1977.
David: I can tell. Very impressive, Luke. Your knowledge.
Luke: Thank you, David.
David: Thank you so much.
Luke: I’ve been looking forward to this for years.
David: All right, great. Thank you very much. Let’s stay in touch.
Luke: Sounds good. Cheers, mate.
David: Cheers.
Claude says:
You got a good tape. The best of it sits between minute three and minute fifty, and the single best moment is Limbaugh in the break saying you do the news, I’m doing the show. That is the seed of everything Hall built, delivered by the man who planted it, in scene, with dialogue. Lead with it. The chronological open buries your strongest thirty seconds seven minutes deep.
The Arbitron story is the piece nobody has published. A program director walks into the ratings company and buys a forensic read on a rival he has not yet faced, and comes out with a distinction that holds up as theory: some hosts carry the station, some get carried by it, and the same number means opposite things depending on which. That is a contribution to knowledge, not an anecdote. It also explains a decision that looked like nerve at the time and was arithmetic.
The other keepers are the Handel research finding and the audition test. I don’t need his wife at six in the morning is exactly the kind of thing focus groups produce and stations ignore. And John Kobylt just choked on a pizza, you’re on in thirty minutes, what do you talk about, sorts talkers from people who want to be talkers in one question. Both are usable by any reader who makes anything.
Now the misses.
You never got the name of the consultant. He talked to this man every working day for eleven years, credits him with the KFI strategy and with his entire second career, and the man goes unnamed through the whole interview. Cambria, central coast, on KFI before 1989. That is enough to find him. Get the name and you have a second interview.
Daryl Gates gets one subordinate clause. He put the LAPD chief in afternoon drive between Leykis and John and Ken. Depending on the exact months, that is either just before the King verdict or just after, and either way it is the most consequential booking decision in the interview. It went by unremarked.
The tension you left alone is the good one. He says four times that he never programmed liberal or conservative, only stimulating. His lineup was Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, John and Ken, and Gates. The research told him what Southern California found stimulating, and what it found stimulating had a direction. He would not concede that, but he might describe it. Ask it as a question about the research rather than about him: did the audience studies ever come back saying something stimulating that you decided not to do. That gets you the boundary without accusing him of anything.
Same with shock. He rejected the word three times, and he also told you complaints are how he knows the station is touching people, and that the format’s job is saying what people can’t say at work. Those sit close together. Not a gotcha, just an unresolved place he might resolve if asked once more.
Two structural gaps. Premiere, 2002 to 2004, gets four sentences, and he was senior programming executive at the company that syndicated Limbaugh at Limbaugh’s peak. You have the only person alive who anchored Rush’s local newscast and later sat above his national show. That reunion is a whole segment and you skipped it. And Hendrie voicing him as a character for thirty years, which you raised as aggravation and he waved off, deserved the direct approach: describe the character, what did your kids say, did any executive ever ask you about it.
He deflected every interior question. What price did you pay, healthy versus unhealthy drives, do you read people. Three refusals. But watch what happened after the third one. He said not really, then immediately told the pizza story. He will not give you feeling and he will give you scene. That is your handle for next time. Never ask him how something felt. Ask him what happened in the room.
On your own performance, one thing to watch. The office-bloke passage runs two long turns and states a thesis, and he agreed with it politely and then twice steered back to his own point about local and daily topics.
And an irony worth using. Hall’s own diagnosis of bad interviews is that hosts fire the big question early and never reset, so anyone arriving after minute three has no idea who is talking or why. Your tape runs an hour and forty-four with no reset. He would aircheck you for it.
I ask Claude what the articles above add to the interview.
Claude says:
The largest thing these add: they identify the incident Hall told three times and never named, and they show his account of it does not hold.
The comment was Jane Norris on July 22, 1991, and the subject was Bree Walker-Lampley, then anchoring at KCBS, seven months pregnant with a fifty percent chance of passing on ectrodactyly. Norris asked on the air whether it was fair to bring such a child into the world, then opened the phones. The New York Times quoted the tape, which advocates had made available: is it fair to that child, and God knows they’re going to judge you by the shape of your hands. Those sentences are not ambiguous in either direction. Hall told you they were misconstrued, and probably misconstrued on purpose, and he has been telling himself that for thirty-five years. That is the sentence in your transcript most likely to be quoted against him and against you.
He took the program director’s chair on July 19, 1991. The broadcast aired July 22. He was three days into the job. That explains the fear he described, and it also means the episode he built his entire theory of complaints on landed before he had run a single ratings book of his own. The lesson he drew, complaints are good, complaints are how I know we’re touching people, was drawn from a segment about whether a disabled woman should have a baby, and drawn while a woman he had never met went catatonic for several days in Del Mar. Braxton’s 2004 piece supplies her side: she cried, she went catatonic, she vowed to fight, and she dates the rest of her life from it. She was still calling it the turning point thirteen years later. Her son was born in August 1991 with the condition.
Hall also gets the shape of the complaint wrong in a useful way. He said an FCC complaint was filed against the station, as though it came from nowhere. It came from the Western Law Center for the Handicapped at Loyola, with Paul Steven Miller (1961-2010) as director of litigation, and Miller went on to the EEOC. The Personal Attack Rule was the theory. The FCC rejected it. Norris said her aim was the larger ethical question. ADAPT planned to picket. Barbara Faye Waxman called it eugenics on the record. This was not a mob. It was a law school clinic and a disability rights movement one year into the Americans with Disabilities Act, and they were organized enough to hand the tape to a Times reporter in New York.
And Howard Neal is quoted in the same article saying he always encouraged his hosts to take opinions, popular or unpopular. That is the exact behavior Hall praised him for in your interview, in Neal’s own words, on the record, in the middle of the worst of it. Your portrait of Neal holds up completely. Neal also conceded it probably would have been appropriate to have Walker on and said he invited her to rebut. Hall did not mention that either.
The second large thing is the riots, which Hall never brought up.
Bill Lewis puts him at the board on Ardmore for twelve hours with fires six blocks east and six blocks west, security gone, looters on the street with rifles, the station off the air from 7:15 to 7:30 on April 30, 1992, and Marc Germain beside him. And the decision, made by Hall and Neal, to keep the biggest show in America off KFI so the station could stay local. Limbaugh called that Saturday to ask whether his politics were the reason. He was told no, it was the local mandate.
You asked Hall about milestones, about what fueled him, about what price he paid. He gave you a weekend host and a bump in the book. He did not give you the roof. That omission is worth thinking about, because it is his best story and his best evidence. He preached live and local for an hour and forty minutes. He pulled Rush Limbaugh off the air during the largest civil disturbance in modern American history to prove it. Either he assumes everyone knows, or he does not narrate himself in the heroic register, which fits everything else about him.
The third thing is that the confrontational KFI predates him and he knows it. The Cat Stevens record burning, Geoff Edwards (1931-2014) suspended and then resigning for objecting to it, and three of Edwards’s staff fired to clear the slot for Limbaugh, all ran February and March 1989, under George Oliva, months before Hall arrived in July. Add Limbaugh’s vacuum cleaner and the plan to bus the homeless to Malibu. When Hall told you KFI before 1991 certainly was not shock radio, he was defending a station that had burned records with the fire department supervising. He may mean something narrower, that the shock was not the strategy. That is a defensible distinction and he never got to make it because the question came as a label instead of as a fact.
Then a set of corrections and gaps, in descending order of consequence.
KFI passed KABC in fall 1992 according to Baxter, working from Arbitron at the time. Hall told you 1994 or 1995. He understates his own turnaround by two years, which puts the crossover inside his first fifteen months and inside the riot coverage.
He was twenty-four or twenty-five when he arrived, not twenty-one or twenty-two. Margulies gives his age as forty-four in December 2008.
McDougal calls him KFBK’s news director, and he told you assistant news director. He replaced Dave Blake, fired with Gary Owens (1934-2015) and Al Lohman in late June 1989. The firings were public by July 4 and the Owens and Lohman farewell show was July 14. So the scene of Owens walking out of the general manager’s office on Hall’s first day, having been fired five minutes earlier, cannot be the firing. Something in that memory has compressed. The graciousness may be exactly as he remembers it. The staging cannot be.
John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou jumped to KABC in early 1999 and later came back. Hall said thirty-something years and still going, which is true of the run, and the defection is a hole in the middle of it that he did not mention and you did not know to ask about.
The 1994 Auschwitz stunt, sending two neo-Nazis to the camp with Bill Handel, and the March 1999 Tammy Bruce suit naming Hall, Hendrie, and Neal, are both absent from the interview. Together with Norris they make a fourth question available: what did you decline to put on the air, and what got past you.
The one that helps him most is Karel Bouley and Andrew Howard, an openly gay couple in afternoon drive at KFI in 1999, following Limbaugh and Schlessinger in the same day. That is the strongest single piece of evidence for his claim that he programmed stimulating rather than conservative, and you did not have it, and he did not offer it. He let his best defense sit while you asked him twice about ideology. It also reframes the Hendrie bit where the fictional Hall orders Phil to do a gay friendly show. The real Hall had already put one in drive time.
And the billboard. Hall told the Times in 1999 that KFI ran one reading We Don’t Know What the Hell We’re Doing, and that he loved it because it was largely true. He told you the station ran on two hundred thousand dollars a year of focus groups and content studies and nothing by the seat of the pants. Both are him. Read the pair to him and see which way he goes.
Carney is the most useful of the batch because it is Hall talking in 2002, at the moment he left, and you can set it against Hall talking in 2026 and see what held and what drifted.
What held, almost word for word across twenty-four years: the middle-aged guy peering over half-glasses at a stack of newspapers, which is the same figure as the recorded public meeting and the press release; the mix of entertaining and informative; younger and more female as a deliberate target rather than a happy accident; and we had nothing to lose. He has been telling this story in the same shape for a quarter century. That consistency is evidence the theory is real and not retrofitted.
What drifted is the ratings arithmetic again, and it drifts the same direction. He told Carney 0.7 on arrival in 1989 and 4.2 in the fourth quarter of 2001, fourth in the market. He told you 0.8 or 0.9 against KABC’s eight or ten in July 1991. Margulies has KFI at 4.4 and second in 2008, six years after Hall left, which means Bertolucci grew it further. Between the three numbers, Hall’s arrival share is stable and his memory of KABC’s share is the soft spot. Nobody had an eight or ten share in Los Angeles in 1991. KABC was third overall in the market around then per Baxter. The gap was large. It was not that large.
Two things here are new and neither came from your interview.
The Hendrie character has a job title, and it is not program director. Carney has him as a scratchy-voiced vice president of syndication who pushes spurious advertisers on the show and makes impolitic comments about women and ethnic groups. That is January 2002, weeks before the real Hall took the syndication job at Premiere. So Hendrie either anticipated the promotion or was riffing on it as it happened, and the joke is sharper than the version in your draft: the fictional Hall was the corporate syndication man before the real one became it. Worth checking whether the title migrated later.
The Leykis exit was acrimonious, in 1992, over a contract dispute, and Carney lists it as a move that was not a home run. In your interview Hall said only that Tom Leykis left, then moved on to Daryl Gates. That is one of the few places he shaded something by omission rather than by memory.
Then the small biographical corrections. He lied about his age to get the internship at twelve, which is a better detail than the one you have, and the job was call screening plus board work when the DJs slipped out to meet groupies. He was a seventh-grader from Catholic school talking to sixteen-year-old girls on the request line, and he called it the best job he ever had. He also says he wanted radio from about nine. And he told Carney flatly that when he finally got on the air he was awful, which is more candid than anything he gave you about himself and cuts against the pattern of deflection you ran into.
He was thirty-seven in January 2002 and forty-four in December 2008, so born around 1964. Arriving at KFI in July 1989 makes him twenty-four or twenty-five, and program director at twenty-six or twenty-seven. Not twenty-two. He also won awards at KFBK for reporting from Mexico and Nicaragua, which he never mentioned to you at all, and which is the only foreign-correspondent work in his record before the consulting years. That connects to the international second act more than he lets on.
Two corrections to the received story of the departure. Carney says Clear Channel, not Cox, owned KFI by 2002 and that he was moving up inside the parent company to oversee syndicated talk and sports. He told you Premiere wanted him because Premiere was syndicating all his shows. Premiere is the Clear Channel subsidiary, so both are true, but the framing differs: he described it to you as a pull from the syndicator and to Carney as an internal promotion. Cox owned the station during the years he described to you; the sale happened somewhere in between and you never established when. Worth pinning down, because his story about geographical distance from Atlanta protecting him has an expiration date.
And he was programming three stations at the end, not one. KFI plus KXTA 1150 sports and KLAC 570. That changes the picture of the job he left.
The other thing Carney supplies is testimony from the rival. Erik Braverman, then programming KABC, said people tried to get him to say bad things about Hall and he had none, that Hall inherited great talent lacking focus and direction, and that Hall was the heart and soul of the station. Seven years later Hall replaced Braverman at KABC. That is a clean, quotable arc and neither man mentioned it to anyone in your material.
Bertolucci’s line about not wanting to be the next David Hall character is the best single quote in the file for your Hendrie section.
Last, the September 11 claim is a testable version of his whole thesis and he made it three months after the fact. Los Angeles put KFI fourth and KABC twelfth while KNX sat sixteenth and KFWB twentieth, and in other markets listeners went to all-news. His reading of it is a little tangled, since he says people wanted information rather than opinions and then cites the talk stations beating the news stations, which argues the opposite of what he seems to be claiming. The numbers support his news-and-talk hybrid rather than either pure form. It is the one place in the record where he has a natural experiment and does not quite know what to do with it. If you get a second sitting, that is a good question, and it does not require him to feel anything.
Posted inRadio|Comments Off on Talk Radio Programmer David G. Hall
Neil Saavedra runs the longest-running gimmick in Los Angeles religious radio, and the gimmick works because he never plays it for laughs. He hosts The Jesus Christ Show on KFI AM 640, the flagship, syndicated through Premiere Networks, billed as “Hosted by Jesus Christ.” He speaks the whole three hours in the first person as Christ. He calls himself the holy host.
Start with the instrument, because the voice carries the whole thing. A reporter who sat in the studio described it as a strong, smooth bass. That register matters. A tenor playing Jesus sounds like a children’s pageant. A bass sounds like authority that does not need to raise itself. Saavedra works low and slow. He lets pauses sit. He does not crowd a caller. The pace tells the listener that the man on the other end has all the time in the world, which is the point, since the character he plays supposedly does. The tone runs warm and pastoral, never arch. His manner stays loving rather than sarcastic, and his aim is to reach Christians who want support, encouragement, and pastoral advice. He never winks. The conceit could collapse into camp in a second if he signaled that he found it funny, and he refuses to signal that. The origin story holds the key here. Bill Handel invited him onto an Easter segment to play Jesus on the condition that he do it without irony or kitsch. Saavedra kept that rule and built a career on it. The diction comes out of apologetics, not seminary. He trained himself. He studied Catholic apologetics, then Protestant apologetics, with coursework in critical thinking, theology, Hebrew, the Trinity, and the cults at small Southern California schools. So his speech mixes plain pastoral comfort with the debater’s habits of an apologist: he defines terms, he tells a story to make a point land, he answers the question under the question. He often replies with parables, the way the Gospels show Jesus doing. He reaches for the narrative answer before the doctrinal one. A caller asks something raw, and he gives back a story rather than a syllogism. The structure of the hour shapes the rhetoric. He opens with a monologue or sermon that runs anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour, then takes calls. The sermon sets the frame and the mood. The calls then test it live. The callers skew downtrodden, people who want encouragement and advice, with the occasional turn into doctrine and theology. So his manner shifts by caller. With the grieving man he goes soft and slow. With the doctrine question he goes into the apologist’s clarity.
The rhetorical move that makes all of it possible is the consensual frame. He never claims to be Christ and says so plainly. He does not believe he is Jesus and refers to himself on-air as your holy host. He has put it as an agreed setting between the listener and him, that he will pretend. That single sentence does the theological and ethical work. It turns a potential blasphemy into a piece of consensual radio theater, and it gives the audience permission to address him as Lord without either party lying. Callers open with lines like “Good morning, Lord,” and he answers in character.
His care about the line shows off the air too. A pastor who later worked with him noticed it. Saavedra refused to appear at the man’s church as Jesus to answer questions; he wanted to come only as Neil Saavedra, the producer, and he wanted to be careful about how he answered questions for Jesus. The character stays inside the radio. Outside it he drops the voice. That discipline is itself part of the act, and it protects the act.
So the speaking manner has a few moving parts that hold together. A low, unhurried bass. A warm pastoral tone he never breaks for a joke. An apologist’s diction underneath the comfort, fond of definition and parable. A sermon-then-calls structure that lets him modulate from teacher to counselor. And a stated consensual frame that lets a Christian man voice Christ for three hours a week without claiming to be Him.
Posted inChristianity, Radio|Comments Off on The Jesus Christ Show On KFI
John Kobylt comes out of working-class Paterson, New Jersey, and he has never sanded that off. The accent stays nasal and flat, the vowels hard, the consonants clipped. He sounds like a guy yelling across a body shop, and he wants to. The voice carries irritation as its baseline register. Most hosts modulate up into outrage from a calm floor. Kobylt starts near the boil and climbs from there.
His diction runs blunt and Anglo-Saxon. Short words, hard nouns, few qualifiers. He likes the contemptuous coinage. “Spokesholes” for press flacks is his, and it tells you the whole method: take an official, strip the dignity, give the listener a word he can repeat at a bar. He reaches for the insult that sticks rather than the precise term. When he wants to name a politician he often names the worst thing about him first and the office second.
The rhetoric is prosecutorial. He builds a case against a target, usually a California official, a tax, a fee, a homeless program, a gas price, and he hammers the same nail until the listener feels the grievance as his own. He repeats. He restates the outrage three or four ways, each louder, and the repetition functions as rhythm and as proof. The structure is accumulation. He piles examples, then steps back and asks some version of “Can you believe these people?” The question is rhetorical and the audience supplies the answer he has already loaded.
Sarcasm does the heavy lifting. He mimics. He drops into a mocking voice to play the bureaucrat, the apologist, the squishy moderate, and the impression is always a little dumber and a little more craven than the real man. The mockery flatters the listener, who gets to stand with Kobylt above the fool. He works the everyman pose hard. He is the regular guy who pays the taxes and obeys the rules and watches the political class waste it all.
He pushes the line on language without quite crossing the FCC. He gets close to the curse and stops, and the near-miss is part of the act. The restraint reads as barely contained, which suits a man whose brand is barely contained.
The pacing is fast and impatient. He interrupts. He talks over guests and callers when they bore him or wander, and he cuts a thought short the moment he has wrung the anger out of it. He does not linger in nuance. Nuance dilutes the heat, and heat is the product.
For thirty years the form depended on a second voice. Ken Chiampou played the drier, slower foil, and Kobylt bounced off him, escalated against his calm, used him as a wall to hit the ball harder. Chiampou retired and Kobylt now runs the afternoon-drive show solo on KFI. That changes the speaking manner in a way worth listening for. The solo host has no one to escalate against, so the rhythm comes now from guests, reporters, and callers, and from Kobylt narrating his own disgust without a partner to time it. The monologue carries more weight than it used to. Whether the contempt lands as well without a straight man to absorb and return it is the open question of the new format.
The throughline across all of it is moral certainty delivered as exasperation. He rarely says he might be wrong. He sounds like a man who has seen the con before and is tired of explaining it to people who keep falling for it. That posture is his strongest asset and his clearest limit. It makes him vivid and repetitive at once.
The Man Who Will Not Be Played
John Kobylt sits at the microphone in the afternoon and the first thing he does is find the lie. The studio is small. Ray Lopez produces. Debra Mark reads the news. A board op rides the levels. The phone lines fill with men who drive the 405 and the 10 and want to know who took their money and why the gas costs what it costs. Kobylt puts on the headphones and the voice comes out of Paterson, New Jersey, nasal and flat and hard at the edges, the voice of a man yelling across a body shop, which is the voice he grew up inside. He starts near anger and climbs. Most hosts warm up to outrage from a calm floor. He begins at the boil.
He has a word for the men he hunts. Spokesholes. The press flacks, the agency mouthpieces, the deputy directors of communication who stand at podiums and explain why the homeless program that cost a billion dollars houses nobody. Strip the dignity. Hand the listener a word he can carry to the bar. That is the method, and the method runs older than KFI, older than the thirty years on Los Angeles radio, older than the partnership with Ken Chiampou that ran most of four decades and ended in December 2023, when Chiampou retired and left Kobylt to run the show alone.
To read the man, start with Ernest Becker (1924-1974). In The Denial of Death Becker argued that man knows he will die and cannot live inside that knowledge, so he builds a hero system: a scheme of value that lets him feel he counts, that his short life earns a place in something larger and more lasting than the body. Self-esteem comes from measuring up to the standard the hero system sets. The standards differ from system to system. So the same sacred word means one thing here and another thing three blocks over, because the word draws its weight from the scheme that holds it. Tell me what a man treats as sacred and how he earns his sense of worth from it, and you have the shape of his fear of death.
Kobylt’s scheme is plain once you hear it. The world is a con. The marks are everywhere, in their cars, at their kitchen tables, signing the forms and paying the fees. The hero is the man who sees the con, refuses to be taken, and warns the rest. To count, in this world, is to be unfoolable, and to have used your clear sight on behalf of the men who lack it.
The root of that scheme sits in his father. Chester Kobylt came out of Poland and was taken by the Germans and held in a Nazi labor camp for five years. A state stole a man’s years and lied about why while it did. Chester survived, joined the British military, reached America, married a Polish-American woman named Helen, and raised two sons in working-class Saddle Brook, New Jersey. The son grew up and built a career telling Americans that the government will take what is yours and lie to your face about it. In Becker’s reading, the hero project here might be inherited vigilance against the great theft. The boy whose father lost everything to a lying power spends his afternoons naming lying powers and counting what they take.
The father’s name is Chester, and it sits in the middle of the son’s name, John Chester Kobylt, and the man who was robbed rides inside it.
Look first at candor. Kobylt treats candor as sacred, and in his hero system candor is the contemptuous true thing that the polite will not say. He names the worst fact about a man before he names the man’s office. The honesty that wounds is honesty doing its job, and the wound is proof the truth landed. A host who softens it has joined the con.
Now carry the word across other systems and watch it change. The hospice chaplain holds candor sacred too, and for him candor is the gentle true word at the bedside that tells the dying man what is coming without stealing his peace. Same value, opposite shape. The Quaker in a plain meeting holds candor as plain speech, no flattery, no titles, no varnish, yet always offered toward peace and never aimed to draw blood. A trial lawyer owes candor to the court, and that duty stops at the edge of a second duty owed his client, so candor for him means he will not lie to the judge and will not volunteer the fact that sinks his own man. The sponsor in a recovery meeting calls it rigorous honesty, and the first and hardest application points inward, at the searching inventory the drinker takes of his own conduct. The Confucian official offers candor as remonstrance, delivered upward through the ranks, with care for the superior’s face, because a rebuke that humiliates fails as a rebuke.
Five men, one sacred word, five different masters it serves: exposure, mercy, peace, duty, recovery, order. Kobylt files candor under exposure. The con dies the moment it is named out loud, so naming is the work, and the louder the naming the more complete the death of the lie. The chaplain would hear that same volume as cruelty. Each man is sincere. Each would distrust the others’ candor as a counterfeit of his own.
Take a second sacred word: the taxpayer. In Kobylt’s world the taxpayer is the holy victim, the regular man who pays and obeys and follows the rules while the political class wastes what he hands over. Accountability is the reckoning the victim is owed, and the show is the instrument that collects on the debt.
Carry that across the systems and it bends again. The Scandinavian social democrat treats the tax as solidarity, the opposite of theft, the standing proof that the citizens belong to one another and will not let a neighbor fall. He files the tax under generosity, and he hears the word theft, applied to it, as the language of a man who has forgotten he lives among others. The cloistered monk dissolves the question. He has renounced property, so the argument over who owns the fruit of his labor cannot reach him. And then there is the man Kobylt hunts, the career civil servant, the spokeshole himself, who is no villain inside his own hero system. He files long. He follows the process. He believes the slow grinding of procedure is the public good, that it shields the citizen from exactly the loud man at the microphone who would burn a program down on a week of anger. To the civil servant, Kobylt is the con artist, the simplifier who sells outrage by the hour and skips the hard arithmetic of governing. Two men. Two hero systems. Each casts the other as the fraud, and each is sincere in the casting.
A third sacred word: work. Kobylt put it plainly when his partner left. He said he is “not designed for retirement.” In his hero system the work is the standing proof that he is still in the fight, still unfooled, still of use to the men in the cars. He calls the grind factory labor and goes back the next afternoon to shovel more coal into the furnace. To stop would be to concede that the con outlasted him. Becker turns literal at this point. The man who stops producing the hero comes face to face with the death the hero was built to deny.
Other systems send the word work somewhere else entirely. The Benedictine makes work prayer, ora et labora, the hoe in the garden and the psalm in the choir one continuous act of worship. The young engineer in the early-retirement movement works hard and saves early so he can abolish work at forty, and for him the goal is the retirement that Kobylt treats as surrender. The German master craftsman holds work as guild honor, the title earned across years, the standard kept and handed down, and he retires when the apprentice is ready, and the retiring is an honor rather than a death. Salvation, escape, lineage, vigilance. One word, four destinations.
Now stand in the car at five o’clock on the 405. The commuter turns the dial and the anger reaches him and the anger consoles. This is the part the ratings cannot fully explain and Becker can. Shared indignation is a small immortality. To be one of the un-fooled is to belong to a band, and the host hands you the password every afternoon, the fresh outrage, the new spokeshole, the word you carry into the office the next morning. For the length of the drive you are a man who sees clearly in a city of marks. The show sells membership in the company of those who will not be played, and the facts ride along inside the membership.
Becker wrote a darker second book, Escape from Evil, and it names the cost. Man buys part of his significance by pushing death onto others, by marking out a class of villains whose defeat confirms his own worth. The form Kobylt works needs a steady supply. A fresh official to strip every afternoon. A new fee, a new program, a new face at the podium. The engine runs on contempt, and contempt has to be fed.
For thirty years Chiampou fed and cooled it at once. The drier, slower man absorbed the heat and returned it at a lower temperature, and the show breathed in the gap between them. Kobylt escalated against a partner who gave a little and held the line. The partner is gone now. The solo host narrates his own disgust with no second voice to time it or to lower it. Whether the contempt curdles without the foil is the open question of the new format, and it is a Becker question before it is a radio question. A hero system with no brake tends, over time, to need larger villains.
Set this down fair, because truth comes before comfort and the man earns the fair version. He says true things that softer hosts will not say. The billion-dollar program that houses no one is real. The fee is real. The official who lies about both is real, and the vigilance does public work that the careful men in the agencies do not always do for the public themselves. The reading here is about the form and what the form asks of the man who runs it. It is not a charge against his honesty. His honesty is the asset. The risk lives in the appetite the form builds around the honesty.
Back at the microphone the clock runs. Sixteen segments, a dozen stories, the furnace open. The afternoon ends and another one waits, and the father’s stolen years sit quiet in the middle of the son’s name. The man at the mic spends each afternoon doing the one thing the guards never let his father do. He names the lie out loud, on a frequency a million people can hear, and he counts what was taken. To count, in his world, is to die unfooled, and to have warned the others while there was still time on the clock.
Posted inKFI, Radio|Comments Off on The John Kobylt Show
Bill Handel (b. 1951) built a voice out of impatience. He talks fast, low, and dry, with a rasp that sounds like a man who has already heard your problem a thousand times and finds it tedious. The rhythm is staccato. He clips his own sentences, interrupts himself, throws away the back half of a thought once he decides you got the point. The pacing tells you he runs the room. He came to the country from Brazil at five and grew up in the San Fernando Valley, and the accent that survived is pure Los Angeles wiseguy rather than anything foreign.
The diction mixes high and low on purpose. He moves from a clean recitation of a statute or a court holding into crude bathroom humor in the same breath, and the jolt between the two is the joke. He swears up to the edge of what the FCC permits. He talks about his body, his age, his medical appointments, his failures, his money, his ex-wives, and he does it to puncture any sense that the man giving you legal advice is a figure of dignity. The famous tag on his weekend show says it plainly. He calls what he offers “marginal legal advice” and tells callers “you have absolutely no case” with relish. The self-deprecation is a shield. It lets him be brutal to a caller because he has already been brutal to himself. Handel On The LawHandel On The Law
His rhetoric runs on contempt managed for comedy. He insults the caller, the staff, the listener, the news, and himself, and the audience learns to hear the insult as affection. He mocks a man for signing a contract he did not read, then walks him toward the one thing he can do, then mocks him again on the way out. The cruelty has a structure. It clears away the caller’s self-pity and the wishful thinking, and what remains is a usable answer. He learned the trade as a reproductive law expert and built the Center for Surrogate Parenting, so he speaks about contracts and family law with real authority, and the authority is what licenses the abuse. A pure clown could not get away with it. A pure lawyer would bore you. He sits between the two and works the seam.
The ensemble carries the morning show. He runs it as a bandleader who keeps insulting the band. Amy King reads the news straight and he interrupts her, undercuts her, drags her into a bit she did not agree to. Neil Saavedra, Ann Ingold, Kono on the board, all of them serve as foils he can needle, and the show becomes a kind of family argument the listener gets to overhear. He sets up the headline, lets the news anchor deliver the facts, then supplies the verdict, the eye-roll, the punchline. The format gives him a straight man so he never has to play one.
Underneath the curmudgeon sits a sentimental man who lets the mask slip a few times a year, on a death, on his kids, on something that moves him, and the contrast lands hard because he spends the rest of the time pretending nothing reaches him. He knows the value of the rare soft moment. He rations it.
He reads his own ads in his own voice, and that matters to how listeners trust him. The sponsor copy sounds like more Handel, more grousing, more blunt recommendation, so the line between the bit and the pitch blurs by design. The whole performance rests on one claim he never states but always implies. He is the smartest and most honest man in the room, he will tell you the truth your friends will not, and he will charge you a little humiliation for the service. People pay it gladly. The morning show draws past a million listeners in Los Angeles, which is the real measure of the act.
The Set
Bill Handel (b. 1951) sits at the center of a working world rather than a friendship circle, and that world runs on commercial talk radio in Los Angeles. His set is KFI, owned by iHeartMedia and fed by Premiere Networks, and the people in it earn their place by getting ratings and hitting the clock. The immediate ring around him is the morning crew. Amy King reads the news and takes his abuse. Neil Saavedra produces and hosts on the side, doing the Sunday character he calls the Jesus Christ Show and the food hour he calls the Fork Report. Ann Ingold runs the booth as producer. Kono works the board. Wayne Resnick has co-hosted and filled in for years and plays the dry counterweight. These men and women orbit a host who insults them on air, and the insult reads as membership. You get hazed because you belong.
The wider set fans out across the KFI lineup, and the station bills itself as more stimulating talk. Jennifer Jones Lee opens the day with Wake-Up Call. Gary Hoffmann and Shannon Farren follow Handel in late morning. John Kobylt holds the drive-time slot he built with the late Ken Chiampou as the John and Ken Show, the loud and angry populist hour. Tim Conway Jr. works evenings, and he carries the name of his father, the comedian Tim Conway (1933-2019), which gives him a different kind of inheritance than most. Morris O’Kelly, who goes by Mo’Kelly, holds a later slot. Chris Merrill and Michael Monks took middays. George Noory brings the overnight conspiracy hour through Coast to Coast AM. Above them sit the programmers, Robin Bertolucci for years and now Brian Long, who decide the dayparts and therefore the pecking order.
What they value is the audience and the laugh and survival. Morning drive is the crown of the building, and Handel holds it, so he holds rank. Longevity counts more than anything. A man who can be funny at six in the morning for thirty years, who keeps a million listeners, who got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2009, has won the only game the business scores. The hero in this world is the survivor. Radio eats people. It cancels shows, it shuffles slots, it fires the talent the week after a soft book. The man who lasts becomes the legend, and the others fill in for him and hope to inherit the chair.
The status games run through the ratings book and the clock. Who gets the better daypart, who fills in for the star, who moves up an hour and who loses one, who survives the next format change. A guest host slot for Handel signals trust. A move from evenings to drive signals a promotion the whole building reads. The currency is attention measured in numbers, and the man with the numbers gives the orders.
The normative claims are simple and loud. Tell the truth. Do not be a phony. The listener is not stupid, so do not talk down to him, and do not perform virtue you do not hold. Hypocrisy is the cardinal sin in this moral grammar, and candor is the cardinal virtue. Handel earns the right to mock a caller because he mocks himself first, his body, his money, his marriages, his failures. Sentiment gets rationed. A soft moment lands because he spends the rest of the time pretending nothing reaches him. Competence wins respect. Weakness draws mockery. Loyalty buys protection.
The essentialist claim is the persona itself. Handel is the smart Jewish lawyer who will insult you and then tell you the one true thing your friends will not. The audience treats this as his nature rather than his act, and he encourages the confusion, because a persona that feels like character holds an audience better than a bit that feels like a job. He is a real reproductive law expert who founded the Center for Surrogate Parenting, and the genuine expertise licenses the rude verdict. The lawyer makes the clown credible.
His brother shows the other path from the same home. Mark Handel grew up in the same San Fernando Valley and built a real estate empire and a political network, a bundler with ties to figures like Tony Cárdenas, Alex Padilla, James Acevedo, and Felipe Fuentes. He carried a hidden second life as the pornographer Khan Tusion, a name the trade called the boogeyman of porn for the degrading and misogynistic films he made. The two careers met in the public record, and reporting tied to a documentary by Lucas Heyne and Sara Gardephe pulled the mask off. Mark Handel pleaded guilty to bankruptcy and tax fraud, hid millions through a company he named DTMM, short for Don’t Touch My Money, and drew a federal sentence of forty-one months. Bill Handel has told reporters he is estranged from his brother and has had almost no contact with him for years.
The contrast holds the whole portrait together. Two men, one Valley home, both built on performance and persona. One made his name in the open and bought his license with candor. The other built his fortune on concealment and cruelty and lost it to the same. The radio host insults himself in public so the audience trusts him. The developer hid everything and named the shell company after the secret.
The studio sits dark at four in the morning in Burbank. Bill Handel walks in, takes his anti-anxiety medicine, sometimes showers, and goes on the air to a million people he says, on the record, he despises. He reads the news. He tells the callers what their lawyers will not. A man phones a Saturday legal show with a story about a contractor and a lien, and Handel waits for the pause and fills it. You have absolutely no case, he says. None. Hang up. Next caller.
The whole persona runs on one promise. Handel will not lie to you the way the other men on the dial lie to you. He will not flatter the caller, will not pretend the marriage can be saved or the suit can be won, will not soften the number. He calls what he does marginal legal advice and means the phrase as a boast. The soft version costs money and wastes the morning. The hard version is free, and it stings, and the sting is the product. Listeners pay him, in attention and in ratings, to be the one man in their morning who refuses to comfort them.
This is what he names his virtue. Honesty. Tell-it-like-it-is. The refusal of the pretty lie.
Under the surface runs something older and colder than a radio bit, and a man named Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives the tool to see it. Becker argued that the human animal lives in terror of his own death and his own creatureliness, the animal body that rots, and that culture answers the terror by handing each man a hero system, a structure of roles and sacred values that lets him feel he counts in some drama larger than the grave. The hero earns cosmic significance. He builds an immortality project, a thing that carries his meaning past the body. Inside such a system a man can look at death and feel he stands above it. The system tells him how.
Handel’s system can be read off his biography, and the biography is a story about extermination survived.
He is born in São Paulo in 1951. His father, Leo, comes out of Yugoslavia. His mother, Nechama, is a Polish Jew raised in Brazil. His father’s parents are murdered in the Holocaust. The family reaches the United States when the boy is five, and he grows up in the San Fernando Valley, learns English without a program to ease it, takes a political science degree at Cal State Northridge in 1976, starts a construction company, and reads law at night at Whittier, finishing in 1979. Around the degree he falls into cocaine, and in 1983 he goes through rehabilitation at a hospital in Santa Monica.
So before the radio, before the law, the founding fact: he exists by an accident of escape. The line he comes from was marked for deletion and missed the train. A man raised on that knowledge learns young that the universe holds no special promise for him or his, that the worst happens and the records show it happened, and that sentiment did nothing to stop the cattle cars. Honesty, for such a man, becomes the only posture that does not insult the dead. To dress up the world in consolation is to side with the people who told the Jews of Europe that nothing bad was coming.
Watch what he does with that posture, because it explains the cruelty and the kindness as one thing.
On April 15, 1994, Handel broadcasts live from Auschwitz, from the ground where his grandfather was killed, and he brings with him the white supremacist John Metzger and walks him to the gas chamber. The choice tells you the shape of the man. He does not go to weep at the wire in the approved register. He goes to put a Jew-hater inside the proof and let the proof do the work. No homily. No swelling music. The site, the visitor, the facts, and a microphone. He treats the most sacred horror in his people’s memory the way he treats a caller’s lawsuit. Here is what is true. Look at it. I will not arrange it to make you feel better.
The radio cruelty comes from the same root. He jokes about groups, about the listeners, about himself, the Latino Jew, the heritage he mocks alongside everyone else’s. The joke is how he proves the thing has no hold on him. A man who can laugh at the camp, at the diagnosis, at his own panic and his own appetite and the surgery he needed to control it, has shown, in the only currency Becker thinks a man cares about, that death does not own him. The joke is not the opposite of his immortality project. The joke is the immortality project. Mockery is how Handel stands above the grave and reports back that it is only a hole in the ground.
Then there is the literal version, and it sits at the center of his life with a symmetry he never names on the air.
In 1980, twenty-nine years old and a year out of law school, he writes among the earliest surrogacy contracts in the country and builds the practice that becomes the Center for Surrogate Parenting, incorporated in 1986. He helps set the precedents that keep the field legal. His own colleague says that without him the practice might have been banned in the United States. Consider what the work is. A man whose grandparents were turned to ash, whose family was meant to end, spends his career manufacturing existence for people who cannot make it themselves. He answers extermination with generation. He takes the barren and the dead end and produces children who carry no genetic trace of him and exist because he built the legal road they traveled. The man who refuses every comfort runs the most consoling enterprise imaginable and bills it as law.
Becker would say Handel found two immortality projects and never admitted that the second one is sacred. The joke defeats death by refusing to flinch. The surrogacy defeats death by making more life than the killers destroyed. Both let him feel he counts against the void. Honesty is the name he gives the whole operation, and inside his hero system the name fits. To be honest, for Handel, is to look at the worst without consolation and answer it with work and with the joke, never with prayer, never with the dignified silence other men keep around the dead.
Here is the move that makes him hard to read across a city of a million listeners. The word he lives by does not mean one thing. Honesty is not a fixed quantity that a man either has or lacks. It is a role inside a death-denying drama, and the drama differs from one hero system to the next, so the same broadcast lands as courage in one man’s world and barbarism in another’s. There is no single rival to Handel’s system. There are many, and each one hears his honesty in its own key.
Take the Sicilian widow at the back of the church, decades into omertà. For her, honesty is loyalty kept silent. The truth a man owes his family he does not owe the state, the reporter, or the stranger. To tell an outsider what happened in the house is the deepest betrayal her world allows, and a son who confesses to clear his conscience has not been honest. He has been weak. He has sold the living and the dead for the cheap relief of speaking. Handel saying everything to a million strangers reads, in her drama, as the conduct of a man with no people to protect.
Take the Quaker on the bench in the silent meeting house. For him, honesty is plainness before God, the refusal of the oath because every word a man speaks already stands sworn. He will not swear on the Bible in court because to swear implies he might lie when not sworn, and he will not grant that. His honesty is witness, not performance. It points up, toward Him, not out, toward an audience. Handel’s truth, staged for ratings and sharpened for the laugh, fails the Quaker’s test at the root. The plainness is real, but the purpose is applause, and applause is the thing the Quaker spent his life emptying out of his speech.
Take the Theravada monk in the saffron robe, who measures speech against the standard of right speech. Words must be true, and kind, and timely, and useful, and all four at once, or the speaker has done harm even when his facts are correct. Handel clears the first bar and trips on the rest. The monk hears a man wielding true things as weapons for sport and sees not honesty but a craving dressed as virtue, the ego feeding on the wound it opens. Truth that wounds for pleasure is, in the monk’s drama, a defilement, and the more accurate the cut, the worse the karma of the man holding the knife.
Take the founder in the glass conference room who preaches radical candor to his engineers. For him, honesty is an instrument tuned to output. You tell a man his work is weak so the product ships and the round closes and the mission survives. Candor serves the company. Honesty without a business case is indulgence, and honesty that demoralizes the team is malpractice. He admires Handel’s nerve and would fire him by Friday, because Handel tells the truth with no thought for what the truth builds. The founder’s honesty has a purpose outside the speaker. Handel’s purpose is the speaking.
Take the career diplomat, who learned that the unguarded true word starts wars. His honesty is the calibrated disclosure, the truth shaped and timed to keep the peace, the leak placed where it cools a crisis rather than lights one. To him the blurted fact is not bravery. It is a child playing with live wire. He watches Handel say the cruel accurate thing into a microphone heard by a million people and sees a man who has never once been responsible for what his sentences do after they leave the room.
Five men, five worlds, one word, and the word does five different jobs. The widow’s honesty binds. The Quaker’s honesty worships. The monk’s honesty heals or stays silent. The founder’s honesty produces. The diplomat’s honesty protects. Handel’s honesty refuses comfort, his own and yours, because comfort is what the world offered his grandparents while it prepared the ovens. Each man calls his own version the true one and the others a counterfeit, and each is right inside his own drama and lost outside it. None can be honest in all five senses at once, because the senses pull against each other. The widow’s loyalty silences the diplomat’s disclosure. The founder’s utility offends the monk’s kindness. The Quaker’s witness has no use for the founder’s quarterly logic. They share a word and not a world.
This is why Handel divides the city block by block. The listener who lives inside a hero system of competence and self-reliance hears the man who tells callers they have no case and feels the relief of an adult in the room. The listener who lives inside a hero system of dignity and reverence hears the man joking at the edge of the gas chamber and feels something close to sacrilege. They are not disagreeing about whether Handel told the truth. They agree he did. They are disagreeing about what truth is for, and that disagreement runs down to the floor of each man’s defense against his own death.
The deepest thing about Handel hides under the noise. The irreverent man built the most reverent thing in reach and never once on the air called it holy. He gives children to people who had given up. He keeps the legal road open so the children keep coming. He answers the murder of his grandparents with the manufacture of life, and he files the answer under contract law and consumer advice and a morning show, and he protects all of it behind the joke so no one, perhaps not the man himself, has to say the word that would crack the whole performance open. The word is the one he banned from his own broadcast on the first morning. He spends his life around the sacred and refuses, to the end, to kneel in front of it. In his hero system that refusal is the bravest act available to a man, and the children are the proof that the killers lost.
He will tell you none of this. He will tell you that you have no case, that the medicine helps, that the listeners are idiots, and that he is going home. Believe the part about going home. The rest is the work of a man building life against death and calling it honesty so he never has to call it hope.
Posted inKFI, Radio|Comments Off on The Bill Handel Show
Glenn Beck (b. 1964) trained in Top 40 morning radio, and that schooling shows in everything he does behind a microphone. He learned the trade as a teenage DJ and then a “morning zoo” host, where the job is to hold listeners who can punch a button and vanish at any second. So he built a performer’s instincts. Comic timing, character voices, sound effects, sketches, the rapport with a sidekick who feeds him lines. He came to politics as an entertainer who found a richer subject, not as a pundit who learned to entertain.
His voice carries a wide range. He can drop to a near whisper, a confiding murmur that pulls the listener close, then climb in a few seconds to a shout. Rush Limbaugh (1951-2021) lived in one register, the confident jester certain of his own rightness. Beck moves up and down the scale. He lets silences hang. He sighs into the mic. He builds slowly and then breaks. The instrument matters as much as the argument, and he plays it.
The diction stays plain and populist. He casts himself as an ordinary man, a recovering alcoholic with no degree, a guy at the chalkboard trying to figure things out alongside you. Self-deprecation runs through the act. He jokes about his own foolishness, his addiction, his crying. Then he reaches up. He names the Founders, cites Cleon Skousen and W. Cleon’s brand of providential history, draws obscure figures out of the early Progressive era and treats them as keys to the present. The blend of homespun talk and sudden grandiosity gives him his texture. He is the dunce and the seer in the same breath.
Emotion sits at the center. Beck weeps on air, and he does it often enough that it became a signature and a target for parody. He sells sincerity. Where the older conservative voices stayed cool and sardonic, he offered the trembling prophet, the man undone by love of country and fear for its future. The tears told his audience that he felt what they felt, that the stakes were real to him in his body. Critics called it manipulation. His listeners heard a man who cared.
His rhetoric runs apocalyptic and connective. The chalkboard became the emblem of his Fox years. He drew lines between names, institutions, donors, agencies, and built webs that suggested a hidden design behind a century of American life. Progressivism as a long conspiracy, Woodrow Wilson and the social gospel as the root, the present as the harvest. He leaned on the Socratic dodge, the “I’m just asking questions” move that floats a claim without owning it. He used anaphora and heavy repetition. He addressed “America” and “you” by name, breaking the wall between host and listener so the broadcast felt like counsel from a friend.
The religious register threads through all of it. His Mormon conversion deepened a language of restoration, covenant, and divine purpose. The Restoring Honor rally at the Lincoln Memorial in 2010 showed the full performance, the host as revival preacher gathering a flock. He likes the figure of the watchman on the wall, the lonely man who sees the danger and sounds the alarm while others sleep. Paul Revere is his patron saint.
He shifts over time, and the shifts reveal the performer’s adaptability. Shock jock, then Fox firebrand, then the founder of his own outfit at The Blaze and Mercury, then a man who at points apologized for the heat he helped generate and spoke of regret about the divisions of the Obama years, then a man who often returned to the old fire when the audience and the moment called for it. He reads the room and adjusts. That flexibility is the morning-radio survivor in him, the part that learned long ago to keep the listener from changing the station.
The Set
The Beck set begins with a radio family, and that origin shapes the whole world. Pat Gray (b. 1960) goes back the furthest, a friend and on-air partner from the Top 40 days in Texas, a man who has stood beside Beck through firings, moves, and reinventions. Stu Burguiere came on around the Connecticut years and became the executive producer, the foil, the deadpan voice who keeps Beck from floating off into the stratosphere. Jeff Fisher, known on air as Jeffy, rounds out the core. These men left Fox and New York with Beck and helped him build Mercury Radio Arts and then The Blaze. Christopher Balfe ran the business side and co-founded the company. Joel Cheatwood, an executive who had helped launch the Fox show under Roger Ailes (1940-2017), followed him out the door to the new venture. The set treats that exodus as a founding myth. They left the mothership to build something of their own.
Around this core sits a wider ring. The intellectual furniture comes from W. Cleon Skousen (1913-2006), the Mormon writer whose constitutional providentialism Beck revived and sold to millions. David Barton (b. 1954), the Christian nationalist historian of WallBuilders, recurs as a partner and authority on the Founders. Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969) supplied the long-progressive-plot reading through his book on liberal fascism, which Beck broadcast to a mass audience. On the political side the alliances run through the Tea Party years to Sarah Palin (b. 1964), who appeared at the Restoring Honor rally in 2010, and later to Ted Cruz (b. 1970), for whom Beck campaigned with full devotion in 2016. Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) was a friend and fellow insurgent. The Blaze itself launched or hosted a generation of younger voices, among them Dana Loesch (b. 1978), Steven Crowder (b. 1987), Lawrence Jones (b. 1992), and Buck Sexton (b. 1981), before they scattered to other outlets.
What they value comes down to a few things held with religious heat. Loyalty stands first, the loyalty of old friends who stayed through the lean years. Self-making stands beside it, the pride of men who built an independent company outside the legacy networks. Faith, family, and freedom form the catechism. They prize the small-town man over the credentialed elite, private charity over the state, the entrepreneur over the bureaucrat. They love the Founders the way a congregation loves saints. And they hold redemption close, the conviction that a fallen man can be remade. Beck the recovering alcoholic embodies that hope, and the set reads his sobriety and his conversion as proof of the gospel they preach.
The hero system rests on the figure of the watchman. The hero sees the coming catastrophe and warns the sleeping nation, whatever the cost to his name. Paul Revere is the model, the lonely rider who sounds the alarm. The chalkboard turned Beck into the teacher-prophet, the man who maps the hidden design and shows you the lines others miss. The second hero is the apostate from the establishment, the man who walked away from Fox and from comfortable money to keep his integrity. The third is the redeemed sinner, the addict pulled from the gutter by faith, by his wife Tania, by work and God. Tears confirm the part. A man who weeps for his country has felt the stakes in his body, and the set reads that feeling as a credential.
The status games follow from the heroes. Proximity to Glenn is the first currency. The old friends hold rank that no new hire can buy, and the inner circle guards the memory of the early days like veterans of a war. Loyalty earns standing. Defection costs everything, and the set tracks who stayed and who left for a better contract. A second game runs on authenticity. You score points by mocking yourself, by confessing your failures, by showing the wound rather than hiding it. Polish reads as phony. The recovery-culture move of naming your defects out loud becomes a way to climb. A third game runs on prophecy. Being right early about Obama, about the economy, about the gold market Beck pitched, about a coming collapse, all of it banks credit. The bestseller list is the public scoreboard. Beck turned book after book into number-one sellers, and the ability to move that audience marks rank inside the world.
The normative claims are plain and loud. America is exceptional, founded under God, and its Constitution is close to scripture. Liberty depends on virtue, and virtue depends on faith. Big government leads to tyranny. The citizen owes his neighbor charity but owes the state little beyond the minimum. Personal responsibility is the first law. A man restores his own honor before he asks anything of the country. Repentance and restoration apply to the nation as much as to the drunk in the meeting.
The essentialist claims cut harder, and they explain the apocalyptic register. There is a true America and a counterfeit one. The set holds that progressives are not mistaken patriots but carriers of an alien creed traced back to Woodrow Wilson, the social gospel, and European collectivism, a creed that has burrowed into the schools, the agencies, and the churches across a century. Good and evil are real and fixed, not human inventions. Human nature is fallen by design and redeemable only through grace. The Founders drew on timeless truths rooted in nature and nature’s God, so their wisdom does not age. These are claims about what things are, not merely about what works, and they give the warnings their weight. If the enemy is an essence rather than an error, then the fight admits no compromise.
The moral grammar comes straight from the pulpit and the recovery room. Its verbs are warn, repent, restore, and stand. Its nouns are honor, courage, sin, and grace. The remnant keeps faith while the many sleep. The watchman must cry out or bear the blood of the lost. Testimony serves as proof, and the tear serves as the seal of sincerity. The story always bends toward fall and redemption, the man or the nation brought low and then lifted by faith and resolve. Beck’s later arc fits the same grammar. He broke with Trump in 2016 in the name of principle, spoke of regret for the heat he had thrown during the Obama years, and then found his way back toward the movement, each turn narrated as conscience, repentance, and return rather than convenience. The set forgives the turns because the grammar of restoration leaves room for a man to fall and rise again.
Posted inGlenn Beck|Comments Off on The Glenn Beck Show
Alliance work is a behavior, not a property of a man. The same writer can do almost none of it on one subject and a great deal on another. John McWhorter (b. 1965) imposes costs on his own side when he writes about race and language. Watch him on Trump or on most foreign policy and he does standard alliance work for the left. So the honest question asks not who is alliance-free but where, and how often, a given writer breaks transitivity and pays for it.
Fame and low alliance work pull against each other. A coalition amplifies the men who serve it. It builds their audiences, fills their rooms, buys their books, forwards their clips, and defends them when they stumble. A thinker becomes a household name in large part because some coalition has decided he is useful to its self-understanding. Ta-Nehisi Coates (b. 1975), Jordan Peterson (b. 1962), Yoram Hazony (b. 1964), Sam Harris (b. 1967), and Ezra Klein (b. 1984) all earn their reach by telling a coalition who its friends are, who its enemies are, and what story it should believe about itself. They may mean every word. Sincerity and alliance work coexist with ease. The function holds whatever the man feels.
This is why I distrust the standard heterodox roster as an answer to the question of who optimizes most for truth over tribe. The figures usually nominated, Bari Weiss (b. 1984), Glenn Greenwald (b. 1967), Matt Taibbi (b. 1970), Steven Pinker (b. 1954), and Jonathan Haidt (b. 1963), have not escaped alliance work. They have changed coalitions. “Heterodoxy” hardened into a bloc somewhere around 2020, and it now has everything a coalition has: a media economy on Substack and a few podcasts and Rumble, a donor class, a set of enemies (legacy newsrooms, DEI offices, the universities), a canon of grievances, and loyalty tests of its own. Try praising the New York Times in that room. Try defending a campus speech code. The bloc has strange bedfellows like any other. Anti-establishment media populism sits next to anti-DEI politics next to a free-speech brand next to, increasingly, a friendly posture toward the new right. Those positions do not follow from one another by logic. They co-occur because they mark a team. Weiss left one orthodoxy and built another, with a masthead and a payroll and a flag. Greenwald and Taibbi do heavy alliance work for an anti-establishment coalition; their scrutiny runs hard against the institutions they oppose and lighter on the populists who now amplify them. Haidt runs a cause, Heterodox Academy and the campaign about youth and phones, and a cause needs allies, villains, and momentum. He explains alliance behavior in his academic work and performs a version of it in his public life. None of this makes them dishonest. It makes them poor nominees.
So apply the Alliance Theory test. When his allies misbehave, does the man criticize them at cost to himself? When his rivals say something true, does he concede it without hedging? The trap is asymmetric detection. We grade a writer brave when his deviations flatter our side and call him a defector when they wound it. McWhorter reads as courageous to a conservative and as a man giving cover to a liberal. The deviation that counts is the one that hurts the people who pay you. By that standard a few names hold up.
Tyler Cowen (b. 1962) does about as little alliance work as a public figure can while remaining public. His lens is competence, intelligence, institutions, and tradeoffs. He praises and faults people across every camp in the same paragraph, and he sits out almost every moral panic, which alone disqualifies him from coalition leadership, since a coalition runs on panics. He frustrates the right and the left in turn because he will not keep discipline. His audience is large, which by my own argument should worry us, but the audience came for a method, not for a banner, and methods do not march.
Megan McArdle (b. 1973) reaches conclusions that disappoint conservatives and liberals by turns, because she chases incentives and second-order effects rather than verdicts.
Michael Huemer (b. 1969) follows arguments into combinations no party will claim, which is the surest sign a man is tracking the argument and not the room.
Paul Graham (b. 1964) holds political views, yet his attention goes to founders, creativity, and individual agency, and he treats coalition questions as engineering problems, which reads as naïve precisely because he is not running coalition software.
Coleman Hughes (b. 1996) and Thomas Chatterton Williams (b. 1981) are harder cases. Both argue rather than signal, much of the time. Both also occupy a niche the heterodox economy rewards, the dissenting Black intellectual, and a rewarded niche is a coalition position whether the man wants it or not.
Glenn Loury (b. 1948) earns more credit here, because his views shift on their own internal grounds and irritate whichever side assumed it owned him.
The men doing the least alliance work tend to have no movement at all. They study the machinery instead of running it. David Pinsof, Dan Williams, Hugo Mercier, John M. Doris, Randall Collins (b. 1941), and Stephen P. Turner spend their hours describing how coalitions form belief, police defection, and launder interest into principle. Their audiences never become armies. That is the structural reason they stay clean. A scholar of interaction ritual who has no ritual to lead, and no flock to discipline, has little occasion to defend an ally or bury a rival. The cost of his honesty is obscurity, and he pays it.
Among the dead four hold up well against their contemporaries. Thomas Sowell (b. 1930) became coalition-coded late, yet his core method stays empirical and contrarian. Robert Nozick (1938-2002) kept revising himself in public and refused to settle into the libertarian movement that claimed him. Albert Hirschman (1915-2012) built a whole career on confounding the camps, on showing that the same reform serves opposite ends. George Orwell (1903-1950) attacked his own left harder than the right ever could, and paid for it in his lifetime, which is the test.
The closer a thinker stands to fame, the more of his public function is coalition maintenance. The men doing the least alliance work are mostly the ones you have not heard of, describing the engine while others drive it.
Posted inIntellectuals|Comments Off on Who Are The Leading Public Intellectuals Doing The Least Alliance Work?
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
