Sleep & Happiness

When I go to bed happy and feel happy even when I wake up and would rather be sleeping, I sleep better. On the other hand, the more angry I get about my lack of sleep or my life circumstances, the worse I sleep.

I find that my happiness corresponds almost exactly with my competence and progress in life. When I break something significant or lose something or damage something or someone in my carelessness, I experience a substantial decrease in my happiness that can last for weeks. On the other hand, when I save more money than I spend, when I take care of aches and pains and other problems, when I keep my stuff clean, organized and in good working order, when I connect with people I like, when I stay appropriate and realistic in various social interactions, when I ask for help when appropriate, when I see that I am contributing to the happiness of others, I feel happy.

Carelessness is the single biggest cause of my unhappiness so for me to build a life that works, I have to consistently take care with everything that is important to me including people, finances, time, and things.

Report:

Sleep, although a vital aspect of human functioning, has received scant attention in happiness research. This research examines the effect of sleep quality on life satisfaction, and one possible mechanism that bridges the two. One cognitive factor that might tie the relationship between sleep and life satisfaction is a belief about the (in) finite nature of happiness (zero-sum belief about happiness; ZBH), a mindset that occurs more under conditions of scarcity. Given the interconnections among experiences prompted by various types of scarcity (e.g., financial and calorie), we predicted that deprived cognitive resource caused by poor sleep may activate the ZBH, thereby hurting one’s life satisfaction. As expected, we found that sleep quality predicted the participants’ life satisfaction, even controlling for baseline variables. More importantly, this relationship was partially mediated by ZBH. This study opens interesting questions on a relatively unexamined role of non-social predictors, such as sleep, in well-being.

As highly social beings, humans are wired to connect with others. Not surprisingly, social experience is one of the most heavily studied topics in happiness research (Diener and Seligman, 2002; Diener et al., 2018). However, no human beings are constantly with others. For example, the average person spends about one third of her time not interacting with others, sleeping. Although a significant portion of time is spent on sleeping, few have examined how this experience relates to happiness (however, see Paunio et al., 2008; Sonnentag et al., 2008; Steptoe et al., 2008). The purpose of this study is to verify the association between sleep and life satisfaction, and investigate one possible cognitive belief that may bridge the two.

Various personal beliefs about happiness affect the actual level of happiness experienced by the person. For instance, those who consider happiness as more relational (Bojanowska and Zalewska, 2016; Shin et al., 2018), controllable (Joshanloo, 2017), and incremental (Tamir et al., 2007) are happier than others. Here we focused on a potentially important, yet unexamined mediating belief – whether happiness exists as a zero-sum state (zero-sum belief about happiness; ZBH). Zero-sum beliefs in general (cf. Von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944) are based on the assumption that a finite amount of goods exists in the world, in which one’s gain is possible only at the expense of others. Viewed in this way, those with high ZBH are presumed to consider the amount of happiness as fixed (vs. unlimited), amongst people (i.e., if someone gets happier, somebody else might become less happy) as well as across time (i.e., if one is happy now, he or she might become less happy in the future). Such zero-sum beliefs about happiness predict low well-being (Koo and Suh, 2007; Różycka-Tran et al., 2015).

One condition that activates such zero-sum thinking is resource scarcity (Różycka-Tran et al., 2015). The authors noted that resource-deprived mindset may lead individuals to perceive the world as competitive, becoming more prone to zero-sum beliefs. Although scarcity arises in various domains (e.g., financial and calorie), there is a common overlap among the diverse experiences of scarcity (Muraven and Baumeister, 2000; Briers et al., 2006). Sleep replenishes depleted resource (Saper et al., 2005). Conversely, impaired sleep may trigger a sense of scarcity (especially, cognitive), leading people to perceive happiness more in a zero-sum manner. In other words, ZBH would be driven in part by low sleep quality and, consequently lead to a temporary drop in life satisfaction…

A significant portion of daily time is spent on sleep. Yet, much remains to be known about how sleep relates to life satisfaction. In this research, we found that those who sleep well are more satisfied with life, controlling for individual characteristics such as personality. Although social relationships are essential for well-being (Diener and Seligman, 2002; Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014), social activity is costly and energy-consuming (Baumeister et al., 2000). This is perhaps why people need a certain amount of time alone, which serves a restorative function (Coplan and Bowker, 2014). Sleep, although far less studied than social experiences, needs more research attention in future happiness research.

More research is needed to clarify how sleep predicts life satisfaction, but we uncovered one possibility. Those who sleep poorly were more likely to view happiness as a zero-sum game. A zero-sum mindset leads people to engage in more social comparison and savor positive experiences less, which eventually lead to less happiness (Koo and Suh, 2007). As many societies become more competitive and market-oriented, sleep is easily regarded as a waste of time (and money). However, sacrificed sleep may create a vicious cycle of making the world appear as a zero-sum competition, which aggravates interpersonal stress. Increasing public awareness of the importance of sleep might have greater societal benefits than most assume.

The link between sleep quality and life satisfaction highlighted in this paper might be bidirectional. A satisfied mindset about life may increase sleep quality, but as our findings imply, a good sleep may also affect how positively one evaluates his/her life. More conclusive statement about causal direction should be derived from additional longitudinal work. One notable finding is that the zero-sum belief mediates sleep quality and life satisfaction, even controlling for traits known to strongly influence happiness (e.g., neuroticism). It implies that believing happiness as a fixed, predetermined experience is psychologically deflating, above and beyond the predisposition to experience negative affect. Finally, replicating current finding with more sophisticated sleep measures (e.g., polysomnography) and with diverse samples will be desirable.

What constitutes a good life? Many people in modern society may shove a “good sleep” below other priorities, such as high status or income. However, our study suggests that this inconspicuous daily routine not only restores the body, but also elevates the mind’s view of life.

Posted in Happiness | Comments Off on Sleep & Happiness

Hysterias

00:00 Political Hysterias Of The Right & Left, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139452
03:00 Covid Cover-Up: Did It Come From A Lab?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LgGPygFHh4
05:00 As New Evidence Emerges For COVID “Lab-Leak” Theory, Journalists Who Screamed “Conspiracy” Humiliate Themselves, https://mtracey.substack.com/p/as-new-evidence-emerges-for-covid
11:00 WP: Congress is finally investigating the lab accident covid-19 origin theory, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/congress-is-finally-investigating-the-lab-accident-covid-19-origin-theory/2021/05/06/d7bfb0e4-aeaf-11eb-b476-c3b287e52a01_story.html
13:00 Column: The evidence is clear — COVID lockdowns saved lives without harming economies, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-19/covid-lockdowns-worked
26:00 Breakdown of the Pentagon UFO videos with Mick West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8
47:00 Attack on Jewish diners by members of pro-Palestinian caravan in Beverly Grove investigated as possible hate crime, https://ktla.com/news/local-news/jewish-men-allegedly-attacked-by-members-of-pro-palestinian-caravan-outside-beverly-grove-restaurant/
57:00 What to do about Woke Capital, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvAB5alv6wo
58:00 Christopher Rufo on fighting critical race theory brainwashing, https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo
1:14:40 Michael Anton on fighting woke business
1:21:00 Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance Invest in Rumble Video Platform Popular on Political Right, https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-j-d-vance-invest-in-rumble-video-platform-popular-on-political-right-11621447661
1:35:00 Listening In: Radio And The American Imagination, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=139448
1:38:00 The late radio host Bob Grant, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9ECthEeVo
1:50:00 Liberal media forced to backtrack on the origins of Covid
1:57:30 Crypto Mega-Crash with JF Gariepy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7bazTQsGAw
2:22:50 Dennis Prager says conservatives should come out of the closet
2:26:00 Chicago mayor prioritizes non-white journos
2:27:30 Google docs go PC
2:33:00 Cold War II—Just How Dangerous Is China? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12r-37GZI0
2:35:00 Why is Tim Tebow getting a second shot?
2:36:20 A critical view of Bitcoin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoWIejPF_tc
2:46:00 Tucker Carlson on equity

Column: Is Elon Musk trying to destroy bitcoin over environmental concerns?,
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-17/elon-musk-destroying-bitcoin
Coinbase had a great public stock offering. That doesn’t make bitcoin legit,
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-04-27/bitcoin-coinbase-investment
How Baseball Cards Explain What Bitcoin Really Is, https://jabberwocking.com/how-baseball-cards-explain-what-bitcoin-really-is/
Why Cryptocurrency Is A Giant Fraud, https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/why-cryptocurrency-is-a-giant-fraud

Posted in America, Radio | Comments Off on Hysterias

Howard Stern Comes Again

Howard writes in this 2019 book:

* I’m not proud of my first two books. I don’t even have them displayed on my bookshelf at home. I think of them, and of the interviews I did with my guests during those first couple decades of my career, and I cringe. I was an absolute maniac. My narcissism was so strong that I was incapable of appreciating what somebody else might be feeling.
I have so many regrets about guests from that time. I asked Gilda Radner if Gene Wilder had a big penis. Great question. Drove her right out the door. George Michael’s band Wham! Everyone I worked with said, “Whatever you do, don’t ask them if they’re gay. Do not ask them if they’re gay.” Within twenty seconds, I asked them if they were gay. Eminem came on the show once then never again. Same with Will Ferrell.
Possibly my biggest regret was my interview with Robin Williams. When Robin came on the show in the early nineties, I spent the entire time badgering him about how he had divorced his first wife and remarried his son’s former nanny. I was attacking the guy, and he was justifiably furious with me. Years later, I realized I finally needed to apologize. I had already done this with some other people. I called them and tried to make amends. Some were gracious. A radio guy I had been awful to said, “You know what, man? I’m so glad you called. I actually felt bad for you that you were carrying around so much bitterness and ugliness inside, and I’m happy you don’t have that anymore.” Others were angry. A famous comedian I had bashed said to me, “I appreciate that you called, but I don’t know if I could ever forgive you. I had to go through a lot of misery, because your fans were brutal.” I didn’t know what Robin’s reaction would be. He could have hung up on me. He could have cursed me out. I had to do it. It took me twenty years to work up the nerve. I was in the midst of tracking down his phone number, and the next day he died. I’m still filled with sadness over his loss and remorse for my failure to reach out sooner.
Telling Carly Simon how hot she was for a half-hour or spewing sex questions to Wilmer Valderrama—this ultimately led to nothing. It wasn’t good radio. It was meaningless. It was just me being self-absorbed and compulsive about asking something that would provoke and antagonize. Those weren’t really interviews. They were monologues. Instead of a conversation, it was just me blurting out ridiculous things. I had some real issues.
Then I started going to a psychotherapist.
This was in the late nineties. I had no idea how therapy worked. The only thing I knew about it was what I saw in movies and on television, where people would just sit there and tell stories. So that’s what I did. My first session, I sat down in the chair and began telling the therapist anecdotes as if I was on the radio. I hit him with all my favorite routines. I did a thorough and involved set on the Stern family tree, complete with impressions of my family. I put together a few minutes on marriage, then moved into the pressures of the radio business, and closed with the trials and tribulations of raising a family.
After I was finished with my stand-up, the therapist instead of applauding said, “There’s nothing funny going on here. Quite frankly, some of this stuff sounds pretty sad.” My first response was to get defensive. Who was he to say that? I could tell that story and laugh. I had done it many times. Gradually, after a few more sessions, I realized he was right. He was the first person who ever said to me, “I take you seriously.” I had always been hungry for someone to confide in like that, but I had pushed away my hunger. That’s often what people who are traumatized do. In order to protect themselves, they act like nobody else matters. They tell themselves they don’t need anyone.
The irony is that I’ve always had an appreciation for others in my work. Yes, it’s called The Howard Stern Show , but I’m at my best when I have a bunch of people around me, when I can call on them and collaborate. Whether it’s Robin or my producer Gary Dell’Abate or our jack-of-all-trades (sound effects, impressions, and so much more) Fred Norris; the staff of incredible writers and brilliant engineers; my front office, including chief operating officer Marci Turk and senior vice president Jeremy Coleman; my agent, Don Buchwald, and my executive assistant, Laura Federici; my bosses and the sales department at SiriusXM—I consider everyone a part of the team. What we do is like music, in a way. It’s like a symphony. That is truly how I’ve always seen myself: as an orchestra conductor.
Yet that generosity of spirit didn’t extend to my guests. I should have treated them as talented soloists and welcomed them to join in our performance. I was just too afraid that the audience would be bored when they didn’t get their fix of outrageousness—as if some quiet notes would have destroyed the concerto. Everything had to be one loud, crashing crescendo.
Initially, I went to therapy twice a week. Then the therapist had me up it to three times. Eventually he recommended I make it four. I thought, “Man, I didn’t know I was that screwed up.” I was reluctant to make such a big commitment, but I did it. I completely gave myself over to the process.
The more I went, the more that translated into how I interviewed my guests. I found myself changing my approach because I had experienced what it was like to have someone genuinely interested in my life. Therapy opened me up and enabled me to appreciate how fulfilling it was to be truly heard. That led me to the thought: “You know, somebody else might actually have something to say. Let’s just sit here and listen and not make it all about you.”

Posted in Howard Stern | Comments Off on Howard Stern Comes Again

Political Hysterias Of The Right & Left

A Google search reveals a definition for hysteria as “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people.”

I can’t think of any famous pundit or talk show host who is not a hysteric. Perhaps there is no viable business model for non-hysterical punditry?

I just read a 1999 book called Listening In: Radio And The American Imagination. I liked its analysis of talk radio:

As Bob Grant’s vocal bullying and Joe Frank’s ode to a ladybug indicate, talk radio and NPR also offered very different models of manhood on the air. While NPR built on and elaborated the more socially conscious, antiviolent, aesthetically appreciative versions of manhood as articulated on free form, talk radio provided a platform for what can best be called male hysteria, a deft and sometimes desperate fusion of the desire to thwart feminism and the need to live with and accommodate to it…

[RUsh Limbaugh] was a gender activist, an ideological soldier in the war to reassert patriarchy, to reclaim things as they “ought to be.” He himself lamented the state of masculinity in the 1990s. “On the one hand, we want men who are sensitive and crying, like Alan Aldas, and then, after so much of that, women finally get tired of wimps and say, ‘We want real men again!’ O.K., so now we gotta change, we’ve got to go back to tough guys, we’re not gonna take any shit. And our memories tell us, we go back to high school, look at who the girls went for—the assholes! The mean, dirty, greasy sons of bitches.” The ads on the show, for hair loss products, memory enhancers, and health care organizations that seek to prevent heart attacks, impart a worried subtext about emasculation that can, and must, be reversed.

But Limbaugh is more than a throwback. He personifies a new kind of 1990s man, the antithesis of the allegedly new age, sensitive, feminized kind of guy. He is a male hysteric who skillfully uses his voice to signal the easy slide between rationality and outrage. Real men don’t eat quiche; they have a point of view and voice it. So Limbaugh deftly does blend “feminine” traits into his persona, because he gives men permission to get hysterical about politics. Here is a man who is emotionally unchecked, yet simultaneously reasonable, combative, and avowedly antifeminist. There is no equivocation here, no “on the one hand, on the other hand,” no genial, get-along stance. This is not the persona of the organization man who goes along with institutional idiocy because his boss says to. This is not some Dilbert forced to seethe in silence in his cubicle. No, this man loses it, his naturally deep voice shooting up an octave as he denounces something he thinks doesn’t make a lick of sense. When quoting from newspaper articles, especially a section he’s about to mock, Limbaugh theatrically lowers his voice, parodying the paper’s supposed aura of authority. As soon as his pitch zooms up, we know we’re back to Limbaugh, who interjects comments like “Idiocy! Pure idiocy!” or “Get this!” or “That can’t be!”

Limbaugh, and many of his fellow hosts, attacked post-Vietnam media and corporate versions of masculinity; they attacked what Christopher Lasch labeled in the late 1970s the narcissistic personality, the bureaucratic operator desperately dependent on the approval of others who learns how to wear a variety of amiable masks to get by. Limbaugh’s special talent is how he flexes his vocal cords to enact this critique. He understands that radio needs clear auditory signposts that instantly produce an emotional reaction. It was this delicately calibrated balance between letting go and holding on that staked out the male hysteric as not just a reasonable but an enviable persona, a man more authentic, more in touch with the connection between his feelings and his ideas than circumscribed TV reporters or political spin doctors.

Yet such an emotionally accessible and explosive guy has to maintain that he is still a real man. Hence the special importance of feminist bashing—for Limbaugh this is done through his regular “feminist updates” on the movement’s alleged idiocies—to the presentation of the male hysteric as appropriating some “feminine” prerogatives while still not acquiescing to women’s demands for equality. Because his hysteria requires that he come up with deliberately perverse assertions, he can charge, for example, that the controversy over smoking in the United States is really the fault of native Americans, since they grew tobacco here first.

There seems to be plenty of hysteria on the Right and the Left. The Left dominates the MSM and the hysterias it promulgates there include Russian collusion with the 2016 Trump campaign, systemic racism, and that failing to lockdown in the face of Covid amounts to human sacrifice. The Right promotes its own hysterias through talk radio and dissident media — things like voter fraud, vaccines, the UN, that “the world-wide lockdowns are the greatest mistake in human history” (Dennis Prager), etc.

Michael Hiltzik writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Numerous studies from across the world have found that lockdowns succeeded in suppressing transmission rates. An Italian team found that lockdowns start to reduce the number of COVID infections about 10 days after they start, and keep reducing the case rate for as long as 20 days following initiation.

French researchers, in a paper published in January, compared the experience in countries that imposed stay-at-home orders early in the pandemic and lifted the restrictions gradually — New Zealand, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Britain— to that of Sweden, which imposed no lockdown, and the U.S., which had (and still has) a patchwork of state policies often involving late orders followed by abrupt and premature lifting.

The first group saw rapid reductions in infections and a rapid economic recovery, compared to the second. “Early-onset lockdown with gradual deconfinement allowed shortening the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and reducing contaminations,” the researchers concluded. “Lockdown should be considered as an effective public health intervention to halt epidemic progression.”

The UCLA researchers, meanwhile, estimated that reductions in movement resulting from stay-at-home orders reduced transmission in the hardest-hit communities, such as Seattle, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles by 50% or more.

All these findings point to savings of millions of lives globally. None of it is especially surprising. Compliance with stay-at-home orders meant reducing one’s exposure to strangers whose viral conditions were unknown. That was especially crucial in locations where COVID was raging and therefore the prospect of coming into close contact with an infected individual was relatively high.

That leaves the economic question. Critics of lockdowns typically advocate balancing the public health gains from stay-at-home orders against the economic losses from keeping bars, restaurants, hair salons, and other small businesses closed. They argue, as has DeSantis and other red-state governors such as Greg Abbott of Texas, that concerns about the latter should take primacy over the benefits of the former.

The problem with this argument is that there’s very little evidence that lockdowns themselves damaged local economies more than individual behavior that would have happened anyway, lockdowns or not. Nor is there much evidence that lifting lockdowns produced a faster recovery.

Those who have studied the course of the pandemic in the U.S. and Europe understand why the lockdowns have less economic impact than one might expect. The reason is that people made their own choices to stay at home or to patronize only businesses where they felt relatively safe.

As Austan Goolsbee and Chad Syversen of the University of Chicago said of their study of the economic slump during the pandemic, “The vast majority of the decline was due to consumers choosing of their own volition to avoid commercial activity.”

That’s evident from the chronology of the business slump. Most counties and states didn’t impose stay-at-home orders until late March or early April; even Newsom, who is depicted as having shut down the California economy particularly aggressively, didn’t act until March 19.

Yet in California and throughout the country, residents started withdrawing from face-to-face commerce well before then, with the sharpest reductions in the first half of March. Government-ordered shutdowns did less to force people to stay home than to give them legal grounds to do so.

Foot traffic fell by about 60% during the pandemic, Goolsbee and Syverson concluded from their study of smartphone mobility statistics. But government orders accounted for only seven percentage points of that.

In short, it wasn’t government policy that kept people home. It was fear.

Posted in Corona Virus, Radio | Comments Off on Political Hysterias Of The Right & Left

Radio’s Second Century: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives

Here are some highlights from this 2020 book:

* Traditionally, when a person speaks about one of their friends or someone that they know, there is an assumption that the person in question is someone that the speaker has met in person and has interacted with in the physical world. However, what if the person in question has never actually met their “friend” or had any sort of actual communication or interaction with them? If a relationship is entirely one-sided, and one member of that relationship doesn’t even know that the other person exists, what would make someone think that there is some sort of bond between the two parties? These types of “false” relationships and interactions have become increasingly prominent over the last century, specifically in regard to how people develop relationships with members of the media such as the character of a TV show or the host of a popular radio show. This increase is, in large part, due to the invention and rise in prominence of mass media:

“One of the striking characteristics of the new mass media-radio, television, and the movies is that they give the illusion of a face-to-face relationship with the performer. The conditions of response to the performer are analogous to those in a primary group. The most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one’s peers; the same is true of a character in a story who comes to life in these media in an especially vivid and arresting way. We propose to call this seeming face-to-face relationship between spectator and performer a para-social relationship.”

* The parasocial interactions that occur between a television viewer and a television actor are defined to a great extent by the “illusion of being engaged in a social interaction with the TV performer. The audience responds with something more than mere running observation; it is, as it were, subtly insinuated into the programme’s actions and transformed into a group which observes and participates in the show by turns” (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011, p. 1105). As the parasocial relationship develops between the TV viewer and actor, a form of “mindreading” can potentially occur. Mindreading refers to the psychological phenomenon that suggests “that in any social encounter individuals engage in mindreading to infer the mental states of other people being present” (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011, p. 1106). Mindreading occurs automatically and results in intuitive feelings, not elaborate or complex beliefs, being developed. Mindreading can occur when a person is viewing a TV program because it is an automatic activity that occurs in any social encounter. Therefore, it is plausible that TV viewers may engage in mindreading when they encounter TV performers. For example, when a TV performer looks directly into the camera, the TV viewer could automatically acquire the belief and feeling that said performer is looking at them personally.

Mindreading could also possibly occur between the listener of a podcast and the host of the podcast, as the conversational tone of the host can mimic a social interaction. While a podcast host cannot physically look at the listener, they can “speak” to the listener by addressing them, causing the audience to automatically engage in mindreading, resulting in the development of these intuitive feelings and assumptions about the current mental state of the podcast host. For example, if the host of a podcast were to loudly address his audience using vulgar language, the listener of the podcast might automatically assume that the host is currently angry, even though he or she doesn’t actually know the mental state of the host at that time.

* While the podcast shares many similarities with the traditional radio broadcast, there are several key aspects of this medium that separate it from its audio predecessor. Key among these differences is the component of listener choice and the need for active participation from the listener when it comes to choosing which podcast to consume. While it can be tempting to view a podcast in a sense as Internet radio, this is a misinformed belief, as nothing is being broadcast during a podcast: “To the contrary, and well beyond the casual tuning-in of a radio or television signal, podcast listeners must consciously point their browser to a particular web site that archives these compressed digital recordings and deliberately choose specific files to download” (MacDougall, 2012, p. 169).

Podcasts tend to differ from traditional radio broadcasts in regard to content as well as podcast shows that predominately feature narrative talk as opposed to music. However, the key distinguishing feature of the podcast is that it is an auditory experience, a trait that is shared by radio broadcasts. As a medium, the podcast is able to take advantage of one of the unique features of the human auditory sense in that “there is a tendency to incorporate or fold in what we see, taste, smell, and touch with what we hear. If the podcast originates in sound, it often ends up being a more total or whole sensory experience” (MacDougall, 2012, p. 170). This tendency to incorporate the additional sensory aspects of the area around us into our auditory experience in the manner that MacDougall describes can enhance the experience and the subsequent relationship with a host that the listener develops. Due to the portable nature of the podcast, listeners are able to have a much wider and diverse range of sensory experiences to incorporate into their relationship compared to the more stationary nature of the radio broadcast or even traditional television experience: “Podcasts and the appliances that enable their consumption, are among the latest instances of mobile digital technology that represent a further alteration of the phonological experience of everyday life. . . . The mobilization of such content has been shown to reorient the listener to the world and the world to the listener, prompting (internal) memory and (external) layout to function together as props and foils for the often detailed yet punctuate discourse that typifies the podcast” (MacDougall, 2012, p. 170). An ability to interact with a greater range of stimuli allows for the listeners of a podcast to have an enhanced listening experience, which can help to blur the line between the listener and content. When a listener interacts with multiple stimuli while listening to a podcast, the experience becomes more immersive, which in turn can cause the listener to feel as though he or she is having an actual real conversation and interaction with the podcast host. When interacting with another person in real life, very rarely does this interaction occur in a vacuum, and the ability to consume a podcast on the go, around other people and other stimuli, helps to create a more realistic simulation of an interaction. This mobile aspect of the podcast is an example of how the podcast constitutes an evolution of radio, as it serves as “a fundamentally new form of mediated interpersonal communication. Podcasts enhance the personal feel and all attendant psychodynamic effects of Fessenden’s primordial radio show”.

* Stern’s interview style allowed interpersonal questions to become the substance of the interview, not just the interviewees’ professional lives. In fact, Stern’s interviews were conversations, similar to sitting down with an intimate
best friend to catch up—but broadcast live.

* Stern connects what is occurring on the show with people’s lives: “Today, if you go on a TV talk show and give a great six or seven minutes, people will link to it, if it’s incredible. . . . But if you kill on Stern, it moves the needle”.

* Fans let their investments in the fandom organize their emotional involvement and identities. The size of their investments—be it time or money—construct identity in the fan group. For example, superfan Maryann from Brooklyn calls into the show frequently and attends the majority of Stern’s public appearances; she attended every taping of America’s Got Talent to support Stern. Her strong investment in the fandom is a large source of her identity. Similarly, Bobo, a driving instructor from Florida, calls in to share his love of the show, even admitting to constructing a “shrine” of Howard Stern memorabilia.

His daily routine involves listening intently to the show, and he invests a lot of himself to support the show. Harrington and Bielby (1995) found “being a fan is not just a social but a personal phenomenon; by exploring both dimensions we have been able to consider fanship as a normal, everyday phenomenon” (p. 176). They explored the relationships fans had to dif­ferent soap operas and concluded that pleasure was a main source of the investment in becoming a fan: “Fans and industry participants reciprocally construct the subculture” of the fandom of soap operas (Harrington & Bielby, 1995, p. 176). The Howard Stern Show has made listeners a part of the show—a Wack Pack of “superfans” call into the show with anecdotes, prank phone calls, and updates on their daily experiences. Akin to soap opera fans, Howard Stern fans and the staff of the show have co-constructed the subculture of fandom.

Stern’s fans weave a fabric that is integral to the show. Listeners of the Howard Stern Show appear to form “para-social relationships” with other fans and with Stern. A parasocial relationship gives the illusion of friendship with television
or radio personas: “The most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one’s peers” (Horton & Wohl, 1956 p. 215). Horton and Wohl (1956) wrote about this phenomenon first, noting fans believe they know the personas on radio or television. Horton and Wohl found that listeners perceive an intimate connection with the personas and imagine a connection or bond with the media character. The personas become integrated into listeners’ daily routines (Horton & Wohl, 1956, pp. 215–218). Stern has mastered the parasocial relationship. For example, one fan and longtime listener of the Howard Stern Show articulated, We end up learning a ton of the details about every member of the show, and as weird as it is to say it, you kind of get to feeling like you know them somewhat and think of them almost as “friends.” The conversational style of the show can make you feel like you’re just sitting amongst a circle of friends, listening to them chat (you just don’t have much ability to provide your input). After a period of time, you get to know enough about the show and its players that you start to understand and even expect inside jokes, etc., which adds even more to the “bond” you feel with the show and its players. (Edmonds 2011, para. 4)

Similarly, a fan reported, “Howard Stern has been going for so long that it would be difficult for him to stop or for his fans to stop listening to him. They listen to Howard because Howard is on; and Howard is on because they listen to him” (Mixon, 2013, para. 5). In several fan interviews, the theme of talking like old friends recurred, and the words “truth” and “honesty” repeated. Thus, fans listen to Howard Stern because they feel a friendship, a “para-social” relationship. In addition to feeling a kinship to Stern, fans said Stern discussed political and social concerns in a way that allowed listeners to be open to his ideas and consider his thoughts without becoming alienated or feeling negative.

Posted in Radio | Comments Off on Radio’s Second Century: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives