NAME:
Lionel (a mononym like God)BRIEF CAREER SYNOPSIS:
After graduating from college in 1980 with a degree in psychology (talk about a valuable talk radio asset), I worked as a District Aide for U.S. Senator Richard ("Dick") Stone (the only Senator to have his Dick in parentheses). He always promoted the idea of my pursuing law as a career. God bless Dick. I had never contemplated law, but it seemed like a good idea. What the hell.1. How did you get your start in radio?
While in law school I happened to find a local talk radio station. I had never been a talk radio fan and for that matter never even knew of such. The year was 1981 and the station was WPLP in the Tampa Bay Area. Having a penchant for phone gags and the like, I decided one day to call and raise hell. I had three basic rules as a caller: (1) Be the first caller and set the tone; (2) Never ever discuss the topic that’s being addressed; (3) When at all possible, insult the host and his family.
Callers had no name at the time. They were addressed merely as the town they had called from. I thought that needed to be changed. I decided to use the mononymous appellation of Lionel based on Al Pacino’s character in the film " Scarecrow." In 1988 WFLA’s PD Bob Schuman called me and asked me if I would be interested in hosting a Sunday show. It seems that Bob’s lovely wife had heard me and recommended to him that he give me a shot. After all, the listeners knew who I was, it was a weekend show, and how much damage could I possibly cause?
I was rather chary of the notion of doing radio. What about my stellar career as an up and coming lawyer? Would this gig appear demeaning or beneath me? I thought about this for a picosecond and agreed to give it a whirl. To show you my naiveté, I had heard that weekend shows usually appear via barter or trade. I knew that I would have to pony up something to ensure my slot. When Bob and I met, he asked me what I though was fair as compensation. I responded with brilliant negotiating prowess, "What do you think’s fair?" When Bob mentioned $100, I winced somewhat and was delightfully surprised to hear that that’s all he could pay me. What a country. This was October of 1988. In January of 1989 I was asked to do middays and then in August of that year I moved into afternoon drive. Needless to say, they offered more than a Franklin. I couldn’t believe that I could have the time of my life (as Bill Medley warbled), yap incessantly, offend scores of complete strangers, opine as to any subject that piqued my interest and get paid. Then it happened, in 1993 ABC Radio President Jim Arcara, my godfather and radio mentor, who happened to enjoy a pied-à-terre of sorts within the broadcast area, contacted me about moving to New York and working for WABC. It seems that Jim had followed my "career" from its nascent period and knew of me and my oeuvre. I was startled by the offer. He was asking me to leave a law practice where I would have to chase down deadbeat miscreants for fees, sit in court for hours on end waiting for a case to be called and deal with the flotsam and jetsam of humanity (and those were the judges) and move to the most exciting city in the nation and work for a premier radio station in the number one market. "You betcha, I’m outta here." I worked morning and afternoon drive for five years. During one period after afternoon host Bob Grant’s departure, I did mornings and afternoons. That was a ballbreaker to put it mildly. So, when asked how one gets into radio, I always respond with "Just wait, they’ll call you." And the rest, as they say, is history.
2. What are you passionate about?
First and foremost, I am enraged at how political discourse on talk radio has been reduced to a conservative versus liberal agenda. It is trite, simplistic, asinine, uni-dimensional, base, unimaginative and just plain dumb. I blame Rush Limbaugh for this. I say this affectionately. I like Rush quite a bit and got to know him during my WABC stint. He revolutionized talk radio and rejuvenated the AM band. The problem is that he spawned so many Rush wanna-be’s: intellectually disingenuous hacks who try to out-Rush Rush. I define myself as a Libertarian and am a registered Independent here in New York. I vote Libertarian and find that all political positions have their good points. What I hear now are some hosts who pull out the Republican play book and read chapter and verse from the manifesto. I also sense that there is the misperception that talk radio should position itself to a core constituency and narrowcast accordingly. With the panoply of issues that confront us on a daily basis, national and international, to reduce such into a conservative/liberal analysis is short-sighted and woefully simplistic.
I also am amazed at how un-funny and un-humorous so much talk radio is. I certainly am not the paragon of all things comical, but I am quite troubled by the degree of anger that I hear. Passion is one thing, belligerence is another. Some talk show hosts have the (as I have coined) "The Oracle at Delphi Syndrome." They read a few newspapers and magazines, watch some TV and then become obsessed with a pathologically unrealistic sense of self-importance. Recently I’ve heard this notion that celebrities and the like are ill-equipped to voice an opinion about, say, the war. The question remains: Who are we to opine? What substantiates our beliefs, what enables us to provide the definitive word as to an idea? We are no more skilled or entitled to express an idea than anyone else. Why were the Dixie Chicks disentitled to limn an idea? Why is Tim Robbins unqualified to say what he thinks? We only exist by virtue of the First Amendment. Why is it so hard for some in the biz to recognize such?
3. Many hosts get to that job without having been a caller to a show themselves. Did your experience on the other end of the line give you more insight on how to work calls? Do you ever find yourself giving someone more rope because you remember what it was like as a caller, or do you see things differently as a host? And did your law background affect how you do your show? Does it make you a better debater?
This may be a tad divergent from the subject, but what the hell. I feel frankly that too much emphasis is placed on callers. This may sound heretical, but it’s true. I thought I was a great caller, truly. I never said "Thank you for taking my call." I never started the conversation with saying my name. (This is the bane of my radio existence.) With the paucity of great screeners and the dearth of great callers, nothing can bring a show to a screeching halt like a so-so caller. Some hosts think a show’s great because the board is full and conversely think a show’s a dog because few are or no one is calling. You want callers? Put on a psychic. I guarantee you that the only one listening is the rare individual who happened to be born Cancer with Feces rising. I’m not the archetypal caller. I do recognize that many are scared and most don’t call. I also happen to love chronics. Some PD’s have this apodictic rule that abhors the chronic caller. They’re as much a part of the show as the host – well, kinda.
I was an acute chronic. I can recall having entire shows dedicated to caller response to my rants. I also like to pit caller against caller. And, yes, by the by, please note the distinction between the caller and the listener. Television hosts will ask me what my listeners think. I always say that I don’t know what listeners think; I know what callers think. There’s also another facet – when to lambaste and deride a caller. Callers and listeners enjoy a certain simpatico. If you beat up on callers repeatedly, I feel this offends listeners and fellow callers. But be not mistaken. Listeners love when the occasional caller is raked over the radio coals. Finding that balance is critical. When I have met listeners, more often than not they will remember a caller or a bit or a particular subject matter that I discussed that was atypical. I have never met a listener who fondly remembers my take on the Trilateral Commission. As far as law training, my years of trying to master direct and cross examination have proven invaluable. Leading a caller down that path, exposing illogical premises and then leaping upon them with a well-timed GOTCHA! is, well, sexual. Talk radio is inherently eristic, never forget that. Too much cordiality, too much politeness are both soporific. Let’s face it, half the battle is keeping people awake and tuned. Never ever be boring, unless of course you happen to be . . . er, well, never mind.
4. What recurring topic is your favorite, and which would you prefer never darkened your show again?
What I most enjoy is to get to the heart, the meat of an issue. I so crave the dissection of an issue or a topic and so love digesting and analyzing what’s really there.
Take, for example, the Scott Peterson case. I enjoy dissecting the various legal issues, the admissibility of those facts that the various commentators talk about. I like to explain to the listener what the courtroom will address and not merely what a talking head will mention. What does a story really mean and entail? What are the issues? This, I feel, is the new talk radio. Talk radio that seeks the sentient, the curious. My favorite topic is that which is multi-dimensional, deep, complex. I seek a topic that requires thought and analysis and synthesis. I believe the talk radio listener is far smarter, far more analytical than she is given credit for.
Then there’s the Newdow case, the 9th Circuit opinion that struck down the pledge of allegiance as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. How many talk radio hosts even bothered to read the opinion? I did. It makes implicit sense when you review the judge’s reasoning and references. Did you know that the Pledge was codified? Do you know why "under God" was added? And when? Did you read the legislative history? I think not, but I know why. You were busy.
I abhor knee-jerk topics, e.g. The Dixie Chicks and their daring to express an opinion anent the President (no matter how inane that was). Can you find one American who truly cares what Natalie Maines thinks about anything? How paradoxical it is to question the ability of an American to express an idea, albeit antithetical to ours, when we, as an industry, base and rely on the right to express our beliefs no matter how radical they may seem. I’m an admitted gun nut; I love the smell of gun powder and how it glistens on my shooting hand (this sounds somewhat sexual). Needless to say, I quite enjoy the topic of gun control legislation. I adamantly believe that all drugs should be legalized (as do some pretty well-known conservative types), having spent (actually, wasted) so much time in the legal field prosecuting and defending people with medical problems. I so thoroughly enjoy discussing such with Boeotians who believe that this war on drugs can be won. I have a true and absolute compassion for gays and lesbians and can’t fathom how anyone can believe that such is a matter of choice. It’s inherent, sexual orientation, i.e. I adore the subject of sex, not the tawdry Stern-esque puerile discourse, but the inherent differences between men and women. Sex is a fascinating subject if handled carefully. Alfred Hitchcock, when asked why "Psycho" was so frightening, stated, in essence, that he never showed you the monster. Why be obvious? The nuances of sexuality are best discussed without delving into the "nuts and bolts." I must also admit that I thoroughly enjoy the absurdities of talk radio and, most importantly, the absurdities exhibited by so many talk show hosts. As far as my most loathed topic, one that won’t darken my show again, that’s simple: abortion, talk radio’s kiss of death.
5. If you could fix the criminal justice system, what would you address first and why?
First and foremost, I would ensure that indigent defendants get quality representation and that the state and federal government would pour more money into the Public Defender systems around the country. Trust me, this would never fly on 99% of conventional talk radio. There’s a perception in this country that you are guilty until proven innocent. So many self-styled patriots, those with huge American flag lapel pins, those who cite the Constitution and haven’t a clue as to what it provides, are nonchalant when it comes to basic Constitutional precepts regarding due process and the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Next, I would abolish the death penalty in toto. If you can’t see the inherent fallacy in our system whereby the poor and indigent (redundant perhaps) "enjoy" a different system of justice, then I have no need for you. Trust me on this one. I often ask what number(s) of innocent people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death would you countenance. Three, two? The answer is none. Our system of death sentencing is corrupt and must be abolished. I would also legalize or medicalize all drugs, i.e. I would advocate no criminal punishment for the possession and/or use of any chemical so long as I or the community am/is not affected by such. This so-called war on drugs is fictive. It is a cruel joke that has been perpetuated by a handful of short-sighted bureaucrats who haven’t a clue as to the realities and idiosyncrasies of human behavior. I would also mandate (just how, I’m not sure) that people would have at least a rudimentary understanding of what rights we all enjoy. I would try to make people conversant with basic constitutional guarantees and would start with talk show hosts. I’m flabbergasted by the paucity of knowledge that so many have as to our basic guarantees.
6. Of what are you most proud?
This requires an answer that will resoundingly be perceived as corny and schmaltzy. Therefore, I respectfully decline to answer this.
7. What other talk radio do you listen to?
I loathe conventional talk radio. It’s for the most part and all too often boring, predictable, flat and unimaginative. In fact, I’m not much of a radio fan at all. If I do listen to radio, I thoroughly enjoy NPR and our local New York affiliate WNYC. The shows are urbane, eclectic, wildly diverse, calm and respectful. Oh, I know what some say, viz. "They’re liberal!" Puh-leeze. Call me wacky, but who doesn’t enjoy a great three-part show on Swedish Bluegrass? I abhor radio shrink shows. In fact, one day there will be (I predict) a civil cause of action for radio shrink malpractice. Some suicidal putz calls a "doctor" and is slam-dunked then tossed into the abyss of dead air. Think about it. I also love any health show on colon, digestive or elimination disorders. Not that I’m scatological, but I can’t hear enough that John Wayne died with 50 pounds of undigested "whatever" in his system. No wonder he walked funnily. I must say that I enjoy public and community radio, that undigested hodgepodge. The internet has provided me with the ability to tap into radio arcana. Have you ever listened to Canadian talk radio? It’s fabulous, totally devoid of anything vaguely relevant or interesting.
8. What do you do for fun?
I’d rather not answer that.
9. Fill in the blank: I can't make it through the day without ______________.
German porn. But seriously, folks, in a more sincere mode I would say that my George Foreman grill is the greatest invention known to mankind. I could not exist without my computer and its DSL connectivity. Who needs papers, magazines and abstracts? Give me my computer and I will, shall, and can download the world. Guitar tuners are also swell. I play a Martin 1937 D-18 and would be lost without it. Deodorant, now there’s a concept. Lint brushes. My Oral-B floss, what a brilliant device: a textured cord that extracts tartar. Chivas. An accommodating Irish bartender. Time Out New York, the quintessential New York magazine. My cell phone, I am loath to say. Coffee from The Sensuous Bean (70th and Columbus). The Carnegie Deli (55th and 7th). Amphetamines (kidding).
10. What's the best advice you ever got? The worst?
Oddly enough, someone once advised that I keep my cans turned down. This is the best advice. Have you noticed how many talk hosts and jocks are functionally deaf?
As far as the worst advice, I’ve heard some real doozies from a few PD’s and "consultants" that have this formulaic knowledge of radio "rules." For example, don’t play bumper music with lyrics. What?! I have heard some of the most ludicrous ideas anent "formatics," that radio neologism that denotes those fundamental elements that must be injected into a show that aid in pacing, flow and the like. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some fundamentals that are indeed critical. I just wish that what the host is saying would mean as much to some as how she is saying it. Recently, whilst on vacation, I happened to scan various talk shows (much to my chagrin) in the area. There was one fellow who never gave the telephone number. One PD loved the time. You could blather on anent nothing. So long as you said "eight after the hour," all was swell.
Here’s another beaut: Never hold over a caller at the bottom or top of the hour. Why? A great caller loses his call-worthiness at :32? Someone once quipped "Be sincere whether you mean it or not." I like that. I wish that people, non-radio types, had the opportunity to experience the talk radio summits of sorts, the seemingly quotidian seminars and conventions where talk radio mavens convene to wax profound. If the listener and caller knew just how seriously we take ourselves, they would be aghast. I’m sure the Vatican Council had more laughs than these assemblages. I used to loathe these gatherings; now I love them. The effusive examples of self-importance never cease to amaze me. This is a gig. A job. It’s entertainment. My advice to my colleagues: RELAX!