It’s been a week, and people are still debating the CNN town hall with Donald Trump. Why? There’s been an awful lot of talk about silos.
Yes, much has been said about giving Trump the air time. More has been said about insufficient real-time fact-checking (Before you criticize, ask yourself how YOU would do in that situation). And of course, the entire set of conversations revolve around the fundamental curiosity as to what CNN’s actually trying to do as a network.
It’s time, however, to move the conversation forward.Or outward. Or just out.
Like “plastics” in the film classic The Graduate, I’m talking about silos. Yes, silos – those metaphorical isolation chambers where people only hear and listen to what they want and nothing else.
The word was brought into the conversation by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who directly addressed the issue the day after Trump came on CNN.
“You have every right to be outraged today, and angry, and never watch this network again,” he said. “But do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away?”
There it is. Silo.
He did not avoid the chatter, criticism, and decisions; yet he did it in a way that raises the question as to whether the effort to present both sides in politics is worth it – or even possibly profitable.
It’s a trendy thing to talk about silos. The metaphor for media is one you likely know well: Staying within one set of ideas/habits and not even knowing what is happening and said outside of that silo.The TV silos most commonly referenced in the U.S.: Fox News and other more fringe networks like OAN on one side, MSNBC, and say, The New York Times on the other.
Criticizing the silos and trying to do something about them makes you sound smart at the co*cktail party, where you may be balancing frothy conversation with several people from different ends of the political spectrum It may help you avoid a dustup while refilling your glass of rose, but does it actually work in media, specifically TV and radio?
It certainly appears that CNN wants to break down the silo’s barriers, and it’s a wait-and-see dynamic as to whether it will work. Will they book Ron DeSantis? Robert Kennedy Jr.?
Let’s not forget those ratings went from some three million for the town hall to less than a third of that the following night.
Meanwhile, in my radio world, I’ve tried it. If anecdotal results are worthwhile, it’s not overly encouraging for the open-minded ones out there.
As a morning host, I am dogged in my independence. I want both Republicans and Democrats to come on the show in order to serve my mission and be credible. My job is to steward a show that gives you the meat and potatoes (news, weather, traffic), balanced with some fun and great information/insight on the news of the day. With the latter, that mission is to get listeners the voices and let them decide. The credibility is that I don’t lead them in any one direction.
But before I took over the A-chair at WTIC 1080, a highly successful legacy AM station in Connecticut now owned by Audacy (we will talk about the fate of AM another day), I co-hosted the morning show and solo hosted an hour afterward.
The stated goal of the one-hour show was to get the political silos to actually communicate with each other, most notably to listen. If we are going to return to more decency in our politics and our interactions, it’s important.
Unfortunately, it turns out, both sides end up angry with you, and that can’t be good for ratings.
Can it?
If someone is independent, they judge the merits of each issue, story, and opinion. If Donald Trump did something you liked, half your audience would be horrified, the other half ecstatic. Same goes in the other direction.
You’re a fence sitter according to the most even-handed listeners. You’re a coward according to everyone else.
But neither are accurate.
Back to Anderson Cooper.
“If we all only listen to those we agree with, it may actually do the opposite,” he said of the effort to make a political enemy go away. “If you are angry or upset, I understand, but you have the power to actually get involved.”
What you learn by actually – explicitly – trying it is that people may have the so-called power to get involved but simply don’t want to get involved. They’ve grown accustomed to the silo. It’s comfortable. It makes them feel safe.
On the radio, when it was an open mission of the show to bring in all voices, it did not particularly rate well. Interestingly, it’s an almost unspoken part of the morning show’s DNA, and without the heat of more opinion-based shows, it’s actually showing signs of strength.
We talk about independence and not silos and never call out one side for not listening. Of course, having very few call-in opportunities also helps.
So far in this 16-month experiment, people seem more ok with hearing a little of the other side; it just can’t be condescending, overly explicit, or overwhelming.
Who knows where we will be in 16 more months, but right now, I get more, “you’re fair, I like that” than “you’re a coward (sometimes ‘idiot’)” for talking to a particular person with whom a chunk of the audience may not agree.
