'm a fan of the chat. I love to hear and criticize others, learn from and reflect on some of the issues raised by the radio. As a social scientist also am interested in a professional, multi-themes of what happens in my town from Guadalajara and beyond the borders of my country. It has happened to me also invited to participate, to think, reflect, in some radio stations (and sometimes TV) from my village. The issues have been mixed and sometimes I even have had time to build my arguments using readings of authors who have written are true specialists / experts in the topics to discuss.
Some of these invitations weeks in advance I have given the topic, some of the edges that most interests him and have justified the invite to be a sociologist, or psychologist, or because they know that I have ever been close to the matter to be treated. Once agreed the space-time coordinates, I could make an argument and make notes written to appeal to them if my memory. In contrast, I have received other invitations for radio interviews in which they have left me no opportunity to decline the invitation, such as those derived from a phone call at 6:50 am in intepelaron me directly: "Are you in the air ... What do you think that football fans have beaten a policeman? Would you expect increased violence in the coming weeks? "I do not remember very well how I solved the situation, but after one of my friends, after another of those ill-timed calls to participate in a live radio show and hot I called her once to give me your opinion, I began to be more cautious to accept invitations. My friend told me: "I heard on the radio. Excuse me for saying so, but on the summit Obama and Calderon will admit only pure bullshit. " What surprised me was my friend not his candor, because we know more than 30 years, but would have had the radio on a station that I assumed no one would listen and a time that I thought were doing all fatal nothing more productive than listening radio. So, now knowing that someone is likely to hear my opinions of "expert" even though I believe I am only talking to who brings the other microphone, I chose to think that I probably should not be as accessible and ask me things of which probably do not know anything at all. In my years
teaching, on several occasions has given courses in the first semester of sociology or philosophy. Something that students often ask is about the reasons why they chose their career. A few years ago, one of them simply said, "is that once I saw you on TV in a forum and then decided that I wanted to be a sociologist." Even if that student some time ago graduated from the bachelor, over the years I have been greeted on the street or in shopping malls and at least so far I have not seen or heard part in a television program or radio. I have not dared to ask, but Sometimes I suspect that his decision to become a sociologist perhaps was related to the fantasy that sociology professionals have the ability to talk nonsense about a wide range of topics and even ask us for more details about them.
alleged
Many radio interviews are just conversations with someone in charge of the program usually has a certain formality and then based on the alleged scholarship of the "interview" is not nothing but a party that is supposed to have certain information that the audience would like to hear. Over the years I've learned that no matter how well prepared my argument, based on my academic work of years, or reading a few weeks, days or minutes prior to the time spent "on air", the interviewer will seek to change the subject or trying to edge as I never have occurred to me. I intend to only accept invitations when he called me to occupy a space and time in your cabin manages to be more explicit on the subject and on the edges and even want to discuss what other experts will be partners. However, even though I insist:
1. A well-defined theme that is also on my professional competence and within my more specific interests;
2. A question general well-considered;
3. A clear relationship to events of recent weeks or days in institutional settings atingentes;
4. A clear profile of the other partners with whom, who leads the program and I, we will talk ...
The truth is that so far my previous notes I have done little since the drivers are interested in radio programs emphasize different things than they could disctutir with other academics involved in each topic. For example, if the appointment is to talk, say, on remittances sent by Mexican migrants from the U.S. to Mexico, most likely talk resulting in the living conditions of Mexicans abroad and the depression that overwhelms when in distant lands to his homeland, which is the most beautiful places in the universe. But if the appointment is to discuss the psychological and physical health of those who go up North and those who remain in villages of origin, then the talk will include very specific questions like: "What is the amount of remittances of money to Jalisco during the first half of this year? Is it less than this amount from what was, in relative terms in 1994, the year of crisis in Mexico or in 2008, the year of crisis in the U.S. "
In any case, even if one insists, as respondent, in talking about that for which he was invited, it is likely that already in place, the driver of the program and in the case given that no calls from the audience, who listen to the show, comes to mind. You may have noticed, as part of the audience, who sometimes call the same driver program and start some comments saying: "So, does that mean that xyj ..." And take the opportunity to put those arguments when in fact the respondent is doing best to just point out other things that have nothing to do with x and j. Sometimes when I listen to radio, just ask me: "so what does that matter? Why change the subject? "but when I am part of the talk, sometimes I have no choice but to be explicit and say" yes, xyj are related by being part of the alphabet to describe the subject we were talking about. "
So what can appendicocolic of radio interviews is that they rarely deal with the issue that is advertised to be treated ... and may even heated arguments about arguments that are not quite related. A case at hand is that of some politicians who, when interviewed, feel that the driver will transmit the message that the public says they do not do their job and are dedicated to defend and say that there are works of this or that class, instead of describing the pros and cons of those actions for which they were invited. And drivers want to talk about an issue that was not proposed, and politicians rarely want to talk about anything but their aspirations to the next place in his career, and as the audience hears only for fun and not for information, all happy and everyone speaking, listening and interpreting what gives it its common or royal wins ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment