"More negatives write than call. It's a cheap shot for me to go on the air with the critical letters or E-mail I get because the reaction of the listeners is always an instantaneous expression of sympathy for me and contempt for the poor critic"
About this Quote
A broadcaster recognizes an asymmetry in feedback: more people send negative messages than pick up the phone. Writing is distant, safe, and often harsher; calling requires immediacy, accountability, and the courage to face a host in real time. That asymmetry creates a stream of critical letters and emails that are easy to weaponize, but doing so would exploit the power imbalance between the person with the microphone and the person without one.
Calling it a cheap shot is an ethical judgment about platform privilege. On the air, the host controls tone, timing, and framing. Reading a critical note to a sympathetic audience stacks the deck. The audience already identifies with the voice they invite into their car or kitchen every day. When the host presents a critic, listeners reflexively circle the wagons: sympathy for the familiar host, contempt for the outsider. The exchange becomes theater, not dialogue, and the critic turns into a foil used to rally the tribe.
There is also a quiet insight into negativity bias and participation bias. Satisfied listeners rarely write; displeased ones do. Treating that pile of negatives as representative would distort reality, and parading it would reward outrage while discouraging good-faith dissent. Resisting the urge to read the barbs is a way of refusing the easy dopamine of public vindication.
The stance hints at a healthier model of discourse: engage critics on equal footing or not at all, address arguments rather than humiliate individuals, and remember that the presence of an audience intensifies loyalties and erodes fairness. It also anticipates a pattern now common on social media, where quote-tweeting detractors invites a pile-on. By acknowledging the performative temptations of broadcasting and declining to exploit them, the speaker affirms a responsibility that comes with having an audience: use influence to elevate conversation, not to score points at the expense of someone who cannot answer back.
Calling it a cheap shot is an ethical judgment about platform privilege. On the air, the host controls tone, timing, and framing. Reading a critical note to a sympathetic audience stacks the deck. The audience already identifies with the voice they invite into their car or kitchen every day. When the host presents a critic, listeners reflexively circle the wagons: sympathy for the familiar host, contempt for the outsider. The exchange becomes theater, not dialogue, and the critic turns into a foil used to rally the tribe.
There is also a quiet insight into negativity bias and participation bias. Satisfied listeners rarely write; displeased ones do. Treating that pile of negatives as representative would distort reality, and parading it would reward outrage while discouraging good-faith dissent. Resisting the urge to read the barbs is a way of refusing the easy dopamine of public vindication.
The stance hints at a healthier model of discourse: engage critics on equal footing or not at all, address arguments rather than humiliate individuals, and remember that the presence of an audience intensifies loyalties and erodes fairness. It also anticipates a pattern now common on social media, where quote-tweeting detractors invites a pile-on. By acknowledging the performative temptations of broadcasting and declining to exploit them, the speaker affirms a responsibility that comes with having an audience: use influence to elevate conversation, not to score points at the expense of someone who cannot answer back.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
