The Sweet Spot and Dan Barreiro

A couple days ago I swapped vehicles with #1 son. (Because I’ll be damned if I’m going to wedge a pressure washer into my car, which at least gets vacuumed more than once a year.) With ignition came Dan Barreiro of KFAN sports talk radio in mid-soliloquy.

As I pulled out of the driveway two thoughts came to mind. 1: How long it had been since I heard Barreiro’s show, and 2: Why I lost interest in it.

His topic of that moment, and again this was just him alone on stage, was how Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Ukrainian expert deposed last week in the Trump impeachment inquiry, was being routinely lionized for his military career and combat veteran status. Barreiro’s point was essentially that laudable resume and chestful of medals withstanding, it’s possible some like him, though not necessarily Vindman himself, could still be a lying scoundrel. Point being, “the media” was engaged in yet another exercise of herd-think, equating appearance and pedigree with truthfulness.

By contrast, Barreiro quickly pivoted to say, liberals and “progressives” (a word that came with a tone of “here-we-go-again” disdain), people like Hillary Clinton, had no problem impugning the integrity of people Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, herself a military veteran.*

Where Barreiro went after that I really can’t say, because by the time I was merging onto Highway 100 I had hit the new Sturgill Simpson CD and was moving into a better realm of consciousness.

I might have held that moment of zen-like bliss if I hadn’t heard, a couple hours later, of the latest Republican messaging strategy and how neatly it fit with new polling that showed a large minority of voters explaining away Donald Trump’s Ukraine transgressions on the grounds that, “They all do it.”

Now, full disclosure, I know Barreiro only as an acquaintance in the very short time I worked down the hall from him at what was then KTLK-FM. This was over a decade ago now. But even then Barreiro was established as the #1 act in afternoon drive. I haven’t seen radio ratings in years, but I’ll believe it if anyone tells me he’s still #1. And, for what it’s worth, he’s not a bad guy. He’s smart, and unlike some other local radio titans, not dripping with self-loathing issues.

His show worked because he folded a facility for sports rumination/fulmination/exasperation in with the more relevant news of the day, like politics. Unlike the long, long list of pandering, bloviating radio hucksters, Barreiro’s shtick was/is: “I’m the Sanest Guy in the Room.”

But … there’s always a thing, and here’s that thing.

Success in commercial radio is powerfully, unequivocally linked to the First Rule of Show Biz, i.e. “Give the people what they want.” It’s a rule predicated on knowing who those people are. And if you’re building a succcessful career in sports talk radio, you have no reason — none — to believe you’re audience is deeply, vitally interested in politics, political scandal and matters of government morality. They’re tuning in to hear why the Vikings screwed up Sunday’s game, why the Pohlads will never drop $30 million on a pitcher and whether P.J. Fleck’s brand of hucksterism might be the real deal.

If you the host have a few minutes to dissect the day’s headlines, well go ahead, but get back to Kirk Cousins before the next commercial break. And, while you’re at it, don’t feed us any of that crazy lefty shit.

If you can imagine a scale where zero (heh) is as far left you can go (“crazy progressives”) and 100 is as far right as you can imagine, (Alex Jones and InfoWars), the sweet spot, ratings-wise, for a guy like Barreiro is somewhere between 60 and 65. It’s a Goldilocks zone where the liberals are always kind of “nutty”, too “radical” and “out there” and forever juiced up on “conspiracy theories”, and where prominent Republicans, while laughably self-serving — I give you Donald Trump — are never up to anything worse or more nefarious than anyone else.

Which is to say … “They all do it.”

The sports talk radio audience is, in my experience, a group of people, vast majority male, who are either politically indifferent/agnostic or conservative by default. Default being the result of the discomfort they feel around “politically correct” “elitists” always who are always “talking over their heads.”

So, and here’s the offense: you give those people only what they want to hear, which is a 2019 variation on Ronald Reagan’s sunny cynicism: “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” It’s an eagerly digestible trope amplified now for 30 years by Rush Limbaugh, et al. A ratings winner. You may win no big liberal audience, but why worry? Liberals are not a reachable audience to begin with. They just don’t spend much time listening to football nattering.

What you are doing though — and in fairness to Barreiro, he engages in a less virulent extent than many, many others — is re-fueling the basic, lazy-minded, deeply-held cynicism that “they all do it”. They’re all corrupt scoundrels. Everyone knows that. They’re all out for themselves. None of them care about you. Liberals especially. So it’s a waste of time trying to sort an of this out.

Or … why get so worked up about whatever they’re saying about Trump? It’s just the same old same old.

As a commercial radio strategy it’s gold. But, and I’m serious here, on a moral level it is appallingly cynical and a not inconsequential driver in the dumbing down and perpetuated ignorance of a sizable chunk of the voting age population.

Now, again in fairness to Barreiro, I haven’t listened to entire show of his in probably a dozen years and I heard less than five minutes of this one. So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt wait and for someone to tell me that …

As a shrewd judge of human nature, at least in terms of athletes and big time sports management, Barreiro saw Trump for the long term, ludicrous fraud he was as he ramped up for his run in 2016

… and that he admonished his large drivetime audience repeatedly to see Trump’s Obama birth certificate “issue” for the naked racism it was

… as were his repeated attacks on Muslims

… and that there are no “fine people” on the Nazi side

… that the Clinton Foundation actually provided tangible benefits to the poor and desperate while Trump’s foundation had to be shut down for farcical corruption

… that the Mueller Report didn’t exonerate The Donald

… and that, no, “everybody doesn’t” run a hamfisted bribery con on a foreign government, holding up military aid for a bogus investigation of political rival, and then lie about it constantly

… and so on, and on and on.

8 thoughts on “The Sweet Spot and Dan Barreiro

  1. Yes. “Politicians are all the same,” is the mantra of the lazy thinkers of our time, not to mention those without the courage to see the implications of them NOT being all the same.

    We progressives are afraid to use the words “bad” and “evil.” And right-wingers are afraid to look at themselves.

  2. This progressive is no longer afraid of using the word “evil.” And I have added “treason/treasonous” to my political vocab. If I were the designer of herr bonespursky’s solitary confinement cell, there would be no mirrors and I would recommend that the walls feature murals of Mueller, Schiff and Pelosi.

  3. Look, I certainly have no problem with “bad”, but “evil”? Come on, are we a bunch of witch burners?
    I object to the word “evil” in political discourse because it implies the existence of an absolute standard, a “sacred text”, against which all political action can be measured. Of course, if you believe that the Bible is such a text (and there are plenty of people who do), then there is certainly plenty of societal cover/sanction for your beliefs. But I prefer to think for myself, and I am not so insecure as to deny the possibility that I might be wrong. The use of absolutes (like “evil”) I try to avoid.
    Frankly, I tend to think of Trump as mendacious and avaricious and stupid. He is not smart enough to be evil. If he were evil, he wouldn’t be so obviously petty and “grifty”.
    I do like the idea of locking him in a room with no mirrors. Reminds me of a Sartre play: No Exit. Perfect punishment for vanity.

    Sorry for the rant…..

  4. Now, I must admit, I do not listen to sports radio, in fact, I have not heard of this man since he was a writer for…the Trib? He was a moron then(when he was writing about sports, so I cannot imagine him having “any” knowledge about politics.

    • As I say to Mr. Anderson in reply to his comment, Barreiro isn’t your average embittered white male ranter. He has (or at least had) cogent insights into the thinking and behavior of athletes and sports executives — which makes his reluctance to make an insistent point of Trump’s fraudulence and stupidity so disappointing.

  5. Thanks for this Brian. I’ve never quite been able to articulate what it is about the 30-something, male, sports-listening audience that snickers and humbugs their way around any whiff of a conversation inching its way around politics. “Both sides do it. They’re all corrupt” has been a tremendously successful meme for The Powers That Be. Lately, in my fantasy conversation with these guys who love their WW2 movies (Saving Private Ryan and back to The Longest Day), I want to ask, “Just what was it they were risking their life for? What principles were they Making The World Safe For?” Hmmm. And then I follow that up with “Hey, found those weapons of mass destruction yet?”

    • My point here about Barreiro is that among all the popular local radio hosts, he truly knows better, but has made the professional calculation that fine-slicing common sense and logic to appeal (i.e. not offend) the guys you’re talking about is simply good business. People consent to all sorts of lamentable behavior to serve their employer’s business plan, but not all of them involve polluting a large, public understanding of who is nefarious and who is not. Which shouldn’t be too tough.

Comments are closed.