Well, it's not so much pure idiocy as a need to stay on script. In the link above, Jarvis Cocker spoke of being prompted to answer certain questions a certain way. These shows seem improvised but they're tightly controlled by producers. So the format really favors people speaking in soundbites and scoring points off their opponents. Because of the time constraints the guests don't have many real exchanges. They're just people taking turns talking. And I also feel, particularly in the case of public figures, that they will never, ever speak off the cuff. You know what they're going to say before they say it. They're rehashing talking points. Of all the chat shows, I like Bill Maher's best, and even on his show what is said is often predetermined, including some of his apparently spontaneous jokes.
I wouldn't equate Jon Stewart with Rush Limbaugh, no, but there are seldom real exchanges on the "lefty" shows, either. Host brings on guest. Guest recites talking points. Host appears to hover between serious and light-hearted, drawing out guest's humanity with little jokes while making himself appear good-natured and fair. It's all standard. They're as scripted as soap commercials. You'll never get any real conversations. Instead, how about doing what Dan Savage did?
Untelevised debate on gay marriage!
I think your point about Morrissey defending his views is well-taken-- I'd like to see him stand tall and take on all comers, too-- but we have to remember he isn't a public intellectual. He isn't a professor, a writer, or a politician. He's a pop star who has brought some ideas to his music which seem to lift him out of the category of mindless entertainer and into the role of Very Serious Person. But he isn't. He's a pop star. His views are offered on a take it or leave it basis. I think his purpose is to make people think, not convince anyone of an argument. "Meat Is Murder" is a howl from the heart. It's not an intellectual argument. Which doesn't make him wrong.
If there's one cause he probably
could argue successfully, it's the argument for vegetarianism and against animal cruelty. But why do it? How's it going to improve on "Meat Is Murder"? For that matter, does anyone attempt to argue for meat-eating, and the slaughter of animals? Believe me, Morrissey isn't the only one tossing out views with no back-up. Every time you see a steakhouse commercial, it's not as if a man in a suit is carefully laying out the reasons you should eat animal flesh. Views and ideologies are thrust upon us all the time without any kind of back-up whatsoever. It seems we're applying a bit of a double standard.
