We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.
I find Randall Bloom-quist’s personal attack on Diane Rehm (“Too Much of the Goodness Thing,” 8/2) quite astonishing and unfair.
First, he rarely thinks about, still less understands, the actual choices that Diane Rehm, or anyone hosting a similar guest-host radio talk show, must confront. Of course her guests will have some credentials and, hopefully, a specific point of view on their subjects. Bloomquist may call this “peddling,” but surely anyone, whether on the radio or not, has the right to offer and advocate their viewpoints. Would he actually prefer her to feature guests with no knowledge or authority in their fields, and with no viewpoints to offer?
Secondly, despite his defense of “the hoi polloi” (since “hoi” is the definite article in Greek, the “the” is redundant), Bloomquist is being perversely elitist in his own way, only that his elites, of course, live outside the Beltway, and by this fortunate geography, are superior to those living and working inside.
Thirdly, in criticizing her treatment of callers, given the number of callers attempting to reach the show, the consequences of letting any single caller attempt to rebut the guest can only come at the expense of other callers attempting to speak. Politeness and democracy both, in this case, limit each caller to one brief question, however pointed.
Finally, “A Marriage Made in Ether” is simply gossipy trash, irrelevant to Bloomquist’s point. Who cares about either Rush Limbaugh’s or Diane Rehm’s family roots, college degrees (or lack thereof), marriages, features, spousal wealth, or fawning fans. I maintain that the only relevant issues are what each attempts in their program and how well each succeeds.