Does the show host seek win/win solutions?
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:59 am
Do they think they have all the answers? Are they arrogant in their assumptions? Or do they invite people to join their show who actually represent points of view with which they disagree. If they do this, do they show respect for their guest or do they ruthlessly pound them with their own point of view? Do they seek understanding? Do they move toward common ground or do they polarize? Do they genuinely listen to callers that present various points of view or do they cut them off and make fun of them?
We hear many talk show hosts who only complain job function email list and blame; they seldom seek any solutions. It's a focus on problems, awful problems. Some present solutions, but generally those solutions are win/lose solutions, like bombing the enemy into submission -- or oblivion. Often, the problem is only seen from the show host's personal perspective or belief system and so, naturally, the solution only solves that part of the problem. We look for hosts who seek to understand the needs of all the players in a particular drama and then encourage solutions that meet the majority of needs.
This is another example of narrow eyesight. It reveals a lack of sophistication about political realities -- or about human nature. If one political party had the answer, then why are things constantly progressing along the same path, no matter which party is in power? And, notice also, that each party constantly betrays the party platforms?
We hear many talk show hosts who only complain job function email list and blame; they seldom seek any solutions. It's a focus on problems, awful problems. Some present solutions, but generally those solutions are win/lose solutions, like bombing the enemy into submission -- or oblivion. Often, the problem is only seen from the show host's personal perspective or belief system and so, naturally, the solution only solves that part of the problem. We look for hosts who seek to understand the needs of all the players in a particular drama and then encourage solutions that meet the majority of needs.
This is another example of narrow eyesight. It reveals a lack of sophistication about political realities -- or about human nature. If one political party had the answer, then why are things constantly progressing along the same path, no matter which party is in power? And, notice also, that each party constantly betrays the party platforms?