Does this quote trouble you as much as it does me? It's from David
Bartlett,former president of the Radio-Television News Directors
Association. "The best way to insure the failure of a radio therapy
show," Bartlett told the New York Times, "is to concentrate on
psychology. Good talk radio is done for the listener, not the caller.
That may not always be compatible with the role of a therapist."
Can a radio psychologist truly act in the best interest of a caller
when the need to entertain is constantly lurking in the background? It's
an important question to ask, because unlike the folks who call, say,
Howard Stern, the people who phone radio psychologists by definition have
problems, often serious ones. (Actually, many of Stern's callers have
serious problems as well, but that's another story.)
Granted, nobody--including its practitioners--would be so foolish
as to claim that "radio therapy" bears any resemblance to the real thing.
But at least in regular therapy the therapist's obligations and loyalties
are clear cut. The issue is murkier on the air. A caller to a radio
psychology show is seeking an answer to a problem--an unstable marriage,
a depressed family member, an unruly kid--whose resolution may affect the
rest of his or her life. It is disturbing, then, that a caller's needs
might-- intentionally or not--take a backseat to the demands of
ratings.
Radio psychologists are well aware of their dual constituencies.
Joy Browne, Ph.D., whose syndicated show airs on some 300 stations,
describes her program as "Problem Solving 101" but she acknowledges that
it's also "Voyeurism 102." Still, Browne and her colleagues insist that
callers need not suffer. "Radio is entertainment," says Helen Friedman,
Ph.D., who has a new show scheduled on KOOK-AM in St. Louis. "But I think
you really can look out for both the caller and the listener."
What ultimately matters, of course, is whether these shows really
help people. And the answer, alas, is that we don't really know. Sure,
any decent radio shrink has a fat file filled with letters from grateful
listeners who have benefitted from the host's advice. But what about
people whose lives suffered because they followed poor on-air counsel?
For years psychologists have dutifully performed studies to show that
Therapy X helps a given problem. Maybe it's time that some enterprising
researcher followed up on what happens to people who call in to radio
therapy shows.
If you're wondering why I haven't mentioned the best-known
therapist on the airwaves, it's because Dr. Laura" Schlessinger says
up-front that her show is about "moral health," not mental health. Of
course, Schlessinger isn't a psychologist (though she's a licensed
therapist). But in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY'S "taboo" issue, it's only fitting
that our featured interview be with the one radio therapist who not only
discusses morality--a topic most therapists avoid, the better to maintain
an air of neutrality--but makes it the crux of her show. You'll find our
interview with Schlessinger on page 28; our special report on taboos
begins on page 32.
Despite the concerns I mentioned, I do find it encouraging that
psychology shows are attracting such a wide audience. Critics miss the
point when they dismiss such programs as "McTherapy." As Friedman notes,
"Psychology has a lot to offer people. We're giving them new ways to look
at their problems." That's a mission we at PT can stand behind. After
all, it's our mission, too.
