Arrow-right Camera
Subscribe now

Talk-Show Hosts Claim Non-Exploitation Agendas

Mike Antonucci San Jose Mercury News

They’re charming and, of course, well-spoken. But do they represent something other than the television equivalent of acid-reflux?

They’re the new talk-show hosts. They include Tempestt Bledsoe, a former “Cosby” kid, and Gabrielle Carteris, who played Andrea on “Beverly Hills 90210.” None is more impassioned than the little-known Mark Walberg, whose show made its debut in some markets Monday.

They’re as socially conscious as they are hip. They sound unimpeachably sincere. For many of the questions about their entry into such an intensely condemned genre, they have smart, unapologetic answers.

But in other ways, they’re scary. Heedless and scary.

On the plus side, Bledsoe, Carteris and Walberg readily concede that talk shows deserve some of the criticism they’ve gotten. Interviewed by phone this week, while the genre’s format and content was drawing sharp criticism at the American Psychological Association’s convention in New York, the trio were neither defensive nor rattled.

“I don’t think this is an undue issue,” said Walberg, 32. “Talk can be pretty out-there television.”

Out there, indeed. In current incarnation - which is to say, as practiced by Jenny Jones, Ricki Lake, Montel Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer, Charles Perez and a long list of other bottom feeders - talk TV is one of the most cruel commodities in the history of fast-buck businesses.

The topics are self-evidently prurient, inflammatory or bizarre. The exhibitionists, also referred to as guests, are usually required to be either confessional or confrontational.

And the hosts cultivate an illusion of credibility, trading on image or reputation to help suck in a voyeuristic audience.

At that, I may have understated the situation.

“Tempestt,” Bledsoe said, will be dedicated to listening to people, not exploiting them.

Carteris says her affection for talk TV predates most of what’s on now.

“Gabrielle,” she said, is “not into sensationalism” and will reflect her commitment to community-oriented issues.

Walberg, who’s trying to avoid being confused with “Marky Mark” Mark Wahlberg, said he believes talk TV can be “flirty-fun-exciting” without being “lusty-sleazy-trashy.”

More specifically,” Walberg said, “We don’t want to hurt people, victimize people or exploit people.”

Put all that on the plus side, too. Bledsoe, Carteris and Walberg are willing to be judged, but not prejudged. They see their approaches as alternatives to the excesses of other shows.”You can’t please people all the time,” said Bledsoe, 22. “A lot of women have a problem with that - they have to please, please, please.”

Now for the scary part: All three are in near-total denial about their utter lack of qualifications for dealing with the addictions, crises and tragedies of strangers. Worse, they seem oblivious to the irresponsibility of playing amateur psychologist on national TV.

Experts say talk shows are a cascade of reckless activity. The dissemination of misinformation is one example. Ascribing major importance to atypical behavior is another.

Perhaps the scariest factor is the reinforcement of negative messages. People behaving destructively or hatefully are given a platform from which, even if they’re derided, they gain a measure of fame and attention. It is, say experts, part of an ill-advised American trend toward eliminating the concept of shame.

But Bledsoe contended, in effect, that she and her producers have sharper insights, especially when it comes to spotting the relevance in behaviors that experts characterize as rare or aberrant.

The suggestion that somebody’s problem might not have importance almost offends her.

“I think that’s really unfair to a lot of people because it doesn’t validate their experiences. What you have to say is equally important as what I have to say or what members of my audience have to say.”

Therapy through democracy. Carteris and Walberg embrace the same concept.

In an upside-down way, Bledsoe, Carteris and Walberg zeroed in on the ultimate issue - namely, a national appetite for junk TV that’s supporting upward of two-dozen talk shows this fall.

Why should a host feel guilty if he or she is, as Walberg puts it, “pleasing America”?

Well, how about because there’s a chasm - wider, probably, than the combined acreage of every open mouth on television - between getting good ratings and creating something good? Selling a product and selling a quality product are as different as mystery meat and prime rib.

“Doing things that are only uplifting and positive is a dream of mine,” said Walberg, “but that’s not the truth of society.”

Uh-oh. Mark Walberg, social visionary?