ARTICLE: "America's Next Top Pundit," by Jeffrey Zaslow, Wall Street Journal, 20 October 2006, p. W1.

The basic logic of the B-listers who are constantly pushing themselves on TV shows, the vast majority of which are likewise crap, is that the harsher the opinion, and the more pithily put forward, the better the chance for reappearances.

All circus and no bread.

Here's a great bit that sums up the piece completely:

Last year, Jason Alexander was on Howard Stern's show pitching a children's book he'd written. Ms. [Debbie and Ann Coulter-wannabe] Shlussel called in and berated the "Seinfeld" actor for supporting OneVoice, a group that advocates nonviolent conflict resolution in the Middle East. Ms. Shlussel charged that the organization has ties to Hamas. Mr. Stern got laughs saying he'd like to create a "Six Degrees of Separation" game based on her ability to connect any person to terrorists in six links or less.

After much arguing, and repeated impersonations of a raving Ms. Shlussel by Mr. Stern's sidekicks, Mr. Alexander lamented on air that he "came in to talk about a children's book and ended up being branded a terrorist."

Ms. Shlussel thought the segment made great theater. And she's thrilled that, even as a B-lister, she has the power to reach millions of people with information they're not hearing elsewhere.

One academic observer put it well. Wannabes feel the only way to succeed is to be an ideologue with no sense of self-doubt and "that there are only two positions in the world, yours and wrong."

Then there's the requisite quote from the CNN producer saying he's constantly searching the web for the "great American 'centrist pundit.'" Yes, I can see that one coming. That's why Glenn Beck has his own hour every night on Headline News.

After a recent talk someone in the audience told me how great it would be for me to go on Beck's show, and that it would make great theater to see the two of us together. A couple of weeks ago I got a call from the show asking me to go on the night before Pop!Tech, to talk about the Egypt piece I wrote in Esquire. I passed. I really don't want to have my vision reduced to "good theater."

That's not me being snobby. I am good theater. That's why I do so much public speaking. But you're just fodder on the vast majority of these shows, which are mostly just about making the host look good. Most of the time when I've had intermediaries arrange an appearance, the host knows nothing of your work and wants you to perform like some circus freak. Chris Matthews was my worst experience in this regard. I found his style so patently self-aggrandizing that I simply checked out of the segment. I just couldn't bring myself down to his level and it showed. The segment never ran, and I was supremely relieved. The experience just snapped something inside me, making me realize that this was not the way to go.

And that from a person who thinks as he speaks! Meaning, I normally always welcome a chance to talk, because that's how I develop my material first and foremost. But I simply walk away from most shows feeling dumber than before, and to someone who thinks like I do, that's a horrible sign that it's not for you.

That's why I limit myself now, turning down a lot more than I accept. I have to be asked on for something I've already argued, meaning its the argument and not just the "street meat" that they want. The host has to know who the hell I am and has to want me specifically for what I represent in terms of vision. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

My wife summed it well the last time I went on Larry Kudlow's show. She said, "You can really tell he likes having you on."

Does that mean I only go on shows where I'm liked? Yeah, for the most part. It's the same reason why I never ask to brief anyone, only going where they ask me. Life is too short to bang your skull against walls, and relishing that "fight" simply for fame... well, I just don't dislike myself that much that I need to pretend that fame will somehow fill the gap.

What I've learned with minor celebrity is that it's pretty much meaningless outside your immediate circle. And if its cost includes damaging your standing in that immediate circle, then it's completely worthless. And if your immediate circle lives off that crap, then you're completely screwed as a person to begin with, so I guess you might as well run with it to occupy your time before obscurity overtakes your sense of self-worth.

Truth be told, I watch almost no network news or news channel shows. I can just feel my IQ dropping, as I wrote in PNM, with each passing minute.

I rarely feel better after a TV appearance, but almost always feel smarter after being on the radio (for example, even with Larry, I like being on his radio show a lot more). It's got to move the pile for you, because if it isn't, you're not passing along material that people need anyway, so why bother?

In the end, I find that I rarely win any converts on TV, often on radio, and that I rarely miss when I get them live, in a theater or conference room. Since I get paid a lot for the latter and none for the former, it's a pretty easy choice. One pays the bills, makes me smarter, and wins converts. The other does none of the above--on average.

Scarcity still sells.