Of late I have noticed a tone of impatience and indignation in Mitchell when dealing with talkback callers. I suspect that this has been a hallmark of Mitchell's work for quite some time, but it is only in recent months that I have regularly listened to the program.
Mitchell seems so preoccupied with his own self-importance and his handle on the "issues" that he cannot help but treat callers with little respect or tolerance.
This is especially so when the caller has an opinion with which Mitchell disagrees. He has no hesitation in talking over the top of the caller, belittling them and asking questions which go to support his opinion but not allowing them an opportunity to reply.
When he suspects that the opinion is one with which he disagrees, he interjects with "mm-hmm", "yep", "yes" and "OK" while the caller is speaking in an attempt to put them under pressure and to interrupt the flow of their thought/delivery.
He particularly enjoys making unsophisticated jokes at their expense with fellow panel member Ken Judge, and generally behaving like an extremely discourteous, ill-mannered and opinionated oaf.
This is precisely what happened on Saturday morning with respect to talkback on drugs, drug testing and the issue with Channel Seven. In discussing the AFL's drugs policy, and the fact that players had tested positive for illicit drugs but not on match day (hence no name and shame), Mitchell took calls and engaged in the talkback equivalent of a shouting match with several callers. His tone was whiney, his voice was raised and he strung together monologues of more than 300 words to prevent the callers from commenting. I could practically hear his blood pressure rising.
When a caller rang the program specifically to notify Mitchell of this, he proceeded to cut her off, talk over the top of her and undermine her comment, a comment which in my opinion was entirely valid.
In his belligerent, petulant defence, Mitchell said he was behaving that way because he "just got so frustrated" with people calling for harsher penalties for illicit drug users in AFL, and he wondered why "people couldn't understand the issues".
Here's a tip, Glenn: exercise a modicum of self-control and discipline. Notwithstanding that you might have a difference of opinion with a talkback caller, it is your obligation to allow them to voice that opinion and then, if you choose, to state your own. Shouting them down simply gives the impression that you are afraid of opinions that might be contrary to your own, that you don't like to be challenged, that you don't have an open mind and that you are not willing to consider all points of view.
If people are not properly informed on the issues, is it not your duty as a representative of the fourth estate to demonstrate patience in properly informing them?
You are employed by the national broadcaster, yet you carry on like Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson. I have not heard any other ABC radio commentators conduct themselves in this manner. Even talkback involving people with professional opinions who have played and coached the game at the highest level (such as David Parkin, Mark Maclure and Stan Alves) is moderated by professional, dispassionate hosts such as Dan Lonergan or Gerard Whately. You could learn a lot from your contemporaries.
Instead, we in the west get the narcissistic ramblings of a fat, biased, ocker wanker who masquerades as a journalist.
You like to call yourself a "professional". Try behaving like one.
A HEAD FOR RADIO: Glenn Mitchell, right, sucks in his gut for an ABC promo shot.
