From Tunku Varadarajan’s overview of CNN’s “Larry King Reside” within the Journal, Oct. 25, 2002. King died Saturday at 87:
It could be straightforward to accuse Mr. King of flacking for each scoundrel who offers the crowd-pleasing humiliation that retains rankings wholesome—or for each worthy who’s written a guide and desires to clear his throat on air about it. Some may imagine that his program is morally questionable, however entertaining. . . . In actual fact, it’s typically fairly the alternative: vastly boring, however morally sound, in that it gives a worthy democratic service, giving the popularly reviled members of society—shoplifting actresses, allegedly homicidal pols and even nonwealthy, nonpowerful legal suspects—a possibility to face their accusers, because it had been, with equal viewership. . . .
True, the very rich and privileged are held to a better customary of social comportment, as they need to be. However typically Mr. King—by serving as a clean slate, like a great psychiatrist—offers them a precious alternative to make a full confession with their very own ill-chosen phrases. And generally the advantage of a “Larry King Reside” look is ambiguous (as with the mother and father of JonBenet Ramsey, or Susan McDougal). The necessary level is that the well-known and infamous alike are given the possibility, with America tuned in, to defend a life’s fame, or to reduce the harm of their quarter-hour of fame.
Can this be such a nasty factor?