The other day Caitie said I should be a DJ

which made me laugh for AGES. And when I said oh WHAT caitie I would be the worst DJ in the world, she said "You're lying. I know you agree with me. Just imagine! All your pals could phone in and have very important and compelling chats for your listeners and then you could play a nice song. and just think you could do lots of polls."
And I thought ohhhhhhhhhh THAT kind of DJ. Imagining being that kind of DJ makes more sense than being the other kind. But still I would be completely rubbish at it. There is an amazing David Foster Wallace article on a Glenn Beck style person, where he says:

"Hosting talk radio is an exotic, high-pressure gig that not many people are fit for, and being truly good at it requires skills so specialized that many of them don't have names.

To appreciate these skills and some of the difficulties involved, you might wish to do an experiment. Try sitting alone in a room with a clock, turning on a tape recorder, and starting to speak into it. Speak about anything you want—with the proviso that your topic, and your opinions on it, must be of interest to some group of strangers who you imagine will be listening to the tape. Naturally, in order to be even minimally interesting, your remarks should be intelligible and their reasoning sequential—a listener will have to be able to follow the logic of what you're saying—which means that you will have to know enough about your topic to organize your statements in a coherent way. (But you cannot do much of this organizing beforehand; it has to occur at the same time you're speaking.) Plus, ideally, what you're saying should be not just comprehensible and interesting but compelling, stimulating, which means that your remarks have to provoke and sustain some kind of emotional reaction in the listeners, which in turn will require you to construct some kind of identifiable persona for yourself—your comments will need to strike the listener as coming from an actual human being, someone with a real personality and real feelings about whatever it is you're discussing. And it gets even trickier: You're trying to communicate in real time with someone you cannot see or hear responses from; and though you're communicating in speech, your remarks cannot have any of the fragmentary, repetitive, garbled qualities of real interhuman speech, or speech's ticcy unconscious "umm"s or "you know"s, or false starts or stutters or long pauses while you try to think of how to phrase what you want to say next. You're also, of course, denied the physical inflections that are so much a part of spoken English—the facial expressions, changes in posture, and symphony of little gestures that accompany and buttress real talking. Everything unspoken about you, your topic, and how you feel about it has to be conveyed through pitch, volume, tone, and pacing. The pacing is especially important: it can't be too slow, since that's low-energy and dull, but it can't be too rushed or it will sound like babbling. And so you have somehow to keep all these different imperatives and structures in mind at the same time, while also filling exactly, say, eleven minutes, with no dead air and no going over, such that at 10:46 you have wound things up neatly and are in a position to say, "KFI is the station with the most frequent traffic reports. Alan LaGreen is in the KFI Traffic Center" (which, to be honest, Mr. Z. sometimes leaves himself only three or even two seconds for and has to say extremely fast, which he can always do without a flub). So then, ready: go."

I would be the worst at that. Really. BUT. The thing about the polls would be amazing. I wish wish wish I could have a job where I could just do lots of interesting polls all the time. The trick I spose would be to make the results of your poll relevant or useful to whoever is paying you to do this. That's the hard bit.
However.
If I was hosting my talk radio show today, the polls I would be doing are:
1) What do you think of Ray Mears style people who know how to get water out of the ground in the desert? In other words, what do you think of a person who goes out of their way to acquire the kind of knowledge that would enable them to survive in The Wild? Creepy and childish and wasting their lives? Or noble and manly and we will all be thanking them when the apocalypse comes?
2) Does everyone know who their parents' best friend was when they were small?