Jun 21 2007
“Talk Radio is running America!”
There’s a very simple way to explain the wild success of conservative talk radio. It’s simply this: The Liberals dominate almost every sphere of mass communication out there.
They dominate the TV news. They dominate Hollywood. They dominate the newspapers. They dominate colleges and grade schools. They dominate our books. And excluding the conservative blogosphere, they dominate the internet.
Think Progressive has this to say:
Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:
Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […]
Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.
Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.
Basically, Liberals are saying that it’s not fair that conservatives dominate the airwaves and that something should be done about it.
The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.
They key to their hissy-fit is that Talk Radio isn’t serving the needs of “all Americans”. Since the radio waves are in the public domain, they should serve the public’s needs rather than just a segment of the population.
Of course, I think this is a very shallow argument since there are many radio stations out there that don’t serve the needs of “all Americans”. How ludicrous. I don’t listen to rap music, so should rap stations be required to diversify their musical tastes because they don’t serve the needs of “all Americans”? How many ethnic radio stations are there out there? Should they be forced to serve the needs of “all Americans”?
Come to think of it, who gets to decide what are needs of “all Americans” anyhow?
But with their argument, one could argue the same thing for television. For those who downplay and mock the notion of a liberal media bias, MSNBC and the Drudge Report reported today that journalists contribute to Democrat politicians 9 times for every 1 Republican.
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
…
There’s a longstanding tradition that journalists don’t cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work. Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.
…
Several of the donating journalists said they had no regrets, whatever the ethical concerns.
“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”
Why is it that that last quote from Mark Singer didn’t comfort me? And journalists wonder why they aren’t trusted by the American people anymore…
Go figure.
Michelle Malkin blogged on this and La Shawn has written a long essay on it.
A Minor Addendum:
Ironically, the quote I used for the title of this post is not from a liberal hysteria source. It came from non other than Trent Lott, the Republican senator. You know you’re in trouble when conservatives are saying the same thing as Leftists.
What does this connote? I don’t know, but I have a bad feeling about this.
Thomas,
We need to stop thinking along the same lines. :p
Looks like I’m not the only one blogging about the un-fairness doctrine.
First rule of radio: Be interesting
For the most part liberal talk radio isn’t, therefore they don’t get ratings…
Oh please! The hysterical claims of “Liberal Media Bias” are ridiculous. Sure journalists tend to be liberal, the field lends itself to that sort of thing. But the proliferation of non-liberal news sources allows people to find what they want when they want it. If you want to watch FOX change the channel to FOX. If you want conservative opinion read the NY Post, read the Nation, read Anne Coulter. If you want conservative talk radio the list is countless. America is positively dripping with conservative opinion from where I sit, and if anything the majority of people outside of New York and Massachusetts seem to soak up and regurgitate conservative drivel like a squoze spounge!
I’ll tell you what is biased. The fact that you view disatisfaction with Bush as a “Leftist” stance. By many objective measures Bush is a disaster as a president. Even my rightwing hardline Republican friend the other day admitted as much, although it greatly pained him to do so. Ridiculous!
tg,
When people talk about the “Liberal Bias” in news, we are usually referring to the more traditional media outlets, specifically TV and newspapers.
Of all the TV news out there, I can only think of ONE quasi-conservative station, and that’s FOXNEWS. Of all the hundreds of major newspapers out there, only a handful are conservative. However, you cut the cards, this is a pretty decisive bias.
Talk Radio, blogs and online news sources traditionally sit on the periphery when it comes to news.
Talk Radio usually only attract people of like minds and the frequency sits on the AM side of the dial. Most people I know don’t even turn on the AM dial.
Blogs… well, most people don’t give much a fig about what blogs say unless it’s done by high profile journalists who already have a forum to display their views anyway.
And online news is still dominated by the “newspapers” that have online editions. Once again, they lean toward that liberal bias we’re talking about.
Now, I don’t view the dissatisfaction with President Bush as some kind of illicit vast Left-wing conspiracy. There are many things people, including myself, are not satisfied with in this administration, Republican and Democrat.
But you’ve got to admit that 5 years of droning “He lied, people died!” and “He misled!” and things of this kind all over the TV and online newspapers helped to shape public opinion.
A lot of people are blogging about the Censorship bill. It after all, is designed specifically as a way for the government to control information outlets. The internet is included, you know. You know Internet Radio? The Senate recently passed a bill that raised the operating costs of Internet Radio beyond their ability to absorb. Too many of those and internet radio is dead, because they don’t have the resources of an Air America. Which is the strategy and the point. The Left has always liked to get rid of the competitors; why do you think they boot ROTC off campus? Can’t have different viewpoints from the status quo.