|
I love libruls
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
waaaah waaaaah. Could it be that liberal talk radio doesn't generate any ratings/interest? Let's just cry to the government. I love it when people talk about the "Fairness" Doctrine.
| quote: | REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It
The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.
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.
While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves. Some key findings:
– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.
– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.
radiographic2.gif
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. |
Source: Think Backwards |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Fairness doctrine sounds like a violation of Amendment #1 |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I have a better idea, why don't progressives get some better programs that people actually want to hear? :p :crazy:
crazy idea I know... |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
i think it's a mistake to believe that only conservatives listen to conservative radio. i think i'm somewhat progressive and i listen to a fair amount of the conservative pundits mostly for the entertainment value and not because i necessarily agree with the hosts.
there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.
if it's the case that a fair amount of progressives listen to them too for their entertainment value, then i can understand why their rating are so high. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
waaaah waaaaah. Could it be that liberal talk radio doesn't generate any ratings/interest? Let's just cry to the government. I love it when people talk about the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Source: Think Backwards |
I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states:
| quote: | | 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. |
And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because:
| quote: | 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. |
IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates.
I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear? |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.
|
You are a great American!
I actually think Rush is the funnier out of them all, but Neal Bortz is my favorite. Hannity gets on my nerves a lot of times, not because I think he is wrong, but because I hate the way he approaches things.
Also Shakka,
Well you know why Air America went bankrupt, because they still talk about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. It gets pretty annoyin.h |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states:
And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because:
IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates.
I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear? |
So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush. |
Having to consider both sides of an argument is not incompatible with the free market you like so much. Responsible commentary demands the considering of opposing views. You have to remember information has consequences. Considering these people are distributing information that is critical in decision making they should consider both sides of an argument. Radio, TV, newspapers, etc.. should always consider their role as sources of information when developing their programming/coverage. The 'fairness doctrine' is nothing more than responsible journalism. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings.
I do support the Fairness Doctrine as it was originally written in law, and not on the relaxation of certain provisions. Certain items in the report are worth mentioning. For example, the Fairness Doctrine itself was never formally repealed. Rather, certain regulations were loosened by the FCC and were upheld by a Circuit Court (though not by the Supreme Court, though I'd concede with today's SCOTUS members it would likely have the same result as that of the Circuit Court). There's a good possibility that the FCC could merely enforce those rules again (like if a Democratic President comes in and appoints new FCC regulators).
I'll stop ripping the argument and let it speak for itself from here:
[QUOTE]Moreover, the original Communications
Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC to require “reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time” by a legally qualifi ed candidate for federal elective offi ce, and equal
opportunities must be afforded all other candidates for that offi ce.13 These obligations come from the same set of concerns
from which the Fairness Doctrine arose. And Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of confl icting views of issues of public importance.”14
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../talk_radio.pdf
p. 6 |
Furthermore:
| quote: | Thus, the public obligations inherent in
the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence
and operative, at least on paper. More
important, the Fairness Doctrine was
never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure
the fair discussion of important issues.
The Fairness Doctrine was most effective
as part of a regulatory structure that
limited license terms to three years, subjected
broadcasters to license challenges
through comparative hearings, required
notice to the local community that licenses
were going to expire, and empowered
the local community through a process
of interviewing a variety of local leaders.
Added to this regulatory structure was
the cooperation of the broadcast industry
through the National Association of
Broadcasters Code of Conduct.15 |
I say all this to dispel the notion that supporting the doctrine entails some sort of repeal. It's merely enforcing that which is already a law, but has been loosened up somewhat.
And in regards to the listening viewership of talk radio, the report states:
| quote: | The second argument put forth to explain
the gap between conservative and
progressive talk is that station owners are
merely providing the programming that
the market forces demand. From this
perspective, talk radio audiences are just
more conservative and are more likely to
listen to conservative hosts.
This argument is misleading on numerous
fronts. Although talk radio audiences
tend to be more male, middle-aged, and
conservative, research by Pew indicates
that this audience is not monolithic—
43 percent of regular talk radio listeners
identify as conservative, while 23 percent
identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate.
16 The ideological breakdown of
the country as a whole during this same
period was very similar—36 percent conservative,
21 percent liberal, and 35 percent
moderate. It is diffi cult to argue that
the existing audience for talk radio is only
interested in hearing one side of public
debates given the diversity of the existing
and potential audience.
More importantly, even in markets where
progressive talk is considered a success
by the industry standards of ratings and
revenue, licensees will often broadcast
conservative talk on three or four stations
compared to one station for progressive talk. For example, in Portland, OR,
where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620
competes effectively with conservative
talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners
also broadcast conservative talk on KXL
AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although
there is a clear demand and proven
success of progressive talk in this market,
station owners still elect to stack the
airwaves with one-sided broadcasting.
As our data shows, the norm under the
existing market structure is for radio
station licensees to broadcast only conservative
talk, a pattern that holds true
for more than 90 percent of the stations
examined (236 stations out of 257). In
Ohio, for example, there are 10 radio
markets. In eight of those markets, there
is not a single hour of progressive talk.
In the two markets that do broadcast
a total of six hours of progressive talk
(Al Sharpton on two urban talk stations),
those hours compete against 52 hours of
conservative talk. Clear Channel Communications,
the ownership group that
has committed the largest number of stations
to the progressive format, recently
cancelled the only three progressive talk
stations in the state of Ohio.
When 91 percent of the talk radio programming
broadcast each weekday is
solely conservative—despite a diversity of
opinions among radio audiences and the
proven success of progressive shows—the
market solution has clearly failed to meet
audience demand. Even greater deregulation
and consolidation of radio station
ownership is therefore not likely to meet
audience desires or serve the public interest
in any meaningful way.
p.7 |
More is explained in detail in the report. Have you read it yet? What parts do you agree or disagree with and why? They also address the "barriers of entry" you mention:
| quote: | Our view is that the imbalance in talk
radio programming today is the result of
multiple structural problems in the U.S.
8
regulatory system, particularly the complete
breakdown of the public trustee
concept of broadcast regulation resulting
from pro-forma licensing policies,17
longer license terms (to eight years from
three years previously),18 the elimination
of clear public interest requirements such
as local public affairs programming,19
and the relaxation of ownership rules,
including the requirement of local participation
in management.
....Large, non-local owners
aired syndicated programming on a
wider scale across their national holdings.
Advertising on local stations was marketed
and sold by national fi rms, undermining
the ability of local owners to compete.
Many sold their stations. The number
of locally-owned, minority-owned, and
female-owned stations was constrained—
and the very different programming decisions
these owners make were less visible
in the market.
In short, the removal of ownership limits
created artifi cial economies of scale for
syndicated programming (dominated by
conservative talk). Because of the size of
corporate radio holdings, this business
model was profi table even if localism
declined and local tastes and needs were
not suitably matched.
At the same time, the long-standing principles
of public service that have always
come with a free license to use the public
airwaves for broadcast radio were in decline.
These principles and the regulations
they supported were designed to foster localism
and a station owner’s commitment
to local public service. Emblematic of this
commitment was not just the shorter license-
renewal requirement of three years
but also the renewal process itself.
License renewal previously required
local engagement with the community—
the solicitation of local feedback
on programming and accountable public
reporting of this input so that the FCC
could determine if the broadcaster was
upholding its public interest responsibilities.
Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,”
a stamp in the corner of a scrap
of paper now substitutes for all of the local
interaction, very little of which is still
required by law. Without these policies
fostering local responsiveness, the move
toward lowest common denominator syndicated
programming was facilitated.
All of these factors matter tremendously,
and they have combined to produce the
current state of affairs in the marketplace.
p.8 |
| quote: | | Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush. |
Please try not to lecture me on sane. Listening to Hannity/Savage/Limbaugh/Levin/Church/insert-fascist-Wingnut-talkshowhost here is anything but sane. It's amazing the dichotomy of what's considered "sane" in Wingnut land - bombing the out of anything that moves in the Middle East because they deserve it, and should thusly be converted to Christianity (thanks Ann), bombing and destroying cities and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians because the Muslim world would be grateful for yet another attack by Bush on another country in the Middle East (i.e. Iran) is the running mantra of these talk show Conservative nutbags who pitch up a lovefest for influential certifiable nuts like Podhoretz:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/c...e.html?id=10882
and is considered "sane" by their standards. Yet questioning the sanity of this Administration and yes, sometimes questioning how they obtained their power in a suspicious recount in Florida (to which some 50% or so voters in the '04 election felt that recount was suspicious as well), as well as inconsistencies in the '04 election brought up were oh so strangely the result of ALL consistencies helped the Republican side.
Yep, a very strange world indeed to hear over the airwaves.
Incidentally, I noticed how that ThinkProgress post has successfully blown up into almost 3,000 posts. You boys did a lovely troll bomb on that one. Congrats all around. |
|
|
| Shakka |
This isn't about giving the left more of a platform to deliver their own message, it's about them trying to limit free speech and the opposing position that is prevalent on talk radio. Sorry, but it's about whiners trying to get the government to step in and choke off the voice of their opposition when they have realized they are powerless to do so. Air America didn't fail because of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It failed because it sucked, as with just about any and all failing enterprises. There is nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. It is complete and utter horse .
The opportunity for opposing views does not require government intervention. It requires an audience that demands it. Apparently that audience is not very large in the realm of talk radio, hence the playing field that exists today. If you listen to any "right-wing" talk radio host, they quite welcome the competition for the explicit purpose that they know that the opposition will whine and pull out the Fairness Doctrine card every time they fail to generate enough of an audience to maintain their radio slot. Boortz has predicted this for over a year now. It's quite ironic really.
Furthermore, there is no real restriction on having people with opposing views of the talk show hosts from calling in and expressing them and engaging the hosts in healthy debate, so I don't really see why it's a relavent argument to bring up in the first place. I listen to plenty of talk radio and I hear plenty of opposing views. It's not always some right-wing lovefest that the left seems to portray it to be.
Another interesting point made today is that the author of the Think Progress article is none other than John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. Nice timing. Perhaps it's a Hillary conspiracy. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
right-wing radio (at least here in australia) is more popular simply because it is over-simplified and geared towards the lowest common denominator. progressive (or "liberal" if you wanna mis-use that term yet again you americans, sheesh) programs are meatier and harder to grasp for the general populace.
edit: oh, and serious LOL at people using the term "left" in here. america's parties are centre right, oh and centre right! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Government has not right to direct the programming of the media. The market should decide. Liberals dominate the TV airwaves, who cares? |
|
|
|
|
