Liberals are such crybabies. (By the grace of God, I’m no longer a liberal. No more tears!)
They’re still whining about the domination of conservative talk radio. The Center for American Progress and Free Press, liberal “think†tanks, put out a joint 40-page report titled, Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (PDF). They outline the “problem†and propose solutions that wouldn’t surprise even the most politically apathetic American.
The Numbers
Liberals are hopeless. On the one hand, they seem to hate concepts like “business†and “market.†On the other, they have no problem taking advantage of the jobs and capital created by businesses or the opportunities created by a particular market. In fact, they want to piggyback off the success of conservative talk radio.
The researchers found that 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative and only 9 percent is liberal (they use the word progressive; I won’t). Every weekday, people who want to listen to conservative radio can enjoy 2,570 hours (and 15 minutes!) of it. Liberals who listen to liberal radio have to settle for only 254 hours. But that’s what the market demands, right? Not necessarily so, say the libs. I’ll get to that later.
The tanks say that 76 percent of the programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative. “While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast,†cried the researchers.
Why does conservative talk dominate the airwaves? I (and many other conservatives and a few honest liberals) believe that conservative talk dominates the airwaves because of de-regulation of the airwaves in the 1980s and because there’s a bigger market for conservative talk. But the think tanks believe these explanations are inadequate. Not wrong, mind you, but inadequate.
The Problem as Liberals See it
First, the researchers inform us that the Fairness Doctrine was never repealed. “The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine.â€
Besides, the libs say, the Fairness Doctrine alone isn’t enough to ensure “fair discussion.†But more government regulations and red tape might. I’ll elaborate on this when I get to “The Solution.â€
Second, the researchers say the market argument is “misleading.†Although talk radio listeners tend to be middle-aged conservative men, about 43 percent of regular listeners call themselves conservative, 23 liberal, and 30 moderate.
See? Talk radio show listeners are not monolithic! The researchers practically shout this very important message. But there’s only one problem. Who claimed that talk radio show listeners were monolithic? No matter. They’re on a roll…
This is where the researchers really begin to whine. They’re upset that station owners broadcast more than one conservative radio talk show in a given market. No fair!
“[I]n 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.â€
It drips with airwave envy, doesn’t it? What does the success of a liberal radio station in a given market have to do with other station owners broadcasting more than one conservative show in the same market? Are the researchers suggesting that there must be an equal number of liberal shows and conservative shows in a single market? Why, yes they are!
If that’s the case, what is stopping liberals from applying for licenses, buying stations, and broadcasting liberal talk radio? (The question is rhetorical.)
When they can’t get what they want through competing with others, what do liberals demand? Government, government, government regulations, entitlements, handouts, preferences, perks… (See If You Can’t Compete, Cheat)
The researchers also found that station licensees tend to broadcast only conservative talk; that is, about 90 percent of the stations they examined broadcast only conservative talk instead of balancing the market with liberal talk. So, what’s to stop liberal licensees from acquiring and airing more liberal talk radio shows? Absolutely nothing. The focus is not on finding a market and developing “progressive†talent; they’re always, always focused on disregarding market demands and demanding that the government limit conservative talk and prop up liberal talk.
The issue for these think tanks is this: if 35 23 percent of talk radio listeners self-identify as liberal, shouldn’t 35 23 percent of the shows feature liberal talk? After all, 43 percent of talk radio show listeners self-identify as conservatives, but 91 percent of the programming is conservative. No fair!
Could the numbers mean that some liberals and moderates are listening to these conservative talk shows, along with conservatives, and like these shows? The researchers never address this possibility.
The researchers say the imbalance is caused by “multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies, longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously), the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.â€
What follows is a whiny tale about how de-regulation of the airwaves generated competition, which “constrained†local-, black- and women-owned stations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed the limit on how many stations a company could own.
This de-regulation created “artificial economies of scale†for the syndicated programming that “[l]arge, non-local owners†chose to broadcast. The researchers say this business model is profitable, given “the size of corporate radio holdings.â€
In plain language, the researchers believe that corporate ownership of radio stations is not serving the needs of the community where the shows are broadcast. Back in the day, they claim, the underlying principles of broadcasting were to “foster localism and a station owner’s commitment to local public service.†After all, if these people had a free license to use the public airwaves, shouldn’t the public be served?
One could argue that the public is being served by the dominance of conservative talk radio. On the other hand, I doubt Rush Limbaugh “fosters localism”; he hosts a national radio show. But in the 21st century digital age, isn’t fostering localism an increasingly outdated concept? And what, I ask again, is preventing local liberal radio stations from forming and broadcasting liberal talk?
Do you see what’s going on? In order to balance out liberal and conservative talk radio, liberals are suggesting we impede progress with more government regulations, in the name of public interest, instead of allowing the market and technology to boldly go where no man has gone before. And they call themselves progressives?
The progressives whine some more about the paucity of black- and female-owned radio stations. Boring, really.
The Solution as Liberals See it
I’ve already alluded to the solution, as liberals see it: More government interference! What else would/could a liberal come up with?
The researchers believe the government should:
Translation: Implement more rules and regs to create artificial markets for liberal talk radio. This is the best scenario for increasing liberal talk radio shows. No matter how the researchers try to couch the facts, there is less demand for liberal talk radio and greater demand for conservative talk radio. That’s as sure as death and taxes.
Translation: The tankers believe a more involved public would result in more liberal talk radio shows. Be careful what you wish for! If such a plan were implemented, it could backfire on liberals. Giving locals more say in federal licensing could result in more conservative talk radio stations.
Translation: Set up an arbitrary and subjective “public interest†requirement (which would favor liberal talk radio stations), and, despite market demands, “balance†out liberal and conservative talk radio shows, whether or not there is a market for liberal talk radio. If owners don’t comply, they’ll be required to pay a fee to…guess who? Why, the left-leaning Corporation for Public Broadcasting, of course!
That’s my assessment of the crybaby-ish report (PDF). But don’t go by me. Read it, analyze it, assess it, laugh at it, and mock it for yourselves…
Bloggers: Michelle Malkin, Think Progress…
Related posts:
Ya know, in MY opinion, IF libbers had something interesting to say, they might get someone to listen, but you can only cry so much and you can only lay out that same old tired BS so much…
They complain well, but it seems to me they are short on solutions…
Comment by TexasFred — 06.21.07 @ 8:21 am
Fairness Doctrine Watch…
Well, we know that Trent Lott ainÂ’t gonna come to the defense of conservative talk radio. Remember: He thinks it’s a “problem” that he has “to deal with” because of many right-leaning talkers’ opposition to the Bush-Kennedy shamnesty bill.
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 06.21.07 @ 8:25 am
La Shawn,
Thank you for writing this article. It clearly shows the difference between liberal and conservative views on government.
Comment by Scott — 06.21.07 @ 8:38 am
Oh good grief. Get over it. My tax dollars aren’t subsidizing conservative talk radio.
And don’t you think this is out of the Air America debacle? If the market dictated it, balance would happen naturally, not a government solution.
Comment by Cricket — 06.21.07 @ 9:23 am
Socialists already dominate the public-funded current affairs shows on PBS (Tavis Smiley, Frontline, etc). Their need for “benevolent” authoritarianism knows no bounds. They have already pushed through with Bush’s help the greatest restrictions on free speech since the Alien and Sedition Laws: BCRA - Bipartisan Campaign Finance “Reform” Act. Where’s the ACLU on either BCRA or this? Nowhere. As usual. Socialists want us all to return to the Garden of Eden with them interpreting the role of God. After all, they must save us little people from ourselves whether we like it or not. After all, they must satisfy the urge to feel good about themselves, and to hell with us. Haven’t they done such a self-evidently good job of running our major cities for the past unfettered half-century?
Comment by marsouin — 06.21.07 @ 10:18 am
I’ve listened to both liberal and conservative talk radio, and at the end of the day I don’t care for either. Both are shrill and offer little in the way of true information/solutions. I like public radio because at least it presents certain story (in an urbane, non-screamy manner) and allow you to draw your own conclusions. I realize that each news outlet has it’s own slant so I try to get different sources, like the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall St Journal. I read a lot stories that come on the AP wire through Yahoo News.
Conservative talk radio does well simply because it’s run better. The progressive radio stations like Air America, being newer, have simply made a lot of business mistakes. The answer is not to turn to public funding - it’s to continue in the market until they learn the lessons conservative stations have learned. Their audience is out there if they want it.
Comment by lucy — 06.21.07 @ 10:20 am
One of the main drivers in the rise of conservative talk radio was the drive to the left in other media. (print news and television)
IF this were to pass, would we get more conservative television in exchange? And we could expect the NYT to become a true example of balanced coverage, right?
I’ll keep buying lottery tickets. My odds are better.
Comment by whiteotter — 06.21.07 @ 10:35 am
You go ahead and buy lottery tickets…personally, if this “Fairness Doctrine” takes off, I’m buying stock in satellite radio. You take conservative talk radio off the open air waves, and guess where they’ll go! People aren’t going to listen to liberals just because the government wants them to - if it means paying for satellite radio to listen to what they want to listen to, they will.
Comment by suek — 06.21.07 @ 10:42 am
Be careful, everyone! Back when we had a Conservative President (Early “W”) and a mostly Conservative Congress I would have laughed at the pathetic attempts of Liberals to level the playing field in their favor-but no more. With Ted Kennedy’s best bud in the White House searching for legacy, Reid and Pelosi in charge of Congress…Be Careful!If Al Franken somehow miraculously unseats Norm Coleman, a Liberal radio talk show host will have a 1 in 100 vote as to how to run this country.
If Franken gets in, and Hillary becomes President, they may throw Rush Limbaugh in irons at Gitmo just because they can. Just because they could.
And the ‘Hate Speech Cops’ would shut down Christian and Conservative blogs such as ours to protect America from Free Speech. I’m done now-thanks for letting me vent, La Shawn.
Comment by Doug — 06.21.07 @ 10:50 am
La Shawn Barber today takes a good look at the nonsensical fuss being raised over the fact that the majority of U.S. listeners prefer…
Pingback by Pieces of a Whole — 06.21.07 @ 11:03 am
When I see the Fairness Doctrine applied to Far Left broadcast networks like ABC, NBC and CBS, when I hear calls for balance in the government-financed leftwing radio called NPR, then I will believe in the good intentions of the “Fairness Doctrine” advocates. Not before.
Don’t be surprised if the usual suspects show up here claiming that the broadcast networks are already heavily regulated, or that for some mysterious reason there is already a “Fairness Doctrine” for ABC, NBC and CBS. What a crock! In reality the broadcast networks act as though the public airwaves are the private property of the Far Left - if indeed they ever believed in private property. The nightly “news” broadcasts of ABC, NBC and CBS are little more than 30-minute free commercials for the Democrat Party or whatever happens to be the pet liberal cause of the day. Forget enforcing “public interest obligations” - the broadcast networks have long shrieked “CENSORSHIP” at even the slightest criticism of how they run things, no matter how justified or fair-minded the criticism is. Profits and left-wing politics – not “public interest†– is the defining characteristic of ABC, NBC and CBS.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.21.07 @ 11:06 am
First they try to ram a secretly negotiated amnesty bill through Congress before anyone has had time to read it. Now they are effectively trying to socialize the broadcast business. Talk about a Congress out of control!
The situation with radio has all to do to what people like. A sation that has listeners can sell more advertising and thus stay in business. A station with no listeners is not going to be on the air long without government subsidies to keep it afloat.
What the liberals are REALLY trying to do here is to limit conservative talk radio rather than ensuring any level of fairness. What is fair in a free enterprise world is what the people are willing to “buy”. The liberals cannot accept the fact that most of America likes conservative shows - that in their minds is impossible because that is not the way they think. They honestly believe they represent the majority of people, and that because of this, there must be some other reason why liberal shows fail so miserably. They are so out of touch with reality that they need to make the world consistent with their thinking rather than changing their thinking.
Comment by Jim M. — 06.21.07 @ 11:12 am
First Cup 06.21.07…
Many people are like instant coffee: the minute they get in hot water they dissolve. ~ Unknown
……
Trackback by bRight & Early — 06.21.07 @ 11:18 am
“So what,” I say.
The only conservative outlet I had growing up (I’m 35) was 1 conservative guest out of 3 liberal guests on the McLaughlin Group. That’s 1 hour per week, where 75% of the show was given to the liberals.
Regards
Buck
Comment by Buck — 06.21.07 @ 11:19 am
Liberal talk failed because it did not fill a need. With newspapers and television dominated by liberals, liberal talk is/was redundant. Conservative talk was successful because it filled a need–the conservative voice was not heard. Also, the liberal usually has a poor sense of humor. Their humor very often is mean, vicious and they are not able to laugh at themselves! Coservatives, on the other hand, don’t take themselves all that seriously and are able to find humor to be the cornerstone of wisdom.
Ted
Comment by Ted — 06.21.07 @ 11:29 am
The part I found most interesting about the report was “the myth of consumer demand.” That so neatly sums up how liberals think of the average American–you’re too stupid to make your own choices! (unless the choice is to kill your baby, but I digress…) Clearly people who listen to conservative talk radio are only doing it because they either can’t figure out how to change the radio station, or because they just aren’t smart enough to prefer something else. People have to be told what to listen to for their own good! Bah.
And what, I ask again, is preventing local liberal radio stations from forming and broadcasting liberal talk?
Absolutely nothing. There’s a doozy in Madison I’ve accidentally listened to–on FM! It’s either fiscally solvent (which I can wholly believe in Madison) or the owner(s) don’t mind spend their money for the cause.
(La Shawn, are you familiar with James Harris and his blog/radio show the National Conversation?)
Comment by Radish — 06.21.07 @ 11:35 am
Isn’t talk television overwhelmingly liberal.
Comment by Shade — 06.21.07 @ 11:41 am
I listen to WABC out of NYC, and over the years talk show hosts have come and gone, including former Governors and Mayors. If the majority of talk show listeners prefer conservative hosts; so be it, it’s the free market.
Comment by Tom Bosee — 06.21.07 @ 11:42 am
Thursday: The Undead Rise…
Nader Rises from Coffin, Calls Clinton “Coward,” Promises to Only Run at Night. (The Politico)Ted Nugent sees the Thompson “glow.” Commenter opines, “I would like to see Fred Thompson, Ted Nugent and Margaret Thatcher hit the 08 trail in Fred’s…
Trackback by AMERICAN DIGEST — 06.21.07 @ 11:42 am
I’m a recovering liberal who like La Shawn is so tired of listening to the whining and crying. I’m still in the middle of my political conversion, so I’m not yet a conservative, but I’m open.
Recently, a friend who is VERY liberal, more so than I ever was, visited and I had to listen to NPR almost daily. Imagine 5 days a week listening to reports on Iraq and Darfur? . Add to it, the whinings of illegals telling their stories of woe that they cannot crosee the border for a better life instead of fixing their own country. I would politely ask my guest, “when we’re done with the gloom, doom, and misery news, can we turn on something entertaining?”I resorted to wearing headphones while she listened to Democracy Now on the computer!
Even when I was liberal-leaning moderate, I could listen to and laugh at Rush Limbaugh. For me this all proves the point that liberal radio is failing because it’s heavy on the misery and light on entertainment. What passes for entertainment on these programs is so elitist that only a few egg head PhDs can laugh at it. I recall, the one program my friend found funny was a restaurant critique who sampled bizzare ethnic cuisine who recounted eating braised testicles from some animal I’ve forgotten. Funny, huh?
Comment by md94117 — 06.21.07 @ 11:59 am
If the liberals can “own” and dominate the mainstream media outlets, then why can’t conservatives have their fair share of the radio outlets. In a free market society, what is stopping them? NOTHING There is an obstacle on the major news networks for conservatives, however, but nothing to stop someone from putting on their own cable, radio, or blog site. If you watch NBC, CBS, and ABC, there are no conservatives on their news programs and only token conservatives, if any, on their political discussion shows. People in glass houses should not throw stones so if they are going to go after cable news, talk radio, and the internet, then I demand balance on the major networks, PBS and CNN.
Comment by Cindy Anderson — 06.21.07 @ 12:01 pm
Air America is a mistake. Stick to the music American libs!
‘The angry white male ranting in the darkness’ radio format works so well for so many Conservatives, it seems dumb to copy it and try and make it ‘liberal’, especially when the all the ranters on the right are already whining so loudly about the majority ‘liberal media’.
From here it seems like all name-calling all the time.
What a waste of everyone’s intellect.
Comment by JohnD — 06.21.07 @ 12:26 pm
Does this mean that we can advocate that conservative points of view start showing up in equal proportion in other broadcast mediums such as televsion news and entertainment programming?
Certainly, if liberals are up in arms over the 76% of the programming in radio markets being conservative, imagine how I feel that 99.99999% of what apppears on TV is liberal and immoral.
You crybabies want half of the radio markets — okay — give us half of the TV broadcasts in exchange.
Comment by Changed Life — 06.21.07 @ 12:36 pm
md94117 — you actually let a guest change your radio station to NPR? You are too accomodating. If anyone every turned on NPR in my presence I think I would slice my own throat… on second thought I think I’ll just stab the hands that would do such a thing and keep them from changing the stations.
Back in my quasi-liberal, lost days I visited a boyfriend who had NPR as his morning wake up radio. Whiny crybaby is an apt description of him now that I think about it.
Comment by Changed Life — 06.21.07 @ 12:43 pm
Yes, John — that diversion to the “rantings of the angry white male in the darkness” is such a waste of intellect compared to your suggestion that liberals stick with American such as the “violently angry (misogynist) black male rapping about darkness and evil.”
Without a doubt stick with that music.
Comment by Changed Life — 06.21.07 @ 12:49 pm
For me and I suspect many others, the reason we listen to conservative talk radio is to hear truth. Liberal discourse like liberalism itself is devoid of truth in fact most liberal don’t believe there is absolute truth.
For liberal talk radio to be successful it would have to get listeners that presently fill their time consuming entertainment such as FM music, video games, online tittilation, crass talk such as Howard Stern, etc. This is its natural constituency. The amount of devoted liberals who strongly believe in their cause is small.
A fair minded independant listener will always be drawn to conservative over liberal talk because in their gut they sense that the liberalism is a fraud, moreover they might not totally agree with the conservative, which is usually the case as conservative thought is a shock to the mind of the average person who has gone through public school and ingested only mainstream television and newspapers, but are ingringued by it as it has the ring of truth to it.
Comment by Ross — 06.21.07 @ 12:54 pm
But They’re Not Liberal!…
Read just about ANY liberal site, and they’ll tell you that the media is conservative. Conservat…
……
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 06.21.07 @ 12:55 pm
#25
You’ll get no argument from me with regards to angry rappers vs angry yappers, although it is disingenuous to compare ‘music’ broadly with talk radio.
I am just saying that it would be ridiculous to copy the Savage/Limbaugh style and make it ‘liberal’, but safer to just stick with no talk radio, just music! There is an enormous range of tastes for music, not just ‘angry rap’, which is not ‘liberal’ at all.
I listen to no talk radio, but I listen to all kinds of music from Sibelius to electronic dance music, and even ‘The Archers’ radio soap opera. I am British (hence liberal by current American right wing standards)and enjoy music immensely ( I’m a musician), but if they interrupted my music shows with angry shouting political demagogue- types telling me how bad minorities/liberals/conservatives/whites/blacks/homosexuals/jews/mexicans/women/men etc actually ARE…then I’d just switch to another music channel, or the shipping forecast
Comment by JohnD — 06.21.07 @ 1:04 pm
Sorry about the duplicate above post.
Anybody see the msnbc article today on how 9 out of 10 “journalists” give to the libs?
As for NPR, it seems the only time I ever listen to it is when I’m on vacation in a rental car, but I must say I don’t entirely dislike it. I appreciate its calm almost soothing delivery. When I detect bias I turn it, (so I listen for short periods at a time). I wish there was a conservative equivalant to NPR.
Comment by Ross — 06.21.07 @ 1:07 pm
“fostering localism”………….what a concept!
Every town and city has cable channels RESERVED for “fostering localism”. I travel constantly and I always take a look at the “community channels” out of a perverse sense of curiosity.
These “fostering localism” channels are flat out awful. If they had to sell advertising to survive, there would be none.
The public votes daily with its dollars. Newspapers are losing subscribers and their advertising is pinched by a lot of healthy competition. ABC, NBC, CBS are up against a multitude of cable channels and their viewship has eroded.
Sorry, but broadcasting is an art and the bottom line is that if it doesn’t sell, it can’t survive.
Comment by heliotrope — 06.21.07 @ 1:10 pm
#28
Sounds like you’ve read a mainstream media (The Guardian?) article on American talk radio and never have actually listened to it yourself. The only accurate group you mentioned was liberals.
Yes, conservative talk points out the foolishness and errors of the libs.
AM talk radio is dedicated to…talk. There is no music on these stations so you don’t have to worry about it being interrupted.
Comment by Ross — 06.21.07 @ 1:16 pm
#28 JohnD notes: “I listen to no talk radio….”
How does one reach the conclusion about conservative talk radio that “From here it seems like all name-calling all the time” when one “listen(s) to no talk radio”?
Most people I know who attack Rush and Savage have never spent much or any time listening to them.
I suspect a lot of people just don’t like confrontation with the messy facts.
Comment by heliotrope — 06.21.07 @ 1:19 pm
“How does one reach the conclusion about conservative talk radio that “From here it seems like all name-calling all the time†when one “listen(s) to no talk radioâ€?”
BBC, baby.
Comment by Stacey — 06.21.07 @ 1:48 pm
Sounds alot like the arguement to install Black coachs and owners in the NBA and NFL. Strangely I have never heard it used in MLB (8% Black) wonder why?
Comment by Rodney — 06.21.07 @ 2:50 pm
Airwave Envy:…
La Shawn Barber fisks a report complaining for conservative domination in talk radio: “They outline the “problem†and propose solutions that wouldn’t surprise even the most politically apathetic American.”……
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 06.21.07 @ 3:15 pm
Unfortunately, many liberals have poisoned the minds of those who don’t listen to conservative talk radio into thinking that conservative talk radio is just angry white men name-calling all the time.
In my experience nothing could be farther from the truth. As someone who’s been listening to conservative talk radio for about 6 years, and who used to listen to NPR and other liberal leaning talk radio, the defining attributes of conservative talk radio that I appreciate are the lack of political correctness and alternative information sources.
I think that’s why alot of liberals and moderates listen to conservative talk radio as well. After working all day in a PC world and pretending to have the “acceptable views” on many hot button issues, people need a place to be politically incorrect.
For me, an analogy to describe how I feel about liberal vs. conservative talk radio would be formal attire vs. pajamas. (Hang with me here a minute) Getting all glammed up is great, for a little while. You got the shoes, the dress that keeps everything in place and symmetrical looking, the hair, the makeup, the tux for men, etc. But after a few hours, it’s time to come out of the formal attire and let everything hang out and just be real. That’s conservative talk radio for me: realism, truth, facts, analysis, debate; even if I don’t always agree with them. And when dealing in reality, sometimes radio hosts shout and call people names, but that’s not all they do.
Liberal talk radio has its place, like formal attire, but it needs to be challenged with the facts that are often times obscured behind the designer attire. I don’t care who you are, underneath the couture is the sometimes revolting truth and conservative talk radio allows its listeners to confront that truth and make up their own minds.
That’s also why I like blogs like yours, LaShawn. You direct me to information and analysis that lets me think and draw my own conclusions. Without this free flow of information, we can’t effectively engage in self-government and hold our elected officials accountable. Hence, the push for the Fairness Doctrine.
Comment by Cedjan — 06.21.07 @ 3:18 pm
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.
Pingback by The Thomas Chronicles — 06.21.07 @ 3:28 pm
Reality is, a large majority of “liberals” (the Dems base) wouldn’t listen to talk radio if it were available. They are to busy listening to shock jocks, crap rap, watching MTV, or protesting something!!! Some are to busy trying to force feed liberalism to our children. Bottom line, liberals don’t listen to talk radio. If they do it is to try to get on the air so they can harrass the host. I would like to think they listen in to get the other side of the story, but if they are really doing that, you would soon call them conservatives!! I have tried to listen to liberal radio and find it so lacking in common sense I have to turn it off.
Comment by SHERRY — 06.21.07 @ 3:33 pm
Ya know, I have been thinking about this all day and here’s my take on it…
The Libs demanding equal footing in the Conservative dominated talk radio world is a lot like the ILLEGALS waltzing into the USA and demanding amnesty and a shortcut to instant citizenship, neither camp seems to think they need to EARN that stature or privlege, they feel it’s some kind of God given right…
And look at who supports the ILLEGALS…
’nuff said…
Comment by TexasFred — 06.21.07 @ 3:57 pm
I personally liked that part of the solution was more minority and female ownership.
They claim that it’s not all about the $$$ (which I say is ridiculous…my local radio stations would broadcast 3 hours daily of a person eating fruit if there were money in it), but that these male dominated stations just want to hear conservative radio.
But what if the reverse is true…that female or minority owned radio stations would be more likely to ignore the $$$ and just put on what they wanted to listen to, i.e. “progressive radio”?
How dare I say such a thing??? That’s sexist/racist!!!
Hmmm…so isn’t it then sexist/racist to imply the opposite?
Comment by Chris J. Breisch — 06.21.07 @ 4:08 pm
Thanks, LaShawn, for your blogging about this. What are we voters to do to stop this?
BTW, I really like your blog. It’s one of my favorites, so don’t quit!
Comment by DCW — 06.21.07 @ 5:27 pm
I guess it’s not enough that the Lefties dominate major newspapers and the mainstream television media . . . they want MORE! Waaaaaaaah!
Comment by batyah — 06.21.07 @ 5:45 pm
Batyah, 100% CORRECT!
I’m an avid watcher of FOX and the reason is simple. All other television is left leaning and unfair. The Left clearly controls television. Now that Conservatives have radio, they cry because the American people have access to a different opinion.
Listen to any Democratic Stragetist and you’ll constantly hear the American People say so. Until the rise of the Conservative talk radio, the american people were baffled by the constant BS from the left leaning media.
Comment by dexybet — 06.21.07 @ 6:08 pm
Radio program topics are generally longer than 15 seconds which is about the maximum attention span of the average liberal. Which is the reason they watch TV, or get their news from a friend who watches TV.
Comment by KJB — 06.21.07 @ 6:12 pm
La Shawn,
Love your blog, keep up the wonderful work.
Thank you for this, digested posting. We can’t lose our talk radio voice….or conservative blogs may be next.
I’m going to share this will as many people as will listen. Ditto Cedjan #36.
Voice
Comment by Voice of Reason — 06.21.07 @ 8:43 pm
Regarding the call for more minority/female ownership, indirectly that call brought us to where we are at. In the 1980s the FCC allowed a lot more radio stations to go on the air, giving priority to license applications from minorities. As a result, more radio stations came on the air than the market could bear (I don’t know if this practice was universal, but in the state where I worked in radio, I heard about one black Hispanic-named woman who was regularly hired as a front for non-minority radio investors).
I’ve convinced that too many stations in the ’80s was a one of the reasons that the FCC allowed massive consolidations of ownership, thus the Clear Channel monster. Simultaneously, digital satellite technology allowed for relatively cheap centralized programming resulting in the ability to launch shows like Rush Limbaugh’s and others. Centralized programming allowed radio to move away from being a labor-intensive business and it helped offset the market saturation of too many stations.
As a former broadcaster, I miss the information and localism we had prior to the consolidations. And for that and other reasons radio listenership is declining. But to say that conservative talk radio is not market driven is absolutely false. Companies like Clear Channel and others have too much money invested to not aim for the highest ratings. That’s why they play the same heavily researched songs over and over and why they go with bankable talent like conservative talkers.
But of course liberals hate truly free speech and that’s why there’s all this nonsense talk about the Fairness Doctrine. Even in my long ago liberal days I felt the First Amendment did not allow tampering with broadcast political content.
Comment by Mike — 06.21.07 @ 10:37 pm
I’d read that report….but it would be time better spent doing something important.
The one aspect of this that has always popped into my head is that IF talk radio gets ‘liberalized’ by this new Fairness Doctrine that there’s always the Internet and Pod-casting…..
….but then they’d get their undies all bunched up by ‘unfair’ Internet Service Providers and their blatant bias….and they’ll attempt to govern that too.
Just wait for it.
Comment by Mad Mikey — 06.21.07 @ 11:42 pm
On a side note, I do dislike the corporate dominance of much music radio. I do miss the old days when Chicago radio stations had local air talent. Remember when Tom Joyner actually had to travel to two different cities in order to host shows in two markets?
In addition, the mega-stations affected the music scene by making it harder for local acts to get airplay. It has made it harder for legitimate R & B stations to make it in local markets, and it has forcd a lot of niche formats out. As a former talent in teh Las Vegas, NV market, and a person who grew up listening to Chicago Am and FM “soul music” stations, the change from local ownership to CC/ABC/Salem has meant a homogeonization of music formats, and a lessening of local communications networks. there are still a few stations around, but it is hard for them to compete with the Corporate giants for ad dollars, which are the lifeblood of a commercial station.
Comment by Delwyn X. Campbell — 06.22.07 @ 1:07 am
To begin with, the dichotomy is not between Liberal and Conservative: it’s between Liberal and Rational.
Comment by J. Peden — 06.22.07 @ 1:34 am
Does the fairness doctrine mean that a Hispanic conservative gets equal time on Spanish radio stations to point out why rewarding illegal behavior is unfair to law abiding immigrants who’ve waited 15 years to immigrate from Mexico legally etc…
Comment by Dave — 06.22.07 @ 2:13 am
That’s why I liked Rush’s old saying, “I AM equal time.”
Perhaps if there were some real liberal talent, there wouldn’t be the problem. We used to have several liberal talk show hosts on our radio station we listened to back in IN…but they were all incredibly boring. They went on and on and mostly seemed to just attack Rush. A show can only survive so long without bringing up something new and fresh.
Larry King was all right, but the rest did not seem to know what to do with the medium.
Comment by Dana — 06.22.07 @ 3:01 am
“Most people I know who attack Rush and Savage have never spent much or any time listening to them.”
You may be right, but I’m not one of them. I have (via the internet)spent a long time studying the delivery and content of Rush and Savage, Michael Moore and Al Franken, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
It is for that very reason that I do not trust them. Any of them.
his is not a weakness, this is a natural response (for me) to what amounts to the practice of dishonesty for profit.
Heliotrope you say:
“I suspect a lot of people just don’t like confrontation with the messy facts.”
Curiously, that’s exactly how I would explain the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. They tell people bad things about what they want to believe
As with Michael Moore etc, I tend to find that talking heads are intellectually and morally bankrupt and hide behind their bunkers without having to face a studio audience or cross-questioning. Although their lies are amply debunked all across the web with documentation, this makes NO difference to many of their fans who need that stuff like a fix to gound their world of Us V Them.
There are countless examples of the lies these people peddle, but their cash is safe, because sure enough, there are plenty of ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ out there who just care about the lies on the ‘other side’.
My defect is a gag reflex that seems to operate around proven liars who sell partisan ranting for cash.
My *radical* defect 9sarcasm) is that this reflex operates reardless of their political stripe. Of course this is evidence to the Moore-lovers and the Rush-lovers of my mental inferiority or lack of humour.
For the record, I love humour, especially the self-deprecating or observational comedy and sight gags.
But I don’t find shock-jock political bully/’comics’that tout their views as serious (until questioned and then as ‘hyperbole’ when caught out)…I don’t find them…I just, ah, don’t find them funny..no matter how…ah..I try to pause, I just,…you know… for effect.
Also, for example, when someone’s ‘humour’ involves insulting a raped teenage girl…
http://users.nlamerica.com/tharden/savage.html
…I get *not* to take the bad medicine they are peddling. I’m sure people like Michael Moore make similar jokes, and I don’t liek those either.
Sorry. Is it such a big deal?
Now…let’s talk natural history, music, and architecture and agriculture and I’m smiling/animated…
Horses for courses? What a wonderful world..
Comment by JohnD — 06.22.07 @ 3:34 am
I’ve heard better ideas…
La Shawn Barber eviscerates that mostly-silly study which calls for Serious Action to counteract all those awful right-wing radio shows that I make a point of not listening to. (She’s posted a PDF copy of it here.) For the most……
Trackback by dustbury.com — 06.22.07 @ 7:28 am
Conservative talk shows sell more cereal. That’s why they dominate. They attract larger audiences for advertizers. It’s that simple. Business has no agenda other than profit.
This study should be asking itself why it is the conservative talk shows are creating larger audiences. Audiences advertizers are willing to pay for. But this would mean having to face reality, which is something liberals are not comfortable doing of course.
A larger, and more dangerous to democracy, issue IMO is the hidden and totally denied political bias of journalists and news broadcasters in the MSM. We were just reminded recently, once again, of this insidious insult to the American viewer and their profession when MSNBC culled the political donation records of the Federal Election Commission and discovered a 9 to 1 ratio of donations to Democratic Candidates by those working at MSM News Networks, compared to donations made to Republican Candidates.
Comment by Jim R — 06.22.07 @ 8:51 am
(Ref. comment #52)
I would equally apply all of those narrative descriptions to every politician on the planet.
(especially…………..”I do not trust them. Any of them”.)
Comment by Dave in AZ — 06.22.07 @ 8:55 am
That is one sick puppy JohnD links to in #52. Chilling. I could not wait to get out of his morgue.
The charges against Savage and Elizabeth Smart are new to me and in the context presented, they are disturbing. But then the site person freely calls Savage a “monster” which more or less informs me that context might not be the main target.
If all the folks, right and left are so distasteful to JohnD, I would think his conclusions would be satisfying and he would move on to concentrating on his music. Does JohnD have an itch he can’t scratch or does he have a missionary zeal to get people to see the world the way he views it?
I would dearly love to have a liberal to listen to who will drop the PC stuff and get to the nuts and bolts of his “progressive” ideas. I would dearly love to have seen the open hearings in the Senate on the creation of the Amnesty Bill. But they didn’t have any, did they? I would dearly love to have a liberal on the radio who could explain the Amnesty Bill and take callers and fight the fight. Ditto for universal health care, public education, radical Islam, trade policy, balance of payments, employment, entitlements, taxation, the deficit, and on and on.
It is not as if there isn’t an agenda for liberals to express their clear and compelling logic.
Maybe their logic is not so clear and compelling.
Comment by heliotrope — 06.22.07 @ 9:52 am
#31:
“The only accurate group you mentioned was liberals.”
1. Please explain where I did that?
2. Accurate by what measure?
Comment by JohnD — 06.22.07 @ 10:01 am
#52 JohnD notes: “There are countless examples of the lies these people peddle.” (”These people” are Rush and Savage, Michael Moore and Al Franken, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.)
Never mind about Michael Moore and Al Franken and never mind about a “countless” list. Would JohnD please list three lies each for Rush, Savage, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin?
That should be no challenge for someone who has…” (via the internet) spent a long time studying the delivery and content of Rush and Savage, Michael Moore and Al Franken, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.”
Comment by heliotrope — 06.22.07 @ 10:15 am
Free Speech Is On The Line in 2008 Elections…
I eventually concluded that while talk radio definitely has its faults because it’s primarily an opinion format. But, unlike NPR, which is careful to give 98% of its interview shows to people with whom the hosts agree, talk radio hosts such as He…
Trackback by Webloggin — 06.22.07 @ 12:26 pm
Democratic Socialist Agenda at work? Censorship…
Oh boy folks.
Anyone who ever wanted a conspiracy theory in regards to the Democratic party just got dealt a full house hand, that they can use carte blanch to point fingers at every decision the Democrats have and or will make.
Democrats prepare…
Trackback by Techography — 06.22.07 @ 1:06 pm
“Does the fairness doctrine mean that a Hispanic conservative gets equal time on…?”
Dave
Exactly - it means to me that each and every one of us should get our very own show!
Comment by J. Peden — 06.22.07 @ 1:20 pm
This would be hilarious if it weren’t such a serious issue related to our free speech rights. The Nutroots left is actually trying to persuade people that they are ‘not’ in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine - even though the things their advocating reeks of exactly the type of rules and regs and restrictions the Fairness Doctrine put in place.
Pingback by Sister Toldjah — 06.22.07 @ 3:39 pm
LaShawn’s Analysis of Liberal’s Demands of Talk Radio…
Blogger LaShawn Barber is one of my favorites. She’s a good sensible Christian woman whose comments on current events are not to be missed. She writes a commentary on a little dust up among some liberal folks who want the radio airwaves to be filled w…
Trackback by Jeff Rutland's Blog — 06.22.07 @ 5:16 pm
Competition or Communism…
Isn’t that the basis of communism? Forfeiting freedom for security? The problem with this behavior is that it is often done without true consideration, or “counting of the cost,” for what the forfeiture of freedom for more government control will re…
Trackback by Church and State — 06.22.07 @ 6:09 pm
The Democratic party wants to control Congress and ultimately the Presidency in 2008. By any means! Maintaining control of their goal is to control the media (television and radio). Communism may a bit harsh, Democratic policy may be a better term.
Comment by dexybet — 06.22.07 @ 7:12 pm
Well, I have waited all day for the examples from JohnD. They don’t appear to be forthcoming…
I have to say I wonder why someone who ‘knows’ beyond dispute that conservative talk radio uses “The angry white male ranting in the darkness’ radio format” despite the fact that he “listen(s) to no talk radio” could take so long to back up his ‘facts’.
I wonder why he would choose to “spent a long time studying the delivery and content of Rush and Savage, Michael Moore and Al Franken, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.” when he has not spent the time to study their delivery and content first hand.
I wonder who he chose to filter his ’studies’ and why he would presume second hand information to be superior to the original source.
And yes, I am tired of being told about ‘angry white males’ and “lies” that “are amply debunked all across the web with documentation” from people who have never bothered to find this out for themselves, firsthand.
But I suppose ‘everybody knows it’ so why bother, right?
Comment by Stacey — 06.22.07 @ 9:16 pm
The answer to the question is: It brings in the bucks to advertisers.
Conservative talk is successful because they have a decent product. Liberal talk hasn’t been as successful because they don’t have the style, the delivery nor the message.
Liberal radio has to come up with good personalities and it’s own ‘ideas’ in order for it to fly. It can’t just be ‘anti-conservative talk’, they have to create something that can stand on it’s own. Not something that is merely a foil for conservative talk.
Since they haven’t, well there you have it. It’s the same problem that they’ve had in Congress and just can’t seem to understand.
Comment by JR — 06.22.07 @ 10:18 pm
Btw, it’s the same reasons behind why FoxNews is so successful. Fox isn’t anti-ABC, it is it’s own entity.
Comment by JR — 06.22.07 @ 10:19 pm
Can the fairness doctrine be extended to the Jayson Blair Times, so that 50% of their editorials are conservative? Perhaps the fairness doctrine can be used to force Universities to hire professors that are not experts in ideological bigotry from a liberal perspective.
Anyway, I would consider it an honor and a privilege if you would add my blog “The Tygrrrr Express” http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel the quality is high.
I came across your blog through Michelle Malkin’s website, since I enjoy her writing.
Happy summer.
eric
Comment by eric — 06.22.07 @ 11:23 pm
JohnD, I can’t believe you’ve really “studied” Malkin, Limbaugh, et al. How could you possibly have time, with all those highly cultured interests?
You are not even able to distinguish between their personas. You’ve lumped them all together under one caricature.
Savage I’ve only heard once or twice and he did indeed strike me as “screamy.” In fact, it’s been floated that maybe he’s a caricatured conservative, an undercover operator of sorts. I haven’t listened long enough to tell, but he did strike me that way.
Coulter is pure acid political humor. Can be really funny, but sometimes burns too deep.
Malkin and Limbaugh are conservative commentary. Malkin has actually engaged in serious investigative journalism, and she is someone who has not only the courage of her convictions, but a grounding in facts. She’s pretty serious and straightforward. Her “persona” is who she is.
Limbaugh comes at it from an entertainment perspective. He has a goofy egomaniacal schtick (talent on loan from Goddddd, the golden mike, El Rushbo, etc.), but he does it to poke fun at his critics. He also does free-thinking analysis of MSM reports. That’s what I think the draw is: just one guy’s brain, one man’s independent thought, against the political and media elite. I find his take refreshing, funny, and principled. There’s a reason for his enduring success. (I always tuned him out when he went on about sports, though. Bo-ring!)
I think we should prescribe you three weeks of daily Rush, all three hours. Wish I could prescribe that for every lib who whines about how “hateful” he is but hasn’t listened to more than a five-minute clip. A lib thinks anyone is “hateful” who pokes more holes in their already hole-y philosophy. “You hurt my feelings by disagreeing with me, so you’re hateful!” As Malkin would say, call the waaah-mbulance.
Comment by Susannah — 06.23.07 @ 9:07 am