Author Topic: Conservative Talk Radio.... (Read 1418 times)

RedTop · « **on:** June 21, 2007, 06:56:30 PM »

I must say that I didn't read the entire report yet...but I found this to be pretty much a waste of money....Seems like the Libs just want to have it thier way and have people pay for it regardless if they want it or not.

I read in another thread here how the "RR" as it was called is after that freedom of speech....seems like BOTH sides are....if you believe that freedom of speech is even UNDER attack.

This lil gem from the article here struck me particuarly funny....

Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.” Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006.

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is 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.

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. 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.

These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

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.

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.

In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.

The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

In the pages that follow, we believe our analysis of the talk radio marketplace merits serious consideration of the remedies we then present.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stang · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:32:27 PM »

This has really been bothering me lately. Let the free market decide what's on radio. If you want it, you'll get it. If no one really wants it, you don't.

Slash27 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:35:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
Let the free market decide what's on radio. If you want it, you'll get it. If no one really wants it, you don't.

no, no,someone has to decide whats good for you Stang.

bj229r · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:40:06 PM »

Quote

...and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

Obviously a liberal wrote the report-- as usual they seem incapable of understanding the law of supply and demand. If the public WANTED to hear Al Franken and Randi Rhoades, their network wouldnt have horribly failed. Conservative talk radio is successful because you can't hear that kind of dialog anywhere else, and a LOT of people WANT to hear it as opposed to liberal stuff, which can be heard damn near EVERYwhere. Absolutely killed me about the PBS, THAT is the barometer of non-partisan?

AKIron · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:45:19 PM »

If the government intervenes forcing content upon broadcasters audiences will fade and so will advertisers. The end result will be all that's left on the air is government radio. Since even fewer will voluntarily listen to government radio these same progressives that killed free radio will probably attempt to force people to listen ala "1984". Don't laugh, there are definitely those who would have it this way.

midnight Target · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:54:42 PM »

News was never supposed to be a profit making venture. Stations were allocated portions of the public airways and in exchange they were asked to provide news as a public service. Try to remember what the news was like prior to 1985 (or whenever the fairness doctrine was repealed). I'm pretty sure it was better.

edit - (just read it was 1987)

Shuckins · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:57:42 PM »

We will, without doubt, soon hear screams of righteous indignation from the defenders of the First Amendment who see government monitoring of phone calls to suspicious foreign groups as undermining our constitutional rights.

AKIron · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:01:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
We will, without doubt, soon hear screams of righteous indignation from the defenders of the First Amendment who see government monitoring of phone calls to suspicious foreign groups as undermining our constitutional rights.

I'm sure you aren't holding your breath. I think those most likely to favor government control of radio content are among those who believe any means is justified so long as it achieves a "worthy" goal.

bj229r · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:02:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
News was never supposed to be a profit making venture. Stations were allocated portions of the public airways and in exchange they were asked to provide news as a public service. Try to remember what the news was like prior to 1985 (or whenever the fairness doctrine was repealed). I'm pretty sure it was better.

Yah, if Dan Rather decided it was news, then it was news. Else, we would never known something had happened.

crockett · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:05:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
Obviously a liberal wrote the report-- as usual they seem incapable of understanding the law of supply and demand. If the public WANTED to hear Al Franken and Randi Rhoades, their network wouldnt have horribly failed. Conservative talk radio is successful because you can't hear that kind of dialog anywhere else, and a LOT of people WANT to hear it as opposed to liberal stuff, which can be heard damn near EVERYwhere. Absolutely killed me about the PBS, THAT is the barometer of non-partisan?

Funny Conservatives seem to fail to understand the supply and demand as well. As I posted in the other thread..

The Conservatives are all for freedom of speech as long as it's them doing the speaking. However thanks to the Conservatives and their protesting of the FCC some people can no longer listen to what they weant to, with out paying a subscription fee.

There are obviously people whom wanted to hear shock jock style radio with reasonable limitations. Thanks to a small group of people in this country we no longer have that ability.

Shuckins · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:06:34 PM »

MT, do you not see "enforced" fairness as a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech?

If there is a demand for "progressive" radio, the market will fill it. The government has no business "mandating" fairness in broadcasting, or fining stations to finance its own radio programs.

Who gets to decide what is fair? Would you want a right-winger to make that decision? Would I want a left-winger doing the same thing? I think the answer to both questions is probably "NO!"

Regards, Shuckins

midnight Target · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:11:04 PM »

I think the fairness doctrine worked well. It is unfortunate but true that certain things need to be regulated. I'm sure you don't want air traffic control handled through market pressures alone.

RedTop · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:13:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
Funny Conservatives seem to fail to understand the supply and demand as well. As I posted in the other thread..

The Conservatives are all for freedom of speech as long as it's them doing the speaking. However thanks to the Conservatives and their protesting of the FCC some people can no longer listen to what they weant to, with out paying a subscription fee.

There are obviously people whom wanted to hear shock jock style radio with reasonable limitations. Thanks to a small group of people in this country we no longer have that ability.

You can listen to whatever is on in your area.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say your ticked you can't hear Stern witout paying.....I could be wrong , but didn't STERN make the decision to go to Sattelite radio?

bj229r · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:13:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
Funny Conservatives seem to fail to understand the supply and demand as well. As I posted in the other thread..

The Conservatives are all for freedom of speech as long as it's them doing the speaking. However thanks to the Conservatives and their protesting of the FCC some people can no longer listen to what they weant to, with out paying a subscription fee.

There are obviously people whom wanted to hear shock jock style radio with reasonable limitations. Thanks to a small group of people in this country we no longer have that ability.

The FCC has been beating up on Howard for 20 years, through several administrations, and he has been begging for it the whole way. 'Reasonable' has been a set law for longer than most of us have been alive, and I fail to see the connect between conservatives and the FCC enforcing law?

And in case you didn't notice, LIBERALS threw Don Imus off the air (who coincidentally was the most successful liberal ON radio)

Shuckins · « **Reply #14 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:16:25 PM »

My lord, man. Are you actually comparing regulation of free speech to regulation of air traffic?

One is a violation of a basic constitutional right and opens a Pandora's Box of governmental regulation and is totally unnecessary. The other must be regulated to prevent accidents and loss of life.

Two entirely different things altogether.