Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
MT, do you have an opinion as to why liberal radio talk shows have generally been unsuccessful in the first place?
-
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 liberals are aslo all for for freedom of speech. Unless they dont agree with what you say.
And the subscription is worth every penny.
-
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.
edit - (just read it was 1987)
Who said it was required that news stations take a fiscal risk so that
some liberal Dilberts can force their views on the public? I'm with Stang
on this one, let the free market determine the outcome.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
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.
Free speech?
No one wants to curtail free speech. The airwaves belong to the people, not to Clear Channel. Free speech should not be limited to the highest bidder or the highest ratings.
-
Free speech should not be limited to the highest bidder or the highest ratings. - MT
__________________
actually, there is free speech in media right now. there are so many more outlets now for differing view points that it is dishonest to say that free speech is hindered by the success of conservative talk radio. there is tv, newspapers, the internet, sattalite radio, books, movies, and even our education institutions, which as you know are biased to the liberal end of the political spectrum.
btw, MT... do you have an opinion as to why liberal talk radio has not been as successful as conservative talk radio?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Free speech?
No one wants to curtail free speech. The airwaves belong to the people, not to Clear Channel. Free speech should not be limited to the highest bidder or the highest ratings.
And it isn't. Its capitalism driven by consumer demand. You get investers, start your own radio program, if the public listens, you get sponsors, sell air time. That's how its supposed to work.
Government should not be balancing political airwaves because they think its better for us. WE, the people, as consumers, should decide. Air America showed us that WE, the people, don't want progressive (liberal) airwaves at this time. Try again.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Free speech?
No one wants to curtail free speech. The airwaves belong to the people, not to Clear Channel. Free speech should not be limited to the highest bidder or the highest ratings.
"The People", as you say, could have made Air America a huge success. Unfortunately for a couple of hack comedians, no one wanted to hear their political bilge either. "The People" have spoken.
-
Target...
No one wants to curtail free speech.
I agree....mostly.
The airwaves belong to the people, not to Clear Channel.
Thats correct...and the people like what clear channel is offering..thats why they listen and support thier sponsors.
Free speech should not be limited to the highest bidder or the highest ratings.
It's not.....Its a free market. Air America and other "Progressive Talk Radio Stations" can't get sponsors to get into mainstream. It's not the Conservatives fault that most people would rather listen to them. Its not the conservatives fault that Business men understand what works.
I listen to Conservative talk radio everyday when I am out and about. At least some. At night when I am headed home from work , the station I listen to mainly goes away. So , for the last 20 minutes or so of my ride home I listen to "Progressive talk radio" to hear the "other" side. John elliot is who is on now. The calls and the over all format doesn't have the same feel as the conservative shows I listen to.
It seems to me...and this is JUST my opinion....that they HATE conservatives and have nothing but contempt for anything republican or related to Bush. ANd its more vitriolic in thier speech than in Conservative.
IMHO
-
Just for the record, I do not listen to talk radio. Stopped listening to Rush in 1997, his act was turning into comedy gold.
I will occasionally listen to a Kiro 570 local radio show that hosts John Carlson and Schram (a conservative and a liberal) simotaneously and listen to them duke it out. :aok Listening to the liberal Schram on the air solidifies my disgust for liberals in this country.
At its peak in the 1960's and early 70's, we've experimented with drugs, free love, guilt free divorce, changes in child rearing....all of which have led us to declining test scores, higher teen pregnancy rates, out of wedlock births, single parent families. Its time we look at what we've brought about over the last 50 years, and rethink how fast we want to rush into the next set of social changes...."progressive" social changes have had their run and its a failure.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
__________________
btw, MT... do you have an opinion as to why liberal talk radio has not been as successful as conservative talk radio?
Not really. I think it is an interesting phenomenon though. It is surely not based on the demographics of the Country as a whole. The last 2 elections have shown that there should be a nearly equal number of listeners to either camp. Maybe it is just that conservatives blazed the trail and have a stranglehold on the market.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe it is just that conservatives blazed the trail and have a stranglehold on the market.
On the other hand, maybe the survey was just flawed.
-
Or maybe it is because conservative talk radio has more appeal to the largest demographic group of American voters: the moderates. They are far more numerous than either the rabid liberals or the rabid conservatives.
By themselves, neither group has enough supporters to seize control of the market to the extent quoted in the poll.
-
Or it could be that "conservatives" like to listen to the sound of their own voice whining about everything under the sun being the fault of anyone but themselves while "liberals" like to listen to music.
There's a reason all that whiny tinfoil hat crap is on AM.
-
Gee, rpm, you're GOOD! You said that with a straight face.
Oh, almost forgot....bs. :D
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by RedTop
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?
To the tune of a half a freakin' billion bucks!
RedTop!
-
I'm serious Shuckins. All that AM "conservative" stuff is infotainment and about as reputable as the Weekly World News or professional wrestling. It's hate radio that fans the flames and beats it's own drum. It has a marketshare and that's the only thing keeping AM radio on the air.
I personally listen to The Russ Martin Show. (http://www.russmartin.com/media_120504.asp) It's anything but political or politically correct.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm serious Shuckins. All that AM "conservative" stuff is infotainment and about as reputable as the Weekly World News or professional wrestling. It's hate radio that fans the flames and beats it's own drum. It has a marketshare and that's the only thing keeping AM radio on the air.
:noid :aok :lol
:noid
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm serious Shuckins. All that AM "conservative" stuff is infotainment and about as reputable as the Weekly World News or professional wrestling. It's hate radio that fans the flames and beats it's own drum. It has a marketshare and that's the only thing keeping AM radio on the air.
I personally listen to The Russ Martin Show. (http://www.russmartin.com/media_120504.asp) It's anything but political or politically correct.
yeah ok:rolleyes:
Russ Martin kicks ass:aok
-
Shhhhh....
Hear that....?
Listen closely....
Ya hear it?
It's the sound of a Hanging Chad falling.
:D
Bite Me
Mac
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
btw, MT... do you have an opinion as to why liberal talk radio has not been as successful as conservative talk radio?
Maybe liberals prefer to think for themselves instead of having a radio celebrity tell them what to think.
-
You must have learned that in Free Thinking 101. "Repeat after me class: No liberal...can ever be told.. .what to think or say. All our thoughts...are original. Only feeble-minded conservatives...are incapable of independent thought...and depend on the will of others....to give their lives...meaning and direction."
I certainly hear a lot of different permutations of that from some members of the left.
-
Anything that makes the PC/Liberals, (aka Closet Communists), squeel like stuck piggies, SOUNDS GREAT TO ME!!!!
Secretly, I wish it was my Kbar knife that was causing the squeelin....
But the pinko's won't stop pushing...
So it will boil down to that, sooner or later...
OG
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe it is just that conservatives blazed the trail and have a stranglehold on the market.
Are you implying that Liberal radio can't get a frequency/station? Seems like Air America had no problem getting the necessary FCC permits, etc.
They failed because not enough people listened and their advertisers dropped out.
Pretty simple.
Now you can go on and on about why people didn't listen but the reason for failure isn't in doubt.
BTW, I listen exclusively to music, not talk, radio.
-
myelo... then how do you explain that liberals tend to stay in areas both physical and mental where they are surrounded with only other liberals? acadamia.. schools.. big cities...
I think it telling that they (liberals) on the one hand, say that public radio is not biased but on the other want the right and the moderates to be forced to support it. If it were fair it would have an audience.
radio is a very small part of what we are forced to listen to or are allowed to listen to every day. No one is forcing people to listen to talk radio or judge judy or the local left wing news or left wing rag newspaper.
What is happening is that people are sick of the left wing slant... nannyism, in every part of their life... right wing or conservative radio plays to the things that they feel if not being said.
Who amoung the left wing newspapers or tv news shows has ever said that illegal immigration was bad? or even that it was more than just "undocumented"? yet... 85% of the people want it to stop.. Look at all the air time sharpton and jackson get and how they are pandered to? Talk radio is a release from this babble.
It is babble of it's own but... obviously it is striking a chord.
When other news sources like local tv and newspapers and magazines start being fair and less PC liberal rags.... they might start to stop the mass exodus from their audience.
Talk radio succeeds because everything else is so liberal and... wrong... that people are desperate to hear the other side.
And no MT... I did not feel news was better in the 80's All news has always been the opinion of the person who writes it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
MT, do you have an opinion as to why liberal radio talk shows have generally been unsuccessful in the first place?
because their target audience usually listens to rap when they have the boom box er radio on and their attention span can not handle a 2 to 3 hour radio talk show .. not enough pictures to follow along with :)
-
why would liberals listen to liberal talk radio? they have no need. They get all the reinforcement they need from the liberal news and newspapers and media and hollywood... it is all around them and....
lets face it... talk radio is frustrating to listen to... it is so rife with commercials that it is almost impossible to listen to. I switch back and forth between it and NPR while driving myself...
Liberals get their reinforcement every day in every media outlet.. why would they want to listen to a liberal talk radio station telling them what they hear all day long anyway? especially since talk radio is so full of commercials.
eagler is not far off... they would just as soon listen to music.
lazs
-
Do you remember
Back in nineteen sixty-six?
Country jesus, hillbilly blues,
Thats where I learned my licks.
Oh, from coast to coast and line to line
In every county there,
Im talkin bout that outlaw x
Is cuttin through the air.
Anywhere, yall,
Everywhere, yall,
I heard it, I heard it,
I heard it on the x.
We can all thank doctor b
Who stepped across the line.
With lots of watts he took control,
The first one of its kind.
So listen to your radio
Most each and every night
cause if you dont Im sure you wont
Get to feeling right.
Anywhere, yall,
Everywhere, yall,
I heard it, I heard it,
I heard it on the x."
:D
-
Yeah who would have thought it would be the liberals to take the first steps to really limit freedom of speach.
-
Originally posted by lazs2 lets face it... talk radio is frustrating to listen to... it is so rife with commercials that it is almost impossible to listen to.
Regardless of the point of view, all the talk radio I happen upon annoys me.
Logical fallicies abound, really dislike the tone and preaching to the choir zest.
Give me the slow, steady, and serious discussion anyday.
Oh, its a pandering cash cow too.
-
I was listening to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio yesterday.Why he was on the subject I don't know,but his comment about why liberal talk radio fails was as follows;"Liberals are too busy smoking weed to bother with listening to talk radio."
-
MT, i wondered about the success of conservative talk radio - esp considering that most of the country is supposed to hate Bush. i wondered why liberal talk radio wouldn't flourish in this environment.
i make a point of listening to liberal/progressive talk to get the other point of view. i can't take too much tho.
the shrill, hyper-sarcastic negativity of these radio shows does one of two things if i listen too long - i get a headache or acid stomach. i think this is the real reason liberal talk is not generally successful. even the ones that have humor eventually cause this effect.
anyway, i have a simple alternative to the unfair Fairness Doctrine: turn the dial
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
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.
Ideas should NEVER be regulated. As noted, who gets to decide what is "balanced?" Is anyone doing so for the network TV or cable news outlets? For printed media? Study after study has shown that TV and print media are overwhelmingly left-leaning in their bias. I would no more want them regulated for "fairness" than radio. Ever heard of Pravda?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Or it could be that "conservatives" like to listen to the sound of their own voice whining about everything under the sun being the fault of anyone but themselves while "liberals" like to listen to music.
There's a reason all that whiny tinfoil hat crap is on AM.
Liberal talk radio is just a whiney.....and blame the cons for everything.
-
Maybe liberals prefer to think for themselves instead of having a radio celebrity tell them what to think. - myelo
__________________
respectfully myelo, this is exactly the kind of arrogant contempt for people that i believe explains the poor acceptance of liberal talk radio.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Target...
I agree....mostly.
Thats correct...and the people like what clear channel is offering..thats why they listen and support thier sponsors.
It's not.....Its a free market. Air America and other "Progressive Talk Radio Stations" can't get sponsors to get into mainstream. It's not the Conservatives fault that most people would rather listen to them. Its not the conservatives fault that Business men understand what works.
I listen to Conservative talk radio everyday when I am out and about. At least some. At night when I am headed home from work , the station I listen to mainly goes away. So , for the last 20 minutes or so of my ride home I listen to "Progressive talk radio" to hear the "other" side. John elliot is who is on now. The calls and the over all format doesn't have the same feel as the conservative shows I listen to.
It seems to me...and this is JUST my opinion....that they HATE conservatives and have nothing but contempt for anything republican or related to Bush. ANd its more vitriolic in thier speech than in Conservative.
IMHO
It's not about they can't get sponsors.. It's about clear channel having a monopoly. It's simple business if you operate more stations you can do things cheaper and offer more for less.
If you were going to advertise your product on the air and it wasn't really targeted to any specific group. Let's say for instance a bar of soap.
Would you..
A) want to deal with all kinds of small radio stations all over the country and have to deal with each one separately.
or
B) deal with 1 corpration whom can offer your advertisment across the nation.
I'm not a big fan of this kind of stuff, meaning telling a company they have to produce a certain product. However if the company has built it's self into a monopoly then it's a different story.
-
Originally posted by crockett
It's not about they can't get sponsors.. It's about clear channel having a monopoly. It's simple business if you operate more stations you can do things cheaper and offer more for less.
If you were going to advertise your product on the air and it wasn't really targeted to any specific group. Let's say for instance a bar of soap.
Would you..
A) want to deal with all kinds of small radio stations all over the country and have to deal with each one separately.
or
B) deal with 1 corpration whom can offer your advertisment across the nation.
I'm not a big fan of this kind of stuff, meaning telling a company they have to produce a certain product. However if the company has built it's self into a monopoly then it's a different story.
Well of course the answer would be B.
I don't believe its a monopoly. Its the way the FREE market went.
As I stated earlier...I listen to "Progressive" talk radio on the way home. It's not funny...its not catchy....It's half *** put together it sounds like and the callers that I hear MOST of the time are friggi looney tunes. You can almost see their Tin Foil hats on while they are talking.
Everything is a conspiracy. Its the "Bush Cartel". It's the "Bush Crime Family" It's the republican War Mongers....thats all you hear from these people on those stations.
As was mentioned earlier in this thread....Conservative radio speaks to the MIDDLE more than the "Right Wing". I hear Conservative talk radio landblasting Repulicans on thier stances on several issues. I don't hear that on the other type.
Listening to John Elliot last night on the way home ranting about what a great time he had at that LIB fest a few days ago and how it was so inspriring that 3000 liberals were thier. How is favorite congrewomen are Woolsy and Maxine Waters....2 lefties....How John podesta is so great. It was laughable to listen to.
The democrats were voted in last time because the MIDDLE of the ROAD people of the country were tired of the status quo. Liberal politicians talked more moderate until they got elected...now thier nutty.
Radio is not being monopolized by conservative....its that Conservative talk radio talks to the middle of the road people....where liberal talk radio talk to people like ROSIE.
-
Originally posted by crockett
It's not about they can't get sponsors.. It's about clear channel having a monopoly. It's simple business if you operate more stations you can do things cheaper and offer more for less. .....
If NO ONE listens to your station(s) then sponsors won't flock to you. If Al Franken had ratings like Rush, Clear Channel would have him on 3 hours every day. They aren't a right-wing buncha nut jobs. They are a money-making corporation--if a couple of trained monkeys throwing feces against the window could win the afternoon drive, they would sign them up. As I said before, most liberals seem quite flummoxed by the business world and the law of supply and demand...probably because in the real world, there are winners and losers, and they've been taught throughout their public school career that EVERYone is a winner :aok
(In the loser category: Al Franken, Randi Rhoades, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo---I've listened to them all, and as stated earlier, the endless droning negativity is a turnoff--you don't hear that on most conservative shows, they are (mostly) upbeat in their view of the USA)
-
This (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/06/what_do_hmos_an.html) just in:
New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low
Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.
This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.
That's ~ 10 points lower than Bush which is pretty amazing.
Maybe the Liberals and the Democrats just don't resonate with the common people they way they tell themselves they do.
That might explain why liberal radio has so few listeners.
Just a thought.
-
LOL... this is the silliest thing I have seen from the liberals in a while...
The contention being that radio is the only way anyone gets their news and that it is a monopoly of the right because of clever market manipulation and that there is some huge lefty ground swell of people who would listen to the lefty side if they only had the opportunity?
This is insulting on so many levels. Why does talk radio even have an audience? It is crap to listen to so far as following the thread.... more commercials than just about any other media... no one likes commercials.
Why is it growing while other slick and entertaining forms like tv news and newspapers are dying?
Because for the majority... the left wing message of tv news and newspapers and hollywood is not what they want to hear... they will put up with any amount of amature nite and commercials to hear their point of view voiced.
Anyone who doesn't like conservative talk radio can listen to NPR.. they don't...even tho NPR has no commercials which, in my opinion, makes them far more attractive in that respect.
The problem is that lefty stations take for granted that certain lefty ideals are everyones ideals and that they can build from that. they are wrong and people are sick of it.
People listen to crappy commercial ridden conservative talk radio becuause the message resonates with them.
And that is why the left wants it censored and driven off the air.
It is marginal to listen to it now with all the commercials... it would be impossible to listen to if the remaining bit of talk was cut in half and we were forced to listen to some lefty or lefty view that we were tuning out of regular media because of.
And the lefties know it... they know why talk radio is popular and they know the only defense is to destroy it.
lazs
-
Sooner probably more than later wi-fi will be omnipresent and car radios could become obsolete. Music/News/Talk will stream into your car from the net. Controlling content on the net might be too big a job for even the likes of Hillary.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Well of course the answer would be B.
I don't believe its a monopoly. Its the way the FREE market went.
As I stated earlier...I listen to "Progressive" talk radio on the way home. It's not funny...its not catchy....It's half *** put together it sounds like and the callers that I hear MOST of the time are friggi looney tunes. You can almost see their Tin Foil hats on while they are talking.
Everything is a conspiracy. Its the "Bush Cartel". It's the "Bush Crime Family" It's the republican War Mongers....thats all you hear from these people on those stations.
As was mentioned earlier in this thread....Conservative radio speaks to the MIDDLE more than the "Right Wing". I hear Conservative talk radio landblasting Repulicans on thier stances on several issues. I don't hear that on the other type.
Listening to John Elliot last night on the way home ranting about what a great time he had at that LIB fest a few days ago and how it was so inspriring that 3000 liberals were thier. How is favorite congrewomen are Woolsy and Maxine Waters....2 lefties....How John podesta is so great. It was laughable to listen to.
The democrats were voted in last time because the MIDDLE of the ROAD people of the country were tired of the status quo. Liberal politicians talked more moderate until they got elected...now thier nutty.
Radio is not being monopolized by conservative....its that Conservative talk radio talks to the middle of the road people....where liberal talk radio talk to people like ROSIE.
Landblasting => Lambasting
-
Originally posted by Stang
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.
I totally agree with you Stang. What we have here is an assalt on our right of free speech. No matter if you are a Lib or a Con we have a freaken right to speak out no matter what. I will fight for our speech no matter what. The government can take land (happening) and guns (will happen) but they will have a fight if they take our speech rights from us.
One MAD Jugman
-
Talk radio is becoming as big an issue as immigration --several stories now in main stream media:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070623/NATION/106230056/1001
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070622a.html
Though the detractors never say they are lying, they still seem to feel the need to silence tham
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Talk radio is becoming as big an issue as immigration --several stories now in main stream media:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070623/NATION/106230056/1001
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070622a.html
Though the detractors never say they are lying, they still seem to feel the need to silence tham
1. Which of those do you consider to be "main stream"?
2. The Washington times article is about immigration, not the fairness doctrine.
-
best i could do on short notice, i'll do longer google thing later on whilst my jug grabs
Her's a couple
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Talk-Radio.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902341.html
-
Isn't it amazing that a guy on AM like "Schniitt" can regularly produce better ratings then all previous Liberal am talk jocks! Even the worst conservatism talk radio has to offer does better then any liberal jock on a good day... Could it be that blaming Bush for every problem on the planet over the last 100 years is not sellable air time.
So conservatism moves to XM radio with no commercials and were all happy...
Didn't the X Soviet union control media content in a similar fashion? This seems like a move towards a john Titor ending in so many ways...
-
Heh, I've listened to that guy, I'm thinking he replaced Glen Beck? Used to live in Tampa, LOVED Mark Larsen, don't know how 970 let him go
-
If ratings are the gauge you are using, there must be very few conservatives in Dallas. Nobody comes close to matching Russ Martin. He's not a conservative talk host, does that mean he's a liberal?
Everyone complains about the "liberal media". 98% of the country's radio stations are owned by 3 companies. Does that mean Clear Channel, Susquihanna and Infinity are nothing but liberal outlets?
:noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by rpm
If ratings are the gauge you are using, there must be very few conservatives in Dallas. Nobody comes close to matching Russ Martin. He's not a conservative talk host, does that mean he's a liberal?
Everyone complains about the "liberal media". 98% of the country's radio stations are owned by 3 companies. Does that mean Clear Channel, Susquihanna and Infinity are nothing but liberal outlets?
:noid :noid :noid
Well for aCTUAL news, they all subscribe to CBS or ABC radio for the half hour 'news' (some subscribe to Fox radio now)..ALL stations disavow the talky guys, no matter what their politics. The talky guys are on there because they get ratings...most stations have a local guy on in the am, or mebbe afternoon drive if it a big city, if said city it actually HAS news (unlike mine). One point of note is that most of the recent discussions about talk shows were initiated by Trent Lott, George Bush and Lindsey Graham--Republicans (Rinos)---said hosts are getting in the way of legalizing 15 million illiterate 3rd world people into our country to benefit Teddy Kennedy and a buncha business owners
-
Lib or Con radio is not the issue here. It is free speech. I listen to Con radio and dab into the Libs just to laugh at them. Really does talk radio represent the middle of the road political person. I say yes. There are more Con radio shows than Lib right now. And I agree Lib raido is laughable at best.
Join the SAVAGE NATION!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sooner probably more than later wi-fi will be omnipresent and car radios could become obsolete. Music/News/Talk will stream into your car from the net. Controlling content on the net might be too big a job for even the likes of Hillary.
Then again, maybe not.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070625.twnetradio26/BNStory/Technology/home
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
News was never supposed to be a profit making venture.
I shall inform the ghost of William Randolph Hearst.... as he rolls over in his grave (is a ghost in the grave?) .... and Benjamin Franklin's I will inform Benjamin Franklin's ghost that his news publishing was not to have made a profit.