Update 1:45 p.m. Sunday: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) claims he overheard a conversation between Hillary and Barbara Boxer in which the two complained about talk radio and spoke of a “legislative fix.” They deny it.
* * * * * * * *
When my son was going through the terrible twos and was frustrated by one of my many mandates, he would stand his ground, double up his fist and shout, “Unfair!” Then, naked in his guilt, he would look around for someone to intercede on his behalf and preserve his dignity.
I was reminded of those tantrums when I saw a whining report on the state of talk radio in the U.S. by the Center For American Progress. The 40-page document spends several pages telling us what we already know. News flash: talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative in its political orientation.
Citing a lack of “ownership diversity” and “multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system,” the CFAP report notes that talk radio’s idealogical split is about 76% conservative and 24% “progressive.”
BTW: What is the difference between liberal and a progressive? If there is no difference, why do they avoid the L word? And it looks like CFAP could use a little more “diversity” itself. Only 2 out of 10 people on its masthead are women (and neither of them drive policy, as both are designers). Perhaps, taking a page from the estimable Al Gore, they purchased a “diversity offset.” But I digress …
Leaving aside the simplistic classification of every talk radio host into one of only two camps, the logic of CFAP report rests on the naive assumption that a truly free market would be more friendly to liberals and that more local ownership would result in more idealogical diversity. But moreover, the report cites the overwhelmingly right-leaning content as an abdication of the public trust by broadcasters who use the public airways.
As I wrote in a column a few years back, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the market for talk has trended conservative almost from the time it became popular in the 1970s. Conservatives were passionate in their belief that the liberals already owned major media outlets like the New York Times and the network news divisions. So they did something about it. Good for them.
Does the CFAP crowd honestly think big radio corporations like Clear Channel would refuse to air liberal talk if they thought they could still make a good buck off of it? For decades, the safest bet for talk is that conservative sells. One need look no further than Air America to see that lefty talk rarely does — at least not yet. Maybe the problem is timid radio executives who are afraid to take a chance — not the doctrinal stifling of alternative views.
Here are the remedies CFAP suggests:
- 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. [emphasis added]
What? Mandate that a percentage of radio stations stay out of private hands? And who decides what is an “enforceable public interest obligation?” I’ll bet it would be the 10 watchdogs on CFAP’s masthead if they got their way. And then if station owners fail to “abide by them,” they have to give money to public broadcasting?
Good Lord, does that mean they will be compelled to support that bastion of agenda-free content and feeder at the public trough, NPR? A cynic might say this is a thinly veiled attempt to make talk radio more like NPR, which has historically been more friendly to “progressives,” but can’t operate without a government subsidy.
Here’s what’s going on. CFAP is frustrated at the right-wing content that’s increasingly finding its way into the media. They know they don’t have a snowball’s chance of regulating the content of print media or the Web, so they are focusing on radio because its use of the “public airways” gives them the legal opening they need to punish media owners for not airing the left’s point of view more often.
And for the folks at CFAP, here’s the intellectual honesty question: If talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal, would you be recommending such a remedy? I think we all know the answer to that question.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Marshall Miles // Jun 23, 2007 at 12:30 pm
As someone who considers himself as a “mderate”, AKA a liberal 85% of the time! Here is my take on the topic:
talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative in its political orientation.
Citing a lack of “ownership diversity” and “multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system,” the CFAP report notes that talk radio’s idealogical split is about 76% conservative and 24% “progressive.”
My take….Who cares? And why do they care?
In the 70’s, almost all FM stations ere Liberal, now in 2007, almost all talk stations are Conservative..WHO CARES?!!!!
remedies CFAP suggests:
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. (I agree with this just for diversity in music alone! The more ownership, the more creative ans different programming you will have.)
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. (I think accountability is the wrong word…Set strict limits on programming (news, sports, etc) that serves local and regional intrests)
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. [emphasis added] (This is B.S.!) Why? Just strip the licenses of commercial broadcasters who don’t abide by the rules, and select another applicant who will. (there are plenty of people waiting to do so).
Thats my take on the issue. Quit whining, roll up your sleeves, and get to work making better progrmmming decisions you “progressives”.
2 Jake // Jun 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Folks, there is no way that any of this stuff is ever going to happen. All else aside, when do you think that 60 senators would ever vote for anything like this? This whole thing is the CAP building its bone fides with the left. And conservative talk radio is playing right in with its breathless protesting.
But at the end of the day, none of this matters. Has anyone looked at the stock prices of radio conglomerates. Suffice it to say, they are in a situation not unlike newspapers. Audio content is migrating to the web and radio as we know it will disappear just like newspapers. To attack and kill the last bastion of radio profitability - conservative talk radio - will only prove to accelerate the decline. But the decline is inevitable.
I, for one, listen to conservative talk radio quite a bit, and haven’t turned on a radio or heard a radio ad in about two years. My little ipod shuffle is hooked to my hat and every night it downloads and uploads Hugh Hewitt, Cato Institute, the various Wall Street Journal shows, Howie Carr (just to hear him talk),Stratfor, the Patriot, CSPAN, Business Week, etc, etc.
Radio is pretty much a gonner already. If Hillary and company want to speed it up, who cares. It’s not like there won’t be people distributing talk shows over the web.
PS Thanks to the various Terry’s for checking in. Yes, my blog world has gone cold. Work has so rudely interrupted bloviating.
3 Marshall Miles // Jun 24, 2007 at 7:40 am
Jake is absolutly correct on thios..radio is not the same old tuner anymore.
Yes, we have listeners on AM 1020, and we always will. But right now, our 2,500 watt daytime AM radio station is averaging 3,000 to 4,000 dowloads or plays a month from our archived audio (podcast) page! And that page is only two and a half months old!
Sooner or later, all media, TV, radio will come off the internet..thats why satellite radio, as a pay service will fail, and its why both television and radio listening shares are down already!
About half of our listeners use or archived audio page now!
4 fred // Jun 24, 2007 at 11:20 am
I dunno.. I am a big supporter of Satellite radio… be it Sirius (Who I subscribe to) or XM…. Even if the technology shifts from using a satellite to some sort of broadband wi-fi… the pay service of commercial free uncensored music will always appeal to a lot of people.
Aside from my intrest in listening to Howard Stern or Jay Thomas… my music tastes are quite diverse… from showtunes to punk rock… I listen to it all… and satellite radio is the only thing that can suit those tastes at my whim… I’ll listen to Julie Andrews sing The Sound of Music one second… and with the press of a button I instantly can hear The Sex Pistols or Live Howard Stern… no other can do that.. not even an iPod.
5 Marshall Miles // Jun 24, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Fred, youa re wrong..it can be done with internet radio!
6 Pat // Jun 25, 2007 at 1:29 am
While the comments about this article were at first in response to a “whining article” by CFAP about the state of talk radio, the comments have since seemed to turn to a discussion about the benefits of internet radio and I gather, its additional downloading capabilities vs the benefits of satellite radio. I, like Fred, subscribe to satellite radio, XM to be exact, and have for a number of years. I think it offers some things that internet radio doesn’t have. My satellite “radio” model allows me to listen, through docking systems and an antenna, to the radio in my car (they don’t have internet yet for moving vehicles, do they?), through my receiver system which allows for wiring of extra speakers wherever I want them in the house and through a boombox in the house or anywhere else, since it also operates on batteries. I like the fact that with satellite radio I can tune in almost anywhere with the boom box. All that is needed is pointing a small antenna which is connected to the boom box, to the open sky. I don’t have to depend on an internet connection. I also have access to XM’s programs if I lose my electrical power or if an electrical source of power isn’t available. I do think that being able to download and upload to an IPod things that you want to listen to at a later time is an advantage of Internet radio, although I must confess that I don’t have an IPod and would have to learn how to download and upload from the computer (guess I’m showing my age and lack of knowledge about computer systems!). For now, it seems, the preference of satellite vs internet radio is a personal one.
7 Marshall Miles // Jun 25, 2007 at 7:18 am
When WI-FI (in about 2 years) covers the country, the radios that now get internet radio in the major cities, will get internet radio out here in the hinterlands! When that happens, Satellite radio will not be able to compete with all the different formats FOR FREE!
That is if terrestial broadcasters and the music licensing people don’t kill of internet radio with huigh fees!
With internet radio you have THOUSANDSA of choices, not hunderds.
8 fred // Jun 25, 2007 at 12:58 pm
it can be done with INTERNET radio.. yes.. but most of them are either pay services.. or are kept aflot by advertising.. be it commercial breaks.. or in the form of screen advertisments when viewed on computer… and as far as I know, you can not get them in your car stereo with exsisting technology.
9 Marshall Miles // Jun 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Fred, you can…in the major cities right now. GM markets a radio for their new cars that receives AM (and Digital AM that sounds like FM) FM (and Digital FM that sounds like CD), Satellite, and Internet Wi-Fi.
Right now its available in the new Pontiac sportscar, more cars to come next year.
10 Tom Cowgill // Jun 26, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Its amusing to see people who rail against the “liberal bias” of the main stream media rationalize the “conservative bias” of talk radio as simply responding to market forces.
11 Terry // Jun 26, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I can only speak for myself, but there is no rationalization on my part. I state unequivocally that talk radio has a right-wing bias, while you deny that the MSM is mostly liberal.
I have long advocated that conservatives take a market-based approach if they want to change the orientation of the MSM, and they did that to an extent with their foray into talk radio and the creation of Fox News.
Furthermore, instead of whining, conservatives who want to become investment bankers and Wall Street lawyers should instead make the financial sacrifice and go into journalism where they can make a difference.
The difference between the right and CFAP is that no conservative I know of has suggested “a legislative fix” for the MSM. Liberal bias in the MSM is a problem for conservatives but they don’t look to the federal government to “intercede on their behalf.”
Perhaps you would care to address the specifics of the CFAP proposal. Do you support them?
Leave a Comment