[belcherboy]

REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.

The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves. Some key findings:

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […]

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

You can read the rest of the article here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report

Is it possible that the market can dictate what the people want? I mean the left did everything they could to make Air America work and still virtually no one listened. If there were a demand for more liberal talk shows, wouldn't the free market meet that demand and make a TON of money due to the limited competition?

[LUconn]

ugh, don't even read the comments at the bottom.

[Innocent Bystander]

I should have heeded your warning LUConn. Next time I'll know better.

[givemethemic]

There is no progressive talk station in Lynchburg and the only one that I know that is even close is in C-Ville is WVAX-AM 1450.... www.wvax.com

[PAmedic]

once again - lets just let the government tell us what to listen to, and maybe even read, or think- for that matter.

after all, the government always knows what's best- esp liberal government. We certainly can't be left to make our own choices as consumers- it "wouldn't be prudent"

[TDDance234]

I like how they use the term "progressive" -- even the whackos have realized that "liberal" isn't a good thing.

[The Rock]

once again - lets just let the government tell us what to listen to, and maybe even read, or think- for that matter.

Didnt we just invade another country that had policies similar to this?

[thepostman]

once again - lets just let the government tell us what to listen to, and maybe even read, or think- for that matter.

Didnt we just invade another country that had policies similar to this?

exactly....this is so ridiculous and gets me fired up everytime i hear about it. There is no reason for a fairness doctrine...it is censorship at its worst and is against everything America is suppose to stand for. I am not against Liberal talk shows..I mean progressive...haha....but the numbers are so clear on this, maybe if the progressive shows had people with actual personalities then maybe, just maybe..liberals would listen to you.....

[LUconn]

but wait, this guys says this:

there’s no conspiracy at work here. programmers would put on a talking fish if they thought it would get ratings. talk radio listeners want to hear conservative talkers. how do we know this? they get ratings, liberals don’t.

Comment by Noahm — June 20, 2007 @ 2:16 pm

Wrong, Noahm. That’s a popular “common sense” misconception that doesn’t always hold true in the real world. There are many examples all across the country of liberal talk programs and/or whole station formats that did well with advertisers and got very good ratings, but were dumped in favor of lesser-performing formats, often into the face of direct competition in the markets.

Comment by spit take — June 20, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

And it must be true because of all of the facts he used to back that statement up with.

[LUconn]

Also, let me just say that when I'm traveling, I look for Air America stations because I want to hear what they have to say. Whenever I'm able to find one, they are just terrible terrible shows. They don't talk about anything of substance. They just make fun of Republicans. And use sound bytes and sound effects to do so. Then people call up and join in. There's nobody for them to argue with, because they don't make any points. That type of view might make for a popular radio show if they knew how to do it.

[Realist]

I'm so tired of this crap from both sides. People don't realize this, but the country right now is the most polarized and the filth spilling from both sides has only been eclipsed in our history near the time of the Civil War. Both sides are represented by their most radical people, and if it continues down this path, it will, eventually, be another civil war. I know that's hard to comprehend, but it really isn't that much of a stretch. I don't know why people have to label themselves "conservatives" and "progressives" or whatever you want to call yourself. Why not just take candidates and issues one by one? Why get pulled into this "I hate all progressives, or I hate all Republicans." All it is doing is making the parties, already polarized, into diving farther into extremism.

There is one big issue we need to focus on right now, the war. Everything else depends on it. I will most likely vote Republican in the next presidential election, which will be a first for me, and with much regret, because for the most part, I disagree with what most "republicans" stand for in the social arena. However, the biggest mistake we will ever make is withdrawing from Iraq. I hate that I cannot choose from someone who is moderate, someone representative of my views, and probably a majority of the common citizenry. Today's "moderate" is yesterday's far right wing and far left wing.

A favorite author of mine wrote this, and I think it is very insightful. Right now, with all this hatred btw the two parties, we drive people to extremes, and the result is this:




What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.

While if we elect any of the Republicans who are extremist enough to please the Hannity wing of the party, our resulting belligerence will likely provoke Islam into unifying behind one of the tyrants, which is every bit as terrifying an outcome.

[El Scorcho]

I want to talk politics, but I'm not going to because the original issue was about the censorship of talk radio, which is beyond ridiculous and I'd like to stay on topic.

Can't compete? Just make a new law to level the playing field! So lame.

I will agree that '08 is frustrating to think about, though.

[The Rock]

Back when LU was winning a WBB every year for 20 years I was going to propose for every other team in the BSC to get 3 extra Scollies every year b/c we were just to dominant

[El Scorcho]

Get ready, folks. The Democrats are about to pull out "The Fairness Doctrine" and threaten station owners with federal fines if they don't give equal air time to left-wing talk radio:

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

Free what? Speech? What's that?

And, even more from Flip-Flop:

[JDUB]

well, republicans should countersue, because the national media on tv is extremely biased. the only station i've found that isn't extremely liberal is fox, which is really conservative

[4everfsu]

The fairness doctrine will not pass in the house or senate, repubs will block it. Also sent two term limits for everyone in the house and Senate as the pres can only server two. Take back the govt that way.