Not all conservative talk shows are alike

[wadio]

Recently in another thread I posted:

"Lately I'm hearing more and more pleas on conservative talk stations for listeners to petition the Government to force manufacturers to keep AM radio in cars. Does anyone get the hypocrisy? The correct conservative approach would be to petition the manufacturers, not the Government. It's a free market."

A good example of the usual drumbeat comes from WOR's Mark Simone who constantly espouses every sketchy theory for keeping AM alive. He also insists that incandescent light bulbs are vastly superior to LEDs, which says a lot.

This afternoon I was listening to WPHT's Rich Zeoli and was surprised and delighted to hear him say it bothers him for Government to force car manufacturers to include AM. He said he understands the argument that auto manufacturers already need to adhere to many Government mandates, but he said it bothers him philosophically, and I agree.

It's refreshing to know that not everyone marches in lock step. It's important for both sides.

 

[TheBigA]

The correct conservative approach would be to petition the manufacturers, not the Government. It's a free market."

First of all, it's not a free market. Let's start with electric cars and the tax breaks involved. The government interferes with the free market by giving consumers tax breaks on electric cars. There are lots of other ways the government is using its regulatory position with regards to vehicles. This free market idea is mythology.

The next point has to do with petitioning manufacturers. Car companies are not in the radio manufacturing business, so this doesn't have anything to do with what they do. Radios are mainly being built in China. If you want to petition manufacturers, that's who you should direct your petitions. We know how conservatives and talk shows feel about China. So rather than view this as a car company mandate, why not view this as a mandate for China. Perhaps the car companies can use their leverage with the Chinese electronics companies to improve AM radio receivers. That's a big part of the problem, and why car companies want to eliminate AM from cars. China makes products for the world market, not just the US, and AM isn't as big in other parts of the world as it is in the US. So that's why China doesn't care.

Let me add that this law is not a mandate. There is nothing mandatory about it. They offer a very easy way out. If car companies don't want to install AM in their cars, the only thing they have to do it tell consumers in advance that the car doesn't include an AM radio. Not much of a mandate if you ask me. Plus there's this:

Direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study whether alternative communication systems could fully replicate the reach and effectiveness of AM broadcast radio for alerting the public to emergencies.

The quick and easy answer to that is FM. So much for an AM mandate.

My view is that this has nothing to do with US radio companies or conservative radio. The US radio companies are transitioning their listeners to online radio. This has nothing to do with conservative programming. Conservatives know how to use the internet and podcasts. The ONLY thing this has to do with as far as I'm concerned is the government protecting its owned resource, which is the spectrum. The government is the only affected party in this debate. If AM radio goes away, that's license revenue the government loses, that's spectrum management and regulation the government loses, and it's EAS availability the government loses. That's it.

 

[wadio]

First of all, it's not a free market. Let's start with electric cars and the tax breaks involved. The government interferes with the free market by giving consumers tax breaks on electric cars. There are lots of other ways the government is using its regulatory position with regards to vehicles. This free market idea is mythology.

The next point has to do with petitioning manufacturers. Car companies are not in the radio manufacturing business, so this doesn't have anything to do with what they do. Radios are mainly being built in China. If you want to petition manufacturers, that's who you should direct your petitions. We know how conservatives and talk shows feel about China. So rather than view this as a car company mandate, why not view this as a mandate for China. Perhaps the car companies can use their leverage with the Chinese electronics companies to improve AM radio receivers. That's a big part of the problem, and why car companies want to eliminate AM from cars. China makes products for the world market, not just the US, and AM isn't as big in other parts of the world as it is in the US. So that's why China doesn't care.

Let me add that this law is not a mandate. There is nothing mandatory about it. They offer a very easy way out. If car companies don't want to install AM in their cars, the only thing they have to do it tell consumers in advance that the car doesn't include an AM radio. Not much of a mandate if you ask me. Plus there's this:



The quick and easy answer to that is FM. So much for an AM mandate.

My view is that this has nothing to do with US radio companies or conservative radio. The US radio companies are transitioning their listeners to online radio. This has nothing to do with conservative programming. Conservatives know how to use the internet and podcasts. The ONLY thing this has to do with as far as I'm concerned is the government protecting its owned resource, which is the spectrum. The government is the only affected party in this debate. If AM radio goes away, that's license revenue the government loses, that's spectrum management and regulation the government loses, and it's EAS availability the government loses. That's it.

I respect your point of view. The gist of my post was to point out that it's good to hear diversity of opinion on talk radio.

 

[davideduardo]

First of all, it's not a free market. Let's start with electric cars and the tax breaks involved. The government interferes with the free market by giving consumers tax breaks on electric cars. There are lots of other ways the government is using its regulatory position with regards to vehicles. This free market idea is mythology.

Nothing to do with energy usage has been a free market, going back to the gas rationing of WW II and the regulation of the "robber barons" about 120 or so years ago.

The next point has to do with petitioning manufacturers. Car companies are not in the radio manufacturing business, so this doesn't have anything to do with what they do. Radios are mainly being built in China. If you want to petition manufacturers, that's who you should direct your petitions.

But there is really no "radio" in cars. There is an electronic system that does all kinds of things, ranging from controlling your panel lights to radio and satellite and phone connectivity. Car makers just submit a list of specifications or even a finished design and the fabricators deliver finished units.

We know how conservatives and talk shows feel about China.

If you have seen how China has taken over the economies of most of the underdeveloped nations, this is not just an American conservative perspective.

So rather than view this as a car company mandate, why not view this as a mandate for China. Perhaps the car companies can use their leverage with the Chinese electronics companies to improve AM radio receivers.

But, as I said, the companies that build radios for car makers don't design them. The car company does.

That's a big part of the problem, and why car companies want to eliminate AM from cars. China makes products for the world market, not just the US, and AM isn't as big in other parts of the world as it is in the US. So that's why China doesn't care.

Yet in China, AM is widespread. In the latest World Radio TV Handbook for this year, China has more pages of AM station listings than any other nation, including the USA.

The US radio companies are transitioning their listeners to online radio.

But they have yet to figure out how to make money with free streaming, as the digital rights exceed any possible revenue.

This has nothing to do with conservative programming. Conservatives know how to use the internet and podcasts. The ONLY thing this has to do with as far as I'm concerned is the government protecting its owned resource, which is the spectrum. The government is the only affected party in this debate. If AM radio goes away, that's license revenue the government loses, that's spectrum management and regulation the government loses, and it's EAS availability the government loses. That's it.

The total fees collected for AM stations is minuscule compared to all FCC funding and revenue. And because AM is so complex based on things that are non-standard, ranging from ground conductivity to propagation at different parts of the dial to the complicated directional systems, I am guessing that the cost of regulation exceeds license fee revenue.

 

[TheBigA]

The total fees collected for AM stations is minuscule compared to all FCC funding and revenue.

It really doesn't matter. This so-called mandate has no teeth, and as I pointed out, directs the GAO to find an alternative system that duplicates the reach of AM. So it's not as though this will be an indefinite requirement.

 

[Dondd]

It's so easy to spot flaws in the shallow thinking of the hosts of one-sided talk radio.