You are using a batch of conservative talk radio stations, generally with ratings of around a 1 or below, in comparison with the 3 traditional TV networks that, up to about 2 decades ago, reached hundreds of millions nationally.
None with other than a small minority share, even combined.
I'm not trying to "use" a bunch of one share stations. Let's take it two ways.
1. The predominant commercial talk stations in rated markets across the United States.
2. The commercial talk signals serving "flyover" country between the coasts in smaller and unrated markets.
You yourself admit that it was "two decades ago" that the three traditional networks reached hundreds of millions. Now compare that to the reach of talk radio, the number one rated cable news channel plus new entrants to their right, and podcasting metrics. The majority of it is politically conservative, yet I listen to it and they're still going on about the "liberal media" just like Limbaugh did in his heyday. It's as though they are still fighting a war I maintain they
won.
In my extreme travel (quarter million miles a year) all I saw was the CNN airport news and CNN in some hotel public areas. In the bar/restaurant area, I'd see the same as I do today: sports.
My travel is nowhere near as extensive as yours, but I couldn't tell you the last time I saw CNN in an airport. I seem to recall that being a culture war kerfuffle too. But I've seen plenty of Fox News on TV in hotel lobbies, gyms and cafes in smaller town America. To large swaths of the country, that is
the news. The networks are meaningless to them except as a punchline.
Of course, I am perhaps more sensitive to "progressive" content, having lived or worked under fully "social democrat" regimes, been personally attacked and beaten, been in a Sendero Luminoso bomed building, having my station taken over by communist rebels who beat up my disk jockey, wearing a bulletproof vest to work, seeing bodies by the roadside from "revolutionary" violence...
I abhor extremist violence in all its forms. That's unrelated to my point that right-wing media
is the dominant media in this country among people consuming traditional news & talk media.
That's unless you want to restrict "the media" to broadcast network television, and even then, while it may be socially liberal in a broad sense, it's hardly hardcore leftist. I don't see anyone inspired to do the sorts of things you described by watching CBS Evening News or Colbert. And perhaps I'm more sensitive to authoritarianism and culture war "othering" because my grandfather did time in a German POW camp and came out emaciated.
You have, obviously, a different experience.
I did. I grew up in an extremely rural area where the ideas you heard on the radio (apart from the much debated NPR, which culturally said
nothing to most of the residents) ran the gamut from religious conservative to traditional GOP to nationalist conservative.) This was a culture where the
most moderate thing you would hear on the radio commercially was Limbaugh. They weren't hearing other points of view in a language that spoke to them or was even accessible for consideration in many cases.
I was the eccentric who read a lot and stayed up late nights listening to other ideologies and ideas on distant AM signals, from libertarians like Neil Boortz (when he was lively and entertaining) on WSB to pretty far left (though his politics evolved) hosts like Jay Marvin on WLS to "radical moderates" like Scoot on WWL in New Orleans, along with conservatives like Michael Medved.
Think of how people in the Midwest or Deep South view Berkeley, California and flip it to the polar opposite and you get my small town and the small towns around it.
I see only Fox News as significant on one side, with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC all at the opposite end.
I don't think network news has much significance for anyone. I remember when CNN did. My most liberal associates have less vested interest in, and cite content from MSNBC less than my most conservative friends and family cite Fox (or OAN and Newsmax.) I get that it's subjective but in my experience, to a lot of people in smaller and more red states and towns, those networks hold way more authority as "the news."
These are the moments when I conclude that a two-sided, two party system is not always the right solution. Systems based on multi-party alliances such as what is "cleaning up" Ecuador and Argentina, have certain advantages. In broadcasting, that means that there is a wide scope of talk and news stations, each with considerable participation by different groups and factions.
This I'd agree with. And to connect to another lively topic on these boards, NPR (again) I note that what was not proposed was a compromise to adjust funding formulas, support the tribal and rural stations like KSKO in McGrath, and wind down the funding perceived as opulent that benefitted outlets like KQED. The culture war was more viable than the compromise and one party held the power. So both the operations doing well and those struggling, get punished but in a way stations like Paul's may not be able to survive. I'd have had a lot more respect for certain parties if they had come forward with a glide path or adjustment. Scalpel approach instead of a chainsaw.
One thing I do find fascinating is how, in other countries just how
many talk stations seem to exist in some markets. I'm used to several in America, but usually those are the top performing station followed by ideologically similar outlets in various tiers of syndication (the iHeart station that is conservative, the Salem station and the other ones that, as you mentioned are usually the 1 share stations.) There's a handful of exceptions like KFI, KIRO, KMBZ and WWL. To hear your description, it would seem there's a broader range of ideas and viewpoints being discussed in these countries. Not speaking the language, I wouldn't be able to discern the differences.
I may lean one way or the other, but what I always found entertaining about the best talk radio I grew up on was the element of surprise. Hearing different positions or someone who you'd think would hold one position due to the "leanings" they had, come out of "left" (not politically) field with a unique take. My inner contrarian loves that and it can make for some great radio.
