Bill Press Op-Ed On Lack Of Liberal Talk In D.C.

[DToTheJ]

The host of his own syndicated progressive talk show - now cancelled from the defunct "Obama 1260" - writes an opinion piece on why the current talk radio structure in Washington is "unfair", appearing in Sunday's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602511.html

 

[TheBigA]

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

He lists three examples of places where progressive talk is successful. I wouldn't say Portland OR, Madison WI, or Minnesota are typical markets. Then he blasts a "handful of companies," while ignoring the fact that Dan Snyder is not a large corporate owner.

I think the real problem is progressive hosts simply aren't able to unite audiences as well as conservatives. It's an interesting sociological problem that won't be solved by regulation. Just because you have a voice doesn't mean you will be heard. Definitely doesn't mean you'll be accepted.

In the process, he completely ignores non-commercial radio, which offers a wide array of progressive and even socialist points of view (WPFW) in DC on the FM band. Which is why I say it's sour grapes. His show has been canceled, and he wants stations to be forced to carry it to provide fairness.

Conservative talk show hosts have become dependable attractors of audience over the past 20 years. That is a fact. For that reason, and that reason only, they've also attracted the best radio outlets and top sponsors. THAT is what this is about. Progressive talk show hosts need to do a better job of oganizing their listeners, inspiring their passion, and directing it in such a way that it will become noticed. That has been part of the way in which progressive talk has worked in Black radio. A station like WVON in Chicago or WOL in DC has progressive talk, but from a black point of view, and filled with the passion of a black preacher. No white progressive talker takes that approach, although it's a foundation of white conservative talk.

The other thing he ignores is that even if one agrees with his media conspiracy, somehow a liberal Democrat was elected President. (Actually, three times since the FD was eliminated) He did it despite constant attacks and lies thrown at him from those conservative hosts, some of whom called him "Hussein."

The fact is that people tune in to conservative talk wouldn't sit through another point of view. They sat through Hannity & Colmes because Alan Colmes was weak, and now that Alan's gone, there was no outcry for a replacement. We have become a country where we only want to hear people with whom we agree. That's not fairness either. No amount of regulation will change that.

 

[amradioiii]

I too will agree with your sour grapes assessment. Perhaps there is another reason that conservative talk radio has done so well compared to liberal talk radio: and by the way this speaks to 'true' fairness, the liberal voice is already so dominating (commandingly so) on TV (over the air), Network, and Cable News. "Entertainment" Television, and Film. Getting back to radio, NPR, funding by the taxpayers. All a bastion of liberal viewpoints. Conservatives have ONE media outlet to hear a conservative exchange of ideas- RADIO. So it stands to reason that conservative talk shows will attract larger audiences, because there really is no where else to go for that exchange of ideas. I heard Bill Press recently on Laura Ingraham's, and G. Gordon Liddy's programs, and Bill said something (many things actually) that disturbed me. One in particular: That radio station owners get their licenses from the FCC and the people for FREE! I am a radio station owner, and I can tell you this Mr. Press: IT WASN'T FOR FREE!!! Broadcasters spend on the low end in small markets hundreds of thousands, in large markets multi millions of dollars to compete in this arena. And even if you were lucky enough to get a CP for a brand spankin new station Mr. Press, you have to be successful at the FCC's AUCTION process. You PAY MONEY, REAL MONEY to the commission for the right to then PAY MORE MONEY to build your station, then PAY MORE MONEY to operate your station. NPR GETS money from the taxpayers to support their operations. Commercial broadcasters do not. We have to earn our living. So if Bill Press wants to complain that the playing field isn't level, and it's not fair that no one wants his program, maybe he should buy a radio station, operate it, pay the bills, make payroll, reach sales budgets month after month after month, and see if his liberal talk station can survive in the market place. Let the audience and the advertisers decide. That is what a free market is all about. Air America FAILED! There was not enough of a market for their programming, because again, the liberal viewpoint is already so dominant elsewhere. I doubt Bill Press would invest his life savings, borrow money, and attract investors for his liberal radio venture. He would rather lobby Congress to FORCE others to broadcast his program under the guise of "fairness". Others who work very hard to build successful businesses, and keep them on the air without the tax payers help, or a mandate from the Government. GOOD DAY, I SAID GOOD DAY!