Center for Chavez-style Progress report

[evnlee]

"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.

Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.



http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report

 

[smedge2006]

Of course you didn't point out that the report does not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. It calls for rolling back ownership limits so more capitalist entrepreneurs can buy radio stations and we would have more private enterprises running radio stations and thus more competition and more entrants in the marketplace.

Radio is not and never has been a free market, and can't be as long as spectrum is limited, but what the CAP proposes is as close to a marketplace solution as one can come up with. Free(r) markets over oligopolies. Doesn't sound very Chavista to me.

 

[evnlee]

Of course you didn't point out that the report does not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. It calls for rolling back ownership limits so more capitalist entrepreneurs can buy radio stations and we would have more private enterprises running radio stations and thus more competition and more entrants in the marketplace.

Radio is not and never has been a free market, and can't be as long as spectrum is limited, but what the CAP proposes is as close to a marketplace solution as one can come up with. Free(r) markets over oligopolies. Doesn't sound very Chavista to me.

First, where did I post that this report was calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

It occurs to me that Chavez did not need a 'doctrine' to achieve what the C(r)AP would wish for.

This is the part that I dont like "increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners"

That sounds like government mandated 'affirmative action' that covers only the talk format..And that's wrong. If the govt is going to say " well this many talk stations have to be owned and operated by (fill in the blank ), but were not really concerned about music, sports, hot talk, etc..." then that is just not appropriate.

 

[smedge2006]

both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners,

Neither of these propositions are anything radical. Previous Congresses -- including many Republicans -- have supported means to encourage more minority ownership of radio stations. They were somewhat successful until they were overwhelmed by consolidation. I guess encouraging more "independent local owners" also constitutes affirmative action, which makes it hopelessly Chavista. : Small business people who dare to aspire to owning radio statios are the enemies of conservatism.

 

[evnlee]

both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners,

Neither of these propositions are anything radical. Previous Congresses -- including many Republicans -- have supported means to encourage more minority ownership of radio stations. They were somewhat successful until they were overwhelmed by consolidation. I guess encouraging more "independent local owners" also constitutes affirmative action, which makes it hopelessly Chavista. : Small business people who dare to aspire to owning radio statios are the enemies of conservatism.

there's nothing wrong with encouraging minority owners, the problem is when the police power of the federal Govt is involved in mandating it...

What makes it Chavista is when the FCC comes a knockin at the door of a station owned by an older white guy that's owned it for 15 years and told he has to give it up to someone else that does not look like him, in the public interest...And when you consider that the reason it is occurring is because whoever hold the power feels they dont like or agree with what he is broadcasting, and would like to put in someone who would change the programming.....in the allmighty name of 'diversity'?

That's a red herring. If you watched Chavez close down that TV station he did not come out and say ' I dont like what they were saying about me' instead he said about Radio Caracas Television in January ""Here they practice yellow journalism, treacherous journalism that goes against the people's rights, and then tried to use the 'kid card' when discussing the soaps on the station ""The children are the ones affected for many years by the sex, by the violence of these programs that go against the morality of children, that go against the morality of the Venezuelan people."


Your in over your head on this one Smedge...I've actually been to Venzuela and I have a friend currently serving time in Los Teques prison I correspond with regularly~ and if you saw what was going on there and then looked in our backyard you might change your tune.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Small business people who dare to aspire to owning radio statios are the enemies of conservatism.

?!?!?!?!!

While no generality is 100% accurate, it is an accurate observation that of all the various groups that the population of American can be divided into, entrepreneurs and operators of small businesses have a higher percentage of conservatives than almost any other group. Small business people generally have one request of the the government, which is leave us alone.

I have yet to meet a small business owner who wanted more government intervention in anything. That includes broadcasters.

 

[dampier]

First, where did I post that this report was calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

It occurs to me that Chavez did not need a 'doctrine' to achieve what the C(r)AP would wish for.

We're all aware your post does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole set of talking points being distributed by the right wing blogs, Drudge, and the Freepers on this and we're all aware of them. Hand in hand with this is the talking point by the right that liberals want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to supposedly silence conservative talk radio.

Hugo Chavez has nothing to do with anything in this, and you'll find liberals screaming louder about Chavez shutting down stations that oppose him than a lot of conservatives have. Hell, in this country, when someone opposes Dubya on the air, what the first thing we get from conservatives? "He's anti-American. Take him off the air because it's treason while we're at war." Blah, blah, blah. If you are worried about free speech, the ACLU is here to protect you.

The problem here is that the right wing overplayed its hand again and started making things up as they went along. Senator Inhofe (he who believes that global warming is, in part, a plot by the Weather Channel to gin up ratings), who is delusional on a good day, openly lied on KFI about a supposed conversation he overheard between Senators Boxer and Clinton plotting action against conservative talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine as he walked the hallways of Congress. He then says he added his two cents telling them nobody wanted to hear liberal talk (at least he knows his talking points). He should have spent the two cents on his lithium, because the conversation never took place, and now it turns out Clinton wasn't even in Washington when Inhofe claims to have heard all this. Boxer was a bit more polite, suggesting Inhofe needs to get new glasses or his hearing checked.

So when the facts don't run your way, make up new facts. And folks like Drudge happily reprinted them as "news."

Ed Schultz, who is not my favorite, has been very useful in this debate because he proves the emptiness of the talking point that if people wanted to hear libtalk, conservatives would be off the air in a second to make room for them. But he's besting Sean Hannity in a number of markets and he still can't get distributed by a number of clusters who will happily run lower rated conservative talk (Infinity, ABC) but will not run liberals on those stations.

ABC is apparently one of the worst players, and now there is going to be some sort of oversight and investigation over one Mark Levin, who supposedly has gotten this fabulous launch on a lot of conservative talk stations because, the claim goes, those stations were told to take Levin or they would potentially lose Hannity to another station in the market who would agree to carry both. Levin is hardly burning up the ratings, yet there he is on a boatload of stations.

Schultz's position is that station ownership and programming practices are behind this. He thinks the question should be asked if a station is fulfilling its public interest duties when they refuse to carry any programming to cater to the over 50% of Americans who no longer support the right wing (and just as important, what about religious groups using educational FM band frequencies and licenses to run political advocacy talk programming all on a non-profit basis). I don't think anyone is looking at mandating formats or a 50/50 split of liberal and conservative hosts. The advocacy has moved beyond that to the bigger issue of media ownership concentration and is it in the public interest for a handful of corporations to overwhelmingly control most stations in a market. That is a question that Americans themselves overwhelmingly support asking.

The NY Attorney Generals office may beat Congress to the punch over the Levin matter as Cuomo has been sniffing around wondering if it's legal to force stations or threaten them to carry programming in order to not lose other programming. I don't know if there is more smoke than fire on the Mark Levin matter, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some major action from our Attorney General over this in much the same way they shut down the latest music playola around here.

Here are some interesting clips from Schultz's perspective on this:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...ight-wing-talk-radiotakes-a-swipe-at-hannity/
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/062207ShowOpen.mp3
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/062207HourOneMiddle.mp3

 

[gr8oldies]

Do you really think changing ownership around will make station owners dump popular programming for less popular programming? Suddenly stations will be spun off from the big chains and become liberal talkers as standalones? What if the audience still doesn't show up?

The CAP report talks about how many "conservative" shows vs. "progressive" shows there are, putting talkers like Mike McConnell and neal Boortz who hold some liberal views on social issues into the solidly "conservative" camp.

By the way, if conservative talk has to go, so does Saturday Night Live, (after all, people may get opinions on vital public issues from SNL's paradies, they may come to think of the President as a buffoon), Jay Leno and David Letterman's monologues (again, how many people get their news from these monologues..can't have that!), and much else.

 

[smedge2006]

Small business people who dare to aspire to owning radio statios are the enemies of conservatism.

?!?!?!?!!

That's tongue in cheek,as indicated by the symbol. Is there an emoticon for irony? I was referring to the panning of the CAP report for suggesting that ownership should be diversified and smaller companies (including women and minorities) brought back into the picture. Unless they're Radio One, most women or minority-owned businesses picking up stations would, by definition, be small business owners. Conservatives apparently feel threatened by having more entrepreneurs in radio.

What makes it Chavista is when the FCC comes a knockin at the door of a station owned by an older white guy that's owned it for 15 years and told he has to give it up to someone else that does not look like him

An older white guy who owns a station would be a small business person, not a publicly traded corporation that owns hundreds of stations. Bad example.

The CAP report talks about how many "conservative" shows vs. "progressive" shows there are, putting talkers like Mike McConnell and neal Boortz who hold some liberal views on social issues into the solidly "conservative" camp.

Libertarians are not liberals, even though they may have similar positions on social issues and (sometimes) the Iraq war. Boortz is pro-Iraq war, so classifying him as a libertarian is questionable. I think a lot of conservative hosts push the "libertarian" label to give their stations a false appearance of harboring diverse viewpoints.

 

[DaleGriffin]

ABC is apparently one of the worst players, and now there is going to be some sort of oversight and investigation over one Mark Levin, who supposedly has gotten this fabulous launch on a lot of conservative talk stations because, the claim goes, those stations were told to take Levin or they would potentially lose Hannity to another station in the market who would agree to carry both. Levin is hardly burning up the ratings, yet there he is on a boatload of stations.

There is no investigation, they are pushing his show like this but there is not and should not be an investigation. If there is, link it.

 

[gr8oldies]

OK, some liberal minority group manages to buy WLW from Clear Channel. They replace Willie with Lincoln ware and make other changes. Does the audience and billing stay the same? how quickly does this new group go bankrupt. Face it, all you guys on the left...you want to eliminate people's choices, or somehow force people to listen to you lecture them. I think some of you fantasize about some leftist screamer being force-fed on powerful news talkers in afternoon drive, just so you can yell and scream at conservatives and tell them what ignorant morons they are on their own turf.

 

[smedge2006]

OK, some liberal minority group manages to buy WLW from Clear Channel. They replace Willie with Lincoln ware and make other changes. Does the audience and billing stay the same?

Why presume that it's Lincoln Ware? It all depends on which hosts they hire. Assuming the Reds, news department and sports talk stay in place, audience and billing would change less during the transition period than you might think. Turning that around, if liberal stations had the kind of heritage of the Big One, not to mention the signal, who knows that they wouldn't have huge shares? I'd much rather have liberal and conservative stations, under different ownerships (unlike the Cincy situation where there was an interest in not seeing the liberal station do as well as WLW to protect the "flagship"), with comparable signals, each trying to win audiences and each having an equal shot at doing so. Nobody forced to listen, but more people having a choice.

Although I must admit there is some fun and entertainment in people stumbling across a different point of view, calling in and being reduced to stumbling incoherence -- it is the keystone of some of the best talk radio of the pre-Limbaugh era, including the many good liberal hosts who have been airbrushed out of talk
radio history.

 

[evnlee]

First, where did I post that this report was calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

It occurs to me that Chavez did not need a 'doctrine' to achieve what the C(r)AP would wish for.

We're all aware your post does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole set of talking points being distributed by the right wing blogs, Drudge, and the Freepers on this and we're all aware of them. Hand in hand with this is the talking point by the right that liberals want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to supposedly silence conservative talk radio.

again, Phil, I did not bring the FD into this..

as far as 'talking points being distributed' how about this report? Did Ed Schultz have on someone who disagreed with the report on his own show? Did he take any callers that disagreed with the report on his show? How about every affiliate he's on: do you think they followed it up with a program showcasing 'the other side'? I think not. Perhaps I;m wrong, but I'll bet that didn't happen.

Oh yeah, you might want to catch Dianne Feinstein this a.m. saying 'we should look into a legislative fix' for talk radio....But I'm quite certain she ( nor you ) have received any 'talking points' from the CAP or Move.on. :

 

[Nate Wesley]

OK, some liberal minority group manages to buy WLW from Clear Channel. They replace Willie with Lincoln ware and make other changes. Does the audience and billing stay the same? how quickly does this new group go bankrupt. Face it, all you guys on the left...you want to eliminate people's choices, or somehow force people to listen to you lecture them. I think some of you fantasize about some leftist screamer being force-fed on powerful news talkers in afternoon drive, just so you can yell and scream at conservatives and tell them what ignorant morons they are on their own turf.

You rely on the argument that 'nobody wants to hear liberal talk radio', justifying it with generalizations that liberal hosts 'lecture' while conservative ones 'entertain'. Interesting.

So if you'll allow a little A+B=C, then there's not really a mystery to progressive talk's small ratings: Most of the talk radio audience is too dumb. And Air America et.al. has only attracted the niche audience within a niche audience successfully: dumb liberals.

You and evnlee are right--progressive talk radio is a wasted effort. The 'intelligence' of the medium (or its lack thereof) is really one area where conservatives have liberals beat, and with a twenty-year head start in experience. We liberals should really go back to what we're good at, like running the mainstream media and our gay-run abortion clinics.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You rely on the argument that 'nobody wants to hear liberal talk radio', justifying it with generalizations that liberal hosts 'lecture' while conservative ones 'entertain'. Interesting.

And you misstate the argument to make it sound different from what it really is, then make smarmy aspersions against your imaginary argument instead of the real argument. Also interesting.

The actual argument is "Not enough people want to listen to liberal talk radio to constitute a large enough market segment for success in most markets, which is why no nationwide liberal talk network has succeeded." That is quite different from the argument you attempted a left-handed rebuttal.

Likewise, the corollary observation is that "most of the recent liberal talk hosts seem to be lecturing, because they seem to be attempting to be convince conservative listeners to change their minds, while conservative hosts seem to be speaking to those who already agree with them."

 

[dampier]

The CAP report talks about how many "conservative" shows vs. "progressive" shows there are, putting talkers like Mike McConnell and neal Boortz who hold some liberal views on social issues into the solidly "conservative" camp.

Neil Boortz? OH PLEASE. Stop it.

Boortz told his audience two years ago that he would retire if he ever agreed with liberals on anything (and then asked his producer to shoot him if that happened.) This argument is as credible as Fox News introducing Charles Krauthammer as being "from the left." Yeah, if he was standing next to Mussolini.

Boortz primarily likes to call himself a libertarian. You've only started hearing the backpedaling that "I'm not conservative on everything" when Bush dropped below freezing in the polls (now he's in Siberia). Then the immigration mess dropped by and conservative talk radio left Dubya's plantation. But I don't see Boortz sending a contribution to MoveOn anytime soon.

By the way, if conservative talk has to go, so does Saturday Night Live, (after all, people may get opinions on vital public issues from SNL's paradies, they may come to think of the President as a buffoon), Jay Leno and David Letterman's monologues (again, how many people get their news from these monologues..can't have that!), and much else.

I wouldn't mind any of this as I don't watch them. Seriously, nobody has advocated conservative talk needs to be put off the air. Straw men are fire hazards. Be careful.

 

[dampier]

There is no investigation, they are pushing his show like this but there is not and should not be an investigation. If there is, link it.

Stay tuned. Our local Congressperson Louise Slaughter is a big proponent of looking into media ownership and concentration and there has been contact with the State Attorney General's office. Meanwhile, federal Congressional hearings are supposed to be coming later this summer on the whole issue of media ownership.

I personally think shining some light on this is a wonderful thing.

 

[dampier]

OK, some liberal minority group manages to buy WLW from Clear Channel. They replace Willie with Lincoln ware and make other changes. Does the audience and billing stay the same? how quickly does this new group go bankrupt. Face it, all you guys on the left...you want to eliminate people's choices, or somehow force people to listen to you lecture them. I think some of you fantasize about some leftist screamer being force-fed on powerful news talkers in afternoon drive, just so you can yell and scream at conservatives and tell them what ignorant morons they are on their own turf.

Why does it have to be a liberal minority group that buys the station (and WLW would stay with Clear Channel if they had to sell most of their other stations)? Now you are assuming there is to be a political litmus test over station ownership, and nobody has said that either. I need to call 911 - there is far too much post weaving going on around here. I am beginning to think a number of participants in this thread couldn't walk a straight line.

WLW isn't the problem - I wouldn't change a thing about WLW. Local hosts, local programming, and an obvious dedication to serving the community, even if it is with mostly conservative hosts. Then there are the stations that will carry shows nobody wants to hear just to get permission to carry the ones that some people do. And they respond to threats that if you carry show X, show Y will not be on your station anymore.

Keep spinning new fabricated arguments about what it is you think the "left" wants. I am the left.

 

[dampier]

as far as 'talking points being distributed' how about this report? Did Ed Schultz have on someone who disagreed with the report on his own show? Did he take any callers that disagreed with the report on his show? How about every affiliate he's on: do you think they followed it up with a program showcasing 'the other side'? I think not. Perhaps I;m wrong, but I'll bet that didn't happen.

Oh yeah, you might want to catch Dianne Feinstein this a.m. saying 'we should look into a legislative fix' for talk radio....But I'm quite certain she ( nor you ) have received any 'talking points' from the CAP or Move.on. :

Actually he did. Listen to the second file I linked. It was a talking points-reading woman who read right from the playbook, and Schultz argued with her for two segments, so the opposing view certainly did get through.

The Fairness Doctrine does not require a 50/50 split in airtime between conservative and liberal hosts, so your question is non-pertinent. It's never been too hard to get the conservative position on any issue when it comes to talk radio anyway.

As to Feinstein, I did see it. She and Trent are both irritated by talk radio because of the talking points on the immigration bill. Feinstein legislative position is not limited to talk radio. She is interested in a review of ownership limits. She was helping to make noise about the ownership caps the last time around as well. Trent was more irritated then she was. What is ironic to liberals like myself is that it's been entertaining watching the White House trash the immigration bill opponents using the same techniques they usually reserve for us, and the shock, shock by the anti-immigration-bill forces that anyone would talk to them that way. Cry me a river.

I have never needed talking points to express my personal opinion by the way. I should have my own policy institute in fact. Let others quote from me. heheh

 

[Radio_Realist]

The Fairness Doctrine does not require a 50/50 split in airtime between conservative and liberal hosts, so your question is non-pertinent.

The new Fairness Doctrine hasn't been enacted yet. The new Fairness Doctrine is a work-in-progress. The new Fairness Doctrine will require whatever the Democrat Congress manages to get put into it that won't push it to a Presidential veto. So your observation about what the old Fairness Doctrine said is non-pertinent.

If you were brand new to these discussions, and made the mistake of assuming that the new Fairness Doctrine that the Democrats are pushing for will be identical to the old, dead, former Fairness Doctrine, then your mistake could be regarded as merely a mistake. But, since you've been a participant in threads where the fact that the new Fairness Doctrine would be a new piece of legislation that only shares the name of the old regulation, your attempt to use the old regulation as "proof" that the new one wouldn't say something demonstrates that you are not simply making a point, you're deliberately being deceitful to advocate your own personal agenda.

Either that, or you just don't get it.