Fairness doctrine

[Radio_Realist]

but I do know that WABC in New York had more liberal listeners when they had liberal hosts.

I don't know how Baroosk could possibly know that, unless he had access to marketing research other than just Arbitron ratings. Indendent market research that I have seen indicates that a large enough percentage of radio listeners who identify themselves as politically conservative claim to enjoy listening to political talk radio to make for a big enough audience to be a profitable target. That same market research shows that radio listeners who identify themselves as politically liberal (which happens to be a larger number than self-described conservatives) almost never claim to enjoy listening to political talk radio. Self-described liberal radio listeners overwhelmingly prefer listening to music programming, sports talk or play-by-play, or "hot" talk programming over political talk radio programming.

If you want to sell a product to people who are politically conservative via radio commercials, then you'll want to buy airtime on political talk shows. If you want to sell a product to people who are politically liberal via radio commercials, then you'll want to buy airtime on music or sports stations. The bottom line is that not enough liberals want to listen to liberal talk radio to make it a profitable market segment.

I have mentioned this research several times, and Baroosk keeps ignoring it.

The client I worked with who paid for this research hasn't released exact numbers, and hasn't posted it on the internet. The research was done in order to gain information to give that client a competitive edge over other organizations in the same field. They aren't about to give me permission to provide the name of the research company or even the name of the client. So everyone will have to accept or reject what I've said based on whether or not it seems reasonable when compared to each reader's own personal experience. I'll wager a small (very small) sum of money that Phil Boyce has seen similar research results.

 

[XTalker]

It's all about the business. I continue to believe if liberal talkers understood the radio audience, they could be successful. You absolutly must mix entertainment with politics to make it a commercial success. If it was just about the politics, C-SPAN would rule the world!

 

[kaufcom]

I said,

Since conservative have a distinct advantage as commentators on cable news channels, (there's one liberal commentator with a regular show -- Keith Olbermann. There are at least seven conservative commentators. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Glen Beck.) They can bite away.

PB responded

You keep leaving out Chris Mathews on MSNBC...

Is this the same Chris Matthews who told his audience that he voted for George Bush in 2004?

Who recently said "sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility."

Who called the Democratic critics of the Iraq war "carpers and complainers."

Who called Hillary Clinton "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left." and "Dukakis in Dress."

Is this the kind of liberal you have been grooming for a spot on KABC?

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Conveniently, while asserting that liberal hosts are at a disadvantage, you also leave out Paula Zahn, Greta Van Susteren, Anderson Cooper, Alan Colmes, Donnie Deutsch, and Larry King.

But I apologize for interrupting your talking point.

 

[kaufcom]

Conveniently, while asserting that liberal hosts are at a disadvantage, you also leave out Paula Zahn, Greta Van Susteren, Anderson Cooper, Alan Colmes, Donnie Deutsch, and Larry King.
But I apologize for interrupting your talking point.

With the exception of Alan Colmes, all of the people you mentioned are anchors not commentators. That means

You won't here Paula Zahn say

"...And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones that we're seeing on television are the scumbags...It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans..."

Glenn Beck on Sept. 3, 2005...commenting on the victims of Hurricane Katrina

You won't hear Anderson Cooper say

"...I dont buy the Stockholm syndrome thing. The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted..."

Bill O'Reilly on Jan 15, 2007...commenting on the boy that was kidnapped and held for three years by his aductor.

You won't hear Larry King say

"...I guarantee you if Kennedy and others are successful in their redeployment retreat, I guarantee there will be a mass slaughter, a human toll that we have not seen since the killing fields or Saddam Hussein..."

Shawn Hannity on Jan 7, 2007 commenting on the Democratic Party's opposition to President Bush's call for a surge in U.S. troops in Iraq.

You won't hear Greta Van Susteren say

"Carter was a calamity He created the worst and most bitter years of my life and the lives of every American I knew."

John Gibson commenting on his recollection of President Carter.

I don't know who Donnie Deutsch is. Is he/she on Fox?

 

[Phil Boyce]

Baroosk...I do feel your pain. ALLLLL those freakin conservatives keep getting TV jobs...and only poor little Keith Olberman gets a tv gig on the liberal side. I don't agree that Chris Mathews is a conservative, but that is your opinion.

What you fail to understand is that NOBODY gets their own TV show because of anything but ratings. It just does not happen. The Cable TV networks exist to get ratings and make money....same thing about WABC. Those people who run them are under enormous pressure to WIN. If there is a liberal out there that people will watch...they WILL get a TV show. If Keith Olberman is SOOOO good, he will get huge ratings, and the others will try to match him.

You seem to think the black helicopters land at Rush Limbaugh's lawn everyday with the GOP talking points...and that conservative operatives have snuck in and taken over all the Cable TV channels...like invasion of the body snatchers.

I don't want to shatter all your mysterious beliefs about how this business works...but I do want to remind you of one simple fact: It is a business. And in business, market share wins. This is not rocket science.

pb

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Paula Zahn is not an anchor, nor is Greta, nor is Cooper. Apparently you missed Cooper's on-scene "anchoring" in New Orleans.

Aaron Brown is another one--but he was canned to make way for pretty-boy Cooper, so I kept him out.

Deutsch is not on Fox--he's on CNBC, interviewing an odd assortment of folks. But his biases seep through his interviews.

But, again, don't let me stand in the way of your one-horse talking point.

 

[kaufcom]

Paula Zahn is not an anchor, nor is Greta, nor is Cooper. Apparently you missed Cooper's on-scene "anchoring" in New Orleans.

Aaron Brown is another one--but he was canned to make way for pretty-boy Cooper, so I kept him out.

Deutsch is not on Fox--he's on CNBC, interviewing an odd assortment of folks. But his biases seep through his interviews.

But, again, don't let me stand in the way of your one-horse talking point.

I gave you four examples of the kind of comments made by "conservative" commentators. I was not making a value judgement, as I suspect you are. Now give some examples of things that Paula Zahn, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Greta Van Susteren, and Donnie Deutsch have said that would make one conclude that they are "liberal" commentators.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

I don't have my own treasure-trove of handy comments (complied by someone else) made by those other commentators. I've watched, and know what I've heard. If it's a value judgement, so be it. I believe that is what this political labeling is--a personal value judgment, unless I missed some great power of arbitration emblazoned upon others on this board.

If you want quotes, I'm sure you can type in the antithesis website to whatever your source was for the Fox News comments.

I also fail to understand what this has to do with fairness doctrine in news/talk *radio*, but I'm sure your getting the talking points out is commendable nonetheless.

Now, anything about radio? Or should we just punt this over to Off Topic right now?

 

[kaufcom]

NOBODY gets their own TV show because of anything but ratings. It just does not happen.

That's not true. Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC when he was canned. He was not dropped because of low ratings, but rather because MSNBC tried to copy the Fox fomat which was leading the cable news networks at that time. So they added Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and still got no ratings. Then they gave Keith Olbermann a show and he has been the hottest item on cable news for the past six months.--doubling his ratings. Even Scarborough is sounding like a liberal these days.

You seem to think the black helicopters land at Rush Limbaugh's lawn everyday with the GOP talking points...and that conservative operatives have snuck in and taken over all the Cable TV channels...like invasion of the body snatchers.

We dealt with that issue on another thread and pretty much covered it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

but I do know that WABC in New York had more liberal listeners when they had liberal hosts.

The bottom line is that not enough liberals want to listen to liberal talk radio to make it a profitable market segment.

I have mentioned this research several times, and Baroosk keeps ignoring it.

This hasn't changed.

Baroosk, should I start counting how many time you keep repeating examples of things conservatives have said on the radio while ignoring the fact that there just aren't enough liberals listeners who want to listen to liberal talk radio to make liberal talk radio a commercially viable format in most markets?

 

[kaufcom]

Baroosk, should I start counting how many time you keep repeating examples of things conservatives have said on the radio while ignoring the fact that there just aren't enough liberals listeners who want to listen to liberal talk radio to make liberal talk radio a commercially viable format in most markets?

Read the thread. I was commenting on a posters allegation that conservative cable news commentators/pundits such as O'Reilly, Carlson, Hannity, Gibson, Scarborough, and Beck were offset by allegedly liberal anchor/interviewers like Zahn, King, Cooper, Van Susteren, and Deutsch. My comments had nothing to do with ratings.

 

[Radio_Realist]

My comments had nothing to do with ratings.

But the thread is concerned with the realities of the radio industry, which includes ratings.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

He was responding to my post...which responded to his FIRST off-topic post about conservative commentators having too much TV access.

It all sounds like disaffected outsiders complaining because they don't have enough money to buy the TV, but still want it given to them anyway--and they think that one election (with a core majority of 31 out of 435) means there's been a tide.

Unfortunately for the "fairness" (quotes used purposely) side, the market is more important (and more popular) than inflated ideas of ideological (or worse, political) self-worth.

 

[Andrew Kent]

I think the issue here is the difference between "commentator/pundits" and "anchor/interviewers". Commentators (people who comment) and pundits (self-appointed experts) are supposed to be opinionated. They are like columnists in a newspaper. They have their followers (listeners, viewers, or readers) who know where they stand, and everything they say is expected to generate a reaction or response. Anchor/interviewers, on the other hand, are supposed to be more objective. They are catalysts and facilitators for the reporting of news or the gathering and dissemination of information, and, while they may have a slant to their story, or even a personal bias, they are supposed to operate under the now largely theoretical imprimatur of journalistic objectivity, or, at least, integrity. A commentator caught in a lie or major error can lose credibility and audience. An anchor caught in a similar situation can lose his job.

Talk show hosts (as opposed to newscasters) are allowed, and even expected, to have a point of view, and most people know they do. People who get their "news" exclusively from talk shows are generally not exposed to the full spectrum of facts unless both sides are presented in a fair and balanced manner. But government regulation will no more ensure a fair and balanced presentation than journalistic ethics ensure objective reporting. As with any product, the quality of news and information, in all its forms, should be dictated by the consumer. If people want pap, then pap will win out because it's commercially viable. The way to get quality is to find it and support it. The National Enquirer has a circulation in the millions, but most people still get their news from the major newspapers, magazines, and network news shows.

Talk radio is an entertainment medium and not a news medium. At best, it is like the op-ed page of a newspaper. You have the editorials (the host's rants/monologues), the opinion pieces (interviews with guests and experts or the playing of actualities), and then the letters-to-the-editor (calls from listeners). In the perfect world, one should come away with enough information to form an independent opinion, but that depends on the intelligence and curiosity of the individual, and there are never any guarantees. Hearing both sides of an issue does not ensure that all sides will be fairly presented, and, because in politics, the objective is to manipulate more than it is to enlighten, a measure of skepticism is our best protection against demagogy.

No commentator, journalist, expert, or public official has a lock on the truth. We find the authorities who strike a responsive chord and turn to them for information and advice we can live with. As such, we are like a jury. We hear what each side claims to be the facts, weigh the evidence under the rules and laws of common sense, deliberate, and then decide. We hope to be swayed by the substance, and not merely the passion, of the arguments and summations, and we hope that our decisions will be right in terms of our core beliefs and the interests of the larger society. But, unlike a courtroom, real life has no judge, no rules of evidence, and no oath of truthfulness. It is for us, the jury, to consider the facts before us, and to learn those that have been kept from us, before coming to a verdict.

Blaming the messenger because we don't like the message takes the burden off of each of us to learn the truth, and there are far more sources of news, information, and commentary today than there were in the heyday of the fairness doctrine, Yes, many Americans lack the education and wisdom to make intelligent decisions on complex questions and, thus, are easily manipulated. But if, as I said in my first post to this board, people would rather hear what they want to hear than what they ought to know, then the media, whether or not it is serving the public interest, is serving the public's interests, and, as such, is giving the people what they're paying for. You can't fool all of the people all of the time -- unless they're ready, willing, and able to be fooled.

 

[kaufcom]

But government regulation will no more ensure a fair and balanced presentation than journalistic ethics ensure objective reporting.

I don't agree with that. I think good newspapers like the New York Times, the Los Angeles, and Washington Post adhere to "journalistic ethics" or better stated "journalistic rules." The best known of those rules are the four -- W's who, what, where, and when (and How). Good news organizations follow these rules. Government regulators will only step if the rules are being abused. i.e. when radio station owners use the their control of the public airwaves to give 94% of the time to one political viewpoint.

As with any product, the quality of news and information, in all its forms, should be dictated by the consumer. If people want pap, then pap will win out because it's commercially viable. The way to get quality is to find it and support it. The National Enquirer has a circulation in the millions, but most people still get their news from the major newspapers, magazines, and network news shows.

As you know, it is different with print media. Anyone can start a newspaper or magazine. A broadcaster uses the public airwaves and is, for these reason, subject to regulation.

Talk radio is an entertainment medium and not a news medium. At best, it is like the op-ed page of a newspaper.

Not so. While there is an element of entertainment in news/talk I do think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity Al Franken, and Ed Schultz consider themselves primarily pundits rather than entertainers.

we are like a jury. We hear what each side claims to be the facts, weigh the evidence under the rules and laws of common sense, deliberate, and then decide.

Not for most radio listeners. Over half of all radio listeners live in areas with only conservative talk radio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Over half of all radio listeners live in areas with only conservative talk radio.

Over 95% of all radio listeners don't want to listen to talk radio, period. They don't want conservative talk radio, they don't want liberal talk radio. They want to hear music or sports.

A new Fairness Doctrine would not get broadcasters to start offering liberal talk radio to people who live in areas where there is no liberal talk radio being broadcast. A new Fairness Doctrine would only ensure that no Americans got to listen to any political talk radio, ever.

Whine all you want about there not being enough liberal talk radio on the radio. That won't change the fact that the reason why it isn't on the air in more cities or on more stations is that not enough people want to listen to it.

 

[Tom Wells]

I am befuddled as to why "talk radio" must find itself saddled with either adjective.
I want talk radio to have the sort of balance that informs and completes my understanding of contentious issues
without having to account for the "slant" which is now so polarized.

I'm sure the original intent (of the original FD) was to prevent the very situation we find ourselves in.
Radio is now the mouthpiece of a publisher exactly like a newspaper.
You can buy ad space, but the newspaper has no free space for your cause, unless they also support it.

The FCC wisely decided that public input in rebuttal, etc., was a good system for truth-finding, and a reasonable request for
being granted a license to make money via the publics' aiwaves.

They knew back then that more money could be made in "free market".

But it was regulated, and while the fairness doctrine in radio received varying degrees of application, it often meant exactly
what Radio_Realist notes: avoiding the topic altogether. NO talk radio, too dangerous.

How difficult can this be, people?
I cannot identify with either liberal or conservative readily, finding truths in varied places.
Why such bitter division?

 

[kaufcom]

Whine all you want about there not being enough liberal talk radio on the radio. That won't change the fact that the reason why it isn't on the air in more cities or on more stations is that not enough people want to listen to it.

Now for someone who agrees that there is about as much chance of the FD be re-enacted as Dennis Kucinich being elected President, you seem to be getting pretty upset over this matter. Besides I never said that FD should be enacted. I only said that there is a difference between print media, which is not regulated and broadcast media (like radio and TV) which is. Up until 1996, radio was very regulated. Since that time less so. That means that radio was very regulated for 70 of the 79 years it has been existence. You need to keep things in perspective... and please no shouting...we're trying to maintain some decorum here.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I want talk radio to have the sort of balance that informs and completes my understanding of contentious issues without having to account for the "slant" which is now so polarized.

That makes you part of a minority of listeners even smaller than those who want to listen to liberal talk radio. I'm not saying that being part of such a minority is a bad thing. But it is what it is.

I cannot identify with either liberal or conservative readily, finding truths in varied places. Why such bitter division?

Because most of the world sees truth differently than you do. As I said, yours is an extremely minority position. There's nothing wrong with marching to the beat of a different drummer, even if your drummer plays a tambourine. But surely you must realize that your perspective is quite unique, and shared by few. If you can find "truths in varied places", then finding the reason why people feel strongly about their perceptions of truth shouldn't be all that difficult.

please no shouting...we're trying to maintain some decorum here.

What do you mean "we"? Some people seem to be especially hard of hearing, and need to have the volume raised to get the message through.

And don't pull your "I never said" BS. When one lists argument after argument in favor of a given action, one need not expressly state one's advocacy of the action to get the point across that one favors it taking place. Don't pretend you're taking some sort of moral high ground and simply stating a balanced set of opinions. You've said nothing but reasons why you think a new Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing, and why not having a Fairness Doctrine strikes you as a bad thing. Don't pretend that you don't expect anyone who reads your posts to not be able to figure out with exacting certainty where you stand on this issue.