Hedgecock Op-Ed: The Left Scheming To Shut Down Talk Radio

[DToTheJ]

Radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock (you may have seen his banner ads here on R-I) has written a commentary about how the left is making an effort to silence conservative talk radio - this, in the wake of the failure of the liberal-leaning Air America radio network.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=157565

 

[del_griffith]

Radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock (you may have seen his banner ads here on R-I) has written a commentary about how the left is making an effort to silence conservative talk radio - this, in the wake of the failure of the liberal-leaning Air America radio network.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=157565

Back in the day, didn't conservatives attempt to silence civil rights and anti-war voices during the 60's and 70's?

I seem to remember in my city Les Brown, currently known for his motivational talents, was the target of conservative voices during his days as a radio host.

It would probably be pretty easy for both sides to bring forward cases where their perspective was attempting to shut down a difference in ideology.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Back in the day, didn't conservatives attempt to silence civil rights and anti-war voices during the 60's and 70's?

I seem to remember in my city Les Brown, currently known for his motivational talents, was the target of conservative voices during his days as a radio host.

It would probably be pretty easy for both sides to bring forward cases where their perspective was attempting to shut down a difference in ideology.

Excellent point!

You bring back memories. I did Talk Radio in the late 60s.

The "Who would silence whom" scenario was a bit different that today.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Back in the day, didn't conservatives attempt to silence civil rights and anti-war voices during the 60's and 70's?

Well, then, that makes this TOTALLY OK!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Back in the day, didn't conservatives attempt to silence civil rights and anti-war voices during the 60's and 70's?

Well, then, that makes this TOTALLY OK!

Don: That is not mature, adult discussion. That is male, sports-bar, put-down humor.

Give us logic why it may have been appropriate then, but not appropriate now.

Give us logic how discussion here, discussion on the radio, discussion in the political campaigns can move forward in a logical and intelligent way.

Was there any valid reason to try to silence some people during the civil rights era (and the Vietnam era)? Can we discuss how that debate SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON CORRECTLY in that era that would have been better for our country?

Once we have done something like that, maybe we would be ready to carry on debate in 2010 in such a way we don't have to tell anybody to shut up, and in such a way that people with different views can find some amount of agreement on how we move forward.

I think you can read into my previous post the concept that maybe the media including radio and particularly Talk Radio can function, should function, must function, in such a way that our citizenry maintains a little bit of respect for people with whom they disagree.

If that is not an appropriate task for media, then who or what in our society should shoulder that task?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

It wasn't OK then, and it's not OK now. I thought my light hearted response implied that.

I'm not familiar with the history of media at that time. Were there people in the FCC that advocated the harassment of stations and sponsors, or was this more of a private show of leverage against the stations and personalities?

I'm not sure if this article was mentioned in the Goldline/Gleen Beck thread, but it's an interesting look at the tactics being used now:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-...fficer-co-wrote-liberal-groups-structural-imb

My main point being: We don't have to get along. We don't even have to have civil discourse. Argument is fine. What we can't be doing, however, is trying to manipulate the system to run opposing speech out of the arena of ideas.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

My main point being: We don't have to get along. We don't even have to have civil discourse. Argument is fine. What we can't be doing, however, is trying to manipulate the system to run opposing speech out of the arena of ideas.

Clear up for me what you are saying in the first sentence.

We who come to this forum don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

We who participate in broadcasting don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

We as a nation don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

My main point being: We don't have to get along. We don't even have to have civil discourse. Argument is fine. What we can't be doing, however, is trying to manipulate the system to run opposing speech out of the arena of ideas.

Clear up for me what you are saying in the first sentence.

We who come to this forum don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

We who participate in broadcasting don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

We as a nation don't have to get along or have civil discourse?

In broadcasting and as a nation. The forum has its own rules. The FCC shouldn't be regulating the content of shows, save to guard against indecency, and the government shouldn't be regulating the speech of citizens. People will never completely get along. It's not always a bad thing when they air their grievances in a passionate manner, as long as they're all able to do so. As long as there isn't a call for imminent lawless action, we have the right to say what we will.

Should we strive to be civil? Of course. It's the most effective way to get things done. But using lack of civility as an excuse to harass radio stations into dropping certain radio programs isn't the way to do things.

 

[Silkie]

To draw an analogy, I am reminded of a neighbor in Baltimore who complained that my dog must hate her, because he barked every time she was too close to his space, on his property, properly restrained by his fence. The day I finally said, "I'll be happy to teach my dog not to bark, not even when you decide you are going to trespass. I promise he will not even bark then. How's that?", was the day that she stopped taunting the dog and coming within an inch of his property. It was also the day my dog stopped barking at her for taunting him and coming within an inch of his property.

Although I must add that her husband kept telling him what a good dog he was while he climbed the fence instead of bringing something to the door properly. My good boy sat and wagged his tail, never taking his eyes off the guy. The first foot touched the ground, and the guy said, "Good dog". He kept calling him a good dog and continued climbing the fence. The minute the second foot touched the ground the guy had no blue jeans left.

Absolutely a true story. That poor tattered sucker jumped back over that fence and didn't even worry that he was leaving his drawers behind. My good boy knew not to bark.

 

[listener-in]

It’s perfectly OK for the left to be grossly under-represented on the airwaves (it’s just the market, you know) but the minute there’s a whisper that the righty talkers might lose a minute of airtime, the faux-panic machine cranks up.

I would agree with Don C. who says: “It's not always a bad thing when they air their grievances in a passionate manner, as long as they're all able to do so.” But the fact is that it just isn’t happening on talk radio, which you could easily verify if you searched your radio dial for progressive talk on a drive across the nation – by contrast with the almost seamless access to conservative talk.

If it really is the market that keeps progressive talk out of so many markets, I’d like to know why managements happily tolerate so many second-tier talkers on the right with lower ratings than are typically acceptable from their counterparts on the left.

By the time Air America folded the highest-rated talkers on the left were outside AA and are still doing very well, thank you, so Hedgecock’ s reference to it is a red herring.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I would agree with Don C. who says: “It's not always a bad thing when they air their grievances in a passionate manner, as long as they're all able to do so.” But the fact is that it just isn’t happening on talk radio, which you could easily verify if you searched your radio dial for progressive talk on a drive across the nation – by contrast with the almost seamless access to conservative talk.

It's not because of some grand conspiracy. Liberal talk has been tried dozens of times, and it has never worked on a large scale. No one is squelching liberal talk, it's readily available, just not on radio. The exact same thing you're saying about liberal talk radio could be said for conservative TV programming. They have one channel out of many. Unless TV is going to start being held to the same standard, why should radio? No one wants to go down that road. We know what will happen when forced "balance" is shoved onto any medium. They'll just drop political programming of all sorts.

 

[satech]

It's not because of some grand conspiracy. Liberal talk has been tried dozens of times, and it has never worked on a large scale.

It's hard for anything to work when you don't have an adequate signal. Try sticking Rush or Beck on a 1000 watt graveyard channel in a major market, up against the 50,000 watt competition, and see how they do in the ratings.

The fact is, the conservative media owns nearly all the successful major market AM signals, and flatly refuses to add progressive talkers, no matter how much the marketplace demands it. They are not in the business to serve the public; they on the air to push their corporate agenda.

 

[gr8oldies]

Where is the marketplace that's demanding them? And by the way, if the reason these companies exist is to promote conservative politics, why isn't that apparent on their music stations? For that matter, Fox's broadcast network? And why was Clear Channel a sponsor of Hopenhagen..hardly a right wing cause?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

The fact is, the conservative media owns nearly all the successful major market AM signals, and flatly refuses to add progressive talkers, no matter how much the marketplace demands it. They are not in the business to serve the public; they on the air to push their corporate agenda.

Never mind that Clear Channel is one of the biggest operators of liberal talk radio channels.

 

[listener-in]

It's not because of some grand conspiracy. Liberal talk has been tried dozens of times, and it has never worked on a large scale. No one is squelching liberal talk, it's readily available, just not on radio. The exact same thing you're saying about liberal talk radio could be said for conservative TV programming. They have one channel out of many. Unless TV is going to start being held to the same standard, why should radio? No one wants to go down that road. We know what will happen when forced "balance" is shoved onto any medium. They'll just drop political programming of all sorts.

That doesn’t respond to the point I raised. What about the inferior and very low-rated conservative talkers who have homes on a multitude of stations around the country and manage to stick around come what may? If their survival were truly determined by the market, they would be long gone. Why do so many stations lean over backwards to accommodate such programming but never even consider that they might do better with progressive talk.

Never mind that Clear Channel is one of the biggest operators of liberal talk radio channels.

That's to CC's credit, and it underlines that the format doesn't need a poorly operated Air America to survive. However it doesn't disprove the larger point that liberal talk is excluded from many markets that have an over-abundance of conservative talk, much of which "enjoys" lower ratings that liberal talk that's been canned.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

That doesn’t respond to the point I raised. What about the inferior and very low-rated conservative talkers who have homes on a multitude of stations around the country and manage to stick around come what may? If their survival were truly determined by the market, they would be long gone. Why do so many stations lean over backwards to accommodate such programming but never even consider that they might do better with progressive talk.

Because liberal talk doesn't do better than the no-name conservatives. They're equally bad, and for some reason stations think they can make it with those guys.

That's to CC's credit, and it underlines that the format doesn't need a poorly operated Air America to survive. However it doesn't disprove the larger point that liberal talk is excluded from many markets that have an over-abundance of conservative talk, much of which "enjoys" lower ratings that liberal talk that's been canned.

Maybe it's market myopia. You know radio companies are in the copycat business, so they copy what works. It's sure not some evil capitalist conspiracy.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Liberal talk/ commentary/ discussions shows, etc, is alive and well every day, here in America, on the radio, via NPR. That may be why commercial liberal talk does not do as well. The libs have a solid seemless network of mostly FM radio stations coast to coast, NPR. They are the top tier lib radio network. Air America was minor league when compared to NPR. Why would a lib listener switch to a commerical lib talker, on AM, when they have NPR mostly on FM and commercial free to boot? NPR fills an important niche in American radio. Even many conservatives will listen, at least once a week to NPR's "Car Talk". Granted, that's not a political show, but even liberal leaning NPR airs a show that conservatives too can enjoy.

But my point is, for liberal talk, tune in to NPR, mostly on FM radio and online. For conservative talk, tune in to AM radio and online.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But my point is, for liberal talk, tune in to NPR, mostly on FM radio and online. For conservative talk, tune in to AM radio and online.

Mike: I have to quarrel with you on this one to some extent. I will grant you that NPR is a comfortable place for a Liberal to listen. A Liberal listening to NPR is not going to be splattered with Conservative points of view the way they will be in they tune in AM talk radio.

I will grant you that some of the NPR people giving voice to their stories show signs of being friendly to Liberal causes.

But they seem to be willing to pretend to be rather centrist in their presentations in spite of what they may support in their personal life.

Do a little test. Spend a couple of hours listening to Rush, Hannity or the host of your choice. Spend a couple of hours listening to NPR. Spend a couple of hours watch MSNBC on cable just after dinner time.

Then come back here and see if you can type with a straight face the following: "Just as head-banging Tea-Party Conservatives get their jollies listening to AM Conservative Talk Radio, head-banging Coffee-Party Liberals get a comparable form of jollies by listening to All Things Considered or Morning Edition."

NPR is not operating in the same league with Hard Ball, Olberman and Maddow. NPR probably has more in common with a Presbyterian, Episcopal or ELCA Lutheran minister reading a Sermon on Sunday morning while wearing a robe: kind of middle of the road with a hint of possible liberalism quietly inserted here and there.

I don't buy the idea that NPR has sucked all the oxygen out of the room, leaving no audience for a more strident Liberal presentation with more in common with Air America and MSNBC cable.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

You make a very good point about NPR, but I'm guessing their liberalism is a bit less obvious because they're not supposed to have any bias either way.

 

[amfmxm]

A. Re Hedgecock's essay: One small group protesting at one station isn't "The Left." Good for them, but it sounds like they're tilting at windmills.

B. NPR got the shit scared out of them 8 or 9 years ago by the Bush administration's threats to de-fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. You'll recall that PBS took Moyers off the air. NPR suddenly got very "centrist," and haven't budged since. ME & ATC report on policy, but rarely talk politics. Brooks and Shields is about as antagonistic as it ever gets Iin other words, it doesn't).

C. As it happens, Bill Press and Ed Schultz were chatting about the 10-to-1 (hours per week) dominance of righty talk this afternoon on Schultz's show. Ed went right for the heart of it, saying "It's an ownership issue."

It's an ownership issue.