Philly Talk Radio: 100% Conservative, 0% Progressive

[carnyfeet]

My apologies to the conservative-leaning members of this message board for the source material of this post. However, I thought it to be too good for us not to discuss.

From Think Progress:
_________________________________________________
The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.

[EDIT]


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.


[EDIT-post truncated because originating material is copyprotected.
Unauthorized use of copyrighted content is in violation of Radio-Info's
TOS.][/color

 

[early2rise]

Conservative sells.
Liberal tanks.
What doesnt sell in newspapers and on the network news, works extremely well in the talk radio outlet.
It's the market and nothing else.

 

[8638]

Liberals just hate the fact that their God, Government, currently has no power to stop the barrage of 'evil' conservative commentators on the radio. They can't compete in an even playing field...just look at the 'success' of Air America, so, they have some pinko think tank 'analyze' conservative vs. 'progressive' talk.

Hey, liberals, here's the answer: program your 'progressive' talkers with stuff that people might actually want to hear. Let's face it, hours and hours of "I hate Bush' ain't exactly a cume builder!

 

[carnyfeet]

Conservative sells.
Liberal tanks.
What doesnt sell in newspapers and on the network news, works extremely well in the talk radio outlet.
It's the market and nothing else.

The country is pretty evenly divided, nearly 50-50, between conservatives and progressives. So why are do only 9% of the country's talk stations identify as progressive?

Philadelphia is less evenly divided, with the majority of folks falling in the "liberal" range. And yet here, we don't have ANY liberal stations.

I fail to understand how you can just dismiss these numbers as lack of consumer demand. Did you even read the linked report?

 

[carnyfeet]

Liberals just hate the fact that their God, Government, currently has no power to stop the barrage of 'evil' conservative commentators on the radio. They can't compete in an even playing field...just look at the 'success' of Air America, so, they have some pinko think tank 'analyze' conservative vs. 'progressive' talk.

Hey, liberals, here's the answer: program your 'progressive' talkers with stuff that people might actually want to hear. Let's face it, hours and hours of "I hate Bush' ain't exactly a cume builder!

Don, I was hoping against hope that we could have a civil discussion about the issue instead of taking pot-shots at each other's political leanings. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations about what conservatives supposedly think, so I don't know why you would want to do the same to liberals.

 

[early2rise]

Turn on the radio and listen.
Common sense tells you the truth.
The report is BS

Let me tell you what doesnt work in Philly...

*Alternative formats
*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.
*Polka
*Black talk radio without music

Your wallet and checkbook determine what is on the air...unless you are Carl MacIntyre broadcasting from an old battleship off the caost of Cape May, N.J.

You can quote all the reports you want.

 

[carnyfeet]

Turn on the radio and listen.
Common sense tells you the truth.
The report is BS

Your wallet and checkbook determine what is on the air...unless you are Carl MacIntyre broadcasting from an old battleship off the caost of Cape May, N.J.

You can quote all the reports you want.

The report addresses station ownership at a national and local level as one of the root causes here. In Philadelphia, four companies (Clearchannel, Greater Media, Radio One and CBS Radio) own the majority of all the major stations on the dial here. None of those companies is willing to even experiment to see if there is an untapped audience here for liberal talk. How are we supposed to know if there is or isn't demand for a product if no one is even making it available for consumption?

I contend that due to the high concentration of left-leaning listeners in the area, liberal talk radio stands a half-decent chance of competing on a local level. However, we wouldn't know until someone took a chance and actually started broadcasting it.

 

[early2rise]

Air America.
Case Closed.

Liberal talk on satellite.
Case closed.

 

[carnyfeet]

Air America.
Case Closed.

Liberal talk on satellite.
Case closed.

Air America is part of a national 24/7 syndicate and was forced to succeed or fail as an entire unit. Stations like 1210 operate individually and decide which programs to pick up / drop according to demand, plus they can drop in their own local programming like Suzanna LaFrankie and Michael Smerconish. Air America doesn't really follow the same model as conservative talk and therefore I don't think it's recent bankruptcy is an indictment of liberal talk. Plus, it never was even tried in this market.

Liberal talk on satellite comes with the subscription, and so I don't think it either proves or disproves anything about what you're saying. Unless they release the channel listening rates like Arbitron releases terrestrial ratings, which I am not aware that they do.

 

[SalesWeasel]

Liberals just hate the fact that their God, Government, currently has no power to stop the barrage of 'evil' conservative commentators on the radio. They can't compete in an even playing field...just look at the 'success' of Air America, so, they have some pinko think tank 'analyze' conservative vs. 'progressive' talk.

Hey, liberals, here's the answer: program your 'progressive' talkers with stuff that people might actually want to hear. Let's face it, hours and hours of "I hate Bush' ain't exactly a cume builder!

And how did you learn to think like that? Talk radio!

Liberal talk radio doesn't work because you actually have to frame the issue, there are nuances to discussing issues. The other side is sound byte fear-mongering, race-baiting, liberal-bashing-for-the-sake-of-bashing and frankly, better at framing an issue.

All that aside -- and I'm pretty liberal -- the government has NO business dictating format or content to PRIVATELY HELD COMPANIES. None. Zero. Nada. Conservative talk radio works, generates revenue, creates jobs and is very popular. This is one situation where "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" will never work, so I wish my liberal comrades would buy their own stations (put up or shut up).

 

[early2rise]

Right on.
Give me the bones, brother. 8)

 

[BRNout]

Re: Philly Talk Radio: Are you kidding me?

Hey Carny - if the nation is politically divided 50-50, then tell me why it's OK that 90% of daily newspapers are liberal. Huh? ???

How can that be? In Philadelphia, 66% of dailies are liberal (that's counting the Evening Bulletin, which is a very weak sister, and forgetting the suburban rags - also liberal). If you go by actual market penetration, the flamingly liberal Inquirer and the more mainstream - yet left-of-center - Daily News garner a combined market share of around 95%. Where is the concern about this? After all, THESE sources purport to be impartial sources of news (and are not).

And, the TV networks - 75% liberal. Why is that ok, but conservative talk radio is not? Perhaps conservatives need a place, any place, to commiserate with those of a like opinion. And, we're forgetting about the liberal (and taxpayer supported) NPR. Conveniently forgotten.

Have you seen the articles about political donations from media personnel? 9 out of 10 give to the Democratic party. Why isn't that an issue that necessitates congressional action?

If anything, the leanings in talk radio have come about more organically than any of the other political leanings featured in today's media. That talk radio is now "an issue" and the clear bias in the other media is not an issue goes to show just how stilted the study is. On a purely analytical level, this study isn't fit to line a birdcage.

On a practical level, it is complete BS and seems to be a convenient excuse for megalomaniacs to squelch free speech that they don't like. A la Chavez (another leftist).

 

[raydofan]

*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

What do you know? Have you looked at NPR'a tax return?

 

[BRNout]

*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

What do you know? Have you looked at NPR'a tax return?

15% of the money comes straight from the government. YOU look it up! And that's 100% more than any of the so-called conservative talkers get from the government.

It's not like some conspiracy theory here - this is common knowledge. Many people think its 100% funded - but it's actually more like 15%. It should be 0%, then they can say whatever they wish.

 

[raydofan]

*Liberal talk...except for subsidized NPR. the "listener-supported" line is bull. I used to work for them. I know.

What do you know? Have you looked at NPR'a tax return?

15% of the money comes straight from the government. YOU look it up! And that's 100% more than any of the so-called conservative talkers get from the government.

It's not like some conspiracy theory here - this is common knowledge. Many people think its 100% funded - but it's actually more like 15%. It should be 0%, then they can say whatever they wish.

First of all, NPR is not all that 'liberal', second of all, if you have something based on facts, by all means, put up or shut up. Let's see the source of that stat. Never mind that you 'worked for them'.

And I have looked at the return. It's not 15%.

 

[carnyfeet]

BRNout - first of all, I'd like to know where you got the numbers for 90% of dailies and 75% of tv networks are liberal. I won't contend the newspaper argument - that's probably more correct than anything you posted (although I would say it's becoming increasingly irrelevant to this discussion for two major reasons - more below).

But the liberal television argument? No sir, I would say that falls under the same umbrella as radio. Many of the same conservative personalities that garner so much attention on the radio have their sister shows on television where they invite the same conservative guests on to talk. If you look at shows like Meet the Press, they're having Rep. Luis Guiterrez, Pat Buchanan, David Broder, John Harwood, Gwen Ifill, and Roger Simon on as guests this Sunday. On that supposedly fair/balanced program, where is the progressive viewpoint coming from? TV suffers from the same problem as radio - that deregulation has allowed all the same companies to snap stations up and limit the spectrum of opinion to what is good for their businesses only. What ends up happening is a chicken-and-egg effect in which conservatives cry that TV is too liberal, and these stations, always worrisome of being branded with that dreaded "L" word, veer more and more to the right, alienating half of their viewing audience.

Newspapers are slightly more respectable about how they go about business, and generally do a comparatively better job of providing objective news that is seperate from opinion. I think you would be hard-pressed to point out to me specific examples of deliberate liberal bias on the news page of a daily periodical. That, coupled with declining newspaper readership, would lead me to say that the "liberal" newspapers are having way less influence on our culture and politics than TV or radio. Plus, TV news and talk radio hardly even try to seperate fact and opinion anymore, hence the ridiculous discussion we're having now about how entire mediums can have a political leaning.

In a nutshell: television is fearful of the stigma and leans right to compensate, and although newspapers may be more liberal, do they have the same effect on politics as does out-and-out propaganda like talk radio?

 

[radiophiler]

First a disclosure: I'm liberal.

To answer a question in an earlier post: If the country is split pretty much 50% conservative and 50% liberal, why aren't there more liberal talk shows/stations? (And I don't necessarily agree it's 50-50 - I think it's 1/3 conservative, 1/3 liberal and 1/3 somewhere in between.)

A: Liberals may not want to listen to talk radio that formatically is the same as conservative talk shows but present liberal points of view.

An analogy: Let's say 50% of a given population likes Chinese food. Chinese restaurants are popular in the area where this population lives. Chinese restaurants do well financially and thrive. Someone comes along and says, "I'll sell a line of Chinese frozen foods that people can heat in the microwave and sell it to this same population. I'll have a successful business."

But people don't want Chinese frozen food. They want it made fresh at the local restaurants.

In the absense of liberal talk radio, liberals have found other ways to get their news and share their views. It may be Op-Ed pages of newspapers. They may enjoy listening to news and reasoned discussions on public radio. It may be on the Internet. But, just because liberals exist doesn't necessarily mean they have an appetite for liberal talk radio that sounds like conservative talk radio except for the point of view.

Just as the people, in my example, who like Chinese food don't want it in the frozen supermarket format but do want it at restaurants, maybe liberals have satisfied their need to read/hear news that reflects their points of view in different parts of the media.

 

[carnyfeet]

Zzzzz. Wake me up when this useless thread is over.
Typical lib.
Wah wah

thanks for dismissing our point of view like as if it meant nothing to you. that really makes me think a lot higher of your opposing perspective.

Radiophiler: that's a great analogy for a solution that I had forgotten to consider. The types of folks that might typically entertain a conservative viewpoint might prefer the traditional radio medium over other, newer mediums, and vice versa for progressives. Good point.

 

[SalesWeasel]

Zzzzz. Wake me up when this useless thread is over.
Typical lib.
Wah wah

Let's not forget "conservative" talk isn't news. It's commentary. The news these stations run (yes, even Fox's radio news) is always balanced. Same goes for Fox News Channel; the actual news reporting is always even...it's the commentators who have a conservative lean. Like I said earlier; put up or shut up. Al Gore and George Soros can't finance everything. Buy Clear Channel and fire Rush. You'll destroy your revenue base overnight and give your competitors instant cred.

(Again - I'm a liberal)

 

[SalesWeasel]

Just as the people, in my example, who like Chinese food don't want it in the frozen supermarket format but do want it at restaurants, maybe liberals have satisfied their need to read/hear news that reflects their points of view in different parts of the media.

Exactly.