REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

[babylonsister]

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

REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-ever 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.

The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves. Some key findings:

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

radiographic2.gif

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.

Read the full report here.


The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-ever 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.

The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America’s airwaves. Some key findings:

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.



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.

Read the full report here.

[BOSSHOG]

1. It is very telling the two things conservatives fear most

- the Fairness Doctrine
- Swearing to tell the truth

Some argue that public schools are dumbing down America. Public Schools do not hold a candle to right wing hate radio in that category.

[jgraz]

2. It's not just right-wing radio -- pseudo-left-wing radio is almost worse

Alan Colmes or Lionel silently accept the premise that anyone to the left of center doesn't have "common sense" or is incapable of "critical thinking". These are the enablers who dumb down the arguments to far-right vs center-right.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Agreed but

the economy of scale makes any damage done by left wing radio irrelevant when compared to the malignancy on the right.

[AlinPA]

6. Alan Colmes is a complete jerk. He is the Fox "News" fake progressive.

[Miss_Underestimated]

31. Yup! The one and only time I heard his show, he had Tom Delay on and was

plugging Delay's book. :eyes:

[Atman]

4. I think there is something much more "base" going on here.

We're over-analyzing this..."PROGRESSIVES" and smart people simply don't turn to AM radio (or even the newer digital versions) simply to hear their beliefs affirmed, as do conservatives. Period.

I can say it in harsher terms...conservative radio listeners tend to be stupid and not very in-tune to modern technological developments...or else they wouldn't be listening to the fucking radio. RADIO? People still use that thing?

I've tried listening to left-wing radio, and I don't get it. Sorry. Apparently, conservatives need affirmation and hand-holding and the "blather-rinse-repeat" school of boredcasting. They don't want to learn new information, they want their already-held beliefs affirmed for them.

Democrats and Progressives are just the opposite and that is why talk radio doesn't work for us. We don't tune in just to hear that the stuff we already believed is still believed by lots of other people. We tune in to here news and new information. We want to hear of progress since the last time we listened, not just repetitious "we are right!" screeds. That is what talk radio does. It affirms, it doesn't educate. But we're not looking for affirmation. THEY are. Hearing a famous radio guy affirm your hatred allows you to justify continuing the hatred. Dems just don't work/think that way.

.

[babylonsister]

8. Tell that to all the nightly Malloy listeners, the Randi and Stephanie

listeners, etc. Kind of insulting, no? Also, my dad listens to the radio every morning, Air America specifically, though he does have the access to a TV. He just likes the radio.

[Atman]

10. No, not insulting if you understand what I said.

There are a LOT of people in this country, and not everyone fits conveniently into a mold. Not even Rush listeners or Malloy listeners. But the facts speak for themselves...right-wing radio rarely has trouble finding an audience. Malloy? Come on. I'm glad you like him, but 90% of America has never heard of him.

Don't jump too quickly here. Obviously my post included quite a bit of generalization. But for the most part, I believe it to be very accurate. It is a mind-set issue. I've never listened to Malloy extensively, so maybe he offers something different. But I've listened to Stephanie, Franken, AAR, etc...all the lefty offerings. It's BORING. It's fucking BORING to just listen to someone for three hours telling you stuff you already agree with. ENLIGHTEN ME. INFORM ME. But don't talk at me and pretend it's educational. Rush, Hannity, et al, are nothing but an affirmation circle jerk.

Again, lots of people in the country, so one size post won't fit all. But I think I'm pretty much on the money on this one, loyal Malloy listeners notwithstanding!

.

[truedelphi]

25. Well what Malloy was doing for me was echoing all the crap

that used to filter through my own cerebrum - you know, the phrases, like that lying goddamn awful Bush! If I could just explain how much I hate them!

And he basically just enthused about the simmer that some of us have going on full time because of that Doofus in the WH and all his little pranks and all the terrible destruction.

But now i can't even listen to that any more.

I am gonna pretend that everything is okay.

Except when I can catch Lewis Black on the comedy channel.

[AlinPA]

9. re: "Dems just don't work/think that way..." That is a good point. The right

wing radio appeals to the angry person who thinks they have been screwed by society (women who were promoted over them, or jealous of minorities) or are looking for an outlet for their hate. They need that avenue of talk radio to spit their hate and resentment.

[unpossibles]

11. I'd say there is some truth there

obviously not completely as progressive radio does have a lot of listeners, and we'd probably have more if given some of the markets. But for the most part, the style of Rush, etc. 2 minute hate/fear works for the conservative audience. I've listend to AAR before it went away here (Cincinnati), but not all the time. I also like to listen to NPR, music, and I like to read the news from a variety of sources.

I also think that some radio programming is better than others - for instance, while Randi is very entertaining and very informative, I get annoyed that she often interrupts people and talks over them, even those she agrees with. And honestly, I think Lionel is pretty entertaining and informative as well, although I used to only hear him on weekends.

But what I am getting at is that I would prefer progressive radio to have a better tone that right wing "complain a lot & yell at each other" discourse, which may make for less "entertaining" programming as seen by the station owners. Look at TV. How many people honestly watch shows where there is rational debate and discussion? I would personally love to see more shows with rational logical debates, but a lot of the stations want to program low-brow argue-drama shitfests.

As for the "popularity" of right wing radio, I wonder how much of that popularity is purchased by the powers that be, and just accepted by the listeners.

On a final note, I would kind of enjoy it if we had more radio with neither bias as long as they are honest. But the last time there was an attempt at honest media, the 25%ers complained it was too liberal.

[jmp]

28. X-

-actly! :toast:

[pnorman]

29. "They don't want to learn new information, they want their already-held beliefs affirmed for them. "

By and large that's TRUE, and to a very large degree. I don't believe that describes the "left" to any degree worth noting.

As for myself, I'm suspicious of ANY information technology that isn't inherently "two-way". I haven't watched TV in quite a few years (no, LITERALLY!). And I haven't listened to "talk-radio", since the disappearance of the Fairness Doctrine. Instead,I have a good DSL connection, and my computer is rarely turned off. Air America, via XM, is available throughout my apartment by a small FM transmitter. But EVERYTHING that comes my way of "interest", is relentlessly Googled, down to as many levels as may be necessary. That's child's play now, with internet search engines.

pnorman

[dubyaD40web]

5. They have the radio...

we have the internet.

[Atman]

12. Plays right into my original premise...

Every fundie and right-winger I know -- and I actually know way more than I wish I did -- doesn't use their computer. They get e-mail. But otherwise, these internets are just a fad, right? I'm not joking. I hoist a beer with these people every weekend (well, not me, I don't drink), and I've had this discussion several times; one buddy has a ten year old computer he paid $3000 for. It won't do SHIT, obviously. He tried to upgrade to broadband, but Comcast laughed at his machine, said it couldn't be done. He won't upgrade. Why? Because he paid $3000 for the damned machine...it should be good for another ten years, dammit! He says he has no use for a new computer since he only uses his old one for e-mail. "That's all they're good for!" Of course...that's all ten year old computers are good for.

I was at his house for happy hour one evening and one of his friends was mentioning the iPod, and how he didn't get it. I tried to explain the downloading music concept to him...blank stares. "We use if for e-mail."

Believe me, there are a LOT of people out there who are totally clueless when it comes to the internet. And I'd hazard a guess that MOST OF THEM are moranic white-ringers...er, right-wingers...who can figger out how to turn on an AM radio, but just don't git this whole web thingy.

.

[KneelBeforeZod]

13. Podcast

If I recall correctly ... Rush was actually one of the pioneers of the PodCast (I am sure I remember a newspaper article or two about that). Not to detract from your point, but I think people can often make the mistake of underestimating wingnut talk radio listeners ... they're engaged, attentive, and they vote. We could use something like that.

Z

[onenote]

7. From just a quick perusal, this looks like an unfortunately lame report

First, it claims that from a regulatory standpoint, the Fairness Doctrine was never really repealed and that "many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again -- thus it technically would not be considered repealed." This is simply hogwash. The FCC made quite clear that it was terminating the Fairness Doctrine and the court of appeals made clear that its decision upheld that termination. It is a sign of the weakness of this report that the only support given for the supposed "many legal experts" claim is a non-sequitur footnote citation to the Red Lion case that originally upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine eighteen years before the Syracuse Peace Council ruling that upheld the FCC decision to "terminate" the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that it no longer served the public interest.

Second, the report claims that audience demand doesn't explain the success of RW talk radio. Yet, the report is lacking, as far as I can see, in any simple, clear description of actual ratings figures for various types of radio programming in various markets.

Issues relating to concentration in the media, the Fairness Doctrine and why talk radio is dominated by RW content are all serious matters warranting discussion. I fear, however, that this report is flawed in ways that will undermine whatever valid points it also may make.

[KneelBeforeZod]

14. Production values ...

I think some of this has to do with the production value of liberal talk radio. I live in Houston, where the VAST majority of the talk radio content is conservative (Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, Beck, etc.). But, we do have a Pacifica Radio Station (Amy Goodman), NPR, and I can get Air America on XM Radio.

And - for the most part - liberal talk radio is simply unlistenable. Rush's bumper music is modern rock, electric guitars, Zeppelin type stuff ... he has parodies that are occasionally funny (at least I could see how conservatives might think so). Conservative radio at least has some entertainment value - wrong, sure ... but entertaining nonetheless.

Amy Goodman leads into a break with a lonely sad saxophonist, or some exotic instrumental junk. NPR is a SNOOZE-FEST! I hesitate to ever listen to it in the car because I'm afraid I'll doze off, careen off the road and kill somebody. And I won't even talk about the rest of the programming on Houston's Pacifica station ... just watch the "Scwheatty-Balls" skit from SNL when Alec Baldwin was on - its about like that.

Nevermind that the producers on these shows are like amateur hour ... dropped calls from guests, people talking when their microphones are off (though you can hear them through someone else's). Amy Goodman must not have a "cough" button like most talk radio hosts do ... because I've heard her hacking into the microphone on more than one occasion. I once listened to a show on Pacifica (The Progressive Forum, I think) where there was a constant DIAL TONE behind the hosts for TEN MINUTES of the show!! Add in the fact that they have to have "fund drives" every couple of weeks ... and that's the end of that.

Its no wonder no one is listening.

Z

[Atman]

15. You make many valid points here

Listening to "progressive" stations is a chore. I feel like I've stepped back to the fifties. Horrible production values...it makes me feel as if I'm listening to an old scratchy AM station in Biloxi. What's the deal with that?

.

[KneelBeforeZod]

17. The State of Liberal Talk Radio

I am constantly amazed at the ways liberals will simply write-off one of the right-wing's most potent and enviable ways of reaching, and possibly growing, their base. We attack conservative talk as "hate radio" whose success is based solely on playing to the lowest common denominator ... when what we should be doing is trying to find a way to emulate it on the left. We claim we can't match Rush simply because he's playing to all the racist hatred, and we'll nver do that. I think that's a HUGE mischaracterization which only serves to relegate liberal talk radio to the pathetic state it is currently in.

Right-wing talk is successful becuase its informative and often quite entertaining - they know what their audience wants, and they give it to them. Rush started out in 1988, when talk radio was pretty much a DEAD medium ... and after 20 years, he's created what can only be described as an empire. He has more listeners at any one time than most liberal stations will get in any one WEEK. He is single-handedly responsible for the success of other hosts like Boortz, Hannity, Savage, Schlessinger, and Beck. There is an admirable quality to that kind of grass-roots success.

While liberal talk radio hoists up the intolerably boring Amy Goodman, and Air America (a station which actually had to PAY to get aired ... most stations GET PAID for their content), Rush reaches 18 million people a week.

We need to start from the bottom-up to get a substantial liberal talk radio market - using local hosts to find talent, and court a market. Unfortunately we are about 20-years behind conservatives on this one. I think the "fairness doctrine" is absolutely the wrong way to go about this, though ... it just makes us look like spoil-sports - scared of Limbaugh's success, but unable to find a way to compete against him without legislating it.

If we're going to take conservative talk radio down a notch, we need to prove we can compete with them in an open market and hold our own. Otherwise it just looks like we're pissed off that they're more popular than us, and we're going to change the rules to make sure it can't be that way.

Z

[Atman]

18. "Hmmmm" is all I can say at this point.

"Hmmm" and "Welcome to DU."

I'll forgo the smiley happy icon for the time being, if you don't mind.

.

[Kerrytravelers]

20. Rush is mischaracterized as a racist and there aren't talented liberal hosts?

Psst. We are holding our own, and beating them, in the markets we can get in.

[Kerrytravelers]

40. Really? I don't get that at all.

Maybe it's your local station, but from where I'm at, it sounds fine. I"d never think of low production values.

[OldschoolDem]

16. Personally I think the market should decide what programming should aire

Radio Stations should not be forced to air certain programming. Eventually as the younger generation grows up liberal radio will be more in demand anyways.

[Kerrytravelers]

21. The market is deciding- and yet successful liberal stations are being pulled by right-wing

corporate owners. Whoever can afford to buy the radio station wins.

[OldschoolDem]

24. Still most corporate owners are interested in making profits

if a program isn't profitable they don't air it. Conservative talk radio is profitable at the current time or esle the right wingers wouldn't make any money in the first place. Time will easily change this. The younger generation is more liberal so in the future liberal talk radio will be more profitable then conservative talk radio because there will be simply more liberals.

[Kerrytravelers]

39. They are also looking at those who question their corporations.

For example, I don't recall seeing too many anti-war segments between the years 2003-2006 on NBC because they are owned by GE, a major war profiteer.

[OldschoolDem]

57. Well considering my father worked for GE for many many years

and is employed there engineering Ct scanners. They don't base there company on war. Public opinon was still fairly positive through 2005 and then it took a dive. It took many years for the American people to wake up to what was happening in Iraq. The Media follows public opinon for the most part.

[Kerrytravelers]

58. So, your father in on the corporate board?

That is where the decisions are made.

And, of course, GE makes money on things beside war. However, they are a major player in the military industrial complex.

Thus the problem with making the news a profit-making agency. There was a time when no one expected to make a profit on the news divisions. It was considered a money-losing division, but also part of the public good. Now, it is made for profits. And sadly, not news.

On edit:

Should the media be following public opinion? Is that really the job of the news media? Or, is it to report the news and provide analysis based on cited facts from credible sources.

On second edit: Links:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=001367960

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/list.aspx?act=dir

[onenote]

34. and yet this study offers no substantiation of that claim

The report claims that the dominance of rw talkers on radio doesn't reflect market realities, but as far as I could see, the report fails to back up that claim with any quantifiable evidence. If its there and I missed it, I hope someone will point it out.

[Kerrytravelers]

42. Well, without going through all 40 pages of the report, something on page 2 grabbed my attention.

on page 2: The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.

THerefore, the decisions are made at the upper corporate level. There are conflict of interests, such as GE, a major war profiteer, owning NBC and their news division. Clearly, GE isn't going to allow stories regarding war profiteering by American corporations. GE also isn't going to allow questioning of this war. And NBC really didn't questions the lead up to the invasion, nor the occupation of Iraq until 2006, when America voted for the Democrats.

In addition, on Air America, Randi Rhodes has discussed the corporate ownership of media and particularly radio on a regular basis. Stephanie Miller does the same. In many markets where sean hannity was #1 for years, when Stephanie Miller went on the air, she consistently beat him in their time slot. Yet, her show has been yanked and hannity is still on. The stations they were on were owned by the same corporation (I don't recall which one right now.)

This doesn't surprise me. WHen the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, the rw radio machine took financial dominance. It's been a fight to get anyone on for years. Ed Schultz had to fight like hell to get on Armed Forces Radio, an area that is rw all-the-way.

Anyway, that has been my understanding of the radio issue from the very beginning. It will be a fight to get on as many stations simply because we're starting the race a good 20 years after the rw.


On edit; Somethign said up-threads a bit also plays into this. RRw have become use to their radio, whereas the left has embraced the Internet(s). We can listen to AA or other local stations, or even non-local stations through the Internet. So, there are times when working that I will just listen to radio programming through my Internet speakers instead of the radio because the reception is far superior. So, therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the station is local or where it is coming from. I can listen to European radio, as well. I would bet that there are many on the left doing this as we are more driven by the Internet technology as a means of transmitting information. We on the left tend toward this method because the mainstream media refuses to do their job and we are forced into alternative media forms in order to get news. Mr. kt and I read the European papers and other news sites to find out what is happening in our world. We don't rely on traditional news methods. Whereas a rw will watch faux news and has a 20 year habit of listening to the radio. It is more ingrained in their daily habits.

[jawjajim]

51. Are you kidding?

Do you really believe that corporate owners control the content of news programming when you say, <em>THerefore, the decisions are made at the upper corporate level. There are conflict of interests, such as GE, a major war profiteer, owning NBC and their news division. Clearly, GE isn't going to allow stories regarding war profiteering by American corporations. GE also isn't going to allow questioning of this war. And NBC really didn't questions the lead up to the invasion, nor the occupation of Iraq until 2006, when America voted for the Democrats?"</em>

What proof do you have? Have you ever worked as a journalist (college J courses don't count)? Does the name Ed Murrow ring a bell?

[Kerrytravelers]

53. Oh, how cute. You're attempting to bait me in two areas of the same thread.

Yes, *sigh* I've worked as a journalist. But if you think that corporate ownership doesn't play into the news divisions coverage, you clearly haven't work as a professional journalist.

What proof do I have? You can't be serious.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

56. Aw shucks, I missed post # 54. I sure it was insightful. *sigh*

Here lies jawjajim 2007-2007
Gone and forgotten,
up to that great beyond,
where he can listen to Rush in his mom's basement
all day long...

[redqueen]

19. Repeal the Telecom Act of 96?

Is that an option?

[onenote]

22. all of it or just part? Which parts?

[redqueen]

41. the parts that let companies like clear channel monopolize the airwaves n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

43. Exactly. Monopolies have destroyed news. Monopolies and corporate ownership.

[alfredo]

23. K & R

[jmp]

26. This is nonsense.

The reason there are no progressive Rush Limbaughs is because progressives are inherently different animals. On the left being a free thinker is considered a virtue ... on the right it is damn near sneered at. Progressives will not tune in to a daily radio program just so they can be told what to think and say "Amen!"

There is no conspiracy here. The "radio gap" is just the product of different mindsets.

[TeamJordan23]

27. I agree. Liberal radio is just very unmoving.

They try hard but I just don't think it clicks.

[snowbear]

32. Depends on where you are and what programs you have..

In Anchorage, we have twice as many hours of progressive/liberal =LIVE/LOCAL= radio now than we do of local rightie radio now.

It wasn't always that way.. But the progressive talkers have become the "station to listen to" and as a result, we've been fortunate to have the shows add additional hours ~~


We have Air America all night long -- then switch over to Stephanie Miller early in the morning. Following Steph, is Big Eddie... then it's back-to-back live talk all the way up until after the evening news, then back to AAR programming.

The local programs here has become very popular because-- THEY DO IT RIGHT!!!!

The hosts are awesome, and the participation from locals is incredible.

For example, on one of the shows.. every Wednesday the mayor (a Democrat) comes on and discusses local issues with listeners.. And on one of the other programs, they have weekly segments such as "The Demo Memo" (etc.) where local politicians come on the air and talk to locals.

Plenty of out-of-staters also call in and we get a chance to ask them questions. Last week Brad (Brad Blog) hosted a program... Mike Gravel was on.. Paul Rieckhoff... and I can't remember who else they've brought on recently.

Anyway-- great station that's been going STRONG now for 3+ years!

This town anyway LOVES their progressive station ~~~~

[Kerrytravelers]

37. Exactly. When progressives are allowed on, we consistently do well.

However, we also question the very corporations who own most of the radio stations, so naturally, we're not "good for business." This has been discussed multiple-times on Air America and my local progressive station, which includes Stephanie Miller.

[sampsonblk]

30. Exactly

nt

[lostnfound]

33. It's nonsense for another reason: KPFT

They show Houston as having zero progressive content on commercial stations, but who the hell wants commercial stations when we've got KPFT (Pacifica)?
Commercial stations IMO are inherently untrustworthy and warped. The business model is selling YOUR ears to corporations so that they can convince you to buy more stuff..(whether it's tangible stuff or ideas that they are selling)..it's not conducive to free, open debate about political subjects.

DemocracyNow!, twice per day -- Enough said.

[farmbo]

35. WTF?..This article ignores ADVERTISER BOYCOTTS of liberal talk...

...Like the one outlined in the leaked ABC Memo:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310008

This is clearly the biggest obstacle facing the start-up of progressive talk stations across the country.

[sampsonblk]

36. Why do they do boycott?

Because the shows are liberal or because its AA?

[Kerrytravelers]

38. Because the right-wing machine sends them millions of email, letters and phone calls demanding a

boycott. That is how Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes told it.

[sampsonblk]

44. There's gotta be a way to turn this around

The only alternative is to surrender our positions on the issues.

If we can't say what we believe in, for fear of backlash - whether its in office or in the media - then we've already lost.

Side point: this mirrors what's going on in Congress also. Better to be silent than to be made an example of.

[Kerrytravelers]

47. Herding the left is like herding cats. The rw is more than happy to goose-step together.

Even reading through this thread, it is clear that some love AA, others find it boring. But the rw all know to love rush, or at least keep their dislike of him to themselves. Poor Mr. kt grew up in a rw christo-fascist household. He tells all kinds of accounts of the goose-stepping.

[jawjajim]

45. Hypocrisy

First off, I don't expect this message to be posted on the forum.

As I registered, I noticed that DemocraticUnderground requires that I swear allegiance (sarcasm) to the Democratic party. Some of the posts I have seen on this topic claim that conservatives "only want to have their values reaffirmed through talk radio." It seems a bit hypocritical that DU only wants to entertain comments from those that think like them. Am I missing something?

Now, my real point of comment is that the report covers the radio media pretty well - with one exception. No where in the report are NPR-affiliated public radio stations accounted for. Interesting omission.

[Kerrytravelers]

46. Yes. You are missing something.

The Internet is limitless, meaning there are plenty of available sites to express political opinion with like-minded or opposing viewpoints. The air waves, however, are not limitless in that they are issues to owners. Therefore, it is in the public interest that all views are aired. This can be learned in a basic Journalism 101 class, which I took when at J-School.

One need not swear allegiance to anything. However, on this site, it is made for and run by people on the left of the political spectrum. The site Free Republic, with is made for and run by people on the right has the same basic policy for their site. This is not a problem because there are an unlimited number of sites that can be constructed on the Internet. However, if this were the public airwaves, then the fairness of a DU or a freeper site would then be another matter.

[jawjajim]

48. You didn't answer my question...

The comment about the DU policy was an attempt at humorous observation. What about my NPR-affiliated station question?

[Kerrytravelers]

49. You didn't ask a question about NPR. You made a statement.

You specifically asked if you were missing something, to which I replied.

In regards to NPR, the report was specifically about talk-radio and radio ownership. NPR is, in my opinion, the last bastion of news in America. It reports the news and provides analysis. They aren't "talk" such as AA and they don't have a bias. And, quite frankly, it takes more than a pretty face to be a reporter for NPR. They actually expect their reporters to report... hang on to your hat now... the news and to look at the complete situation and actually provide analysis and back up that analysis with citable facts from credible sources.

And, on edit, just a note- you didn't ask a specific question. You merely noted that NPR wasn't part of the report on talk radio. Specifically, you said:

Hypocrisy

First off, I don't expect this message to be posted on the forum.

As I registered, I noticed that DemocraticUnderground requires that I swear allegiance (sarcasm) to the Democratic party. Some of the posts I have seen on this topic claim that conservatives "only want to have their values reaffirmed through talk radio." It seems a bit hypocritical that DU only wants to entertain comments from those that think like them. Am I missing something?

Now, my real point of comment is that the report covers the radio media pretty well - with one exception. No where in the report are NPR-affiliated public radio stations accounted for. Interesting omission.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kerrytravelers]

52. If you find the Fairness Doctrine boring, I feel that says quite a bit about you.

And no, I don't agree that public radio skews the results left at all. They provide analysis. However, the fact that you think that public radio is skewed "leftward" is telling me that you don't think it's "fair and balanced." Would you perhaps suggest a "right leaning" view to go along with what you suggest is "left." Would that make it more "fair" for you?

By the way, AA lists itself as "news" although clearly they are biased in their news, as they add commentary. You don't find this kind of commentary added to NPR, for example.

By the tone and title of your first post, to the clear biased you indicate public radio has, I feel that you aren't going to find many sympathetic ears at DU.

[Kerrytravelers]

55. As I expected:

Here lies jawjajim 2007-2007
Gone and forgotten,
up to that great beyond,
where he can listen to Rush in his mom's basement
all day long...