I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, July 02, 2007

The real reasons for conservative talk show dominance

What is the explanation for the dominance of conservative talk shows on the radio? Aren't the radio broadcasters just giving the listening public what it wants? I think that the biggest explanations for this dominance of conservative talk shows are (1) the oligopolistic concentration of media outlet ownership in the hands of just a few huge businesses and (2) commercial sponsors' preference for conservative talk radio shows. I presume that broadcasters get most of their money from commercial sponsors -- even public broadcasters often have commercial sponsors. Presumably the owners of the big-business media and the commercial sponsors care little or none at all about conservative positions on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, and the so-called separation of church and state. But the conservative talk-show hosts tend to oppose government regulation of businesses and therefore tend to oppose "liberal" anti-business positions that are pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-consumer, etc., and -- yes, you guessed it -- tend to oppose rules against concentration of media ownership! So the big-business media's and commercial sponsors' preference for conservative talk shows on the radio is no big mystery after all -- and of course the greedy conservative talk show hosts see that preference as benefiting themselves, which in turn tends to make them more pro-business, which in turn increases that preference, and so forth in a vicious circle. The conservative talk show hosts are not going to bite the hands that feed them.

Also, a summary of a report by the presumptuously named "Center for American Progress" says,
.
As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is 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.

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

. . . . . . There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

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.

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows . . . .

. . . . . . 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.

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

The full report is here. This summary and report unfortunately missed the points that I made above.

A law against concentration of blog ownership wouldn't work because most blogs are independently owned and operated. However, it would not be a bad idea to make Wesley "Ding" Elsberry -- who shamelessly practices arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments -- give up ownership of one of his two big websites, the Panda's Thumb blog and the Talk.origins website.

Another proposed solution for media bias is, of course, restoration of the FCC "fairness doctrine." As I said, I am opposed to an unlimited "fairness doctrine" for broadcasters because (1) I feel that it would be too great a burden on broadcasters because of limited air time and (2) it is often difficult or impossible to define what is "liberal" and what is "conservative." Indeed, I don't know how the Center for American Progress's study distinguished between "liberal" -- called "progressive" in the study -- and "conservative" radio talk shows, and it is noteworthy that the study's example (page 7) of a "progressive" talk show host is Al Sharpton (however, there is a general perception that conservative talk shows are dominant -- that perception was not created by this study). However, a fairness doctrine prohibiting arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments would have none of the disadvantages of a fairness doctrine for broadcasters.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey's Media Ownership Reform Act would restrict concentration of media ownership and also restore the FCC's Fairness Doctrine -- however, the House recently voted to ban the use of federal funds for enforcing an FCC Fairness Doctrine.
.

Labels: ,

18 Comments:

Anonymous Bill Carter said...

The conservative talk show dominance at least serves as a counterweight to the liberal dominance of the so called "news" shows.

One liberal talk show began last year with Al Franken. One reason for its death was that Franken was embezzling the funds for the operation of the show.

Monday, July 02, 2007 4:07:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> The conservative talk show dominance at least serves as a counterweight to the liberal dominance of the so called "news" shows. <<<<<

-- in the same way that an elephant is a "counterweight" for a flea on a see-saw. I think that even the overwhelming majority of those who are opposed to restoration of the fairness doctrine do not dispute the claim that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative.

If, say, a media news item about criticism of Darwinism failed to point out that all critics of Darwinism are bible pounding, holy rolling fundies, you would call that an example of media bias.

>>>>>> One liberal talk show began last year with Al Franken. One reason for its death was that Franken was embezzling the funds for the operation of the show. <<<<<<<

So? Rush Limbaugh, the dean of conservative talk show hosts, was busted for abuse of prescription drugs.

Monday, July 02, 2007 5:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>>>>> The conservative talk show dominance at least serves as a counterweight to the liberal dominance of the so called "news" shows. <<<<<

> in the same way that an elephant is a "counterweight" for a flea on a see-saw. <

You must be smoking funny stuff. There are many more people who listen to the news (even if you limit it to radio) than listen to talk shows. Every major network other than Fox News is extremely liberal. They have admitted as much.

> I think that <

No, you don't think. That is the problem.

> even the overwhelming majority of those who are opposed to restoration of the fairness doctrine do not dispute the claim that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative. <

If you don't limit radio broadcast content to political talk shows, I think that they would say the exact opposite. Have you ever listened to NPR which is extremely biased despite being sponsored by public funds.

>>>>>> One liberal talk show began last year with Al Franken. One reason for its death was that Franken was embezzling the funds for the operation of the show. <<<<<<<

> So? Rush Limbaugh, the dean of conservative talk show hosts, was busted for abuse of prescription drugs. <

Can any sane person find a connection here? Rush Limbaugh's only victim was himself while Al Franken was stealing from his supporters.

Monday, July 02, 2007 7:21:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> There are many more people who listen to the news (even if you limit it to radio) than listen to talk shows. Every major network other than Fox News is extremely liberal. They have admitted as much. <<<<<<

You appear to be the only one who is denying that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative. If radio broadcast content were largely liberal, liberals would have no reason for trying to restore the FCC fairness doctrine.

You also appear to be the only one who is claiming that news programs are significantly biased. There is obviously far less opportunity for bias in news programs than in talk programs, so any difference in the sizes of the audiences of the two kinds of programs is inconsequential. And if a broadcaster's own editorial becomes long enough, it no longer counts as part of a news program. A news program is a news program.

>>>>>>> even the overwhelming majority of those who are opposed to restoration of the fairness doctrine do not dispute the claim that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative.

If you don't limit radio broadcast content to political talk shows, I think that they would say the exact opposite. <<<<<<<

Again, you appear to be the only one making that argument.

OK, the Center for American Progress study said that they looked at only 257 news/talk radio stations out of a total of 1700 stations (and they don't say if all those stations are news/talk stations) and they did not look at other kinds of radio stations:

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

>>Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is 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.


So on these 257 news/talk stations, on weekdays there is an average of 10 hours of "conservative" talk per day compared to about 1 hour of "progressive" talk (of course, as I said, deciding what is "conservative" and what is "progressive" is a problem).

However, the study also says,

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Now that does not look so unbalanced. OK, you may have a point. But there still appears to be a consensus that radio broadcasting content is largely conservative. Most of the best known talk show hosts are conservative. Most of the conservative talk shows are syndicated -- do you think that the average radio station is going to counterbalance many hours of syndicated conservative talk by having a local dude sitting there for hours spouting liberal talk? If, as you say, most of the radio show content reaching the public is liberal, then maybe you could explain to me why liberals are pushing for restoration of the fairness doctrine.

Also, an article says,

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else. Disney-owned KSFO in liberal San Francisco is one such station (Extra!, 3–4/95). Some towns have two.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”


Anyway, I was only trying to explain why conservative talk shows are dominant in comparison to liberal talk shows. As I said, I am not in favor of restoration of an unlimited fairness doctrine. I favor only a limited fairness doctrine that would give individuals opportunities to respond to personal attacks.

Anyway, a fairness doctrine for blogs has none of the disadvantages of a fairness doctrine for broadcasters and has no disadvantages of its own.

>>>>>> Rush Limbaugh's only victim was himself while Al Franken was stealing from his supporters. <<<<<

Rush also stole from his supporters -- he got their support under the false pretense that he was completely honest.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> You appear to be the only one who is denying that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative. <

Things may be different on your planet. Here on Earth nearly everyone believes that radio and TV news has an overwhelmingly liberal bias.

> If radio broadcast content were largely liberal, liberals would have no reason for trying to restore the FCC fairness doctrine. <

The reason is that they want all that they can get. Talk shows are mostly conservative. The liberals want everything to be liberal.

> You also appear to be the only one who is claiming that news programs are significantly biased. <

Hello from Earth! There is a great deal of discussion over this. Just last week AP stated that newscasters were giving seven times as much in donations to liberal candidates as conservative ones. A poll a few years ago showed that less than 10% of newscasters voted Republican. The rest voted Democrat with no votes going to the fringe parties. I think that most people would find the Democrats to be more liberal than the Republicans.

> There is obviously far less opportunity for bias in news programs than in talk programs <

On the other hand, the bias in news programs is far more insideous. Many fools believe that they are getting a balanced story.

> And if a broadcaster's own editorial becomes long enough, it no longer counts as part of a news program. <

The "editorials" are included in the news without identifying them as such.

> A news program is a news program. <

It should be but they are often partisan hack jobs. An example can be shown today with the coverage of the partial commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. How does this differ from the full pardon given by Clinton to Henry Cisneros for essentially the same crime, or for the full pardons given to 396 others by Clinton to people convicted of major felonies whose only redeaming qualities were the contributions that they gave to Clinton's brother? There certainly is a liberal bias.

>>>>>>> even the overwhelming majority of those who are opposed to restoration of the fairness doctrine do not dispute the claim that radio broadcast content is overwhelmingly conservative.

If you don't limit radio broadcast content to political talk shows, I think that they would say the exact opposite. <<<<<<<

> Again, you appear to be the only one making that argument. <

Open your ears. Read something other than the Los Angeles Times (Which you claim is written by extraterrestrials).

> the Center for American Progress <

Hardly a neutral source!

> As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format: <

Do you really believe that more people listen to talk shows than the news?

> 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive. <

Calling regressive liberals "progressive" demonstrates the bias of the alleged study.

> A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive <

They blew all credibility with this one!

> although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago. <

More balanced in ultra liberal New York or machine politics Chicago?

> But there still appears to be a consensus that radio broadcasting content is largely conservative. <

A consensus requires a majority, not just one nut and a bunch of partisan hacks. Most people believe that the news has a liberal bias.

> If, as you say, most of the radio show content reaching the public is liberal, then maybe you could explain to me why liberals are pushing for restoration of the fairness doctrine. <

The liberals don't want fairness. They want the talk shows to be just as biased as the news programs.

> Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers <

Nationally, virtually all of the leading newscasters are left-wingers.

> citizens who value media democracy <

Will oppose the "fairness" doctrine which would take democracy out of peoples choices as to what they want to listen to.

> In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. <

A left winger.

> I was only trying to explain why conservative talk shows are dominant in comparison to liberal talk shows. <

They are dominant because the hosts are better able to support their positions. The liberals who have tried to do so have failed miserably.

> a fairness doctrine for blogs has none of the disadvantages of a fairness doctrine for broadcasters and has no disadvantages of its own. <

Yes it has one great disadvantage. It takes away the right of someone to deal with their own property, their blog. Someone disagreeing can start their own blog.

> Rush also stole from his supporters -- he got their support under the false pretense that he was completely honest. <

Other than his problem related to his medical condition ("gossip", as you would say), he seems to have been completely honest. Al Franken was not.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> I can "gossip" about me here, but you can't. Those are the rules. <

So much for your braying about the "fairness doctrine".

> However, I generally try to avoid gossiping about myself here. <

Much of your description of yourself is untrue. You claim not to censor and you even claim not to have deleted posts when you have done so.

> I was forced to gossip about myself when Fake Dave misrepresented himself as my brother in comments on Fatheaded Ed's blog. <

Fake Dave did not misrepresent himself. The only one posting as Dave Fafarman on Ed's blog was your brother, real Dave.

If you don't believe that it was your real brother, why did you pressure your mother to call him and ask him to stop posting?

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

> The only one posting as Dave Fafarman on Ed's blog was your brother, real Dave. <

You forgot that Larry also posted as his brother.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:11:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW,
All I know about the fairness doctrine controversy is what I have seen on the Internet. I have not done my own independent studies. Your arguments are contrary to all of the arguments I have seen on the Internet. I have not seen some of my own arguments elsewhere either but at least they are not contrary to other arguments that I have seen on the Internet. If you can find anything else on the Internet that agrees with you, I would be glad to look at it.

>>>>>>> Just last week AP stated that newscasters were giving seven times as much in donations to liberal candidates as conservative ones. <<<<<<<

Are those "newscasters" the owners of the radio stations? Why would the owners of the big radio-station chains donate money to liberals when liberals oppose concentration of media ownership? Also, distinguishing between "liberal" and "conservative" candidates is often even more difficult than distinguishing between "liberal" and "conservative" positions on different issues.

>>>>>>> A poll a few years ago showed that less than 10% of newscasters voted Republican. <<<<<<

You expect me to believe that most newscasters are handpicked liberals?

>>>>>> A news program is a news program. <

It should be but they are often partisan hack jobs. An example can be shown today with the coverage of the partial commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. How does this differ from the full pardon given by Clinton to Henry Cisneros for essentially the same crime, or for the full pardons given to 396 others by Clinton to people convicted of major felonies whose only redeaming qualities were the contributions that they gave to Clinton's brother? There certainly is a liberal bias. <<<<<<<

Why shouldn't the press report about the partial commutation of Libby's sentence? Do you have any evidence that there was biased reporting there?

>>>>> Do you really believe that more people listen to talk shows than the news? <<<<<

I don't know, but I can believe it. And as I said, there is far more opportunity for bias in talk shows than on news shows.

>>>>>> citizens who value media democracy <

Will oppose the "fairness" doctrine which would take democracy out of peoples choices as to what they want to listen to. <<<<<<

Most listeners to talk radio have a Hobson's choice -- they can listen to conservative talk radio or none at all. However, as I said, I am nonetheless opposed to an unlimited fairness doctrine for broadcasting.

>>>>>> a fairness doctrine for blogs has none of the disadvantages of a fairness doctrine for broadcasters and has no disadvantages of its own. <

Yes it has one great disadvantage. It takes away the right of someone to deal with their own property, their blog. <<<<<

We've been over this many times before. The term "private property" means nothing. If they find you storing kiddie porn in the so-called "privacy" of your own home, they will throw you in the hoosegow and throw away the key. An environmental law or regulation can be virtually equivalent to confiscation of so-called "private" property.

>>>>>> Someone disagreeing can start their own blog. <<<<<<

Yes, the opportunity to start their own obscure little blogs is fair compensation for being kicked off of very popular blogs where their views would get much greater exposure. Let them eat cake.

========================

You should make it clear when you are quoting others and not quoting me. Several of your quotations did not make that clear.

Also, you are resorting to gossiping about my private affairs because you are losing all the debates.

You complain about my censorship of gossip about my private affairs but you see nothing wrong in the egregious censorship of polite, on-topic and serious comments that goes on at Panda's Thumb, Fatheaded Ed Brayton's blog, Sleazy PZ Myers' blog, etc.. You are a lousy two-faced hypocrite.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 1:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In Suburbanness said...

Fairness Doctrine, eh?

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:08:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Fairness Doctrine, eh? <<<<<<

As I have said many times already, I myself am opposed to an unlimited fairness doctrine for broadcasters. But I feel that those who oppose fairness doctrines for both broadcasters and blogs are being hypocritical because the biggest reason against a fairness doctrine for broadcasters, a limitation on comment space per site, simply does not apply to blogs.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

A further look at the Center for American Progress report --

The report says that there are 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations. 1,700 of these are of the combined news/talk format --

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

Of these, 257 news/talk stations were analyzed:

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

So the study looked at only a small minority of stations and the stations analyzed might not be representative of stations in general. Nonetheless, IMO there is no question that the overwhelming majority of syndicated radio talk shows are conservative.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:05:00 PM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

The "liberal media" argument carries about as much weight as the one about "persecuted Christians." Could we just put that one to bed? All but the Chimpletons know better.

The fact of the matter is, popular left talkers like Ed Schultz have been pulled from markets, and the replacement shows have drawn LOWER ratings (in the Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio markets, to name two examples.) There is clearly more than marketing afoot here-this is definitely an attempt to keep other voices off the airwaves. Oxy-Moron and Slanthead trend lower every year, but you aren't seeing them dropped from many areas.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:12:00 AM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

You must be smoking funny stuff. There are many more people who listen to the news (even if you limit it to radio) than listen to talk shows. Every major network other than Fox News is extremely liberal. They have admitted as much.

If I were telling lies like this one, I wouldn't leave a link either.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

jollyroger said,
>>>>>> The "liberal media" argument carries about as much weight as the one about "persecuted Christians." Could we just put that one to bed? All but the Chimpletons know better. <<<<<<

I have been reading a lot of articles on both sides of the fairness doctrine controversy and I have never seen this "liberal media" argument before. How can radio broadcasting content be largely liberal when the overwhelming majority of big syndicated talk shows are conservative. How can straight news reporting possibly have enough liberal bias to overcompensate for all those conservative talk shows. That's ridiculous.

>>>>>>There are many more people who listen to the news (even if you limit it to radio) than listen to talk shows. Every major network other than Fox News is extremely liberal. They have admitted as much.

If I were telling lies like this one, I wouldn't leave a link either. <<<<<<

Yeah, why would networks admit to being "extremely liberal." That's stupid.

As for more people listening to the news that to talk shows, you can listen to only so much news before you get bored. And a lot of radio stations specialize in both news and talk.

Unlike TV watching, I think a lot of people don't set aside special time to listen to radio -- they listen to it whenever they are doing certain activities -- e.g., driving or lying at the beach -- that are well-suited for radio listening. So when they turn on talk radio and hear just conservative talk, a lot of them just get turned off and switch to another channel.

In stores, consumer preference is often obvious because there is often a large choice and the preferred products fly off the shelves. In broadcasting, consumer preference is much less apparent because the consumers can take only what is offered, the range of choices is often small, and there is usually no record of the size of the audience. Only expensive market studies can show what listeners prefer in broadcasting. And the broadcasters and the commercial sponsors may not be interested in listener preference anyway because they may be trying to sell a conservative, pro-business philosophy.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 1:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW said (July 03, 2007 9:30:00 AM) --
>>>>>> If, as you say, most of the radio show content reaching the public is liberal, then maybe you could explain to me why liberals are pushing for restoration of the fairness doctrine. <

The liberals don't want fairness. They want the talk shows to be just as biased as the news programs. <<<<<

The above comment is old, but I want to make some responses here.

How is it possible that a news program could be as biased as a talk show without the news reporting bias becoming too obvious. That would be quite a trick.

Also, if -- as you claim -- radio broadcast content has an overall liberal bias because of a liberal bias in news reporting, then a fairness doctrine could backfire on the liberals.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 2:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> How is it possible that a news program could be as biased as a talk show without the news reporting bias becoming too obvious. That would be quite a trick. <

That is a hypothetical question since it has become obvious. That is why it is discussed so widely. I can't believe that this has not become an issue on your planet.

> Also, if -- as you claim -- radio broadcast content has an overall liberal bias because of a liberal bias in news reporting, then a fairness doctrine could backfire on the liberals. <

They are counting on selective enforcement. They would want to exclude the news programs.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> How is it possible that a news program could be as biased as a talk show without the news reporting bias becoming too obvious. That would be quite a trick. <

That is a hypothetical question since it has become obvious. That is why it is discussed so widely. I can't believe that this has not become an issue on your planet. <<<<<<

"Discussed so widely"? You have not even shown where it is discussed narrowly. And you have not presented a single good example of biased news reporting. Telling the truth about Libby's commutation is not a good example of biased news reporting.

>>>>> Also, if -- as you claim -- radio broadcast content has an overall liberal bias because of a liberal bias in news reporting, then a fairness doctrine could backfire on the liberals. <

They are counting on selective enforcement. They would want to exclude the news programs. <<<<<<

But you just said that the liberal bias of the news programs is obvious, so how could the news programs be excluded?

So you think that the liberals are too dumb to quit while they are ahead. Now I have heard everything.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the conservatives, who are being supported by the big business (aka big employer) are promoting the kinds of ideas that will allow a big business to thrive...And you wonder why liberals are against them. According to many liberals, big business is evil cause they make so much money, so the solution? take away all of their money and give it to every one else. But then why in gods name would you want to work for 2$ an hour in the first place? cause it's fair?

Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home